Transactional Analysis (TA)

I have mentioned several schools of therapy in the past months. I have left out the one that had the most impact on me personally. Maybe now is the time to talk about. Usual rules apply – because it worked for me and, indeed, for others – does not mean it will work for you.

I know some people hate diagrams, graphs and pictures.

Consider, as you read: what can I do to translate TA ideas into my world? How might you use it to design your own safe experiments?

TA was developed in the middle of the last century by an American psychiatrist called Eric Berne. He revisited the traditional therapies of Freud and others to add a behavioural dimension to therapy (at that time behavioural therapies were getting on their feet, but needed more time to evolve into the more modern cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT).

Freud had sub-divided our being into different things – the id, the ego and the super-ego, to mention but three. These are the well-known three.

Berne thought about it differently by identifying three ego states – The Parent, The Adult and The Child. Put simply, these ego states emerged from a conversation between:

The TA Ego State

Looks suspiciously like my inverted tree but in this model each ego state has something important to say about the way we communicate. The fluency of those ‘conversations’ plays a vital part in determining our mental health. Let’s look at this a little further.

TA Transactions

This diagram demonstrates that fluent conversations arise when we communicate from one ego state, to another, and get it back in equal measure.

This is the complementary transaction.


I am going to leave you to speculate about the other four communication styles. Do you find yourself intuitively attracted to one or the other? How does that style of communication manifest for you with differnt people?

Observe how the communication styles changes from person-to-person. You may have predominately complementary transactions with George and crossed transactions with Jane. I’m not saying your communications with Jane are always crossed, but you may observe a favoured style in place when you engage with Jane.

Another valuable quality of TA is its ability to identify how communications WITHIN ourselves get complicated.  Notice two examples of such complicatgions illustrated in the next picture.

This diagram demonstrates how just-touching and equal-sized ego states represent an ideal …. an ideal, I emphasise, not our real worlds!!

In the real world, we have opinions and prejudices. These arise when information from now is informed by what others told us. Most often, that works fine, but just occasionally, our failure to observe and just notice things is over-ridden by the opinions of the previous generation. This can lead us to accept things without much thought. Those ‘things’ can be prejudices – opinions not supported by hard evidence. Such examples will include racism, misogeny and insensitivity to ‘outsider’ groups of people.

In similar fashion, our experience of today can be compared – using our matrix memory – with yesterday’s events. Sometimes this can fool us into thinking yesterday exists once more, today (who remembers The Carpenter’s song: It’s Yesterday Once More?).

This experience is called a ‘delusion’ when something appears to exist now but the evidence shows it does not hold water. This can result in dodgy life decisions, e.g. choosing life partners based on things we learned from parents and care-takers. That way – too late – we find that dreams can become nightmares. Of course, it’s all a matter of degree. I doubt any life partnership arises from rational decision-making (even if there is such a thing), but it is observably the case that some decisions we make are based on old data – archaic experiences, as they are called.

This just an introduction to the topic and you would need to do a lot of research and personal development to absorb all that TA has to offer. I will develop some TA ideas as I go along but, for moment, consider:


Can I suggest you re-visit the inverted tree? Use it to identify two or three specific niggling things from your past and present. Note them down. Did they appear to relate to things you were told by parents and caretakers or do they feel like coming from within?

Then, take a piece of paper and note down the how each item is influenced by;

  • the ideas and experiences that other people gave you in the past about the ‘thing’.
  • the current and immediate implications of the ‘thing’ you have chosen.
  • any conflict in your own mind about where the ‘thing’ came from; between thoughts, feelings and sensations or beliefs and ‘sayings’ others instilled in you?
  • …. and then, consider this third diagram.
The OK Corral

After you have reviewed the incidents and experiences, consider to what extent the events create your ‘life position’, as it is called. The Life Position can vary from situation to situation, of course, but we tend to adopt a ‘favourite’ position. It would be good to think we saw ourselves as OK, and all others around us as OK, as well.

In practice, it is feasible to find three other Life Positions:

I am OK, but you are not (bottom left);

I am not OK, but you are (top right);

I am not OK and you are not OK either (bottom right).

Do the incidents you selected appear to reflect one of these four positions? If there is a ‘favourite’ (note: not preferred), consider what safe experiment might be required to shift the life position just a little bit.

I am going to stop at this rather arbitrary point. I have started to show how TA can be a practical help in the design of safe experiments. PLease bear in mind this is merely a scratch of the surface!!

Look out for more!!