Meaningful opinions and Transactional Analysis

Most arguments can be rephrased along the following lines.

Person A: It’s like this.

Person B: No, it’s like this.

Person A: I know for an absolute fact that I’m right!

Person B: Don’t be silly, that’s just your opinion. In reality I am correct.

It is often impossible to prove objectively if Person A or Person B is correct, because there is insufficient information available to prove the case one way or another. Subsequently we may use consistency as a measure of opinion-validity. This means to say, if someone is prepared to live consistently with their stated opinion, then we say their opinion is valid, because they are prepared to stand by it. However, if someone is not prepared to live consistently with their stated opinion, then we say their opinion is artificial and casuistic.

In other words, if an opinion expresses a person’s innermost convictions, then we see that as a real opinion. On the other hand, if an opinion is stated casually and conveniently, but is not something the speaker is prepared to live by, we discount this opinion as empty talk.

Using Transactional Analysis terminology, it is possible to express this qualitative assessment in a quantitative manner.

Second order psychoanalysis

The high level psychoanalytic model suggested by Transactional Analysis is very simple and consists of three ego states: Parent, Adult and Child (see here). Human behaviour is far more complex than this simple model suggests, however.

One way in which Transactional Analysis theory refines the three ego-state model is by introducing second-order ego-states (or, sub ego-states). To wit, just as the whole psyche is understood to consist of three ego-states, so too each ego-state is understood to consist of a further three sub ego-states. (Transactional Analysis theory further suggests that each sub ego-state can be further subdivided into sub sub ego-states, and so on, to a very low level of granularity.)

This can be diagrammatically represented as follows.

Practically speaking, this means that each ego state (or, state of mind) has its own

• Controls: Sub-Parent
• Centre of reasoning: Sub-Adult
• Emotions: Sub-Child

In this way, each ego state (or, state of mind) has its own “life” and can function independently of the entire psyche. It is worthwhile noting that this is one of the most remarkable and significant suggestions made by Transactional Analysis theory.

An important ramification of this theory is that we understand that if someone hears voices in their head arguing with each other, then that person has a mental illness. According to Transactional Analysis it is perfectly normal for a person to experience inner dispute, since different ego-states may entertain different opinions. Most normal people do not “hear” these “voices” however, as the discussion is either peacefully internally resolved (by the Adult) or swept under the carpet by a compensatory mechanism.

Portrait of a second order ego-state

The following images demonstrate identification of the Parent, Adult and Child sub ego-states within an actual child. These sub ego-states, which represent a child’s initial response to life, are initially formed in childhood, but persist into adulthood.

Parent in the Child
A child displays parental behaviour, but in a childlike manner.

Adult in the Child
A child displays thoughtfulness, yet at the same time remains a child.

Child in the Child
The child’s pristine wonder and emotion.

Alternatively, we can identify Parent, Adult and Child sub ego-states within the Parent.

Adult in the Parent
The Adult in the Parent occurs when a parent assists their child by being rational.

Child in the Parent
The Child in the Parent occurs when a parent supports their child in an emotional manner.

Parent in the Parent
The Parent in the Parent occurs when a parent seeks to modify their child’s behaviour by asserting their parental rights.

A balanced opinion

Each ego-state (or, state of mind) has its own faculty of thought (or, point of view) and will tend to assess a particular situation in its own idiosyncratic manner.

• The Child ego-state will appraise a situation from the perspective of a child.
• The Parent ego-state will appraise a situation from the perspective of a parent.
• The Adult ego-state will appraise a situation impassively.

How then does the mind come to a definite conclusion concerning what is happening and what action to take (if any)?

Transactional Analysis suggests that in order to arrive at a balanced response, the Adult should act as the arbitrator between all thoughts and feelings in the psyche. In other words, the person should reflect, “I know that I can feel about this situation in various different ways, I believe the correct response is to balance these different feelings in the following manner.”

We can diagrammatically represent this mode of thinking as follows.

When a person expresses a balanced opinion, all ego states (frames of mind) are in agreement that this opinion represents their point-of-view. Thus the opinion is a “real” opinion, as it is an expression of the totality of the person and is something that the person would be prepared to live by.

A one-sided view

It is possible that instead of using the Adult as an inner mediator, a person could choose to respond to a particular situation from only one ego state, to the exclusion of all others. When someone responds to a situation from only one ego-state (frame of mind), then we say that this opinion is trivial and off-hand. Because the opinion is just something the person “can say”, rather than something that reflects everything the person “could say”, it is a throw-away comment.

When a person responds from only one ego-state then we say they are being unreal. For example, we may say:

• Child-centric opinion: He’s only saying that because he wants to have a good time.
• Parent-centric opinion: He’s only saying that because he’s angry.
• Adult-centric opinion: He’s only saying that because he hasn’t thought about who his decision will affect.

An opinion that is stated from only one internal point-of-view is hollow and insincere, however compelling it is from that point of view and however forcefully it may be stated.

In summary

We can differentiate between a sincere opinion and a throw-away comment by assessing whether the person who stated that opinion would be prepared to stand by their principles even if this would cause them loss.

In Transactional Analysis terms, this idea can be formulated as follows:

If an opinion stated by a person represents a consensus of the opinions of all ego-states, then this is a real opinion that is stated by the wholeness of that person. However, if an opinion is only representative of one aspect of that individual’s personality, then this is a throw-away comment that other facets of that person will override, when convenient.

Exercise

Go through the following thought-drill.

• When was the last time you expressed a strong opinion?
• Would you live by that principle, even if this caused you significant loss?
• Can you demonstrate to yourself how you have stood firm by this principle?
• If not, which particular frame of mind were you in when you stated the opinion?

Understanding why we express opinions can help us integrate our thoughts and live a fuller and more wholesome life.