Transactional Analysis by Eric Berne

[rousseau]

A few weeks ago I picked up a notorious work by this guy called 'Games People Play', and started reading it last night. Despite the eye-catching title designed to get people to buy copies, the theory in the book is pretty interesting.

Basically the theory goes that people have a biological need for 'strokes' or 'recognition' from other people, and that social intercourse is more advantageous than no social intercourse. So Berne theorizes from this that a lot of what people do, they do to get recognition, or attention, from other people.

Obviously it's a lot more complex than that, but this is the basic gist.

Anyone read it?

 

[Angry Floof]

I hope there's more to it than that, because "a lot of what people do, they do to get recognition, or attention, from other people" should be a no-brainer for anyone with a few working brain cells.

Then again, getting recognition from other people involves crafting a comfortable self-image, and means we prefer to think we are independent and rational in all our actions, and not so unconscious as to be driven by subconscious social animal forces.

 

[rousseau]

I hope there's more to it than that, because "a lot of what people do, they do to get recognition, or attention, from other people" should be a no-brainer for anyone with a few working brain cells.

Then again, getting recognition from other people involves crafting a comfortable self-image, and means we prefer to think we are independent and rational in all our actions, and not so unconscious as to be driven by subconscious social animal forces.

I should have re-phrased that the above is the central part of the theory, that he uses to build the rest of the theory on.

 

[ruby sparks]

Read it years and years ago. Tend to think of it now as.....dunno. Probably containing at least some useful and accurate stuff, but......not sure about the overall theories.

Admittedly, I was trying at the time to 'self help' my chronic depression, so maybe I was hoping for too much from a book.

 

[Angry Floof]

I hope there's more to it than that, because "a lot of what people do, they do to get recognition, or attention, from other people" should be a no-brainer for anyone with a few working brain cells.

Then again, getting recognition from other people involves crafting a comfortable self-image, and means we prefer to think we are independent and rational in all our actions, and not so unconscious as to be driven by subconscious social animal forces.

I should have re-phrased that the above is the central part of the theory, that he uses to build the rest of the theory on.

I'll put it in my reading list. Even if the basic premise seems simplistic to a fairly educated person, the whole topic is interesting and useful information given that personal image and ego are also powerful subconscious forces that serve to prevent us noticing just what might actually be influencing our thoughts and choices at any given time. When we do notice, it's usually because we're forced to after the fact.

It seems like a paradox that the more aware you are of how unaware you are, the more aware you become.

 

[Bronzeage]

That brings back memories. I remember the book for it's circle and line diagrams. It was a trendy pop psychology when it first came out and it comes back into fashion every 20 years or so. It's from early days, before brain chemistry and it's effects on behavior and perception were poorly understood. Because of this, the "Think yourself well" genre of mental health treatment always had an audience.

 

[rousseau]

Read it years and years ago. Tend to think of it now as.....dunno. Probably containing at least some useful and accurate stuff, but......not sure about the overall theories.

Admittedly, I was trying at the time to 'self help' my chronic depression, so maybe I was hoping for too much from a book.

I'm only a few chapters in now and I can see some elements of it's validity.

The main critique I can think of at this point is the risk of explaining all behavior with the theory. For the most part I agree that a lot of what people do can be explained by the social intercourse that comes along with it. For example, starting repetitive hobby-horse threads with the same result every time, just so one can interact with other people. Or repetitively posting to social media for likes. On the other hand, there should be other sources of behavior than the need for 'strokes', as the book puts it.

 

[ruby sparks]

Read it years and years ago. Tend to think of it now as.....dunno. Probably containing at least some useful and accurate stuff, but......not sure about the overall theories.

Admittedly, I was trying at the time to 'self help' my chronic depression, so maybe I was hoping for too much from a book.

I'm only a few chapters in now and I can see some elements of it's validity.

The main critique I can think of at this point is the risk of explaining all behavior with the theory. For the most part I agree that a lot of what people do can be explained by the social intercourse that comes along with it. For example, starting repetitive hobby-horse threads with the same result every time, just so one can interact with other people. Or repetitively posting to social media for likes. On the other hand, there should be other sources of behavior than the need for 'strokes', as the book puts it.

It's been so long I can hardly remember much about it. I might not be able to join in the discussion much because if that.

Yeah, I would be careful with it (it's vaguely Freudian or post-freudian or whatever and I'm careful with anything like that), but at the same time I wouldn't knock it. I'd say that one could gain insights about stuff from it. I'm not sure but I think the term, 'emotional blackmail' came from TA, and that's a term that's gained wider recognition and usage.

I wonder what I'd make of it if I read it now. It brings back a few painful memories, because as I say I was trying to use it to 'cure' my depression and it didn't work.

 

[rousseau]

I hope there's more to it than that, because "a lot of what people do, they do to get recognition, or attention, from other people" should be a no-brainer for anyone with a few working brain cells.

Then again, getting recognition from other people involves crafting a comfortable self-image, and means we prefer to think we are independent and rational in all our actions, and not so unconscious as to be driven by subconscious social animal forces.

I should have re-phrased that the above is the central part of the theory, that he uses to build the rest of the theory on.

I'll put it in my reading list. Even if the basic premise seems simplistic to a fairly educated person, the whole topic is interesting and useful information given that personal image and ego are also powerful subconscious forces that serve to prevent us noticing just what might actually be influencing our thoughts and choices at any given time. When we do notice, it's usually because we're forced to after the fact.

It seems like a paradox that the more aware you are of how unaware you are, the more aware you become.

I think for a lot of people awareness just isn't a primary motivation, and evolution doesn't particularly care how aware you either, as long as you can keep yourself alive and produce a baby. And so for a lot of people there is probably a combination of ignorance of their own ignorance, and no real intrinsic curiosity. In that frame of mind there is really no escaping your own lack of knowledge.

People who actually become aware of their own motivations and the inner-workings of things are usually just a weird subset of people who actually care about knowledge for whatever reason.

And so yea, I can see that for most people there isn't much underlying awareness of why they do the things they do.. it's all just behaviour that feels rational and normal to them. They take the fact that they're living, material beings who follow natural laws for granted.

When it comes to something like Berne's Transactional Analysis, it may seem simple and intuitive to a smart person, and really it is, but often heuristics like this can be incredibly powerful to one's understanding. A lot of science isn't particularly complex, it's just a bunch of laws that give us a powerful way of understanding the world.

Take evolutionary theory for example. The underlying mechanism isn't really that hard to understand, but once you do understand it and apply it to the world it has far-reaching effects on your understanding of almost everything.