Introduction

What makes a conspiracy theory so tenacious that it seems almost immune to reason?

In this post, we’ll explore a theory of conspiracy theories grounded in Transactional Analysis (TA). By understanding TA’s three ego states—Parent, Child, and Adult, we’ll see why certain beliefs become so entrenched that no amount of contrary evidence can dislodge them.

Transactional Analysis (TA)

Transactional Analysis (TA) is a psychological framework developed by Dr. Eric Berne. It posits that our personalities comprise three core ego states:

1. The Parent Ego State: This is the internal authority figure, carrying rules, moral judgments, and societal norms.
2. The Adult Ego State: This is the rational mediator, processing information logically and drawing on objective facts.
3. The Child Ego State: This is the emotional centre, embodying spontaneity, curiosity, creativity, and vulnerability.

In a balanced psyche, these states interact fluidly. For instance, you might shift to your Parent ego state to guide a friend, slide into Child mode when enjoying playful creativity, or rely on your Adult ego state to solve a difficult problem logically.

However, it’s also possible for one or more ego states to become constant—rigid and dominant—leading to fixed patterns of behaviour and perception.

Below, we’ll unpack how this “constant ego state” phenomenon can set the stage for conspiracy theories to take root. 

Constant Ego States

A constant ego state occurs when someone habitually operates from only one of their three states, treating it as their default personality. Instead of shifting fluidly between Parent, Child, and Adult as needed, they become stuck in a particular role.

Once an ego state becomes constant, it acts as a lens through which a person interprets the world. Their personality and interactions become narrowly defined by the strengths—and blind spots—of that singular ego state.

The Constant Parent: The Moral Enforcer

A person stuck in the Parent state sees everything through the lens of rules, duties, and moral obligations. They often take on authoritative or nurturing roles, but may also be rigid, judgmental, or controlling.

• Example: Martha, the Overprotective Caregiver: She always knows what’s best for everyone, offering advice even when it’s not wanted. She struggles to relax and sees those who break rules as irresponsible or immoral.
• Example: Gerald, the Stern Judge: He believes there’s a “right way” to do things and quickly condemns those who don’t follow it. Any challenge to his views feels like a personal attack.

➡ Reality Filter: Constant Parent personalities believe the world should operate according to a clear moral structure. They dismiss emotional nuance (Child) and undervalue new information that contradicts their pre-existing moral framework (Adult).

The Constant Adult: The Detached Analyzer

A person stuck in the Adult state views reality through pure logic, rationality, and data analysis. While objective and methodical, they may dismiss emotions and moral considerations as “irrational.”

• Example: David, the Sceptical Analyst: He refuses to engage with anything that isn’t backed by hard data. Emotions make him uncomfortable, and he sees morality as subjective and impractical.
• Example: Elise, the Over-Rationalized Problem Solver: She excels at planning and decision-making but struggles to connect with people emotionally. When a friend shares a personal struggle, she responds with solutions rather than empathy.

➡ Reality Filter: The Constant Adult believes truth is only what can be proven logically, dismissing moral instincts (Parent) and emotional depth (Child). They may struggle with warmth, intuition, or ethical considerations. 

The Constant Child: The Emotional Reactor

A person stuck in the Child state experiences the world through emotions, desires, and immediate gratification. They are often creative and expressive but may struggle with impulse control, fear, or dependency.

• Example: Lena, the Eternal Optimist: She sees life as an adventure and avoids responsibility. Any attempt to set boundaries feels like an attack on her freedom.
• Example: Kyle, the Fearful Dependent: He constantly seeks reassurance and struggles with self-trust, deferring decisions to authority figures or external validation.

➡ Reality Filter: Constant Child personalities prioritize feelings and immediate experiences over structured reasoning (Adult) or long-term moral principles (Parent). They seek excitement, safety, or emotional validation, often ignoring inconvenient facts.

How Constant Ego States Reinforce Themselves

Rather than engaging all three ego states fluidly, a person in a constant state finds their worldview rigid and self-reinforcing. They selectively interpret new information in ways that confirm their dominant perspective:

• The Constant Parent sees new ideas as either morally right or wrong.
• The Constant Adult filters reality through logic, disregarding emotional or moral dimensions.
• The Constant Child interprets information based on how it makes them feel.

Thus, each constant ego state selectively interprets (and believes) only what corroborates its own stance, even if it conflicts with broader, more objective notions of truth.

However, something even more interesting happens when multiple people with constant but complementary ego states come together: they form a symbiosis, creating a macro-personality that collectively processes their own version of reality. 

Symbiosis: When Constant Ego States Join Together

The term “symbiosis” in Transactional Analysis is borrowed from biology and refers to a psychological merger where two or more people rely on each other to maintain a shared personality.

The way this psychological mechanism functions can be described as follows.

Symbiotic Macro-Personalities

In a healthy psyche, the Parent, Child, and Adult ego states interact fluidly, allowing an individual to adapt to different situations with balance and self-sufficiency. These internal states support and regulate each other, creating a harmonious and integrated personality.

For example, in a healthy psyche:

• The Adult analyses facts and makes rational decisions.
• The Parent provides moral guidance and structure.
• The Child offers emotional authenticity, playfulness, and creativity.

Each ego state communicates and collaborates, preventing a person’s thoughts and behaviour from becoming “trapped” in one specific ego state. This dynamic flexibility allows a person to engage with reality effectively, integrating emotions, logic, and values into a coherent sense of self.

However, in a symbiotic relationship, this internal balance is externalized.

Instead of an individual maintaining their own inner equilibrium, two or more people with constant ego states unconsciously merge to form a pseudo “macro-personality”—a system that mimics the structure of a healthy single psyche, but with each participant taking on only one role in the dynamic. 

Merging Individuals Together

In a symbiotic relationship, each member of the symbiosis merges together with the other person in the symbiosis so that they:

• Offer their dominant ego state as their contribution to the shared dynamic.
• Surrender their missing ego states (i.e. their frailties) to their counterpart.

This means that rather than internally balancing Parent, Child, and Adult, the members of a symbiotic relationship create an externalized division of labour, in which each person embodies their strongest ego state and relies on the other to process the aspects of reality which they have excluded from their own personality.

This interdependence allows each person to feel psychologically “complete,” but only through their partner’s participation in the symbiosis.

Effectively this means that by sharing ego states, members of a symbiotic relationship achieve a state of being that functions like a distributed mind, where the entire system behaves as if it were a single person—but with the psychological roles divided between its members.

Ego State Specialisation in Symbiotic Relationships

When two individuals with constant ego states form a symbiotic relationship, they unconsciously divide up the psychological functions of Parent, Child, and Adult, creating a shared composite personality.

Each person’s dominant ego state assumes a specific role within the symbiosis, processing reality on behalf of both members while depending on the other to fulfill the missing functions.

This division of labour means that:

• A Constant Parent might take on the role of the moral authority, dictating what is “right” and “wrong”, but lack playfulness (Child) or independent logical thinking (Adult).
• A Constant Child might supply emotional energy and spontaneity, but lack discipline (Parent) and rational objectivity (Adult), relying on others for structure.
• A Constant Adult may act as the detached intellectual, processing everything through logic, while avoiding deep emotional engagement (Child) and moral accountability (Parent).

This setup creates psychological interdependence, where each person gives their dominant ego state while surrendering the missing ones.

In other words:

• A healthy psyche integrates the Parent, Child, and Adult internally, allowing for flexibility, independence, and personal growth.
• However, a symbiotic relationship distributes these roles between people, leading to mutual psychological dependence—where each person relies on the others to function as a whole psyche.

As the fixed psychological roles interlock, they create a functional illusion of wholeness—but the cost is that each participant remains psychologically dependent on the other.

Additionally, the more rigidly these roles are maintained, the more resistant the macro-personality becomes to outside influence, trapping its members in a shared and distorted reality. 

In Real Life

The following practical examples show how symbiotic relationships may be played out in real life.

The Boss & The Follower (Parent-Child Symbiosis)

How It Works

• The Parent acts as the authority, deciding what is true, right, or best.
• The Child trusts and follows the Parent’s lead, avoiding independent thinking.

This creates a top-down relationship where the Parent filters reality and the Child absorbs it without question. The Child borrows certainty from the Parent, while the Parent borrows obedience from the Child.

Example Interaction: The Office Enforcer

🔹 Setting: A corporate office where Mr. Thompson (Constant Parent) is a department head known for his strict leadership style. Emily (Constant Child) is a junior employee who has aligned herself with him and acts as his unofficial enforcer. A new hire, Jason, unknowingly questions Mr. Thompson’s approach in a team meeting.

🔹 The Setup: Parent Sets the Reality, Child Enforces It

• Thompson (Parent Boss): “In this department, we don’t waste time on pointless data analysis. We trust experience over spreadsheets. I’ve been in this industry for 30 years, and I know what works.”
• Emily (Child Enforcer): (Nods eagerly) “Exactly. Every time we try to reinvent the wheel, it just slows us down. That’s why we stick with Mr. Thompson’s methods.”
• Jason (New Hire): “I get that experience is valuable, but wouldn’t it help to compare our results to industry benchmarks? We might find ways to improve efficiency.”

🔹 The Challenge: An Outsider Questions the System

• Emily (Alarmed): “Wait, are you saying Mr. Thompson’s approach isn’t efficient? Because we’ve been doing it this way for years, and it always works.”
• Jason: “Not at all, I’m just saying there’s always room to refine things based on data.”
• Emily (Defensive): “Yeah, but trusting data over instincts is risky. That kind of thinking just creates confusion. Mr. Thompson has already figured out the best way.”

🔹 The Defence: Child Runs to Parent for Reinforcement

After the meeting, Emily rushes to Mr. Thompson’s office.

• Emily (Frustrated): “Jason’s questioning your methods! He’s saying we should rely more on spreadsheets and data instead of trusting your experience.”
• Thompson (Calm but Firm): “Typical new hire nonsense. These young guys think they know everything just because they can make a chart in Excel.”
• Emily (Relieved, Smug): “That’s what I thought! He just doesn’t get how things actually work around here.”
• Thompson: “Exactly, eventually, he’ll either fall in line or realize this isn’t the right place for him.”

🔹 The Reinforcement: Parent Validates Child’s Emotional Need

• Emily: “Right. I’ll make sure everyone sticks to the process. He just needs to see how we do things the right way.”
• Thompson (Pleased): “That’s why I trust you, Emily. You don’t get distracted by all these trendy ideas. Keep holding the team accountable.”

What’s Happening?

• The Parent (Mr. Thompson) dictates the “truth”—his experience is absolute, and questioning it is unnecessary.
• The Child (Emily) absorbs his authority as her own and polices others to maintain it.
• When Jason challenges the system, Emily doesn’t engage with the argument logically—she feels emotionally threatened and rushes to the Parent for reassurance.
• Thompson validates her fear, reinforcing her role as enforcer and cementing his own authority.

Why It Works for Them

🔹 For Emily (Child Enforcer):

• She doesn’t have to think critically—she just trusts and defends Mr. Thompson’s authority.
• She feels secure and important by enforcing his rules on others.
• If someone challenges the system, it feels like a personal attack on her identity.

🔹 For Mr. Thompson (Parent Boss):

• He doesn’t have to justify his approach with actual evidence—his authority is enough.
• Having Emily enforce his views means he doesn’t need to engage in direct arguments
• The more defensive Emily gets, the more he feels validated in his leadership.

The Bigger Picture: Why They Resist Change

• The Parent (Mr. Thompson) refuses to engage with outside ideas, framing new perspectives as unnecessary distractions.
• The Child (Emily) clings to the Parent’s authority for emotional stability, seeing challenges as threats rather than opportunities.
• If someone questions the system, they double down together—Emily fights the battle emotionally, while Mr. Thompson remains calmly dismissive, reinforcing his superiority.

🡺 Final Effect: This macro-personality acts like an authoritarian system—truth is determined by status and tradition, not by facts or analysis.

The Over-Thinker & The Over-Feeler (Adult-Child Symbiosis)

How It Works

• The Adult takes on the role of the rational expert, supplying “facts” or explanations.
• The Child adopts those explanations and emotionally commits to them.
• When someone challenges the information, the Child feels personally attacked and seeks reassurance from the Adult rather than re-evaluating the information.

This creates a closed-loop system, where:

• The Child absorbs the Adult’s logic as unquestionable truth.
• The Adult sees the Child’s emotional conviction as proof that the explanation is valid.
• The Child defends the information emotionally, while the Adult defends it intellectually—reinforcing each other’s stance.

Example Interaction

🔹 Setting: A college student (Alex, Constant Child) and his older brother (Mike, Constant Adult) are discussing the moon landing with a sceptical friend (Jamie).

🔹 The Setup: Child Learns from Adult

• Mike (Adult): “You know, the moon landing was faked. There’s a ton of evidence—like the flag waving in a vacuum and the lack of blast craters under the lander.”
• Alex (Child): (Wide-eyed) “Wow! That makes so much sense! I never even thought about that.”
• Mike: “Yeah, NASA just wanted to beat the Russians, so they staged it all. If you look at the footage, you can clearly see shadows going in different directions—proving it was filmed on a set.”
• Alex: (Excited) “That’s insane! I can’t believe I believed the government’s lies this whole time!”

🔹 The Challenge: Someone Questions the “Facts”

Later, Alex brings up the theory in a group discussion.

• Alex (Child): “The moon landing was totally faked. My brother explained it to me—it’s obvious!”
• Jamie (Sceptic): “Wait, what? No way. The flag moved because of how it was handled, and the shadows are from multiple light sources. There are actual rock samples from the moon. NASA has tons of evidence.”
• Alex: (Getting anxious) “No, that’s not true. I mean, I don’t know all the details, but my brother showed me the proof. He’s super logical, and he researches this stuff way more than you do.”
• Jamie: “I don’t know, man. Have you actually looked at the counterarguments? Just because your brother says it doesn’t mean it’s true.”

🔹 The Defence: Child Runs to Adult for Support

Feeling emotionally threatened by the challenge, Alex turns to Mike to restore his confidence.

• Alex (frustrated, to Mike): “Jamie’s saying the moon landing was real! He says NASA has proof. That’s baloney, right?”
• Mike (calm, logical tone): “Of course it’s baloney. The so-called ‘rock samples’ could’ve come from anywhere—Antarctica, meteorites. And think about this: if we really went to the moon, why haven’t we been back in over 50 years?”
• Alex (relieved): “Yeah! That makes total sense! Jamie just hasn’t looked into it enough.”

🔹 The Reinforcement: Adult Validates Child’s Emotional Need

• Mike: “Exactly. People don’t want to believe they’ve been lied to, so they cling to the official story. You’re one of the few people who actually question things, and that’s a good thing.”
• Alex: (Smugly) “Yeah, I guess Jamie just isn’t ready to accept the truth.”

What’s Happening?

• The Adult (Mike) supplies the “rational” foundation—he’s the source of information that the Child relies on completely.
• The Child (Alex) doesn’t analyse the evidence—he just absorbs it emotionally and attaches his identity to it.
• When Jamie challenges the idea, Alex doesn’t evaluate the facts—instead, he feels personally attacked and seeks reassurance from Mike.
• Mike validates Alex’s emotions while supplying more “facts” to keep him secure in the belief.

Why It Works for Them

🔹 For the Child:

• Alex doesn’t have to research the theory himself—he just trusts Mike.
• He feels special and enlightened for knowing a “hidden truth.”
• When challenged, he avoids critical thinking by falling back on emotion—his brother’s certainty is enough proof for him.

🔹 For the Adult:

• Mike doesn’t have to emotionally engage—he stays in a detached, logical stance.
• Seeing Alex emotionally invested makes Mike feel intellectually validated—if Alex is so convinced, Mike must be right.
• The stronger Alex’s emotional reaction, the more Mike feels like he’s “won” the argument, reinforcing his role as the logical authority.

Why Symbiotic Pairs Resist Change

In a symbiotic relationship, each person shares their dominant ego state with the other while borrowing the ego states they lack. This creates a distributed personality, where neither individual fully processes reality on their own—instead, they rely on each other to function as a whole.

Because of this interdependence, changing a belief becomes nearly impossible without disrupting the entire symbiosis.

Here’s why:

The Shared Ego State Can’t Change

• Each person is locked into their assigned role—if one person were to shift their perspective, they would no longer be providing the same function to the relationship.
• For example, if a Constant Parent started questioning their moral certainty, the Constant Child would suddenly feel unprotected and destabilized.
• Since their roles are mutually reinforcing, change in one person threatens the structure that both rely on.

The Borrowed Ego States DEFINITELY Can’t Change

• Since each person outsources their missing ego states to the other, they have no direct control over them.
• If a Constant Child relies on their partner to provide structure (Parent) or logical reasoning (Adult), they can’t change those aspects of themselves—they aren’t personally developing them, just borrowing them from the other person.
• This means the Child can’t develop independent logic, just as the Adult can’t develop emotional spontaneity, because those functions have been handed off to their counterpart.

🡺 Final Effect: Since all ego states are shared, it is impossible for any part of the belief system to change without disrupting the entire psychological balance.

Why This Makes Their Beliefs So Rigid

Because the symbiosis itself depends on maintaining fixed roles, new perspectives aren’t just seen as different ideas—they are threats to the relationship itself.

✔ If a Constant Parent questions their own moral stance, the Constant Child feels abandoned.
✔ If a Constant Adult questions their logic, the Constant Child feels betrayed.
✔ If a Constant Child stops emotionally validating their partner, the Constant Adult feels lost.

Since changing even one belief destabilizes the symbiosis, the easiest way to maintain stability is to reject any challenge outright.

This is why symbiotic pairs:

✖ Dismiss outside perspectives immediately—to maintain their fixed roles.
✖ Defend each other’s positions aggressively—because questioning the belief system threatens both of them.
✖ Double down on their worldview—because there is no psychological room for change.

Fuelling Conspiracy Thinking & Ideological Rigidity

This rigid belief-protection mechanism makes symbiotic pairs particularly vulnerable to conspiracies, ideological bubbles, and cult-like thinking.

Because each person’s identity is merged with the belief system, changing their mind would mean dismantling their role within the relationship—something that feels far more threatening than simply being “wrong.”

🡺 Final Conclusion: Symbiotic relationships don’t just make beliefs rigid—they make them feel fundamental to existence. Changing a belief isn’t an intellectual process; it’s a personal crisis that threatens the structure of the self and the relationship.

Summary

When an outside perspective challenges a symbiotic pair:

• The Parent dismisses it as morally wrong or dangerous.
• The Adult discredits it as illogical or misinformed.
• The Child rejects it as threatening or upsetting.

Since each person’s ego state depends on the other’s validation, questioning their beliefs would destabilize the entire relationship. Rather than reassessing their views, they double down together, reinforcing their shared reality and rejecting outside perspectives as threats.

This closed-loop thinking makes symbiotic pairs particularly vulnerable to conspiracy theories and ideological extremism, as they lack internal mechanisms for self-correction and rely entirely on each other’s reinforcing biases.

This is why people in symbiotic relationships:

• Struggle with independent thinking outside of the relationship.
• React defensively when their counterpart’s role is questioned (because it threatens their entire macro-personality).
• Reinforce each other’s biases to maintain stability within the shared psyche.

In other words, the macro-personality “thinks” for its members, and any external challenge to the shared belief system is not just a challenge to an idea, but a threat to the very structure of their relationship.

In this way, symbiosis fuels conspiracy theories, ideological groups, cults, and rigid social hierarchies—where the interdependence between members replaces individual critical thinking.