37 Transactions – First part

level_good_short(Last edited 20130821 at 19:20)
Breaking down into three imaginary persons an individual, we have ensured that each of the three fictional people can talk with another and we got that two individuals are six fictional people that can communicate with each other.

For example 1, we have



                       P         <_____________>             P

                       A          <_____________>            A

                       C           <_____________>           C

Or, for example, 2


                      P   <_________   P


                       A     <_________    A

                        |            \

                         v                   \

                       C                        > C


In example 1 we have additional transaction that can continue indefinitely: P-P, which did not conclude anything [P1: the youth of today do not want to do anything. P2: is a sign of the social situation]

A-A, which is precise and cold [A1: it rains … A2: it is true.]

C-C, which is creative [C1: Let’s make a run? C2: right away!]

 Example 2 shows just to make it clear that we can reach degrees of high complexity, for example where P1 with signs of the body (making menacing) inspires respect to C2, P1 speaks to P2  as Affective Parent to invoke patience, A2 speaks with A1, stressing that there was a lack of respect and A1 speaks to his C1 to solicit a certain creativity of expression. The sample is clearly superficial.

You should now be able  to put connections related to the following.

C2-P1 (The employee to the boss: do you have it with me always! Answer: but don’t say crap!).

C1-C2 The husband says to his wife: do we go to the cinema? Reply P2-C1: think only having fun!

A1-A2 The boss to the secretary: where is the “H” report? The secretary’s reaction who thinks he is considered as a maid: (P2-C1) If you were neater, you would know where it is.

What we said calls a very precise reflection: when we undergo a cross transaction, we must never deal with the part of the interlocutor who has launched the question, because the real problem lies in the origin of internal dialogue. In fact, as the last example shows, Child, where there was concentrated energy of the interlocutor, he felt weak and had a sense of rebellion (have it with me always) turned to the parent, in which the energy is transferred by giving the listener response. The cross transaction therefore originates from the fact that the stimulus causes an internal dialogue between the States of who receives the transaction. The other party, rather than respond himself, responds outside the State using the ego state invoked by the predicted internal dialogue.

 Hidden transactions.

In a sense, the inner dialogue is a hidden transaction type, only that it is within the same person. When they move from one person to another you can define them as hidden. Therefore, exist on transactional P-A-C apparent level transactions or transactions will cover social or psychological hidden ones which does not appear. This is the realm of deliberate manipulation and the Creative Child originates them. Example of Peter and Charles:

Do not do more to end the relationship (apparent transaction  A Peter -> A Charles)

If you could help me out… (real hidden transaction C Peter -> P Charles).

Answer: it means that on this afternoon you will not come to the meeting? (apparent transaction A Charles -> A Peter)

Will you perhaps that I will go alone to the meeting? (real hidden  transaction C Charles -> P Peter).

They say only the apparent transactions, but the true meaning is on the hidden ones.

Assimilated to hidden transactions but not yet with its precise location is the so-called “laugh from the hanging tree”. As an example of how this particular transaction, imagine a mother to public gardens with the lame child. The mother laughs at misfortune of his son. We immediately realize that if this mother smiles isn’t that precisely the desire, but this woman has learned to set such transactions move from the belief that maybe it is better laugh the first, before others. In other words it means: know that you can laugh at my son’s lame, so much so that I laugh I for first, but please don’t laugh.

Here is another example. As you know those who have had accidents, the Adult says to another Adult: I made another car crash … ah! … ah! The additional giggle is the classic “laugh from the hanging tree” (gallows). The hidden transaction is: I am the usual idiot. Answer: I, too, in the last six months I have made three crashes … ah! … ah! Hidden transaction: I am more stupid than you. Anyone who sources these kind of transactions certainly has big problems. It is not convenient, however, that the listener who receives this type of transaction, laughs with those who maintained the “laugh from the hanging tree” because the latter remembers the matter fiercely and sooner or later takes revenge. We will return to this topic talking about the Script.

Tangential transactions (or shy)

Are those transactions in which the second speaker snubs literally the first for “devilish” reasons. Example: when you go on vacation? (Adult-Adult transaction). Answer: I go to Spain (Parent-Child transaction) that is like saying: what interests you! Immediately after the first interlocutor retorts: I’ve always said that you’re a rude! (Parent-Child transaction). At this point you can go to scuffle. He was asked when and not where. Tangential transactions are characterized by the fact that there is no dialogue between the parties. The participants seem to talk one after the other rather than to each other. The main problem is not addressed and gets lost amidst all the perspectives. A skilled person can use these transactions for long periods.

Blocking transactions (or rank related transactions)

They take place because everyone wants to keep their theories. There is disagreement on the definition of the problem. They are the first moves of a series of transactions, where one tries to establish the rank. It also can be defined as a way to be passive, to do nothing: in fact, this behaviour postpones the solution of the real problem. When these transactions take place, all the participants are devalued. These types of  transactions are then carried out in the presence of psychological contamination. For each round of review, opinion,  mutual exclusion increases. In the presence of these transactions you have to wonder what the hidden needs not yet satisfied.

It follows with the next post.



Write a comment here

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s