(Last edited 20130806 at 17:48)
Verifying current status
This stems from the fact that the State can hide another.
Let us help with an example. The employee who takes on the role of Parent and gives a good dressing-down to his subject, because it is actually terrified at the idea that the head wear and tear him in turn (this is the Child). Then assume deliberately borrowed the image of Parent (hides the Child) for get-out the salesman and let him do one thing perhaps he would never dream of letting him do otherwise. He can assume the role of a secret agent and appear on the scene both as a Parent and as an Adult and finally as a Child. In the same way the Child, which in this case acts as a puppeteer or as a secret agent, appears on the scene disguised as a Child or as an Adult or Parent. Similar behavior can have the Adult who can appear on the scene or as an Adult, or as a Child or as a Parent. Same things for the Parent, so that the possible cases altogether nine.
The conclusion of the above is this: when we analyze the behavior of a person, we need to ask what might be his final goal. We must be able to distinguish who is working behind the scenes and, more specifically, which of the three States of the ego is working behind the scenes, and what the status of the ego that appears instead on the limelight. If we realize that the work of this person, even if he does not occur as an Adult, after all it seems to be convenient to himself, probably it is the Adult who wishes to bring a suit different from his. When, moreover, this same person, is very tight in a speech defending pre-established values, even against his own interests, most likely the agent is the Parent. If the same person, finally, even when it gives social judgments, is prey to emotions, perhaps the dominant personality at the helm is that of the Child. The final concept is that the secret agent always fails to hide his true identity so he always betrays the predominant transactional state, or the helmsman, if you prefer.
Who is the best secret agent? It seems out of the question to say that the best agent is the Adult, which as such he is giving energy to the Child or to the parent, as well as the Adult himself.
We saw earlier that the status of the Parent and of the Adult are both Child’s inventions to adapt his own life to social life. The Child, as already seen, has subdivisions and of these, only two are born with the human being: the Spontaneous Child and Creative Child. In the Spontaneous Child is laid the vital energy of a person and if the SC gives little energy to the Adult, the Adult struggles to work, because the Adult as well, as being a data disc, is an active focus of the ego. The Spontaneous Child therefore, who initially gave energy to the Creative Child, depositary of insights, at one point also provides power to the Adult that unlike the Creative Child (which follows the principle of pleasure), proceeds according to the reality principle. When the Adult is unable to organize his data bank, he must necessarily use the data that arrive or from the Parent or the feelings that come from the Child: facts and feelings that he incorporates, in the absence of something better and not to integrate.
We can now define what is a prejudice: it is a cultural item, not experienced specifically by the individual, which is assimilated to the Adult data as if it were true. Example: women do not know how to run a company. This could be a Parent claim, but if the person adds immediately: how many women do you know as chiefs? This is an Adult contaminated. When I have my Adult at work and take as proven the fact that southerners are worse of northerners, this is another prejudice. Another example: today the diplomas does not prepare young people to working life. This could be an expression of the Parent, but if, after this, one adds: in fact see that young people are unemployed. This can be a prejudice because it may be that young people are unemployed because they are not offered a job. We see then how, from a Parental premise, if one has the Adult contaminated, we arrive at a pseudo-scientific demonstration where one supports a test that really isn’t that because it is a consequence of the Parental principle.
We speak now about illusions: they are believed things as if they were real even though they are not. Example: today is my lucky day and all will be fine! The beauty is that this person behaves accordingly. Or: I talked to A and he gave me wrong, I talked to B and he gave me wrong, ditto with C … it is evident that they do not appreciate me. This is an illusion, because I’m considering as fact something that is not a fact. I have the Adult contaminated by the Child. Prejudices and illusions are essential for the human being. It is about the following example: suppose two people equally ok, one reaches exceptional targets while the other does not. What is the reason? Certainly one of the two has the Adult more weak, i.e. more contaminated or by the Parent or by the Child.
Another interesting contamination can be determined and we can define it the confusion, which is the pollution of the Child with the Parent. Basically the news is to have the PAC, for the contaminations, so that the three States will form the vertices of an equilateral triangle:
New model:
Exclusions
Exclusions can be one of the three States of the ego, or even could be the exclusion of two out of three States.
We will see later the symbiosis, which is a lot of exclusions. Parent excluded: symbiotic or for example a sociopath. Adult excluded: it is a condition of many humans. Child excluded: it is a very rare condition because Child must agree in being excluded.
Exclusion of two out of three States
Parent in force: a very nauseating condition. This person will be full of expressions like: these children are crooks, women today are all not serious read and so forth … he will follow all traditions leading a life full of habits. This guy exists probably because those rare times when the Child has decided to take some emotions there derived such an upheaval in the overall balance of the person concerned that it has decided to completely bury his Child and his Adult.
Adult in force: it is a purely theoretical situation.
Child in force: clearly this is the wild, meaning more beautiful and better. The person who lives in the forest. Just pure emotional sphere (Submitted Child and/or Creative Child). This is the character dear to ROUSSEAU.
This condition exists in manic-depressive psychosis (manic phase) or under the influence of drugs, and in three cases:
1. When Adult is so contaminated by Parent that only with an external intervention the patient is able to distinguish States.
2. Where in the script there is an order “not to think”.
3. When the Child decides to use or allow the use of another Adult person.
Conclusions
We can now see what are the steps involved in the analysis of a person:
1. Identification / acceptance of the three States.
2. Recognition of contamination.
3. Decontamination, i.e. strengthening of the adult.
4. Adult supervision, triple meaningful: the famous three steps to solve the problems with the sabotage.
5. Principle of reality (awareness): know oneself, know others and know the environment.
6. Integration of the personality: it is the ultimate goal. Integrated personality doesn’t mean a unique personality but a multi-faceted personality and “accorded”, in a melodic sense.
The AT in the community: we said as one of the features of the AT is to adapt itself to an organization, in addition to a person, and therefore we can say:
I. The values, the moral principles, correspond to the Parent.
II. The methods correspond to the Adult.
III. climate, satisfaction, the energies, the aspirations, the desire to live that exists within the organization are the Child.
Giurassic 