Games People Play: The Basic Handbook of Transactional Analysis. Pdfdrive com

ANALYSIS
Thesis: I can be destructive and still get forgiveness.
Aim: Absolution.
Roles: Aggressor, Victim (colloquially, Schlemiel and Schlemazl).
Dynamics: Anal aggression.
Examples: (1) Messily destructive children. (2) Clumsy guest. Social
Paradigm: Adult-Adult.
Adult: ‘Since I’m polite, you have to be polite, too.’
Adult: ‘That’s fine. I forgive you.’
Psychological Paradigm: Child-Parent.
Child: ‘You have to forgive things which appear accidental.’
Parent: ‘You are right. I have to show you what good manners are.’
Moves: (1) Provocation-resentment. (2) Apology-forgiveness.
Advantages: (1) Internal Psychological – pleasure of messing. (2) External
Psychological – Avoids punishment. (3) Internal Social – ‘Schlemiel.’ (4)
External Social – ‘Schlemiel.’ (5) Biological – provocative and gentle stroking.
(6) Existential – I am blameless.
4 · WHY DON’T YOU – YES BUT
Thesis. ‘Why Don’t You – Yes But’ occupies a special place in game analysis,
because it was the original stimulus for the concept of games. It was the first
game to be dissected out of its social context, and since it is the oldest subject of
game analysis, it is one of the best understood. It is also the game most
commonly played at parties and in groups of all kinds, including psychotherapy
groups. The following example will serve to illustrate its main characteristics:
White: ‘My husband always insists on doing our own repairs, and he never
builds anything right.’
Black: ‘Why doesn’t he take a course in carpentry?’
White: ‘Yes, but he doesn’t have time.’
Blue: ‘Why don’t you buy him some good tools?’
White: ‘Yes, but he doesn’t know how to use them.’
Red: ‘Why don’t you have your building done by a carpenter?’
White: ‘Yes, but that would cost too much.’
Brown: ‘Why don’t you just accept what he does the way he does it?’

---

White: ‘Yes, but the whole thing might fall down.’
Such an exchange is typically followed by a silence. It is eventually broken
by Green, who may say something like, ‘That’s men for you, aways trying to
show how efficient they are.’
YDYB can be played by any number. The agent presents a problem. The
others start to present solutions, each beginning with ‘Why don’t you …?’ To
each of these White objects with a ‘Yes, but …’ A good player can stand off the
others indefinitely until they all give up, whereupon White wins. In many
situations she might have to handle a dozen or more solutions to engineer the
crestfallen silence which signifies her victory, and which leaves the field open
for the next game in the above paradigm, Green switching into ‘PTA’,
Delinquent Husband Type.
Since the solutions are, with rare exceptions, rejected, it is apparent that this
game must serve some ulterior purpose. YDYB is not played for its ostensible
purpose (an Adult quest for information or solutions), but to reassure and gratify
the Child. A bare transcript may sound Adult, but in the living tissue it can be
observed that White presents herself as a Child inadequate to meet the situation;
whereupon the others become transformed into sage Parents anxious to dispense
their wisdom for her benefit.
Figure 8. Why Don’t You – Yes But
This is illustrated in Figure 8. The game can proceed because at the social
level both stimulus and response are Adult to Adult, and at the psychological
level they are also complementary, with Parent to Child stimulus (‘Why don’t
you …’) eliciting Child to Parent response (‘Yes, but …’). The psychological
level is usually unconscious on both sides, but the shifts in ego state (Adult to
‘inadequate’ Child on White’s part, Adult to ‘wise’ Parent by the others) can
often be detected by an alert observer from changes in posture, muscular tone,

---

voice and vocabulary.
In order to illustrate the implications, it is instructive to follow through on
the example given above.
Therapist: ‘Did anyone suggest anything you hadn’t thought of yourself?’
White: ‘No, they didn’t. As a matter of fact, I’ve actually tried almost
everything they suggested. I did buy my husband some tools, and he did take a
course in carpentry.’
Here White demonstrates two of the reasons why the proceedings should
not be taken at face value. First, in the majority of cases White is as intelligent as
anyone else in the company, and it is very unlikely that others will suggest any
solution that she has not thought of herself. If someone does happen to come up
with an original suggestion, White will accept it gratefully if she is playing fair;
that is, her ‘inadequate’ Child will give way if anyone present has an idea
ingenious enough to stimulate her Adult. But habitual YDYB players, such as
White above, seldom play fair. On the other hand, a too ready acceptance of
suggestions raises the question of whether the YDYB is not masking an
underlying game of ‘Stupid’.
The example given is particularly dramatic, because it clearly illustrates the
second point. Even if White has actually tried some of the solutions presented,
she will still object to them. The purpose of the game is not to get suggestions,
but to reject them.
While almost anyone will play this game under proper circumstances
because of its time-structuring value, careful study of individuals who