Transactional Analysis 1: ego states & basic transactions
First in a series on TA, offering some of the metaphors I think can be useful in conceptualising and dealing with interactions. This first video looks at the Parent, Adult and Child states, and basic transactions.
—
Recommended TA texts:
1) Ian Stewart & Vann Joines: 'TA Today: A New Introduction To Transactional Analysis'
2) Thomas A Harris: 'I'm OK, You're OK'
3) Eric Berne: 'Games People Play'
—
—
Recommended TA texts:
1) Ian Stewart & Vann Joines: 'TA Today: A New Introduction To Transactional Analysis'
2) Thomas A Harris: 'I'm OK, You're OK'
3) Eric Berne: 'Games People Play'
—
Isn't this transition hypothesis just a description of observable facts without any predictive power?
It sounds reasonable and intuitive, but I don`t see what do you gain by modeling human interactions with this model
—Yes — TA capitalises Parent, Adult and Child when they refer to the mental states, as opposed to lower case parent which indicates the physical fact of being a parent. So someone who happens to be a parent still moves from P to A to C just like non-parents.
—Not in my view — or the view of any TA writers I've come across. We'd miss out on all the positives of the Child and Parent states, which are explored in the next video. The thrust for me is that we shouldn't rely too much on C and P states because of their restricted awareness. So the aim is to strengthen Adult awareness — which ironically helps us to see where Child and Parent behaviours could work well.