I really loved this article. It's my fav. I'm going to read the books mentioned in it. There are several elements such as games, and transactions, and perceptual positions, all of which remind me of Transactional Analysis, and which I am not an expert in, yet. Wouldn't it be fascinating if a community of curious people (not necessarily clinical professionals) were to emerge around this field?
I really appreciate your blog and read almost everything you write and then share and evangelize it further. Although I am not here to write just that, I think it's fair to start with it because at least you get a bit of positive feedback that I've had reading your stuff all these years but never sent your way.
So now to the point...
I like the article a LOT and it made me think. What I have to remark is that the discussion around last game read a lot like you were afraid to go into it. It might not be, but that is how it reads. Acknowledging that feelings exist is what it is. Feelings are facts. And then what? Can feelings be wrong? Of course they can be. Should reactions be corrected? Absolutely! Just look at children and how often we tell them they should feel. And most of the time, we're right to do so! A child that was warned they migth lose throws a tantrum after losing - what conversation do you have afterwards? I bet you it boils down to -> if you want to play, you shouldn't feel that way if you lose (because losing is a likely outcome).
If the feedback was: next time you shouldn't be feeling this way, would it still be the same Protean game?
Thank you for your support. It's good to hear from you. In regard to your comment about the third game, I think the distinction that needs to be made is that there is an important difference between YOU acknowledging your feelings and creating space around them and thoughtfully responding instead of reacting vs. SOMEONE ELSE telling you that the way you feel isn't valid. The "game" only applies to the latter.
I really loved this article. It's my fav. I'm going to read the books mentioned in it. There are several elements such as games, and transactions, and perceptual positions, all of which remind me of Transactional Analysis, and which I am not an expert in, yet. Wouldn't it be fascinating if a community of curious people (not necessarily clinical professionals) were to emerge around this field?
Yes!
I really appreciate your blog and read almost everything you write and then share and evangelize it further. Although I am not here to write just that, I think it's fair to start with it because at least you get a bit of positive feedback that I've had reading your stuff all these years but never sent your way.
So now to the point...
I like the article a LOT and it made me think. What I have to remark is that the discussion around last game read a lot like you were afraid to go into it. It might not be, but that is how it reads. Acknowledging that feelings exist is what it is. Feelings are facts. And then what? Can feelings be wrong? Of course they can be. Should reactions be corrected? Absolutely! Just look at children and how often we tell them they should feel. And most of the time, we're right to do so! A child that was warned they migth lose throws a tantrum after losing - what conversation do you have afterwards? I bet you it boils down to -> if you want to play, you shouldn't feel that way if you lose (because losing is a likely outcome).
If the feedback was: next time you shouldn't be feeling this way, would it still be the same Protean game?
Again, thanks for the article!
Thank you for your support. It's good to hear from you. In regard to your comment about the third game, I think the distinction that needs to be made is that there is an important difference between YOU acknowledging your feelings and creating space around them and thoughtfully responding instead of reacting vs. SOMEONE ELSE telling you that the way you feel isn't valid. The "game" only applies to the latter.