Just recently I was in conversation with a mate about the games and attitudes that cause problems in relationships. Now a few days latter I did some revision to see if my argument stood up with some of the literature that I have access to. So to refresh my memory I did a review of some book I have read in the past such as "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus", "5 Love Languages", and "Games people play: The psychology of human relationships". So I will try to put these 3 book in a nut-shell, along with a audio cast I bought called "10 Stupid Things Couples Do to Mess Up Their Relationships" by Dr. Laura Schlessinger - (2003), although some of her sentiments' I do not prescribe to, though the fundamental idea of her talk is spot-on in my view. So the starting question that started this conversation was, "why do people play games in a relationship that hurt the other person?". It was a big question with no simple answer, because we all have such a various and divers upbringing, experiences, and temperaments. Not to mention the different theories that are out there that try to explain human interaction, and some of them are alike with subtle differences. But in the end we pick a theory, or pick aspects out of several theories that explain situations, according to our liking. When males and females communicate there is a miss-mach of styles, men are "fix-it" orientated and females are "listen to me" orientated. So if a female talks to a male the female will get a fix-it response, as the male will look for the problem to solve and try to fix-it. Whereas if a male asks a female something the female will try to understand the problem but offer no fix-it response. Also if a male has got a problem and feels that the female cannot help or just make the problem worse, the male will say nothing. This makes the female feel that there is a secret, and the male is hiding something, which is not true. On the other hand if a female wants to sit and talk about a situation with a male, the expectation is that the male is now a substitute female, because this is a bonding exercise for females, and the females' wants to bond with the male. The male in this situation needs to learn how to understand the situation, empathise with the female and try not to give it a fix-it response. Like wise a male will want a solution to a problem, males do not want empathy, and understanding, they just want the problem fixed. But because males are hunters, the pack mentality will emerge and the male will seek out a leader in the field and get another male to help fix the problem. (Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus). Though the ways we communicate love between partners is difficult, and with the stimulus response, the Pavlovian view is that we habituate to our partner's behaviour, thus take less notice of the little things in the relationship. Though according to the book "5 Love Languages" it is not this, it is the ways we communicate love and the ways we interpret other peoples behaviour as a communication of love. Words them self don't do it, it is in the way we walk, talk, notice, and treat the other. But why is it that so many know that they love each other at the beginning of a relationship, but it dies later on. He calls the communication of love as Love language. But if one person talks one language of love and the other speaks another language, the communication of love is lost in translation, thus love dies. Just in every form of communication, there is a sender and a receiver and the message, but what if the sender is sending a love communiqué in their own language and the receiver does not know that language the message is lost and never understood. The response to the Pavlovian view is that at the beginning of a relationship we use the shotgun approach to sending messages, that is we send messages of love in every language conceivable, but over time we always go back to our native language of love and neglect to send the massage of love in the receiver's language. This goes for males and females alike. Thus we don't habituate to our partner, we just don't speak their language when we want to say "I LOVE YOU" with our actions and or words. There are five fundamental love languages, each with their own various dialects. The 5 love languages are based on keeping the "love tank full" in the other person. This is just like keeping the fuel tank full in the car, if the car is empty the car will not go, likewise if the love tank is not full in one of the persons in the relationship the relationship will not go either. The idea is to know the other person's love language or emotional needs of being loved to keep their love tank full. But those things that we are blind to at the beginning of a relationship will become the things you hate the most, and you are blind to them because of the shotgun use of love languages. This gives you the false feeling that you are in love and the relationship has a full tank which may last the relationship a few hundred kilometres. This dose not mean that you need to end the relationship, it means that the couple needs to learn to know how to speak the right love language.
Words of affirmation, like "I need you", "I love you"
Quality Time with full attention and sympathetic listening.
Receiving gifts, this could be a shell, food, or anything that means something to the giver, it is a thing that says "I am thinking of you". By spending money on the other is investing in the relationship. Physical presents in the time of crises are the biggest gift you could give to your partner.
Acts of service, this means that you do things for them, like dusting, cooking, painting, keeping the garden, setting the table and just doing things for the other that takes time and effort for their partner.
Physical Touch, this not just sex, it also includes holding hands, hugs, kissing, and friendly nudges. Physical contact when watching TV means more that all the cocking the other person can do. Dr. Laura Schlessinger maintains that a couple should be friends and confidant before one gets married and have sex. Well this is because the straw fire love has a short shelf life and will dye. So her answer is to wait and get to know each other first. However she does state that the person you are dating will be the person you will live with, that is if there are behaviours there that you do not like, don't think the other person will change. All in all, people don't change, unless there is a large disaster in their life. Thus if you date a drunken person, be prepared to live with a drunken person. Also if you date a person that likes putting you down, be prepared to live with those put downs. She follows that the main part of relationship break up is from Self-centred egotism, with the feeling of entitlement, to look after Number One and forget others. The splitting and fragmenting society is teaching us that we are individuals with no responsibility, or consequences, further dating is now a sport and a competition to get as much as possible with as many people as possible. This all forgets that the core of all society and relationship is about stability and a collectivist view, this type of view is seen as "old fashion". But this Old fashion view is what is in our hearts. Furthermore people have mixed up priorities, by chasing a career instead of looking after the kids and the relationship, like a career is more important that your kids. How ever in the book "Games people play: The psychology of human relationships" by Eric Berne, looks at the psychological interaction in a relationship and the social interaction in a relationship. The author sees that each person take on roles in the "game" of relationships, where a person interacts on several levels at once. A person can interact in a psychological manner either as a parent, adult or child, and on the social level in the same thee levels. Thus when dating a person, he/she may be interacting as an adult in the social realm, but one may be the child in the psychological realm. Berne describes that the games we played as a child with our parents are repeated as an adult, but instead of trying to get a toy or attention in a childish manor we play the same games as an adult, just a bit more refined. The thing is that we are still looking for the same "pay-offs" as we did as a child, just now we are grown. The pay-off is not the item of desire, it is the how the self is affected, so putting a person down is the child within saying "I am smarter than you, I want to be the centre of attention in this conversation". Just as a child smashes a toy so other kids cannot play with it, does not mean the kid hates the toy, he just does not want others to have joy from the item. In a relationship the adult that emotionally destroys their partner, is not because he/she hate their partner, it is because they do not want others to enjoy the person they are or in face the partner finding joy with others. This is a threat to the controller, because they see the partner as the source of their self worth, thus talking with another will threaten the controller. Berne also states that the action in the game is secondary to the pay-off. If a person harms another or ruins the furniture, the action is secondary, the pay-off is that he/she needs to apologise and is the centre of attention. All these games are scripts that are either constructive or destructive, or in other words optimistic or pessimistic. The constructive game player builds other up to get a pay-off, while the destructive puts others down to get the pay-off, as I understand it. Berne warns that some people need these games so much that if the game is taken away through rehabilitation of some sort the person can have a psychosis.
"ALL games have an important and probably decisive influence on the destinies of the players under ordinary social conditions; but some offer more opportunities than others for lifelong careers and are more likely to involve relatively innocent bystanders." P.30
So all in all, there is no simple answer to why people play the games they do, though I like the Berne's as it fits in with the Hero's Journey. It is when the Hero is playing a destructive script, the hero wants to get hurt, and wants the other around them to be the rescuer and persecutor. It is when the destructive hero become seen as be rehabilitated from playing their game, the destructive hero merely changes role in the game, but they are still playing the game. Thus to use Berne's example of the Alcoholic, he/she needs to be persecuted and needs a rescuer. When the Alcoholic reforms, the Alcoholic changes role to the rescuer, but the alcoholic is still playing the same game. I also like the 5 love languages theory, firstly it is much like a role based theory of Berne's, there are givers and the takers, sometimes we are the givers and other times we are the takers in the role, and I can see that in a relationship that these roles are swapped so both parties have a chance to play the Hero in the relationship story. Secondly, I do feel that we all interpret actions of love differently based on our upbringing. I hope I have not confused you with this posting.
Just recently I was in conversation with a mate about the games and attitudes that cause problems in relationships. Now a few days latter I did some revision to see if my argument stood up with some of the literature that I have access to. So to refresh my memory I did a review of some book I have read in the past such as "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus", "5 Love Languages", and "Games people play: The psychology of human relationships". So I will try to put these 3 book in a nut-shell, along with a audio cast I bought called "10 Stupid Things Couples Do to Mess Up Their Relationships" by Dr. Laura Schlessinger - (2003), although some of her sentiments' I do not prescribe to, though the fundamental idea of her talk is spot-on in my view. So the starting question that started this conversation was, "why do people play games in a relationship that hurt the other person?". It was a big question with no simple answer, because we all have such a various and divers upbringing, experiences, and temperaments. Not to mention the different theories that are out there that try to explain human interaction, and some of them are alike with subtle differences. But in the end we pick a theory, or pick aspects out of several theories that explain situations, according to our liking. When males and females communicate there is a miss-mach of styles, men are "fix-it" orientated and females are "listen to me" orientated. So if a female talks to a male the female will get a fix-it response, as the male will look for the problem to solve and try to fix-it. Whereas if a male asks a female something the female will try to understand the problem but offer no fix-it response. Also if a male has got a problem and feels that the female cannot help or just make the problem worse, the male will say nothing. This makes the female feel that there is a secret, and the male is hiding something, which is not true. On the other hand if a female wants to sit and talk about a situation with a male, the expectation is that the male is now a substitute female, because this is a bonding exercise for females, and the females' wants to bond with the male. The male in this situation needs to learn how to understand the situation, empathise with the female and try not to give it a fix-it response. Like wise a male will want a solution to a problem, males do not want empathy, and understanding, they just want the problem fixed. But because males are hunters, the pack mentality will emerge and the male will seek out a leader in the field and get another male to help fix the problem. (Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus). Though the ways we communicate love between partners is difficult, and with the stimulus response, the Pavlovian view is that we habituate to our partner's behaviour, thus take less notice of the little things in the relationship. Though according to the book "5 Love Languages" it is not this, it is the ways we communicate love and the ways we interpret other peoples behaviour as a communication of love. Words them self don't do it, it is in the way we walk, talk, notice, and treat the other. But why is it that so many know that they love each other at the beginning of a relationship, but it dies later on. He calls the communication of love as Love language. But if one person talks one language of love and the other speaks another language, the communication of love is lost in translation, thus love dies. Just in every form of communication, there is a sender and a receiver and the message, but what if the sender is sending a love communiqué in their own language and the receiver does not know that language the message is lost and never understood. The response to the Pavlovian view is that at the beginning of a relationship we use the shotgun approach to sending messages, that is we send messages of love in every language conceivable, but over time we always go back to our native language of love and neglect to send the massage of love in the receiver's language. This goes for males and females alike. Thus we don't habituate to our partner, we just don't speak their language when we want to say "I LOVE YOU" with our actions and or words. There are five fundamental love languages, each with their own various dialects. The 5 love languages are based on keeping the "love tank full" in the other person. This is just like keeping the fuel tank full in the car, if the car is empty the car will not go, likewise if the love tank is not full in one of the persons in the relationship the relationship will not go either. The idea is to know the other person's love language or emotional needs of being loved to keep their love tank full. But those things that we are blind to at the beginning of a relationship will become the things you hate the most, and you are blind to them because of the shotgun use of love languages. This gives you the false feeling that you are in love and the relationship has a full tank which may last the relationship a few hundred kilometres. This dose not mean that you need to end the relationship, it means that the couple needs to learn to know how to speak the right love language. Words of affirmation, like "I need you", "I love you" Quality Time with full attention and sympathetic listening. Receiving gifts, this could be a shell, food, or anything that means something to the giver, it is a thing that says "I am thinking of you". By spending money on the other is investing in the relationship. Physical presents in the time of crises are the biggest gift you could give to your partner. Acts of service, this means that you do things for them, like dusting, cooking, painting, keeping the garden, setting the table and just doing things for the other that takes time and effort for their partner. Physical Touch, this not just sex, it also includes holding hands, hugs, kissing, and friendly nudges. Physical contact when watching TV means more that all the cocking the other person can do. Dr. Laura Schlessinger maintains that a couple should be friends and confidant before one gets married and have sex. Well this is because the straw fire love has a short shelf life and will dye. So her answer is to wait and get to know each other first. However she does state that the person you are dating will be the person you will live with, that is if there are behaviours there that you do not like, don't think the other person will change. All in all, people don't change, unless there is a large disaster in their life. Thus if you date a drunken person, be prepared to live with a drunken person. Also if you date a person that likes putting you down, be prepared to live with those put downs. She follows that the main part of relationship break up is from Self-centred egotism, with the feeling of entitlement, to look after Number One and forget others. The splitting and fragmenting society is teaching us that we are individuals with no responsibility, or consequences, further dating is now a sport and a competition to get as much as possible with as many people as possible. This all forgets that the core of all society and relationship is about stability and a collectivist view, this type of view is seen as "old fashion". But this Old fashion view is what is in our hearts. Furthermore people have mixed up priorities, by chasing a career instead of looking after the kids and the relationship, like a career is more important that your kids. How ever in the book "Games people play: The psychology of human relationships" by Eric Berne, looks at the psychological interaction in a relationship and the social interaction in a relationship. The author sees that each person take on roles in the "game" of relationships, where a person interacts on several levels at once. A person can interact in a psychological manner either as a parent, adult or child, and on the social level in the same thee levels. Thus when dating a person, he/she may be interacting as an adult in the social realm, but one may be the child in the psychological realm. Berne describes that the games we played as a child with our parents are repeated as an adult, but instead of trying to get a toy or attention in a childish manor we play the same games as an adult, just a bit more refined. The thing is that we are still looking for the same "pay-offs" as we did as a child, just now we are grown. The pay-off is not the item of desire, it is the how the self is affected, so putting a person down is the child within saying "I am smarter than you, I want to be the centre of attention in this conversation". Just as a child smashes a toy so other kids cannot play with it, does not mean the kid hates the toy, he just does not want others to have joy from the item. In a relationship the adult that emotionally destroys their partner, is not because he/she hate their partner, it is because they do not want others to enjoy the person they are or in face the partner finding joy with others. This is a threat to the controller, because they see the partner as the source of their self worth, thus talking with another will threaten the controller. Berne also states that the action in the game is secondary to the pay-off. If a person harms another or ruins the furniture, the action is secondary, the pay-off is that he/she needs to apologise and is the centre of attention. All these games are scripts that are either constructive or destructive, or in other words optimistic or pessimistic. The constructive game player builds other up to get a pay-off, while the destructive puts others down to get the pay-off, as I understand it. Berne warns that some people need these games so much that if the game is taken away through rehabilitation of some sort the person can have a psychosis. 
No comments:
Post a Comment