2015 Book Review #6: Games People Play

[jethrien]

Title: Games People Play
Author: Eric Berne
Genre: Psychology
Thingummies: 3

Synopsis: A overview of transactional analysis, including a taxonomy of the various mind games people play and what they get out of what appears to be dysfunctional interactions.

Thoughts: This was apparently a very big thing when it was published in the 70s, and I can see why. It’s a very interesting way of viewing the world. Unfortunately, like many psychology theories, it takes what is a clever conceit that explains some odd aspects of human interaction and then tries to apply it to everything regardless of whether it fits or not. Add in some very seventies thought processes (which are rather out of favor at the moment but the author probably thought of as universal without realizing how much was a product of the time), and you end up with a rather dated, if still interesting, book.

The thesis is that whenever you see people engaged in repetitive interactions that appear to be negative, they’re probably getting something out of it subconsciously. So while someone in a controlling relationship complains about how much their partner limits them, they secretly both enjoy having something to complain about and are actually afraid of the thing they’re being forbidden—the reason they chose this partner in the first place is to have an excuse not to have to do the forbidden thing.

The book then goes on to identify a few dozen of these “games”. Most of them are very familiar, and it’s a fruitful way of examining interactions. In applicable cases, it not only provides some reasonable explanations for behaviors that seem inexplicable on the surface, getting to the root of the game offers a way to actually break the pattern. If you’re game playing to feed a deep desire, trying to curtail the surface behavior without addressing the root of the desire will not be particularly effective.

However, I think most modern psychologists would say that a number of the games identified have more root causes than this text makes out. The attempt to extrapolate the theory to apply to all behavior oversimplifies things. Just as bad, a number of the observations are deeply sexist, racist, and/or homophobic—very much products of the time. Furthermore, there’s an attempt to apply a Freudian framework that I’m pretty sure has been mostly discredited by the scientific community in the intervening decades. (Every problem does not need to be classified as phallic, oral, or anal. Really.)

So it’s an interesting work with some still-applicable ideas. Just don’t try to apply them too hard.

Comments

[ivy03.livejournal.com]

I read this a while ago, and agree with you on pretty much everything. My grandmother was very influenced by this book, so it at least helped me understand some of my family dynamics. I think it was most useful in explaining those interactions where, like, someone appears to be asking for advice but shoots down everything you suggest--cause they don't actually want advice, they want commiseration. Least useful in explaining like...alcoholism. That was kind of a stretch.

[jethrien.livejournal.com]

Oh god, the alcoholism section.