Old Book, Still Relevant: Games People Play

[Beware of Junk Psychology...]

My T brought up Transactional Analysis, a theory formulated by Dr. Berne in the late 50s and early 60s. I've heard of this book, but never was interested much in psychology (until now!). I started reading it last night and it is really interesting. The forward, written by a a modern practicing Dr. (Berne died some time ago), likened it to giving Psychology the wheel. The TA paradigm of Child, Parent, and Adult is somewhat similar to the Freudian theoretical constructs of Id, Ego and Superego. Berne's definitions, however, are clinically observable and testable by studying interpersonal relationships. A healthy and whole person employs all three.

The Child is how a person reacts in a child like state, with the requisite emotions and reactions. The Parent is how the person as a child observed how their parents (or significant Caregivers) acted with them, and they mimic this in their transactions with others. The Adult ego state is the objective one which integrates and suppresses the often irrational other two ego states. Integrating all three successfully is healthy. The "games" people employ are often one person switching between two, and the other ("victim" employing just one, usually the Child. Thus, the interaction between two (for the sake of argument, this can apply to peer groups as well) defines a whole person in the interactions of two people, which is not healthy.  Thus, these interactions become games.

The one example he gives in the beginning is a little child playing in the living room. The child knocks over a vase which breaks onto the floor. His mother rushes into the room and initiates the game, which is NIGYSOB: Now I've Got You, you Son Of A B****. The mother, employing the Parent ego state, asks the child who broke the vase, knowing full well who did it. The child, employing the Child, initiates his own game (Kick Me), lies and says ":)oggy did it." But the mother knows that she let the dog out ten minutes ago. The mother, still employing the Parent, smacks the Child. End of transaction. No Adult ego state is employed in the Game, thus there is no healthy, complete and whole transaction between the two.

The mature Adult ego-state response would have been to not play the game, but get the broom and have her son help her to clean up the mess, and talk to him about being careful.

The mother employed what she learned from her parents. The child is, well, a child. The danger of similar ongoing unhealthy transactions and Game playing, is that the child will internalize this repeated game and carry it into adulthood, being an unhealthy people pleaser, looking for attention and approval, perhaps acting out in unhealthy ways. I think there was a little more to the possible consequences of this, but I only read it once last night before I went to sleep... .In any case, it's recommended for those who want to understand our relational dynamics and games we played with our SOs and pwBPD.

[Turkish]

My T brought up Transactional Analysis, a theory formulated by Dr. Berne in the late 50s and early 60s. I've heard of this book, but never was interested much in psychology (until now!). I started reading it last night and it is really interesting. The forward, written by a a modern practicing Dr. (Berne died some time ago), likened it to giving Psychology the wheel. The TA paradigm of Child, Parent, and Adult is somewhat similar to the Freudian theoretical constructs of Id, Ego and Superego. Berne's definitions, however, are clinically observable and testable by studying interpersonal relationships. A healthy and whole person employs all three.

The Child is how a person reacts in a child like state, with the requisite emotions and reactions. The Parent is how the person as a child observed how their parents (or significant Caregivers) acted with them, and they mimic this in their transactions with others. The Adult ego state is the objective one which integrates and suppresses the often irrational other two ego states. Integrating all three successfully is healthy. The "games" people employ are often one person switching between two, and the other ("victim" employing just one, usually the Child. Thus, the interaction between two (for the sake of argument, this can apply to peer groups as well) defines a whole person in the interactions of two people, which is not healthy.  Thus, these interactions become games.

The one example he gives in the beginning is a little child playing in the living room. The child knocks over a vase which breaks onto the floor. His mother rushes into the room and initiates the game, which is NIGYSOB: Now I've Got You, you Son Of A B****. The mother, employing the Parent ego state, asks the child who broke the vase, knowing full well who did it. The child, employing the Child, initiates his own game (Kick Me), lies and says ":)oggy did it." But the mother knows that she let the dog out ten minutes ago. The mother, still employing the Parent, smacks the Child. End of transaction. No Adult ego state is employed in the Game, thus there is no healthy, complete and whole transaction between the two.

The mature Adult ego-state response would have been to not play the game, but get the broom and have her son help her to clean up the mess, and talk to him about being careful.

The mother employed what she learned from her parents. The child is, well, a child. The danger of similar ongoing unhealthy transactions and Game playing, is that the child will internalize this repeated game and carry it into adulthood, being an unhealthy people pleaser, looking for attention and approval, perhaps acting out in unhealthy ways. I think there was a little more to the possible consequences of this, but I only read it once last night before I went to sleep... .In any case, it's recommended for those who want to understand our relational dynamics and games we played with our SOs and pwBPD.

[Pretty Woman]

Turkish, thank you for sharing this. Very interesting.

I think us nons get into these relationships because we ARE caring people but we are also plagued by insecurities.  Insecurities attract BPD's like a fish to water. The more the BPD rages and dumps the more insecure you become. We truly almost become like the BPD. We are looking for validation but at some point we have been conditioned that after awhile they will leave us again. It is a toxic dance.

My therapist put it wisely. No reasonably healthy person would put up with a relationship like this.

That is a hard pill to swallow because we don't like thinking of ourselves as "unhealthy" still, that is exactly what it is.

I sit here and try to rationalize why I took someone back 6 times. Someone who threatened a restraining order on me when all I did was ask why I was being dumped. Someone who told me I am a awful human being and they want nothing to do with me, but shows up on my doorstep crying and wanting me.

It takes two to do the crazy dance.

I know my problem is I am very insecure about my looks.  I have always been told I have a beautiful face but I am heavyset. This woman acted like I was a goddess. It completely askewed my beliefs about myself. First I was flattered and then I pushed her away.

Classic push pull with insecurities.

The thing is in a healthy relationship/partnership people can discuss how they are feeling and work towards making things work.

I learned that in this relationship, I would feel bad and then I would get dumped.  It just deepened the wound each time until there was no longer a surface wound. I was INSIDE the wound.