Žaidimai, kuriuos žaidžia žmonės

by Eric Berne, Milda Dyke (Translator)

Dr. Eric Berne (1910-1970) – žymus JAV psichoanalitikas. Oponavo to meto psichoanalitinėms teorijoms. Sukūrė naują, revoliucinę teoriją – transakcinę analizę. Jos pagrindu parašė veikalą „Žaidimai, kuriuos žaidžia žmonės“ (1964).

Šioje knygoje E. Berne pristato Žaidimus ir transakcinę analizę plačiajai visuomenei. Anot autoriaus, Žaidimai yra ritualistinės transakcijos arba tarpasmeninio elgesio modeliai, kurie gali būti nuoroda į paslėptus jausmus ar emocijas. Ši knyga ir transakcinė analizė padarė įtaką milijonams žmonių.

Genres: Psychology, Nonfiction, Self Help, Science, Philosophy, Relationships, Personal Development

204 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1964

About the author

Eric Berne was a Canadian-born psychiatrist best known as the creator of transactional analysis. Eric was born on May 10, 1910 as Eric Lennard Bernstein in Montreal, Canada.He and his sister Grace, who was five years younger than Eric, were the children of a physician and a writer, David and Sara Gordon Bernstein.David Bernstein died in 1921, and the children were raised by their mother.

Bernstein attended Montreal's McGill University, graduating in 1931 and earning his M.D., C.M. in 1935.While at McGill he wrote for several student newspapers using pseudonyms. He followed graduation with a residency in psychiatry at Yale University, where he studied psychoanalysis under Paul Federn.

In 1943 he changed his legal name to Eric Berne.He continued to use pseudonyms, such as Cyprian St. Cyr ("Cyprian Sincere"), for whimsical articles in the Transactional Analysis Bulletin.

Berne's training was interrupted by World War II and his service in the Army Medical Corps, where he was promoted to the rank of Major. After working at Bushnell Army Hospital in Ogden, Utah, he was discharged in 1945.

Reviews

[Holly · Rating 3 out of 5]

i'm currently reading the 1960-something edition of this book although there is a 1996 edition. it really doesn't matter. i feel like i've found the holy grail. i know y'all's games bitches! that means ima gonna win! fuck yea! eat my metaphoric, insinuating, quadruple entendre shorts!

...no really, i'm learning some heavy shit about human relationships...

[Manny · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this book, Berne argues that a lot of the behaviour you see around you every day can best be understood as different kinds of "games". A game is a pattern of behaviour usually involving two or perhaps three people. There is a series of interactions, followed by an emotional payoff.

One of the things I found most interesting is that the classification has two dimensions. First, there's the game itself. Second, there's the question of how seriously you're playing: he divides this into First Degree, Second Degree and Third Degree. First Degree is just playing for fun. Second Degree means people's feelings can be badly hurt. Third Degree means that the game ends up "in the courts, the hospital or the morgue."

So let me give you an example. There's this game he calls RAPO (one of the most appealing aspects of the book is the witty labels he's made up for the different games). First Degree RAPO is a game you can see being played at almost any party. The first person, most often a woman, flirts with the second person, most often a man, until he expresses some concrete sexual interest. Then she frowns and moves on, leaving him feeling like a bit of a jerk. Her payoff is satisfaction that she's managed to discomfit him and reassurance that she has sexual power, but it's basically harmless.

In Second Degree RAPO, the first party leads the second party on until, again, he's made some kind of advances. Then she gets openly indignant. Maybe she tells him loudly to keep his hands off her, or she phones her friends and says that he's such a lecherous creep. Second Degree RAPO is a pretty nasty game, because it is of course impossible for third parties to know whether the accusations are true or not. Maybe the guy is just a lecherous creep.

In Third Degree RAPO, the first party may get as far as having consensual sex with the second party. She then calls the police and formally accuses him of rape. Third Degree RAPO is, fortunately, not that common. It's clear that it can easily destroy people's lives.

I thought it was insightful to point out that all of these are essentially the same thing: the difference is quantitative, not qualitative. I don't buy his analysis completely. But if he doesn't succeed in alerting you to a least a couple of games you're playing without realising it, then I really envy your ability to understand yourself and the things that motivate you.

[Fergus, Weaver of Autistic Webs · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Games People Play in this woebegone world - especially as performed by those with life-and-death powers over us - rendered me and my workplace friend Muriel pusillanimous.

Are you "nervous in the service?" My good friend Muriel - back in the "Don't know if I'm punched, bored or reamed " 1980's when we were lowly desk-mates - coined that phrase.

We certainly were.

I was a loser like her - but had no idea senior management was keeping close tabs on me, with an eye to career acceleration. I didn't see that they were playing Games People Play with me too.

I thought their alternating glares 'n grins were polite but distanced disciplinary management tools.

But there was MUCH more to it than that. INFINITELY more. And I had always avoided power, as a curse - an incentive to sketchy behaviour! As I say I was pusillanimous, not being a player.

So my aversion to sketchiness led me in the end to the Christian Faith.

Berne started out by positing that we can be treated as a child in a relationship paternalistically or maternalistically - or treated as an Adult. In the first mode the little guys are judged or loved - in the third, just respected.

Here is where Transactional Analysis tried to Transcend Freud. Gone are our transactional quagmires if we're 'adult' about them.

Presto - in one flash of the magic wand we're forgiven. Even-tempered and happy.

But Freud said we should Still Feel Guilty, like me and Muriel. Until we accept our nothingness. Freud is right. At least that's a step towards faith. And a step that will hound us ALL into the Afterlife!

Berne is right ONLY in a superficial sense. But only that. Otherwise, he is a little dumb...

Life is deep. T.S. Eliot warns us to "gently dip" (into the subject) - "but not too deep." Otherwise, you'll find yourself enmired - like the explorers who set out for the New World - in a Sargasso Sea of self-doubts.

THIS IS NO JOKE. Be careful what you take away from what, in the end, you will see to have been too many leading questions in this book. Don't go there.

Instead, savour, as you skim this book, its "aha!" Moments. There are some.

Many of us, like me and Muriel, have known what it is to fall between the cracks. We find ourselves " left-handed, lost." We are RIGHT, I'm afraid. We are all, say our churches, guilty.

We KNOW we're not OK, Because the World is Not OK.

God forgives. The world? Never, for those who feel fallen. The world judges them. Depressive folks will tell you Berne's a crock. He just puts a shiny, pop veneer on an old, tired world.

Muriel could relax a bit, once she had a fresh coffee from the office vending machine, by regaling me with her woebegone explorations with her Jewish analyst, Moses.

Moses was a serious therapist who persisted in trying to see her mental blockages. Alas - all Muriel and I took away from our therapists was the sheer angst of self-doubt. Do you see now why we were nervous in the service?

Life was no fun in Stress City - an apt handle for our jobs in the supply section. And no, we were not OK. The world had judged us.

Folks, people DO play games with you.

Many around us, like T.S. Eliot's "young man carbuncular" are ""assured of certain certanties."

Be careful.

Muriel was my confidante, and only chuckled with me, not at me. For she was a Believer. And she and her friend Robert renewed my faith for me.

So, through her good graces, I became an MCF member - a Christian group that met weekly for bible study and prayer.

And for Muriel and me, that seed of faith grew into an immense oak -

That sheltered us in the end from life's storms -

And, in our old age has given us shade from the Blazing Sun of Judgement.

[Candace Dempsey · Rating 1 out of 5]

Games People Play has a good chapter about dealing with alcoholics, but Berne's ideas (and I do mean ideas) about women and homosexuals are disgusting and sexist. This book was published in the 1960s and it shows. Scary to think modern psychologists might actually use it as a text or that college students would have to listen to Berne's ugly ideas about women and gays. Nowadays we use research, not "ideas."

[Rebecca · Rating 3 out of 5]

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.

[Anne · Rating 3 out of 5]

The games referred to aren't actual games.
Duh.
They're the things we do, without realizing why we're doing them, that fills a need in our lives. It may not be a healthy need but it's a need that we think we...need?
You know what I mean.
Transactional Analysis is something Berne came up with to describe this behavior in the 1950s, and it's still in use.



The basic gist is that your interactions and conversations all have a deeper psychological meaning.
A lot of the mumbo-jumbo (when you behave as the Parent, the Child, the Adult) seems like utter horseshit to me. However, I think it's only fair to admit that it's probably valid. It's just that I think it sounds dumb when you say stuff like that out loud.
But I'm trying to grow as a person, goddammit.
What I'm trying to convey is that your mileage may vary with some of the things presented in this book, depending on how touchy-feely you are.



Now, some of it is so old-fashioned that I did the lol thing. Frigid women and perverted homosexuals...dear god. But there were chords of things that I have seen in my own life experiences that made me go WHOA! - I know that person or have had that conversation.



I didn't expect to take much away from a psychology book written in 1964, but I did actually find a few nuggets of wisdom and a teeny bit of insight.
And that's really all I hope for with books like these.
Recommended. Ish.

[Mandi · Rating 4 out of 5]

I’m glad I read it, but it wasn’t ultimately everything that I wanted it to be.

The theory at the beginning was absolutely fascinating and, even though the books itself is from the 1960’s, it has significant value for being the start of the field of transactional psychology.

However, the description of the games themselves was where I found the book lacking. Mostly, this is where I also felt the impact of the book being so dated. Some of his descriptions of games were based on stereotypical gender behavior of that time, but would not be accurate now, nor would his analysis. However, I think that a lot could still be learned even from those games if he had gone into further analysis, but he didn’t. He names the game, goes through a brief write-up, but doesn’t really delve in. What I wanted was to get the description of the game, see an example provided by an analysis, then see an example of the antithesis with similar analysis. Only once does he provide an example of an antithesis.

Possibly this analysis that was missing for me could be found in other supplemental psychological texts or in a class discussion in which this book was assigned. However, for someone who is reading on their own for only their own personal benefit, it was lacking. Still, this is the historical beginning from which transactional theory arose and, learning about transactional theory for the first time, it was an incredible read.

[James Rye · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found the general concept an interesting metaphor (rather than a scientifically proven social reality). However, I struggled to finish the book. It felt like a series of scribbled notes thrown together - a set of index cards with brief information on 'games'. I needed further explanation and an attempt to engage me rather than having a series of ideas thrown before me.

[Farnoosh Farahbakht · Rating 4 out of 5]

با خوندن این کتاب متوجه شدم که چقدر توی زندگی به بازی گرفته شدم و خودآگاه یا نا خودآگاه دیگران رو بازی دادم!!
در این کتاب "اریک برن" فرضیه ای به نام "حالات من" در خصوص حالت های روانی فرد رو مطرح می کنه که شامل "والد"،"بالغ" و "کودک" است و بعد نظریه بازی ها رو بر اساس همین حالات معرفی میکنه که هر شخص با کدوم حالت خودش وارد این بازی ها میشه.بازی رشته ای حرکت است با دام و کلک که تا رسیدن به نتیجه پیش می رود و در آن حتما برد مطرح است.
در بخش دوم کتاب نویسنده به بازی های معمول بین آدم ها می پردازه که جالب ترین بخش کتاب هست و این بازی ها رو به بخش های مختلف دسته بندی می کنه مثل "بازی های زندگی" یا "بازی های ازدواج" و ... برای این بازی ها اسامی جالبی رو انتخاب کرده مثل "اگر به خاطر تو نبود" ، "حالا گیرت آوردم پدر سگ" و "چرا فلان کار رانمی کنی - آره، اما" و .... خوندن این کتاب تجربه بسیار جالبی بود مخصوصا این که برای هر بازی یک "آنتی تز" نیز ارایه داده بود که البته همیشه هم بدون عواقب نخواهد بود و چون بازی را به هم زده ایم باید منتظر عکس العمل سخت طرف مقابل بود! قسمت هایی از کتاب کمی تخصصی بود و فکر می کنم برای متخصصین بیشتر قابل فهم است.

[Sara Kamjou · Rating 3 out of 5]

کتاب بازی‌ها نوشته‌ی اریک برن با استفاده از نظریه‌ی تحلیل رفتار متقابل (TA) به توضیح نحوه‌ی وقت‌گذرانی و به ویژه بازی‌هایی می‌پردازه که در زندگی روزمره تو ارتباطاتمون به صورت ناخودآگاه استفاده می‌کنیم. بازی‌ها یک کتاب تخصصی روانشناسیه که برای خوندنش باید حتما از نظریه‌ی تحلیل رفتار متقابل آگاهی داشته باشیم.
تو این کتاب، بازی‌ها با اسم‌های خلاقانه‌ای توضیح داده می‌شن ولی نوع توضیحات و دسته‌بندی‌ها مبهم هستن. مثلا در حال توضیح یک بازی که تیتر مربوط به اونه، از بازی‌هایی اسم برده می‌شه که قبلش تو کتاب اسمی ازش نیومده و یا وسط یه بازی به توضیح در مورد بازی‌های دیگه پرداخته شده که گیج کننده می‌شه چون نمی‌شه تو ذهن به خوبی طبقه‌بندیش کرد.
نکته‌ای که در مورد این کتاب خیلی مهمه اینه که این بازی‌ها یه احتمال هستن و نه یه قطعیت. به ویژه خوانندگان غیر روانشناس باید اینو بدونن که هر کس به این نحوی که تو کتاب توضیح داده شده رفتار کنه لزوما در حال بازی کردن نیست و مواظب باشیم به کسی برچسب نزنیم.
به نظر من مزیت این کتاب بیش از هر چیزی در ایجاد شناخت و آگاهی از رفتار خودمون هست که ببینیم اگر در حال بازی هستیم نسبت بهش بینش پیدا کنیم و در تلاش باشیم هوشیارانه‌تر زندگی کنیم و ارتباطاتمون رو واقعی‌تر بسازیم.

[Kaj Sotala]

I find this book impossible to rate.

On one hand, it some had very insightful models about human behavior. For example, there is the notion of "strokes" - a metaphor for any social interaction in which one person acknowledges the existence of another. As the book defines them:

‘Stroking’ may be used as a general term for intimate physical contact; in practice it may take various forms. [...] By an extension of meaning, ‘stroking’ may be employed colloquially to denote any act implying recognition of another’s presence. Hence a stroke may be used as the fundamental unit of social action.

In the book's model, social rituals such as saying hello and asking "how are you" are reciprocal trades of strokes. Both of the people in question give each other some number of strokes, while maintaining an intuitive calculation of exactly how many strokes they owe each other, depending on the nature of their relationship and the time from their last encounter. And if e.g. I say "Hi" to someone and they don't greet me back, I might be offended - because I have given them one stroke, but they haven't reciprocated by giving me a stroke in return.

The titular "games" are defined as social transactions with some ulterior motive and a payoff. For example, if A and B are going to a movie together and A gets offended over something that B said, B might reply with "if you are in one of your bad moods, then I will not go with you, and you might as well go alone". This has an ulterior motive, since B does not really want to go home; the purpose of the statement is to get A to placate B. A may now play along, in which case B wins; or A might refuse to play by pretending not to understand the motive behind B's statement, saying something like "in that case I will go alone, then".

So far, so good, and there is quite a bit of insightful analysis of some games. Unfortunately however, there is also lots of 1960s sexism, homophobia, and outright bizarre Freudian theory. Some of the described games resonate intuitively - and reading the description of some, I realize that I've either played them myself, or been the target of others. At the same time, other games sound way too specific, and the motives ascribed to the players more like the product of the author's biases than a realistic description. The attitudes implicit in many of the described games - such as the suggestion that a game played by some women is to intentionally seduce men so that the women can then falsely claim to have been raped - are bothersome enough that I don't feel like I can give this book a positive rating.

[Fereshteh · Rating 2 out of 5]

اریک برن بنیان گذار "تحلیل تبادلی" با این کتاب به صورت مختصر به مباحث همین موضوع پرداخته: " حالات نفسانی" که به سه دسته ی والد، بالغ و کودک تقسیم می شوند ،"تبادل" و انواع اون از گونه های مکمل، متقاطع و نهفته و در نهایت تعریف "بازی ها" و انواعش. با توجه به اسم کتاب انتظار میره مبحث سوم مبسوط تر باشه و بیشتر بهش پرداخته شده باشه که در مقایسه با دو مبحث اول، همین طور هم هست ولی باز هم طبق تصورات و انتظاراتم نبود

با توجه به آشنایی مختصری که با مبحث اول و دوم داشتم بیشتر برای آشنایی با مبحث دوم به خوندن این کتاب رو آوردم. تصورم بر این بود که برن به تک تک بازی هایی که تا اون زمان یافت شده بود با یه توضیح تئوری وار و توصیف و تفسیرش بر اساس حالات نفسانی ، یکی دو تا مثال و در نهایت آنتی تز بازی مورد بحث ، بازی ها رو معرفی کنه ولی گاها یه بازی تنها به ذکر فقط و فقط یک مثال ختم می شد


برن در تمایز "بازی" از "عمل " گفته: عمل یک تبادل ساده یا رشته ای از تبادل های تعهد شده است که به منظوری خاص انجام می گیرد. اگر شخصی از شخص دیگر تقاضای تایید کند و درخواستش برآورده شود یک عمل انجام گرفته است. اگر شخصی از شخص دیگر تقاضای تایید کند و درخواستش برآورده شود و سپس آن تایید بر ضد تاییدکننده به کار گرفته شود یک بازی انجام شده است. بازی در ظاهر بسیار شبیه عمل است اما تنها بعد از برد است که مشخص می شود این اعمال در واقع رشته ای ترفند بوده اند نه درخواست های صادقانه

بازی ها همه بد نیستند . برن یک فصل رو به بازی های خوب اختصاص داده ولی در مجموع برای بازی ها سه درجه قائل شده. درجه یک جلوی عموم قابل اجراست. درجه دو صدمه غیر قابل جبران وارد نمی کنه ولی طرفین ترجیح میدن جلوی انظار اجرا نشه و درجه سوم علاجی نداره و عاقبت به بیمارستان و دادگاه یا سردخانه ختم میشه

برن برای تک تک بازی ها نامی خلاقانه انتخاب کرده و چندین بار قبل از شروع و توضیح مبحث به این نام ها برای مثال هاش اشاره می کنه. ولی عملا با این مثال ها ، خواننده ی هنوز ناآشنا با اون بازی رو سردرگم می کنه. این طور هم که از ریویوی بعضی از فرنگی ها دستگیرم شد پرداختن به موضوع "همجنس خواهی" در رابطه با بازی انحراف در روابط جنسی و همچنین نقش زنان در بعضی از مثال هاش از بسیاری از بازی ها خیلی به مذاقشون خوش نیومده. البته کتاب جدید نیست و مثال ها و موضوعاتش به سال 1960 برمی گرده

نتیجه این که با وجود چندان مفید نبودن کتاب، مبحث همچنان برام جذابه. این که بدونیم کل عمرمون یا داریم بقیه رو بازی می دیم یا خودمون طرف بازی هستیم جالبه. از اون جهت که شاید حواسمون رو جمع کنیم تکرارش رو کمتر کنیم و مانع از ایجادشون بشیم. اگه با این کتاب به خواسته م نرسیدم خب! کتاب های دیگه ای هستن

[Meg Sherman · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a fascinating psychological journey into the minds of everyday people (including, and probably ESPECIALLY, your own). Berne's list of psychological "games" we all play with each other is fascinating, as is what you learn about yourself by analyzing which games you tend to revisit regularly.

One little warning: When you learn to recognize these games, you will be forced to eliminate at least 95% of the B.S. in your life and frequently find yourself disgusted by 100% of the B.S. in everyone else's. That being said, if you're on a quest for honest communication, this book is indispensable.

[Jay Green · Rating 1 out of 5]

Unconvincing pseudoscientific psychobabble.

[Mandana Shadi · Rating 3 out of 5]

" هدف اریک برن از نوشتن این کتاب دادن اطلاعات بیشتر در تعریف و تحلیل بازی ها ( روانشناسی روابط انسانی ) است که به طور خلاصه در مبحث تحلیل رفتار های متقابل مطرح شده است و خواننده با مطالعه آن می‌آموزد که چگونه خواسته ها و نیازهای خود را به طور مستقیم بیان کند ، بی آنکه از طرد شدگی ، تمسخر دیگران و نادیده گرفته شدن بترسد .... "

[bird · Rating 1 out of 5]

I finished it, but at what cost

[Mekhala Bhatt · Rating 4 out of 5]

My absolute darling of a father has been badgering me to read this book since I was a kid.(strange request to make to a seven year old, but oh well, strange family). But now I see what all the fuss was about.This book is quite the "A-ha, I see your such and such play, and I raise you this seemingly innocuous play". Dare I say it's a bit of enlightened fun when you can even scratch the surface of deciphering something so complex as Human Relationships.

On a psychological-interactive playfield Berne's book is invaluable, it really equips us to call people out on their pattern of behaviour or at least learn how to handle a variety of people if one so wishes to play along.

I guess the introspective takeaway from Berne's book is that when people don't want to be emotionally vulnerable or truly intimate they fall into playing roles, this mask is convenient, lazy and predictable.It's also easier to get caught in a pattern of deceiving yourself, and in a way believing you are what role you play.Which is tragic because one is so scared of unmasking that they would never realise whether their actions and feelings are "real" or just part of the "act" they have taken up as a default.

[Bren fall in love with the sea. · Rating 3 out of 5]

“Awareness requires living in the here and now, and not in the elsewhere, the past or the future.”
― Eric Berne, Games People Play

Here's the thing about this book.

I come from a family of Psychologists, social workers, ETC. I have read many books on this subject from human relationships, to dysfunctional people to transactional Analysis and human behavior, maladaptive behavior , personality disorders. I love some of these books, hate others, are in between on most.

This remains one of the few I could not complete.

Not because it is not good. It is. Not because it isn't educational. Believe me it is.

But it is also incredibly complicated. Many real life examples are used which normally I love but for such a short book, there was so much information crammed in, I simply could not understand much of it. Vert complicated writing and not in a format I could really follow.

I felt so bad not liking this! It is one of my dad's favorites but then again he is a Doctor (psychologist....although I guess many a Republican would say that doesn't count) but he actually understood my dilemma. The writing was simply to much for me.

I do recommend it . I have not had this issue in my other reads of this genre. This is the only one and I'd been looking forward to reading it. The only reason I gave up was, not because the writing is not good but because it so crammed with facts to the point my brain started to ache. I do feel bad about not finishing t his one as it does offer alot in terms of the negotiating the ins and outs of toxic or unhealthy relationships. Maybe a better fit for others who have an easier time with this type of writing.

[Sarah · Rating 3 out of 5]

Basically, you're manipulating everyone and everyone you know is manipulating you!

Admittedly, this book is flawed. Because the author is primarily concerned with interpersonal games, he tends to put every possible scenario within that context. Some of his ideas are now dated, bordering on offensive. Nevertheless, I found the book to be all kinds of enlightening and tremendously useful. I recommend it under the assumption that wise readers will be able to sort the good from the bad.

[Seth · Rating 5 out of 5]

smart. Falls into the category of books that give you the secret reason for why things happen the way they do.

[Joshua R. Taylor · Rating 2 out of 5]

From the start it felt like the model of human relationships Berne describes in this book had so much potential. I think to some extent people already intuitively know that we play social games with each other, quite often without noticing. This book rigorously formalises these games and explores how they're often used to fulfil some need or lack of intimacy. The school of psychotherapy spawned by Berne, transaction analysis, appears to have many practical mental tools and models of thinking for people and therapists alike.

This book however was a bore. There isn't any other way of getting around it. The theory was briefly outlined at the start and bits at the end, almost like reading some lecture notes. In-between some common 'games people play' were listed and categorised by their context. At the start these games were interesting but they eventually became monotonous and difficult to stay with. It's such a shame and it's frustrating to me as a reader because the topic feels like it has so much potential.

There's also the other issue of the book being written for the social and societal context of 1960s USA. This makes all of the gender-specific games hopelessly inapplicable to modern gender roles and many of them definitely step into the boundaries of being needlessly sexist. Alongside this there are also some...interesting (read stupid) ideas about the motivations behind homosexual men.

Lastly, it dawned on me around halfway through the book to ask "how much of this has been empirically verified?" It's fine to state these formal mental models that appear to fit in well with our lives, but who's to say that it doesn't just give an illusion of a good fit? The book, being an introduction to the field of transaction analysis, was likely published before any such studies could take place. But until I get some idea of how much of the book's theory has been at least loosely replicated by psychologists (if this can be done at all) I shall have to regard its theory and models with a healthy dose of scepticism.

[Mothwing · Rating 1 out of 5]

DNF at 70%

This book is not only heavily reliant on Freudian and Jungian paradigms (and thus hermeneutics rather than evidence-based psychology) but also displays a stunning amount of sexist bias. Not for me, though the premise is fascinating.

[Bridgette Hayes · Rating 1 out of 5]

Don’t waste your time on this book. I shouldn’t be surprised, it was written in the 1960’s, but Berne’s sexist, racist, and homophobic stereotyping and generalizing is beyond unscientific. If anything, this book should serve as a case study in the misogyny in the sciences during that time. It exemplifies the lack of research and attention given to women’s behavior and psychological workings. Oh, and it was boring, too.

[Alireza · Rating 3 out of 5]

بخونید تا بفهمید:
اول با بقیه چه رفتاری را در پیش گرفته اید
و
دوم، بقیه با شما چه رفتاری می کنند

[Ardon · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not a book I particularly enjoyed reading.

For one thing, the author uses a lot of strange terms throughout the book without ever properly defining them. I found myself constantly looking back to try and see if I missed something.

The writing style is also very jarring and generally hard to follow.

Another issue is that the main subject of this book, transactional analysis, is apparently a somewhat outdated model of human interactions, something I only found out about halfway through the book.

Overall, this book isn’t really a very reliable guide to analysing social interactions and human behaviours, which was what I was hoping it would be.

[Ivva Tadiashvili · Rating 4 out of 5]

ეს წიგნი საქართველოში ყველაზე მაგარმა ფსიქოლოგმა და ჰიპნოზის ოსტატმა ლევან შატბერაშვილმა მირჩია.
იი ჰუუუ, და თან ასე მითხრა "თავიდან საკუთარი მშობლები შეგზიზღდება მარა მერე გადაგივლისო"
მშობლების ზიზღი და ესა ისა გამოვლილი მაქვს უკვე, მაგრამ ძაან საკაიფო წიგნი აღმოჩნდა. ფსიქოთერაპევტებისთვისაა დაწერილი, მაგრამ რომანივით იკითხება.
ადამიანები კი ვიცოდი რომ თამაშობდნენ, მაგრამ ბერნმა ძაან კარგად გაშალა თამაშები და როლები.
მგონი ძალიან ცოტა თამაშს ვთამაშობ, აი ეხლაც ამ რევიუში მე ვთამაშობ თამაშს "ნახეთ რა მაგარი ვარ"
ანუ ბავშვის როლში ვარ და მშობლებისგან შეფასებას ველოდები. ან შეიძლება ვთამაშობდე "მოკრძალებული ბრძენი", ყველაფრის მოსმენისთვის მზად ვარ და პრეტენზიები არ მაქვს. ან რავი კიდევ ბევრი თამაში. მაგრამ მაინც ცოტა თამაშის თამაში მიწევს, არ მიწევს როლების ცვლა.
მოფერების საინტერესო დეფინიცია ქონდა ბერნს. ეწერა რომ მოფერება არის არსებობის დადასტურება. ძაან საინტერესო დეფინიციაა. მერე ბერნი გადავიდა რომ ადამიანს რომ ელაპარაკები უდასტურებ რომ არსებობს და ეგ უკვე მოფერებააო.
თვითონ ბერნი ფიქრობდა რომ 50 წელში თამაშები აღარ იარსებებდა, და რას არ იარსებებდა იმენა სახეს იხევს სასტავი. :დდ უფრო მეტი როლები და უფრო მეტი თამაშია. და თან სოციალურ ქსელებში სადაც უფრო რთულია გაარჩიო ვინ რა თამაშს თამაშობს.
ერთ მომენტში ბერნმა ქვეცნობიერს უფრო ლოგიკური რამ უწოდა ვიდრე ცნობიერს და ეს ძაან მომეწონა.
რამოდენიმე ადგილას ძალიან სექსისტური და ჰომოფობიური შეიძლება მოეჩვენოს ბევრს, მაგრამ ძალიან მოკრძალებულად ლაპარაკობს ბერნი და შეურაწყოფათ ვერ მიიღება. :დდ
რავი ძაან კარგი წიგნია, ფსიქოთერაპევტებს ძაან გაუსწორდებათ და არაფსიქოთერაპევტებსაც დაეხმარებათ თავის გამორკვევაში, შეიძლება მართლაც მშობლებით შეგზიზღდეთ, მაგრამ თვითნ ბერნმა როგორც თქვა თამაშებიდან თავის დაღწევის გზა ძველ მშობლების ტრადიცი���ბზე ამაღლება და მშობლებისგან განთავისუფლებაა.

[Youssef · Rating 4 out of 5]

لماذا يتصرف الناس بالطرق التي نراها ؟
ما الذي يدور في نفوس الآخرين أثناء تعاملاتهم ؟
هل تمثل التعاملات الإجتماعية نافذة لفهم النفس البشرية ؟
لماذا يكرر البعض تصرفات نمطية مؤذية لأنفسهم وللآخرين ؟

الألعاب النفسية. تلك إجابة الطبيب النفسي إريك بيرن، مؤلف الكتاب ومشيد نظرية التحليل التبادلي في العلاج النفسي، التي تهدف لتحليل النفس بناء على المعاملات الإجتماعية، والعكس.

ينقسم الكتاب لشقين؛ الجزء الأول تمهيد للمفاهيم الأساسية التي تقوم عليها الألعاب النفسيه، والجزء الثاني تفصيل لتلك الألعاب كما استخلصها الكاتب من خبرته.

أسلوب الكاتب صعب و معقد. فهو لا يسير على نمط يسهل فهمه للقارئ العادي، بل هو أقرب لاستكمال كتاب سابق، فالكاتب يفترض أنك بالفعل على دراية بالمبادئ الرئيسية لنظرية التحليل التبادلي Transactional analysis وقادر على فهم الأساس النفسي للألعاب المختلفة بسهولة. حتى أن الكاتب يقوم بذكر أمثلة من تلك الألعاب قبل الوصول لشرح تلك الألعاب ! يمكن تفسير ذلك بأن الكتاب هو بالفعل استكمال لكتاب سابق لنفس المؤلف، ولكن يؤخذ عليه ادعاؤه أنه يمكن فهمه بسهولة بشكل منفصل.

في بداية قرائتي أصابني الإحباط من صعوبة الأسلوب المستخدم وعدم قدرتي على استيعابه، وكدت أن أتخلى عن قراءته، حتى بدأت الجزء الثاني، وهو -كما علمت فيما بعد- الجزء الذي يحظى بالاهتمام الأكبر وكان سببا في انتشار الكتاب. للوهلة الأولى شعرت بمزيج من الرهبة والانبهار. لقد كان الكاتب يصف حيل نفسية نمطية مألوفة تماما، يحللها لمكوناتها المجردة، ويشير إلى العائد النفسي الناتج عن كل منها. لم أستطع منع نفسي من استرجاع مواقف مختلفة مررت بها لأناس أعرفهم وآخرين عرفت عنهم و وجدت تلك الأنماط تنطبق عليهم تماما وبدقة مُربكة. وكذا انعكس تفكيري على نفسي، ووجدت أني أقوم بذلك أحيانا، بإدراك أو بدون. في ظني أن لحظة الاستنارة تلك هي ما شعر به كل من قرأ الكتاب، وهي سبب انتشاره بين أوساط العامة.

سأحاول اختصار النظرية بشكل مبسط :
١. كل طفل مولود في حاجة إلى نوع من الاستثارة. وهي في ذلك العمر استثارة حسية بشكل أساسي. بينما يكبر يظل الاحتياج موجودا بينما تقل مصادره، فيبحث الطفل عن أقرب مصدر لإشباعه حتى يجده في أبسط التعاملات الاجتماعيه، فينقلب إلى احتياج للاستثارة الاجتماعية.

٢. تظهر للإنسان حاجة أخرى وهي حاجته لتمضية وقته في فعل شئ ما لتفادي الملل الوجودي، فيظهر الاحتياج لتشكيل أو استهلاك الوقت.

٣. وجود استثارة من أي نوع أفضل من عدم وجود أي مثير، سواء كانت تلك الاستثارة إيجابية أو سلبية. (وتلك نقطة محورية في سبب وجود بعض الحيل المؤذية لأصحابها)

٤. ما يحتاج إليه الإنسان لإشباع حاجته للاستثاره الاجتماعية (المكافئة للحسية في حديثي الولادة) هو الحميمية؛ بمعناها الحقيقي وهو التواصل الإنساني العميق الذي يتميز بالدفئ والتقبل والصدق والحب.

٥. لأن الحميمية صعبة المنال، ولا نصل إليها بشكل سهل متواصل، وقد لا يصل إليها البعض أبدا، فإننا نلجأ للألعاب الإجتماعية المختلفة، لإشباع حاجاتنا بشكل مغاير للحميمية الصادقة.

٦. بداخل كل منا ثلاث ذوات مختلفة. ثلاثة من (الأنا) : الراشد والأب و الطفل.

٧. في كل معاملة اجتماعية يتخذ كل شخص ذات من الثلاثة، ويتخذ الآخر ذات أخرى إما مكافئة للطرف الأول أو مغايرة له.

٨. الألعاب هي معاملات اجتماعية تتميز بالخداع، ففي ظاهرها (الاجتماعي) تكون بين الذات الراشدة في كل من الطرفين، بينما في باطنها (النظير السايكولوجي) تكون بين ذاتين آخرين. هذا هو أساس الألعاب. و يسميها الكاتب ألعاب لا تقليلا لأهميتها، بل لكونها نمطية؛ لها قواعد و أدوار و مسار مُتوقع ومكافأة شعورية ختامية.

مثال على لعبة :
يعرض (س) مشكلة ما على أصدقاؤه، فيسارعوا بتقديم حلول مقترحة، يقوم س برفضها واحد تلو الآخر، موضحا لماذا لا يصلح أي منهم لحل مشكلته. ينتهي الأمر بصمت الأصدقاء، وهو تحديدا مؤشر انتصار (س) في تلك اللعبة، التي تهدف لرفض الحلول بدلا من تقبلها. ظاهريا يبدو الأمر تعامل بين (راشد) س مع (راشدين) أصدقاؤه، بينما باطنيا تقوم المعاملة بين (طفل) س العنيد الذي يجد رضاؤه في رفض حلول (آباء) أصدقاؤه.

كذلك تتدرج الألعاب في حدتها وتصميم لاعبيها من أنواع غير مؤذية إلى أشكال أخرى أكثر جدية، وأحيانا ذات نتائج كارثية.

مع استكمال قرائتي للكتاب، قل انبهاري بالألعاب المذكورة، ووجدت بعضها محاولة من الكاتب لتعميم النظرية بشكل مطلق، وتطبيقها في غير موضعها، حيث ربما يكون الداعي للتصرف عوامل أخرى مختلفة.

يجدر الإشارة بأن الكتاب صادر في عام ١٩٦٤، في وقت كانت نظريات فرويد مازال لها سيادة في أوساط التحليل النفسي، ونستطيع أن نلمس تأثر الكاتب بذلك. وعليه لا تؤخذ كل المفاهيم المذكورة بشكل مطلق؛ فبعضها يميل للفلسفة أكثر من العلم، مثل تقسيم الشخصية إلى ثلاث ذوات مختلفة، وهو رأي -وإن بدا منطقيا أحيانا، بل ومفيد أيضا- لا يمكن إثباته أو نفيه بمنهج علمي. لذا ينبغي أخذ مفاهيمه بحذر لتفادي تعميمها بشكل ساذج، أو التخوف منها لدرجة البارانويا المفرطة.

في المجمل الكتاب مفيد، ويلقي الضوء على الألاعيب النفسية التي يلعبها الناس، بما فيهم أنا وأنت، سواء كان ذلك في مجال الإدراك أو خارجه. مما يمدك بالوعي الكافي للتعامل مع ألعاب الآخرين، وإدراك ألاعيبك الشخصية، واستبدالها ببحث عن حميمية صادقة.

أختم باقتباسي المفضل في خاتمة الكتاب :

"For certain fortunate people, there is something which transcends all classifications of behavior, and that is awareness; something which rises above the programming of the past, and that is spontaneity; and something that is more rewarding than games, and that is intimacy."

[Behdad Ahmadi · Rating 4 out of 5]

از کتاب هایی که خوندنش بر هرکدام از ابنیاء بشر واجب تاکیدی ست.
تمام زندگی انسان رو دسته بندی می کنه، و یکی از زیر-زیر-بخش هاش رو که تبادل های مضاعف یا بازی های اجتماعی نام داره، شرح میده.

برن توضیح میده که انسان سه وجهه شخصیتی داره. کودک، که تمام رفتار های خلاقانه و قانون شکن و ساده ازش منشا میشه. والد، که جنبه شخصیتیه که نصیحت می کنه، بزرگسالانه ست و درواقع اثریه که والدین ما توی ما به جا گذاشتن و ما هم اون رو به بچه هامون منتقل می کنیم. و بالاخره بالغ، که جنبه کاملا منطقی و تاثیرناپذیر از احساساته.

تبادل های مضاعف، یا بازی های اجتماعی، تبادل هایی هستن که یک ظاهر دارن و یک باطن. در ظاهر، شاید به نظر برسه دو نفر دارن با وجهه بالغشون با هم صحبت و تعامل می کنن. اما با بررسی روانشناختی مشخص میشه این تبادل بالغ-بالغ نیست، بلکه کودک-والده. این روابط بازی نام دارن.

این کتاب تعداد زیادی از بازی ها رو معرفی و بررسی می کنه و براشون روش مقابله یا آنتی تز ارائه میده.

با خوندنش، میتونید با رویه تاریک و خودخواهتون آشنا بشید و بفهمید شما چیزی که خودتون فکر می کنید نیستید. دلیل خیلی از رفتار های خود و اطرافیانتون رو درک می کنید و زندگیتون بی شک یک درجه ی بزرگ ارتقا پیدا می کنه.

شدیدن توصیه میشه.

[cypt · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ir labai patiko, ir nervavo, ir mąsčiau, kad tai turėtų būti required reading. Taigi žvaigždutės ir pridėtos, ir nuimtos per kančias.

Knyga - transakcinės (santykių) psichoanalizės / psichologijos vadovėlis; ji pirmiausia parašyta specialistams/ėms, ir tai justi: daug kas visai neaiškinama, tik probėgšmiais mestelima, o tau jau galva džiūna nuo info ir nebesupranti, ar čia buvo esminė pastaba, ar ne. Ir priešingai: daug dėmesio skiriama tam, kaip aprašyti atvejį, kokia galima jo raida ir sprendimo būdai. Taip pat: skaičiau seną leidimą ("Vagos" psichologijos knygų serijos); nežinau, ar naujas geresnis, bet seno vertimo klaidos buvo net su tušinuku vietomis pataisytos ankstesnių skaitytojų. Gal ir tas galėjo prisidėt prie įspūdžio, kad daug kas nukąsta, užmesta, išvardyta kaip konspektuose.

Bet labai patiko du dalykai.
Vienas - tai, dėl ko skaičiau; žaidimo kaip soc. ir psichologinės sąveikos samprata ir įvairių žaidimų aprašymas, pastabos, kokie vaidmenys dalyvauja vienam ar kitam žaidime - santykyje tarp žmonių. Pvz, net išsižiojus skaičiau apie žaidimą "Alkoholikas" - kodėl, kokiu tikslu jis žaidžiamas, kiek žaidėjų turi dalyvauti, ką čia veikia "gelbėtojas" (kuri/s būtinai privalo būti ir t. t.). Tas aprašytas labai išsamiai; daugeliui kitų žaidimų vietos skiriama mažiau arba jie tiesiog paminimi: štai šitą žaidžia moterys tada ir tada.
Labai gera dalis: kiekvieno žaidimo aprašymo gale trumpi škicai, kokiai baimei ar apskritai psichologiniam turiniui paslėpti / realizuoti ar pan. yra žaidžiamas tas žaidimas. Pvz, vieni susiję su kalte ir jos atsikratymu, kiti - su artumo baime, treti - su noru kontroliuoti.
Visi tie dalykai skirtingi, ir tą pravartu prisimint, nes buitiniam psichologizavime (kai kairėn dešinėn diagnozuoji sau ar kitiems A, B ir C) viskas dažniausiai subendrinama į kažkokius labai abstrakčius teiginius: žmonės siekia galios, žmonės ginasi. Žodžiu, jei skaitai šitą knygą su tikslu geriau suprasti pasaulį, bet pirmiau - save, bus daug naudos. O juk tas ir yra psichologinės literatūros malonumas+dalia.

Antras dalykas - visai nesitikėjau, gal banalu, bet kažkaip nebuvau apie tai pagalvojus. Tai pati pamatinė knygos prielaida - kam žmonės žaidžia tuos žaidimus. O žaidžia tam, kad sustruktūruotų laiką - kad jis įgytų prasmę, nes be to tai - arba beprasmis laukimas, kas bus nuo gimimo iki mirties, arba kažkoks mistinis (gąsdinantis) sąlytis su pasauliu, buvimas "čia ir dabar". Šito posūkio nesitikėjau, atrodė keista, gal perdėm njueidžiška. Bet bandymas struktūruoti laiką, tai, kad iš esmės mes daugeliu santykių ir bendravimų tik norim kažkuo susiįdominti gyvenimą - apie tą nebuvau pagalvojus. Apie soc. interakcijas ir manipuliacijas visada galvodavau labiau kaip apie išlikimo dalyką - kad griebiesi to iš bėdos. Bet gal ir ne.

Galiausiai numušiau žvaigždučių už tai, kokia tai vis dėlto beviltiškai pasenusi knyga - diskurso atžvilgiu. Moteris Berne'as aprašinėja vos ne kaip Freudas - visos manipuliatorės, visos nesaugios; kai kur specifikuoja: vienus žaidimus žaidžia "pagyvenusios moterys airės", kitus paauglės, trečius dar kitokios. Tas pats ir tautiniu pagrindu: va 4-ojo dešimtmečio pabėgėliai iš Vokietijos turi daug baimių ir dažnai iškrenta iš terapijos. Labadiena? Kai tokį dalyką perskaitai, vis pagalvoji - o gal ir ta žaidimų analizė yra nubraižyta va taip, ant 5 stereotipų ir su 0 dėmesio žmogaus backgroundui. Tokia struktūralistinė, teorinė. Įdomi, kaip ir teisinga, bet - gal tik dar viena schema, kurios gražiai atrodo, bet išmąstytos logiškai, ne išdirbtos per įvairiapusį bendravimą su žmonėm.

[Danni Green · Rating 3 out of 5]

The basic idea behind this book -- that human interactions often follow patterns, and many of these patterns can be described in the manner of games and understood better if analyzed as such -- is fundamentally sound, and a really useful paradigm. The book contains a lot of victim-blaming and creepy gender constructions, which detract from the overall message. But I found the basic concepts to be valuable, and would be really interested to read more contemporary, less misogynistic perspectives on this topic.