Before we get to communication games and why I remember that Java Dev from a few years ago, I would like to share some notes on TA and games. The applications of the theory are important mostly because the building blocks are small, and they amount to complicated puzzles. Once grouped, these elements give a full set of possible scenarios which you can use for exercises, or to trace back events which have already occured.
- complementary are also the Adult-Ego to Child-Ego state transactions. This may feel uncomfortable at first, since they are people who try to always stay in the first state, so they can impose an often bloated representation of a social imperative, but to prevent loss of information, an uninterrupted transaction should be completed;
- a crossed interaction looses information. This is partly because the connotation of a set of transactions cannot be conveyed in a single turn, but also because the information itself is meant for another ego-state. This is like when games are played between friends and one of them refuses to accept the same rules;
- a transaction between Adult-Ego and Child-Ego states is also possible and can, too, be complementary, but you have to remember that in this case the purpose of the transaction will be very much different. I would like to see more real-life examples before I share any further notes. Sometimes it appears as a supporting function, and other times as a catalyst;
- hidden transactions – very important for TA in terms of meaning and role in bigger scenarios. I’ve seen a commentary on sales skills which involved the sales person in an Adult-Ego influencing, or engaging, the complementary ego-state but also the Child-Ego;
- duplex transactions involve 4 ego-states simultaneously and these are usually found in flirting games in the personal and professional domains. This is very interesting since the matching could occur in various ways with straight lines (in the diagram) from Adult- to Adult- and Child- to Child-Ego states, but also with crossed lines between all four.
The last example is a great hint to what is to be expected later on with TA in real-life situations. Same elements with all people, but the inetrnal and external dynamics form completely different transactions. In case you are not sure what I’m talking about – the difference between the straight and crossed lines could be the metaphor “you complete me”, or just a rather disciplined cohabitation with reasonable capital budgeting. It could also be the same thing, but each of us could perceive it differently due to the social frame we interpret this in, or a number of other things…