I'd recommend 'Games People Play' by Edward Berne. — fdrake

Cool mention. I tend to blend the adult/parent/child paradigm with 'the medium is the message.' I mean the idea that often this adult/child/parent roleplay 'behind' the ostensible message is what's most important to those involved. But this thread is not about that, so ...

I'd recommend 'Games People Play' by Edward Berne. — fdrake

Games People Play
Joe South

Oh the games people play now
Every night and every day now
Never meaning what they say now
Never saying what they mean

And they wile away the hours
In their ivory towers
Till they're covered up with flowers
In the back of a black limousine

La-da da da da da da da
La-da da da da da de
Talking 'bout you and me
And the games people play

Oh we make one another cry
Break a heart then we say goodbye
Cross our hearts and we hope to die
That the other was to blame

Neither one will give in
So we gaze at our eight by ten
Thinking 'bout the things that might have been
It's a dirty rotten shame

People walking up to you
Singing glory hallelulia
And they're tryin to sock it to you
In the name of the Lord

They're gonna teach you how to meditate
Read your horoscope, cheat your fate
And further more to hell with hate
Come on and get on board

Look around tell me what you see
What's happening to you and me
God grant me the serenity
To remember who I am

'Cause you've given up your sanity
For your pride and your vanity
Turns your back on humanity
And you don't give a da da da da da

OK, the theme is fair game now.

Transactional analysis (TA) is a psychoanalytic theory and method of therapy wherein social transactions are analyzed to determine the ego state of the patient (whether parent-like, child-like, or adult-like) as a basis for understanding behavior.[1] In transactional analysis, the patient is taught to alter the ego state as a way to solve emotional problems. The method deviates from Freudian psychoanalysis which focuses on increasing awareness of the contents of unconsciously held ideas. — Wiki

Asking for help from strangers can itself be one of the games people play, which is not to say that I think it should be discouraged. Sometimes it's sincere, but it's natural to be on the lookout for:

Yes, But...

http://www.theemotionmachine.com/3-games-people-play-to-avoid-taking-responsibility/

The games make sense without much of the theoretical background. Adult/child don't have to be interpreted as features of the psyche with a rich structure, things still work with the approximation that adult = the responsible, fettered one and child = the irresponsible, free one. Most of the games take on the character of responsibility shifting, disavowal or branding.

Other than that, if you have no trouble with helping others emotionally - or at least find it easier than helping yourself - try to think of yourself as another person and ask how you'd try to help them... Then do it, as best you can. — fdrake

Second this. Something that helped me immensely was looking at my self-talk, and then imagining saying the same things to someone coming to me for help. Holy moly.

Another method is to imagine you and your friend who needs help having a conversation. Maybe you've found a quiet warm-lit place in a room away from the rest of the party. And then someone mean-spirited walks in and starts berating your friend. You wouldn't argue with this person, because he clearly just feels like being mean. He'll twist your words one way or another, even if you make a valid point. Engaging won't help. Instead you'd just help you friend ignore him while you offer him your advice.

One last approach. Imagine that the person who walks into the room is drunk and confused. He thinks there's something dangerous out there, but he's afraid to tell you what it is. He wants to keep your friend safe, to make sure he doesn't leave the room, but the only way he can think to do it is tell elaborate tales of the danger, and how your friend would never be able to deal with it. You can then recognize his good - if confused - intentions, but nevertheless disregard them. 'Thanks man, we got it' then turn to your friend 'he means well, he's just confused, he does this all the time, now back to what we were talking about'

The games make sense without much of the theoretical background. Adult/child don't have to be interpreted as features of the psyche with a rich structure, things still work with the approximation that adult = the responsible, fettered one and child = the irresponsible, free one. Most of the games take on the character of responsibility shifting, disavowal or branding. — fdrake

For me these adult-child-parent roles aren't about deep structures. They are more like modes. In 'mansplaining,' a guy plays 'all knowing daddy' with a woman whom he wants to see as a child. As I see it, the parent role is a huge and dominant temptation for intellectual types. One way to interpret savage flair-ups on forums, for instance, is in terms of two big daddy-egos trying to parent one another. Neither 'omniscient father' will cede the other the phallus-conch, so the ostensible 'content' is thrown away and the frustrated desire to humiliate-parent is vented in 'castrating' insults. The ostensible content does matter, of course. But I think this role-play is quietly very important.

Of course Games People Play doesn't go into all of this, but this is one of the ways I used the basic idea. In my view, some of the key things said in public are hidden in the footnotes or margins. Also for me 'footnotes' includes the general tone of respect of disrespect, openness to learn as opposed to an excessive eagerness to teach.

One way to interpret savage flair-ups on forums, for instance, is in terms of two big daddy-egos trying to parent one another. Neither 'omniscient father' will cede the other the phallus-conch, so the ostensible 'content' is thrown away and the essential desire to humiliate/subjugate/parent is manifested in 'castrating' insults.

Oof, hits close to home. Think you're right tho.

Oof, hits close to home. Think you're right tho. — csalisbury

It's a relief to hear someone else relate to this perspective. For whatever morbid or self-incriminating reason, I'm especially interested in this kind of head-butting or patriarchal posturing. I put on my labcoat before I grab the popcorn. Sometimes, in real life, I find myself being the opinionated ideology-critquing A-hole among other A-holes. The women vanish as if by magic. They don't give a queef, in my experience, about what they perhaps perceive as some kind of constipatedly homoerotic ritual. (And if Camille Paglia is right, there is a misogynistic flight from the mother in the deadly-serious nobody's fool pose.) Of course all this soft 'psychoanalytic' stuff is vulnerable to critique and gets sucked into the same game. I do think that I am currently openheartedly trying for an adult-adult conversation (certainly in our case), but god knows it only takes a little condescension to tempt me into a mirroring condescension --or a pseudo-indifferent feigning of infinite loftiness maybe.

In 'mansplaining,' a guy plays 'all knowing daddy' with a woman whom he wants to see as a child. — syntax

Unless it's actually a matter of S&M. That sort of thing can be a source of creativity. Its more likely to be destructive if its unconscious.

Even bringing it up is a kind of saturnine thing to do, but men and women were on the scene in the discussion.

Unless it's actually a matter of S&M. — frank

Sure, and I'm far from being a prude.

That sort of thing can be a source of creativity. Its more likely to be destructive if its unconscious. — frank

I agree. And I am far from being a man-hater. I just don't want to alienate women. Basically it's just bad form or failed style I have in mind. If the women wants to play 'child' to my 'parent', that's something else. And despite being out of fashion in the collective consciousness, I think it's a big part of actually existing communism heterosexuality. You tell her she's the prettiest, and she tells you that you're the smartest. All is right with the world.

Even bringing it up is a kind of saturnine thing to do, but men and women were on the scene in the discussion. — frank

Ah, well I always thought of philosophy as a pretty saturnine enterprise. Don't mean to offend of course. There's the danger of offending on one side and the danger of saying nothing interesting on the other side.

I'm especially interested in this kind of head-butting or patriarchal posturing. I put on my labcoat before I grab the popcorn. Sometimes in real life, I find myself being the opinionated ideology-critquing A-hole among other A-holes. The women vanish as if by magic. They don't give a queef, in my experience, about what they perhaps perceive as some kind of constipatedly homoerotic ritual. — syntax

I remember once watching two men 'battle it out' at work in a way where one tried to prove to the other that they knew better about a subject and yet both didn't actually know what they are talking about. What astonished me in the experience was the tone, the body language, the attitude of confidence as though such behaviour represented 'truth' over the very content itself. I said nothing, but in my head I thought both of them were idiots because I knew the answer to the problem and was watching them fumble around with irrelevant dialogue but speak with an aura of professionalism. This same agitation I experienced can be paralleled to those types of people who talk and talk and talk but they are not really saying anything, that whole 'what the fook is your point?'

It happened on here too between Agu and someone else, I think it was Vagabond and they both looked just as stupid as the other, writing massive essays without contributing intellectually at all. When I said that they should stop and actually talk about the problem in the OP, I got 'no, we have to do this.' Women back away because we know we get brushed aside during this weird Alpha display. There is no problem in condescension as you may genuinely disagree with the content of the response you receive, but it should be as a critique and with adequate solutions the problem.

Constipatedly homoerotic ritual? :lol: :lol:

I remember once watching two men 'battle it out' at work in a way where one tried to prove to the other that they knew better about a subject and yet both didn't actually know what they are talking about. What astonished me in the experience was the tone, the body language, the attitude of confidence as though such behaviour represented 'truth' over the very content itself. — TimeLine

Thank you for jumping in! That part I underlined above pretty much sums up the 'magic' of Trump, I think. It somehow worked! Never apologize. Never show shame. Never show humility. All that really matters is maintaining the pose of superiority. 'Total war! And those fools who have some other goal than this empty victory verily have their reward. ' It's terrifying, really. Of course there were other off-topic factors in that election, but I feel like that's the basic magic. Enough people were just impatient with figure skating and just wanted to see the Hulk leap from the top rope.

It happened on here too between Agu and someone else, I think it was Vagabond and they both looked just as stupid as the other, writing massive essays without contributing intellectually at all. When I said that they should stop and actually talk about the problem in the OP, I got 'no, we have to do this.' Women back away because we know we get brushed aside during this weird Alpha display. — TimeLine

Ah, yes, that's a great example. 'We have to do this.' Compulsive once the fire is lit. It's embarrassing, but I've been there. It's probably good in some ways as a learning experience. I don't think a person learns much without 'sinning.' Still, it doesn't feel good at the time.

As far as women backing away, this is something I've discussed with my girlfriend. As I understand it, she can just feel that the tone is bogus, that it's not real conversation. I think she finds a kind of small-hearted meanness in it, and I think she's right. Of course I don't want to fall into the trap of seeming self-righteous here. I continue to wrestle with and make sense of this stuff.

Constipatedly homoerotic ritual? :lol: :lol: — TimeLine

:razz:

Yeah, and the problem is just the constipation and not the homoeroticism. :halo:

Ah, yes, that's a great example. 'We have to do this.' Compulsive once the fire is lit. It's embarrassing, but I've been there. It's probably good in some ways as a learning experience. I don't think a person learns much without 'sinning.' Still, it doesn't feel good at the time. — syntax

Yeah, those men. Ha, ha, ha, ha. LOL. So funny. Ha, ha, ha. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Yeah, those men. Ha, ha, ha, ha. LOL. So funny. Ha, ha, ha. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I hear you but I also think it depends on why are these comments being made. So Syntax initiated this line of thought, but did so in response to pretty specific thing: games people play. I haven't read the book, but I understand it to be something like a taxonomy of ritualistic 'games' that let people maintain certain identities at the expense of their well being. Fdrake had brought up that book as a means for identifying bad coping mechanisms and, in that light, I think the post about male egos fighting for the authority-position made sense. I liked Syntax's post because I recognized myself in it. Since reading it, I've been much more cautious not to fall into that kind of pattern (1) because I recognize I'm prone to (I got bitter-mean at Streetlight a few months back, for no good reason, very much in the vein of that 'game,' and am still embarrassed) & (2) because it hurts me. It's a bad coping mechanism. I resort to it when I feel defeated for one reason or another, and want to symbolically assert myself somewhere else. It's good to see the dynamic spelled out. Next time I feel myself tending that way I can think 'oh man, this is just like that thing from that post.'

But I also think that, sometimes, this kind of thing can be done for this reason: To try to undermine the importance of an issue a male raises. Some guy might bring up something difficult for them - they may even do so in questionable language; not all of us were lucky enough to get properly socialized about male/female issues - and then 'oh, men, lol' with a certain tone or expression just utterly delegitimizes what they're talking about. Which isn't good. Because that problem doesn't go away. Instead they retreat back to the safety of [wherever] and nurse their problem until it maybe metastasizes into something worse (misogyny, misanthropy etc.)

I'm guilty of doing this kind of thing to people too, in different ways, so I get the urge. I don't think - I'm not sure - that Timeline and Sytax have done this (tho maybe the 'calm yourself' response is bordering on it.) I do think certain ways of tackling this thing are profoundly damaging, even if they feel justified and good in the moment. But I also don't think these kinds of discussions are bad tout court

As far as women backing away, this is something I've discussed with my girlfriend. As I understand it, she can just feel that the tone is bogus, that it's not real conversation. I think she finds a kind of small-hearted meanness in it, and I think she's right. Of course I don't want to fall into the trap of seeming self-righteous here. I continue to wrestle with and make sense of this stuff. — syntax

I have had men do it with me on a number of occasions, because I have a strong presence but I am actually very gentle inside so it was difficult for me to tolerate without getting hurt. It is easy for them to just use the platitude 'what would you know?' or project their own irrelevant assumptions often of an indirectly misogynistic nature by claiming that I simply do not understand the subject at all, even if I say that 1+1=2. It is commonplace in philosophical and scientific circles to have that behaviour forced on you as a way to silence your voice. 'This is what you are' rather than listening to what is actually being said. It is not pleasant neither is it welcomed and when I was studying political science, the faculty was overrun by such a dominant masculine presence that consisted of constant ridicule, meaning that only a few women managed to survive before the faculty realised that it was actually discriminating and even violent behaviour and began a process of changing the culture.

This is the same in the workplace and such 'masculine' behaviour is a tool to push bad men up the chain by force despite having no talent in the workplace and no capacity for leadership. Sexism is merely one such method or a tool to achieve this, as is other methods of bullying like insulting appearances (height, weight, age). This is often done by underachievers with little talent who use force as a tool to hide that fact and as a way to remove competition.

I know the process and I can participate, but I find it exhausting. I would rather develop a respectful culture of equals and I am actually changing this in my workplace; I have successfully discussed the possibility of removing bureaucracy from the chain of command because we each have our own separate skills and capacity and being 'higher up the chain' does not suddenly permit authority without respect. We are all in this together, basically, and it is about the result that the business is seeking and not about individual egos.

I'm guilty of doing this kind of thing to people too, in different ways, so I get the need. I don't think - I'm not sure - that Timeline and Sytax have done this (tho maybe the 'calm yourself' response is bordering on it.) I do think certain ways of tackling this thing are profoundly damaging, even if they feel justified and good in the moment. — csalisbury

First of all, I'm not upset or offended. I really do think it's funny. But I'll say it again, this isn't a thread to discuss men/women issues. It was a request for reading material on depression.

I would really like to discuss men/women issues. I don't think it is done often or well on the forum. We are overwhelmingly men. @Antaus started one a week or so ago and I couldn't find a way to fit into it. It definitely is an area where I have unexamined assumptions that could stand to be pulled out into the open. But ....I really like men. I am one. Facile disrespect raises the hackles on the back of my neck.

Ah, well I always thought of philosophy as a pretty saturnine enterprise — syntax

Very much so. My advice to the OP (about depression) would have been to go lean up against the wall near the 100-200 section of the library and wait till your eye randomly settles on a title.

Let's not forget humour (what counteracts depression) and positive relationships between people either, otherwise culture deteriorates and we would live within a mechanistic environment where responses are without quality of character. You breed weakness on both ends of the spectrum, so it is about achieving the balance between the two.

For sure. Don't get me wrong: I love humor. Some of my best friends are humorous.

But humor is a double-edged thing. It can be cathartic if it's a shared thing: the virtue of stand-up comedians is that they can deliver, on stage, to a crowd, a version of the same thing that crowd experienced but was too nervous to talk about it. There's a release.

There is another sort of thing that goes by the name 'humor' but is really just [lets treat this thing this person said in a humorous light so its not taken seriously]. I'm focusing on this type of humor, just because I think it syncs up with what tclark was talking about.

There are a billion and a half forms this can take. So talking with Tclark I identified one. It's a way of deflating someone something brings up because that same comment, in a broader perspective, can be seen as [dumb male being dumb]. This isn't the only form of this tho. There's plenty of misogynistic variants of this as well. In a [serious men discussing serious problems] context, the serious men might respond to a good point brought up by a woman as [rolls eyes, of course she'd say that. Typical woman, am I right?]

All of which is to say: humor isn't just humor. There's a whole jungle of things that are brought under that one umbrella.

tldr: I think you're absolutely right, what you said, but its complicated. Humor can be helpful, but it can also be harmful. It all depends.

Not sure exactly where to go from here. The whole "Games People Play" approach is not one I've ever felt was very helpful for me. I don't think I do play games like that. When I'm an asshole, it's because I'm an asshole, not because I'm acting like my daddy, or whatever it's supposed to be.

My beef was that, when the discussion veered into this area, it immediately started ragging on those wacky men. @TimeLine brought out her experiences in the office, which she's discussed before. @csalisbury says "Oh, no, I'm just like that, I feel so guilty." :joke: @syntax chimes in with what his (I think you're a guy, right?) girlfriend says. :razz: . As I said, I like men. It appears to be easy to make them look ridiculous. I don't like that. I'm perfectly capable of making one particular man look ridiculous if that's what's required. I'm at a disadvantage. I don't have stories about wacky women to contribute. I don't think they're wacky.

So, if this is really a discussion about games people play, have at it and I'll butt out. If it's "look at the funny men", I have some thoughts. If it's "men/women, what's up with that," that would be better from my point of view.

I think I was pretty measured in my response though. I don't think I was just hand-wringing for recognition, as your post suggests. I do feel guilty, but only because I've done that same thing syntax was describing. Exactly. I regret doing it, but don't think I'm inherently bad. I just think it's a bad coping device. I felt guilty before this thread but the discussion just helped crystallize what was irking me.

And I don't feel bad because I'm a male. I think it's a game men are prone to play, but I think women are prone to play equally problematic games. I wrote a paragraph explaining why I think your frustration was valid, and what I saw in it. And I meant it. I like men too.

I think I was pretty measured in my response though. I don't think I was just hand-wringing for recognition, as your post suggests. — csalisbury

Geez, I put in an emoji! It's even called "joke." It's that humor thing - the good one. You know.

More seriously, I think talking about "typical male behavior" lets men off the hook. If I show disrespect for someone, it somehow lessens my responsibility. I generally know when I've done wrong. If I don't, tell me. It's not because I'm a man. I can face facts and take responsibility for my actions. I'm not that easy to get along with unless you are pretty tolerant. The tolerance of my friends is a gift I am always grateful for.

Some thoughts on threads being derailed. I think every thread I've started on this forum has been been pretty thoroughly derailed, often with moderators involved in the process. Being a color-outside-the-lines sort of guy, I don't mind. Sometimes the coolest insights appear in a non-linear fashion.

Depression is sometimes a symptom of blocked growth. Finding the open door might require putting aside assumptions about how things should be, such as that we should be mature enough not to engage in social dominance the way our ancestors would have out under some African sky.

But with social dominance, which is common among socializing mammals, conflicts rarely arise between males and females. Males compete with males. Females compete with females. When a conflict arises between the sexes, something other than just social dominance is going on.

When a conflict arises between the sexes, something other than just social dominance is going on. — frank

Interesting. I'm kind of skeptical. How much of that is because part of social dominance is keeping people tied to their gender roles? I've always been struck how girls in traditional conservative societies open up when they are given a chance to go to school, work, and participate fully in society. They really don't want to go back. For me, that is probably the biggest thing that puts the lie to gender role stereotypes. When given a chance, women want to be autonomous and productive. I think it's probably harder for men. Even sensitive new age guys like me have a hard time surrendering our stereotypical masculine roles.

Ahhh but this is exactly the kind of 'joke' I was talking about! :joke: You created a clear narrative - an emoticon or joke isn't a charm that prevents people from contesting it. Your narrative was meant as a build-up illustrating a point you took seriously. :rofl:
I objected to the narrative :razz:

Some thoughts on threads being derailed. I think every thread I've started on this forum has been been pretty thoroughly derailed, often with moderators involved in the process. Being a color-outside-the-lines sort of guy, I don't mind. Sometimes the coolest insights appear in a non-linear fashion. — frank

Strongly disagree. It's a sign of disrespect and sloppy philosophy not to take the OP seriously.

The whole "Games People Play" approach is not one I've ever felt was very helpful — T Clark

Some of us, like me and thee, are old enough to remember when Transactional Analysis was the latest fad to make the rounds. As old Sister Gloria put it, "It's another lingo to learn. Every few years another fad comes along and there's another whole new batch of lingo."

Ahhh but this is exactly the kind of 'joke' I was talking about! :joke: You created a clear narrative - an emoticon or joke isn't a charm that prevents people from contesting it. Your narrative was meant as a build-up illustrating a point you took seriously. :rofl: — csalisbury

Wrong. I was being playful. I look in my heart and see I wasn't trying to put you in your place. I was trying to start out the discussion in a friendly, collegial way. I looked in my heart before I posted to make sure that was true. As I said, I don't play games much. If it bothered you, I'll be more careful in the future.

Some of us, like me and thee, are old enough to remember when Transactional Analysis was the latest fad to make the rounds. As old Sister Gloria put it, "It's another lingo to learn. Every few years another fad comes along and there's another whole new batch of lingo." — Bitter Crank

When I was a freshman in college in the 70s, "The Primal Scream" had just came out and I was a psych major. Seemed like a good idea. I went around screaming at my roommates and neighbors. They didn't like it much.

Poor Nazgul has been left to suffer alone, while the helpful philosophers have left his bedside to got into some side issue.

I would suggest a better approach to depression is Social Psychology--studying ideas that place us troubled individuals (males and females alike) in a broader social context. Authors like Erich Fromm do this.

Fromm places individual problems in a social context (thinking of The Sane Society by Fromm). It isn't just you. We live in a society that drives people crazy, because it is, basically, a crazy society. Yes, YOU feel depressed and that's a big issue to you because, well, you feel what you feel, and it's hard to put that into the larger context.

To Nazgul, It is quite likely that you feel depressed, not out of any personal flaw, but because you live in, interact with, and are immersed in a lot of craziness not of your choosing. What kind of craziness? Well, the incessant messaging to buy stuff, the many messages that we get that we are inadequate and only XYZ PRODUCT will fix our deficiencies. Because a good share of society (school, work, the media, the government, the corporation--all that every day stuff) really doesn't care about us. If we aren't a means of making money for somebody, then we are of no use whatsoever. All that crap.

I suggested to Nazgul that he check out Escape From Freedom and The Sane Society. If you like those, there are a lot of other books by Fromm.

Fromm says, "Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence."