Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Plaything48 · Jan 29, 2004, 11:57 am

Does this mean anything to anyone?

This theory gives a person the best possible option in relational confrontation.

Mr. X, 17: He wakes up one morning to find that everywhere is covered in snow, and that there’s little chance of getting school. His parent disagrees, but gives him the option of staying home or going to school, although his preference is for the latter. Mr. X stays at home, and while in bed decides that it would be best to do some work. After a short while, the parent comes into the bedroom and tells X that because he’s not going to school, he should do work.
The problem we now have is a conflict. It’s in Mr. Xs nature to rebel, but he does have other options, which he can apply to the situation. If we imagine a rectangle as a representation of a battle ground, and we draw a line somewhere across it. On one side of this line is Mr. Xs’ ground, and on the other side is the parents ground. This imaginary battle ground represents the rules and power of each player. The more ground you have, the more power you have, and the more rules you can set. When Mr. X was born, he only had a tiny fraction of this ground, but with every year he aged, he was able to claim more of this ground, which meant the parent had to lose ground. The parent is always going to have fundamental rules that can’t be taken away, and similarly Mr. X is always going to have fundamental rules. A fundamental rule set by the parent maybe something long the lines of ‘Your not going out dressed like that, it’s cold. Put something warmer on.’ It doesn’t matter what age Mr. X reaches, he can never seize those rules from the parents ground. Mr. X may have rules to about privacy, that will always remain between him and the parent, and so cannot be seized. However, there are rules that can seized by Mr. X, which he can use to claim more ground. Rules such as ‘go to bed’, ‘do your work’, and ‘tidy up’ are all subject to capture eventually.
In the situation described in the first paragraph, Mr. X has three options. Usually, he would rebel, but he decides that there are other ways of going about it.

Option 1

Mr. X can rebel, and not do work. The reason for him doing this is due to a conflict between him and the parent, where Mr. X has decided to do something, and is then being told to do it anyway. However, if he rebels there can be consequences. He will ultimately seize more of the battle ground, but in doing so, he may force new rules to be created by the parent, which ultimately ends up in more ground lost than won.

Option 2

Mr. X can do the work, but then runs the risk of seeming less dominant. This can lead to the parent trying to take advantage of the situation and claim more ground, because the parent sees Mr. X as cooperative and non-rebelling. Mr. X will ultimately lose ground, while the parent gains a substantial amount.

Option 3

Mr. X can do the work, but sees it as opportunity to claim ground with non-fundamental rules. The parent will see it as cooperation, and so may likely revert to the outcome of option 2, but whereas Mr. X may be able to know what ground he’s losing, the parent won’t know what ground Mr. X is taking. It would be best for Mr. X to take ground, because then he can claim a lot more than what he’s losing.

In all three options, the idea is not to have the best outcome for the cause of the conflict, but to have the best outcome for the ground gained in the conflict.

Man Against Time · Jan 29, 2004, 12:00 pm

Fjord Redd · Jan 30, 2004, 01:29 pm

Relationships cannot be broken down so simply. A parents can, and do, completely disregard the "absolute rule" of privacy in their children's lives if it is in their best interest. As a for instance, parents who know their child to be hooked to drugs interviening, breaking that privacy to save them. Children, also, break the unmutable rules their parents set up. It is the nature of people and relationships to be everchanging.

The effect you're noticing seems to be summed up in the old saying "Don't cut your nose off to spite your face." Just because you're angry and might feel you'll gain "ground" by rebelling doesn't mean that it's the best option either temporarily (getting schoolwork done) or in the long run (having respect, which you call power). If a parent sees that you obey, you have more respect, and can be trusted more in the future. More privilages means more power.

One last note, please forgive me saying "you" instead of "Mr. X." I'm not implying that you are "Mr. X," i just find it easier to write.

Plaything48 · Jan 30, 2004, 03:32 pm

I just want to say this isnt mine, I found it and was trying to understand it, because I found it interesting

Man Against Time · Jan 30, 2004, 06:41 pm

You would be wiser to delete it from your computer and than your memory...

Man Against Time · Jan 30, 2004, 06:41 pm

You would be wiser to delete it from your computer and than your memory...

eburchelli · Jan 30, 2004, 07:28 pm

Why is there any conflict at all? Traditionally, children don't have rights, except those their parents give them. But liberal (socialist) governance has produced a series of laws that undermine the family unit by usurping that traditional law of who's really responsible for whom.

Highwayman · Jan 31, 2004, 08:47 am

Transactional analysis is a tool which can help everybody in all relationships. Check it out.

It works from the basis of adult vs child(ish) behaviour: When both persons are using the adult way of communication both can win- the trick is to "force" the opponent to assume the adult behaviour pattern, by employing it yourself. (provided I remember correctly!)

It is easy to understand and easy to apply, and as nobody loses any "ground"...

Btw, in the scenario Mr"X" ignores the intention of his parent- which, all things being reasonably normal, is the welfare of Mr"X". The parent does not want to regain all ground from Mr"X"- nobody wants a dependent, immature offspring!

The fact is that the parent is, or should be, willing and able to willingly give up ground to Mr"X", provided the parent can be shown(or perceive) that Mr"X" is responsible and mature enough to effectively handle the given ground to his and the parent's expectations- eg safely, responsibly, confidently and to both their expecations and ultimate good.

Using transactional analysis, both can share their feelings and POVs without fear or anger, to determine where the line is and should be in the "battleground"- which need not be, and should not be, a "battleground" at all.

Highwayman · Jan 31, 2004, 09:00 am

So, I guess there should be an option 4:

Mr"X", using transactional analysis, explains to his parent, that he intended to do some work, but that Parent has taken the initiative away from Mr"X" by ordering the work done.

This way, Parent is impressed by Mr"X"'s mature response and open attitude, Mr "X" gains respect and earns points towards maturity and responsibility ratings by Parent.

Next time, Parent will probably wait to see if Mr"X" live up to expectations- if so, orders can become mere suggestions in future which treats Mr"X" as an adult.

In the battle ground sense, it is easy to see Mr"X" gaining ground willingly ceded by Parent.

Win-win.

Jan 29, 2004, 11:57 am	#1 (permalink) (top)
Plaything48 Igneous Magma Location: London baby, yeah! Posts: 198	Does this mean anything to anyone? This theory gives a person the best possible option in relational confrontation. Mr. X, 17: He wakes up one morning to find that everywhere is covered in snow, and that there’s little chance of getting school. His parent disagrees, but gives him the option of staying home or going to school, although his preference is for the latter. Mr. X stays at home, and while in bed decides that it would be best to do some work. After a short while, the parent comes into the bedroom and tells X that because he’s not going to school, he should do work. The problem we now have is a conflict. It’s in Mr. Xs nature to rebel, but he does have other options, which he can apply to the situation. If we imagine a rectangle as a representation of a battle ground, and we draw a line somewhere across it. On one side of this line is Mr. Xs’ ground, and on the other side is the parents ground. This imaginary battle ground represents the rules and power of each player. The more ground you have, the more power you have, and the more rules you can set. When Mr. X was born, he only had a tiny fraction of this ground, but with every year he aged, he was able to claim more of this ground, which meant the parent had to lose ground. The parent is always going to have fundamental rules that can’t be taken away, and similarly Mr. X is always going to have fundamental rules. A fundamental rule set by the parent maybe something long the lines of ‘Your not going out dressed like that, it’s cold. Put something warmer on.’ It doesn’t matter what age Mr. X reaches, he can never seize those rules from the parents ground. Mr. X may have rules to about privacy, that will always remain between him and the parent, and so cannot be seized. However, there are rules that can seized by Mr. X, which he can use to claim more ground. Rules such as ‘go to bed’, ‘do your work’, and ‘tidy up’ are all subject to capture eventually. In the situation described in the first paragraph, Mr. X has three options. Usually, he would rebel, but he decides that there are other ways of going about it. Option 1 Mr. X can rebel, and not do work. The reason for him doing this is due to a conflict between him and the parent, where Mr. X has decided to do something, and is then being told to do it anyway. However, if he rebels there can be consequences. He will ultimately seize more of the battle ground, but in doing so, he may force new rules to be created by the parent, which ultimately ends up in more ground lost than won. Option 2 Mr. X can do the work, but then runs the risk of seeming less dominant. This can lead to the parent trying to take advantage of the situation and claim more ground, because the parent sees Mr. X as cooperative and non-rebelling. Mr. X will ultimately lose ground, while the parent gains a substantial amount. Option 3 Mr. X can do the work, but sees it as opportunity to claim ground with non-fundamental rules. The parent will see it as cooperation, and so may likely revert to the outcome of option 2, but whereas Mr. X may be able to know what ground he’s losing, the parent won’t know what ground Mr. X is taking. It would be best for Mr. X to take ground, because then he can claim a lot more than what he’s losing. In all three options, the idea is not to have the best outcome for the cause of the conflict, but to have the best outcome for the ground gained in the conflict. A man has two reasons for doing anything --- a good reason and the real reason. Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed In spite of the cost of living, it's still popular.

Jan 29, 2004, 12:00 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Man Against Time Molten Ash Location: NJ Posts: 113	... "Die! Fall upon your sword. Fall upon your knee. Die like your Son, nailed to his Tree. Die by my hand. Die in my heart, plucked from the Ice; forever cold."

Jan 30, 2004, 03:32 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
Plaything48 Igneous Magma Location: London baby, yeah! Posts: 198	I just want to say this isnt mine, I found it and was trying to understand it, because I found it interesting A man has two reasons for doing anything --- a good reason and the real reason. Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed In spite of the cost of living, it's still popular.

Jan 30, 2004, 06:41 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
Man Against Time Molten Ash Location: NJ Posts: 113	You would be wiser to delete it from your computer and than your memory... "Die! Fall upon your sword. Fall upon your knee. Die like your Son, nailed to his Tree. Die by my hand. Die in my heart, plucked from the Ice; forever cold."

Jan 30, 2004, 06:41 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
Man Against Time Molten Ash Location: NJ Posts: 113	You would be wiser to delete it from your computer and than your memory... "Die! Fall upon your sword. Fall upon your knee. Die like your Son, nailed to his Tree. Die by my hand. Die in my heart, plucked from the Ice; forever cold."

Jan 30, 2004, 01:29 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
Fjord Redd Sedimentary Rock Location: United States Posts: 5	Relationships cannot be broken down so simply. A parents can, and do, completely disregard the "absolute rule" of privacy in their children's lives if it is in their best interest. As a for instance, parents who know their child to be hooked to drugs interviening, breaking that privacy to save them. Children, also, break the unmutable rules their parents set up. It is the nature of people and relationships to be everchanging. The effect you're noticing seems to be summed up in the old saying "Don't cut your nose off to spite your face." Just because you're angry and might feel you'll gain "ground" by rebelling doesn't mean that it's the best option either temporarily (getting schoolwork done) or in the long run (having respect, which you call power). If a parent sees that you obey, you have more respect, and can be trusted more in the future. More privilages means more power. One last note, please forgive me saying "you" instead of "Mr. X." I'm not implying that you are "Mr. X," i just find it easier to write.

Jan 30, 2004, 07:28 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
eburchelli Molten Ash Posts: 106	Why is there any conflict at all? Traditionally, children don't have rights, except those their parents give them. But liberal (socialist) governance has produced a series of laws that undermine the family unit by usurping that traditional law of who's really responsible for whom.

Jan 31, 2004, 08:47 am	#8 (permalink) (top)
Highwayman Molten Ash Posts: 34	Transactional analysis is a tool which can help everybody in all relationships. Check it out. It works from the basis of adult vs child(ish) behaviour: When both persons are using the adult way of communication both can win- the trick is to "force" the opponent to assume the adult behaviour pattern, by employing it yourself. (provided I remember correctly!) It is easy to understand and easy to apply, and as nobody loses any "ground"... Btw, in the scenario Mr"X" ignores the intention of his parent- which, all things being reasonably normal, is the welfare of Mr"X". The parent does not want to regain all ground from Mr"X"- nobody wants a dependent, immature offspring! The fact is that the parent is, or should be, willing and able to willingly give up ground to Mr"X", provided the parent can be shown(or perceive) that Mr"X" is responsible and mature enough to effectively handle the given ground to his and the parent's expectations- eg safely, responsibly, confidently and to both their expecations and ultimate good. Using transactional analysis, both can share their feelings and POVs without fear or anger, to determine where the line is and should be in the "battleground"- which need not be, and should not be, a "battleground" at all.

Jan 31, 2004, 09:00 am	#9 (permalink) (top)
Highwayman Molten Ash Posts: 34	So, I guess there should be an option 4: Mr"X", using transactional analysis, explains to his parent, that he intended to do some work, but that Parent has taken the initiative away from Mr"X" by ordering the work done. This way, Parent is impressed by Mr"X"'s mature response and open attitude, Mr "X" gains respect and earns points towards maturity and responsibility ratings by Parent. Next time, Parent will probably wait to see if Mr"X" live up to expectations- if so, orders can become mere suggestions in future which treats Mr"X" as an adult. In the battle ground sense, it is easy to see Mr"X" gaining ground willingly ceded by Parent. Win-win.