|
ITAA has consistently called for scientific research to
confirm TA theories. We know that science persistently redefines itself by
experimenting, repeating experiments, reverifying results or proving results to
be at least partially incorrect under certain conditions. Similarly, Script
Analysis explores and tests assumptions upon which a life has been built,
showing some to be valid and some to be at least partly inaccurate under
current conditions. Perhaps in this way TA has a very science-like feel to it.
Perhaps because TA parallels the scientific process, we assume that it is
amenable to the scientific method. Is this assumption valid?
Scientific research seeks to supply scientific evidence that
a particular hypothesis is valid. In the social sciences this usually means
research using statistical methods. From a well defined population researchers
choose random samples. Statistics allows results derived from the random sample
to be applied to the population. The trade off from sampling rather than using
the entire population is that there is a degree of certainty attached to the
conclusions that is less than 100%.
Some of the questions I may ask myself to test the validity
of such research are:
- Is statistical induction the appropriate mathematical
tool for the type of data?
- Is the appropriate statistical model being used?
- Is the sample truly random? If not, the results are not
generalizable to the population.
- Is the sample large enough? As the population size
decreases so do the chances for accurate hypothesis testing.
- Are the results overgeneralized to a larger population
than was sampled?
- If the study demonstrates a positive correlation between
variables, have the researchers implied unnecessarily that one caused the
other?
- Is the test repeatable with the same methodology yielding
the same results?
- Was there a double blind study to eliminate placebo
effect?
- Is the research suggesting anything about individuals?
One of the limitations of statistics is that the numbers are taken from groups
and can only be applied to groups. It says nothing about individuals.
There are two ways of knowing and creating according to
Berne. Along with the Adult reality testing functions which might include
statistical induction, he held intuition in high esteem:
"One might even go so far as to agree that in everyday
life we learn more, and more truly, through intuition than we do through
verbalized observations and logic. We are tempted to be proud of
verbalizations, but it is possible that in many of our most important judgments
the small and fragile voice of intuition is a more reliable guide.... Verbal
processes are additive, while intuitive processes are integrative--It appears
that the most important judgments which human beings make concerning each other
are the products of preverbal processes--cognition without insight-- which
function almost automatically below the level of consciousness...that there is
a time for scientific method and a time for intuition--the one brings with it
more certainty, the other offers more possibilities; the two together are the
only basis for creative thinking."(Berne, 1977)
TA theory is largely developed from this second way of
knowing, that is, from Little Professor insights into the human condition.
Lacking mathematical rigor, these insights can be called heuristics or rules of
thumb. These heuristics became the foundation of an organizational Script much
as Little Professor judgments become the foundation of a human Script. Script
Analysis suggests we must investigate our decisions made with the Little
Professor and use current Adult information to update those assumptions which
influence our Script.
In doing a TA Script Analysis we will meet some of the same
types of resistances in that we have based our collective life on a certain set
of assumptions. Those assumptions have allowed us to survive even though they
may be incorrect. Many therapists base their livelihoods on these assumptions
and any questioning of them under the scrutiny of rigorous scientific
methodology may show them invalid to some degree. Perhaps we are too
financially invested in a theory to keep an open mind to the results of
unbiased research. Yet perhaps these fears have no foundation. For we know that
good research limits the scope of study to narrowly defined parameters, so that
it is only possible to confirm or deny well defined parts of TA and not TA in
its entirety. This limitation of scope will inhibit us from being able to prove
or disprove TA theory in general.
We must question our organizational Parental injunctions to
be internally consistent with our theory. Many of the arguments for TA are
currently Ad Hominem(lit. to the man) arguments, that is, the particular theory
is correct because an individual therapist or group of therapists held in high
regard said so, much as Script messages may be accepted on the authority of
parents. Currently, we do not have well defined experiments yielding results
that can be replicated.
If we choose the scientific approach all is fair game, even
some of the basic foundational theories. For example, we may question how is it
that our theory is based on the research of Wilder Penfield?(Berne, 1961). Some
have questioned the generalizability of his results because he used only
epileptic patients for his test sample. If we choose to ignore these
contraindications to his theory, why?
Assuming that it is possible to base a theory on brain
research, how did we choose Penfield above others and why? Are we selectively
sampling neurological researchers in order to bias our results in our favor? Do
we ignore research done after Berne's life time? Is the only argument in favor
of Penfield Ad Hominem because Berne said it? If so, why? If not, why not?
How did we exclude other theories of brain function
especially post-Bernian theories? Michael Gazzaniga's research with split brain
patients seems to demonstrate the existence on an unconscious and might be seen
to support Freudian theory (Gazzaniga, 1985). How does this mesh with
Penfield's research, and if not, why not? Paul Maclean's theory of the triune
brain composed of the neomammalian, paleomammalian, and reptilian brains each
with their own individual structure and function might seem to support both TA
theory of three ego states and Freudian theory of superego, ego, and id
(MacClean, 1973). Karl Pribram's work at Stanford suggesting the holographic
functioning of the optic nerves would seem to support more wholistic models
such as Gestalt theory (Pribram, 1982). Robert Ornstein's work at the
University of California Medical Center with split brain patients seems to
suggest classifying functions of the brain into left and right functions of
cognition, one being more logical and one being more intuitive and holistic
(Ornstein,1986). How do we incorporate this knowledge?
Do we selectively ignore other models from artificial
intelligence such as Zadeh's Fuzzy Logic? This is a logic used to model
perception and used in newly designed "smart" cameras. Where standard logic
must give a true or false value to every proposition, fuzzy logic assigns a
certainty value between zero and one to each of the propositions, so that we
say a statement is .7 true and .3 false. Is this theory selectively ignored to
support our theories?
Do we selectively ignore Hebb's theory of associative
networks (Hebb, 1980) modeling the interconnectedness of various systems of the
brain? Hebb's work provides a background for those working with neural networks
in artificial intelligence. These networks are so complex that they seem to
fall under the mathematical umbrella of the new science of complexity, the
modeling of complex systems including living systems( Waldrop, 1992). These
complex systems are unpredictable in the short term and are not amenable to
statistical analysis. This suggests the type of data in the brain may be of a
type that cannot be analyzed accurately using statistical analysis. We may be
running into a mathematical wall beyond which our intelligence cannot go. We
may find ourselves permanently in the position of Freud who gave up
neurological research in order to pursue a theory that would substitute
temporarily until researchers could acquire the tools to know brain functions
more precisely. These current theories suggest that those tools Freud imagined
at some future date may never exist. If so, it is better reality testing to
admit this position rather than let wishful thinking become our collective
reality. It may be that we may not be able to found any comprehensive
psychological theory on brain research. We must be open to this possibility to
maintain a scientific approach.
If we are open to discrediting some parts of existing TA
theory, we allow ourselves to remain unbiased in our research efforts and are
better able to gather random samples for our research. Otherwise we may bias
our samples to lend credence to our biases and remain unscientific.
From a broader perspective, why should we limit our research
to statistical analysis? In questioning our basic assumptions, we must also
question our assumptions around epistemology, that is, how it is that human
beings know. I see three primary ways of knowing: the Adult functions of
logical deduction and statistical induction, and Little Professor function of
intuition. By choosing statistical induction as the exclusively valid way of
confirming our theories, we are excluding the two other primary ways of
knowing.
How do we exclude deduction? Albert Einstein is held by many
as a model scientist. He did not use statistical induction for his research. He
used deduction, deducing many of his theories through pure mathematics. It was
only later that many of his theories were tested to be accurate, whereas in
statistical induction the experiments precede the conclusions.
If deduction is another way of knowing in TA, where and when
is it applicable? Berne did use Venn diagrams, circles either distinct or
overlapping, which were borrowed directly from symbolic logic to visually
describe transactions. Perhaps TA in part can be considered a theory that
analyzes ones own deductions based on childhood primitive assumptions. Perhaps
it focuses on how people become irrational in decision making. In this case, TA
provides critical thinking skills for human relations and can be considered a
basis for analyzing the accuracy of our reality testing. Much as mathematics
provides the language for science, TA may provide the logic for human relations
and can be at least in part a deductive language.
For example, in logic we can analyze an argument saying that
it is Ad Hominem because it criticizes the source of the argument rather than
the reasoning process of the argument itself. In TA we can accept an argument
by playing the Game of Psychiatry with the premise, "You are healer," supported
by various degrees and certifications, so that your argument is accurate and
valid because of who you are rather than being accurate and valid because of
your clear thinking. Or, if we overtly praise a theory while covertly regarding
it with skepticism we are playing Gee Your Wonderful. If TA is in part a
language of deduction, then it is beneficial to state it as such to more
clearly define the theory, rather than throwing TA research into a Procrustean
bed of statistical analysis.
Little Professor knowledge is based on experience where
conclusions are arrived at through intuitions developed from perceptions rather
than through rigorous statistical induction. Perhaps some theories of human
relations are only knowable through intuition. If so, which ones and why? And
how do we differentiate these theories from metaphysics?
Each way of knowing has its limitations. Statistical
knowledge is so specific that it is limited in scope. Very tiny bits of
knowledge are acquired with a great degree of certainty. One can't see the
forest for the trees. Intuitive knowledge achieves broader scope with lesser
degree of certainty. One sometimes cannot see the trees for the forest.
Deductive knowledge achieves logical certainty lacking the experimental
backing.
In our choice to research TA, it seems we have assumed the
statistical approach as the only valid method. Perhaps psychology cannot be
grasped with statistical knowledge alone. Perhaps we need the broader
perspective of the Little Professor and some deductive reasoning to complement
pure research in order to achieve a broader and more accurate perspective of
reality. Perhaps trying to please others in the psychological community who
would hold statistical induction as the only valid way of knowing is to buy
into their Script accepting an assumption that may not be accurate. And to live
with this assumption without questioning it is to diverge from reality by
overadapting to a collective Don't think injunction.
In order to generate a more scientific approach to TA, we
must do a Script Analysis of TA. We must model our own theory by applying it
directly to ourselves as a group. What are our basic assumptions both with
regard to TA and with regard to epistemology? Which are currently valid and
which are not? And we must be open to the fact that some of our collective
injunctions may be currently invalid.
Hagar the Horrible, nationally syndicated cartoon character
is standing on a mound above the throngs, sword held high, declaring loudly for
all to hear, "Ours is not to wonder why, ours is but to do or die." One soldier
in the crowd raises his hand and asks, "Hagar, can I ask just one question?"
Hagar replies, "Sure!", to which the soldier replies, "Why?"
References
Berne, E.(1961)Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy. New
York: Ballantine Books.
Berne, E.(1977) Intuition and Ego States(Edited by Paul
McCormick). San Francisco: TA Press.
Gazzaniga, M (1985) Social Brain: Discovering the Networks
of the Mind. New York: Basic Books.
Hebb, D.O., (1980) Essays on Mind. New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Assoc, Inc.
MacClean, P. (1973) A Triune Concept of the Brain and
Behavior. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Ornstein, R (1986) The Psychology of Consciousness. New
York: Penguin.
Pribram, K. (1982) Languages of the Brain. New York: Bronx
Brandon House, Inc.
Waldrop, M. M. (1992) Complexity: The Emerging Science at
the Edge of Order and Chaos. New York: Touchstone.
Copyright © Chris Boyd,
all rights reserved.
About the Author
Chris Boyd, Ph. D., is
past-President of the Eric Berne Seminar, 1982-1994. |
