Oh... I understand the theory, just fine. It’s an expansion on the Psychoanalytic theory of Id, Ego, Superego... specifically focusing in on the Ego... and even more specifically looking at how we relate to the world via how we view ourselves in relation to others.
I simply don’t fit in the paradigm as presented.
Case in point? It’s incrediably common with trauma victims to take the stance of “everyone is a threat” (you’re not okay).. whilst at the same time believing in their absolute justification of doing so (I’m okay). Metric shit tons of examples along the same lines (all men are rapists, all women are abusive, whatever). The stance/outlook with that type of thinking neatly dovetails into TA theory. It’s just a (series of) cognitive distortions (& possibly core beliefs) wrapped up neatly into one cohesive whole. Which is certainly useful as f*ck for a lot of people, in a lot of different ways. One way? it’s broad enough that the same pattern can be identified in countless environments & situations, observed how that plays out, & can be really effectively worked on... ALL without having to deal with the individual pieces of it, until long after you’ve already got some good traction on it and smoothed out some of the sharper edges. Very similar to exposure therapy, in chipping away at triggers & stressors, simply in a different context.
One of the places TA breaks down? When there isn’t a value judgement placed... at all.
Try using TA on “I’m blonde” “Youre brunette”. Doesn’t work, right? Not unless you ascribe some kind of value system on blonde & brunette. Either or both being desirable, or undesireable.
MY tendencies uder stress in the way I relate to the world?
- Me & Mine // Everyone Else
I’ve kicked it with some psychodynamic peeps who’ve tried -for fun- to break that down INTO some kind of value judgment, that fits the paradigm, and nope. It can’t be. Not even by half a dozen grad students and a couple few professors tying to Tetris shit around, with no regard for client fragility (because I wasn’t a client)... just to see if it could be done. Because that was the game. We were poking holes in various psychological theories. Psychology? Is a super duper SOFT science. Most theories not only have holes big enough to drive trucks through... they cheer the trucks along.
Because there is no single unified theory of mind that fits “everyone”. And most people who study people? Find that just as fascinating as incrediably effective theories that fit “most” people.
TA itself, is an example of exactly that. It isn’t attempting to be a universal theory of mind. It’s an “expansion pack” on the Ego. Generally speaking, most people fall under 1 of the 4 quarters in how they relate to others and view the world. The creator was kicked out of the psychoanalytic community for his theories... as they were so far from cannon. But that doesn’t mean that they’re not useful... for a lot of people. But nothing -to date- in useful, much less correct, for everyone.
TA doesn’t happen to be correct for me. Neither in my normal dealings with the world, nor under stress.
Which doesn’t mean that I never operate out of one of those 4 quarters... just that it’s not my MO. So if I’m looking to understand my own behavior better? (Or someone else is) TA isn’t a good model for that.
... But the theory is that it's about fundamentally accepting that all people are "okay" as human beings, no matter how flawed they are
Sure, I’ll just ring up the pedophile to babysit, shall I?
Otherwise known as I’m going to disagree with this statement, a bit ;)
Understanding what ego-state someone is operating of in order to understand their behavior better? Doesn’t mean that one “should” view everyone else as okay. It DOES correlate with generalized happiness... people who basically view themselves and others as “okay” STRONGLY correlates to the overall happiness. I am going to be profoundly unhappy if I don’t view pedophiles as okay (I don’t) and they’re the only people available to babysit. Conversely, if my babysitters are amazing trustworthy people I can utterly rely upon? I’m going to be MUCH happier.
Using TA, you can look at 2 young mothers... 1 stressed out and exhausted, 1 happy and relaxed... and easily find the only difference in their parenting is that 1 regularly uses babysitters in order to get time to relax and the other doesn’t // as 1 has people in their life they view as okay & the other doesn’t. Now, the babysitting mom may BE handing her child over to pedophiles (and be perfectly fine with that), and the non-babysitting mom may just VIEW “everyone” as potential pedophiles, but actually be surrounded by amazing and trustworthy people. Both of those outlooks? Are clearly problematic to the Nth degree. Or exhausted mom may be living with my former in-laws, and happy mom living with awesome people. Which means that it’s not the outlook that’s problematic... but the
situation.
TA isn’t saying that everyone is/should be okay. It’s simply attempting to better understand behavior by outlook, is all.
