Games People Play

being a game player, with considerable practice, i will comment on the link;

In reading the final speech of Eric Berne, i got the impression that he was leaning more toward (my choice of word, not his) stand up comedy, than actual philosophical comentary upon psychotherapy.
I always thought he was more into 'entertainment', than serious science.
(obviously his parade of wives were not amused!)

Games People Play

"Berne defined certain socially dysfunctional behavioral patterns as "games." These repetitive, devious transactions are intended to obtain strokes but instead they reinforce negative feelings and self-concepts, and mask the direct expression of thoughts and emotions. Berne tagged these games with such instantly recognizable names as "Why Don't You, Yes But," "Now I've Got You, You SOB," and "I'm Only Trying to Help You." Berne's book Games People Play achieved wide popular success in the early 60's."

The strength of Berne's approach was recognizing that relationship issues could be narrowed down to simple homey catchphrases, not a bad thing in itself, but problematic as a system of deep personal anlaysis. I suspect his personal problems prevented him from developing his theory to it's potential fruition.

Do we play 'games' here? Sure we do. Are they 'dysfunctional'? Mostly not, I think, and sometimes yes. I remember the childhood version of his theory, with the "warm fuzzies" and "cold pricklies" and just thought, why not just let me play?

Bo, stand up comedy? Hmmmmm. That's not the way it came across to me. Perhaps it's because I understood what Berne was saying

Cav, the thread was not so much about Berne's pop psychology book as it was about about his straight and simple approach to psychotherapy. The games that I specifically had in mind were those we play with the language. I have alway been interested in philosophy and it's off spring, psychology, but there is too much esoterica and jargon in some written abstracts and articles, and that shouldn't be. And that includes computerese.

Hey, canucks. He's one of your guys

Well, he was born in Quebec....the rest of us are not sure yet whether they are Canucks.

Also, I agree with you...humans are essentially simple, but choose to complicate themselves. The goal of psychology should be to re-simplify people, and the language of it should reflect that goal.

heh heh. Well, Cav. I was looking at Fresco's thread on psychology and time, and I had no idea what he was talkin about. He did offer a CAVeat for the numerically challenged, but what he really meant was the number ninnies.

I would have made a marvelous math teacher, because I would have known just what to look for in other "no clue" people.

Where did BoDon'tKnowGo?

I think I ignored that thread, but who knows? Bo may be working...guess what? Half the posts in threads like that indicate that nobody knows what they are talking about. Or, to rephrase, they talk very well, without communicating.

I also like BoGoWo's obscure sense of humour though...

Work? What's that? My husband invented a new language. It's called backwards-backwards. Care to try it?

fouloceansispelgong. Damn, you can get by with anything using that language.

Another:
hatshippins

and yes, Bo has a great sense of humOUr!

True enough Letty, that is way cool, and you can get away with saying anything...:cool:

Just to comment on your original post, philosophy isn't untouchable and arcane, it's just not quite sure where it's going.

Well, Cav. I do have one bit of philosophy. I will never wound another's soul. There's a vast difference in that and wounding another's ego. To this point, I've only broken that silent vow once on A2K. Won't do it again.

and no! I will not quote Shakespeare.

Ooookay...now I am confused... My comment on philosophy was really about my opinion on philosophy...peeze esplain...I get paranoid when I feel I have offended someone...

Good grief, Cav. There's no way you can offend me unless you intend to do so. I was just using the opportunity to slip that little bit of clear wisdom in there. (precious little at that).

You're right on target, my young friend. Philosophy doesn't know where it's goin' and that's what makes it intriguing.

The entire point with the Eric Berne posting, was to explore the language that can take us where we want to go.

As to the bold assertion about Shakespeare, I think that if I hear "...to thine own self be true...." one more time, I'll puke.

Heh heh....I get hyper-sensitive sometimes...probably the years in the service industry, never want to displease anyone. That and the whole 'wounding souls' thing....I agree wholeheartedly. I learned that concept very young (younger than I am now ), and to this day I am still a bit freaky if I feel I have done that in any way. :wink:

Yes, I have always thought that if philosophy ever 'solved' anything, it would lose it's intrigue. The debate is the thing....I admit, I didn't catch the free-associated Shakespeare reference, but that particular statement is such an oversimplification of life it clubs Dr. Phil to death. There is resonance in the sentiment, but to simply use it as a philosophy or a psychology is just plain weird...and I'm sick of hearing it too.

Hi Letty

You mentioned "language games" above which usually implies Wittgenstein. His approach really took philosophy to the cleaners.

Fresco, I want to tell you ,my friend, you who are in charge of youthful minds. What does Fresco think?What do YOU think? That's all that kids really want to know.

Sorry, Fresco. Behavior mod sucks. You don't, however, because you are torn between creativity and what you deem as real...

A small smile...spelling is ok...

Letty,

I think that children are conditioned into "games" from the start by virtue of socialization through language. A typical example is two Asian kids sent in to me because one is calling the other "black"! We also have problems at lunchtime. We serve a vegetarian menu including soya products which some moslem kids refuse to eat because they are convinced it is "meat". The same kids however can be seen at the weekend enjoying a cheeseburger at MacDonalds !

So in general I'm pretty cynical about "average intelligence" and people being able to spot their diverse "selves" playing games to suit occasions.
Reality is certainly transactional but much of this is internal (self with self).

Fresco, In college I recall having read a book, "The Wild Boy of Averon". You may or may not be familiar with it. The child had been raised by animals and when returned to civilization at the age of eleven, could not be socialized through language. I offer this as an example to show that socialization must begin early as you noted in your amusing examples of the students from Asian and Muslim cultures. The thing about the feral child made me consider intelligence, and whether it was truly innate or simply a product of environment. The only point that I have tried to make with Eric Berne, is that simplicity is the real key to comprehension.

I do agree that "self with self" is an extremely important variable in cognitive development, but at what point does the child internalize that idea?

Your response to this thread was clear and articulate and I appreciate that fact.

"clear and articulate"; ay, there's the rub"

Well, Bo, still obstreperous, I see.