© Roger M Tagg 2009 revised 2010
Welcome to FROLIO – a new attempt to merge philosophy and the "semantic web" . This website is under continuing development.
Two or more people are thrown together and have some common interests, but they don’t share the same idea on what should be done, who is responsible or what the “real facts” of the matter are. Time pressures may rule out spending time investigating the issue in more detail, and personal pride or “social tactics” may prevent much concession to the opponent even if they may probably be right.
“Argument” also has another meaning, i.e. the process that takes a set of assumptions to a conclusion in a number of logical steps, as in “what’s your argument for that? There is also a mathematical meaning. We won’t say more here about either of these last 2 meanings.
I think not, because “discourse” carries the assumption that we are all aiming for the same goal. Even “discussion” suggests that we are at least all on the same side. An argument is not always restricted to the realm of reason – it may be heavily emotional and even physical (body language at least, if not actually coming to blows).
This refers to a book published in 1964. Firstly, it describes the Transactional Analysis (TA) model, in which each person in an argument can potentially sit in one of 3 roles, Parent (P), Adult (A) and child (C). A transaction (e.g. an utterance in a conversation) can take place between the same levels (e.g. Adult to Adult, Child to Child) or at different levels. However the reply may not happen along the same route – I may speak to you as Adult to Adult, but you may reply to me as Parent to Child. This often leads to the discussion going sour and becoming emotional. Also, we may converse at one level from a social etiquette point of view, but our underlying psychological attitude may be different.
We’re not going to discuss here what Berne calls “pastimes”, which are the sorts of standard topics groups of people discuss at a party or in a pub. More relevant are his “Life Games”. Here are some examples:
| Ploy | Abbreviation | Description | Who plays it |
| If it weren’t for you | IFWY | Claiming you don’t do something out of consideration for the other person | Husbands and Wives |
| Why does it always happen to me? | WAHM | Claiming your misfortunes are worse than the other person’s | Slightly paranoid, martyr types |
| Now I’ve got you, you sonofabitch | NIGYSOB | Wanting to score points over the other person | Bravado, but often revenge for injustices in earlier life |
| Aint it awful | AIA | Finding some third party or external problem to fix one’s antipathy on | |
| See what you made me do | SWYMD | ||
| Why don’t you? Yes, but … | WDYB | ||
| Uproar | Slamming doors, throwing plates | ||
| I’m only trying to help you | ITHY |
Why this analysis is interesting is because it shows that, in an argument, people are sometimes (maybe often) playing some sort of game.
De Bono introduced this idea as an attempt to get participants in a discussion to recognize the role they are playing at ay one time. It can be a good device for getting an issue looked at from different viewpoints, and for reducing bias caused by players who tend to dominate (either because of their status, extrovertness or brashness).
| White | The bald facts | Red | Feelings, hunches, intuition |
| Yellow | The positive, optimism | Green | Creativity, possibilities, new ideas |
| Black | The down side, snags, risks | Blue | Management of the thinking process |
To run a discussion or argument like this probably requires a strong chairperson or facilitator to make sure people stick to the "blue" rules and don’t lapse into “stream of consciousness” arguments. It is unlikely to work in domestic or social arguments, and assumes that most people share common goals in the area of concern.
Maybe a strong chairman could take control of an argument by saying which hats he judges that the protagonists are wearing – or maybe even what games they are playing. But if it’s a domestic argument, he would probably be told to keep out of it!
This discipline, despite some criticism for its less than perfect scientific basis, has become popular in some quarters for helping "difficult" people. Using an analogy, it seems somewhat like the psychiatric equivalent of chiropractic or osteopathy. The meaning is implied by the 3 words in the title.
The idea is that the brains of the people with the problems can be re-trained to acquire "programs" that lead to better physical and emotional outcomes.
In treatments, the analyst has to evaluate carefully what the subject says or gestures. The game is then to give the subject some understanding of what the underlying problems are, and replace the unhealthy patterns by better ones. The emphasis is always on results, and what works, rather than too much theory.
The page the link above points to (Holistic Online) suggests that how it works may be related to things like positive thinking, faith healing, hypnotherapy and even prayer, all of which have been known to help people with difficulties or illness.
It isn’t always possible for us humans to stay rational at all times. Maybe what is most needed is tactics to get things back onto a constructive note.
Index to more of these diatribes
Some of these links may be
under construction – or re-construction.
This version updated on 30th January 2010
If you have constructive suggestions or comments, please contact the author rogertag@tpg.com.au