Chapter II

Listening Defined

The thesis presented here is that listening is an activity evidenced by movement on the part of the not-now-talking-person. It is manifested in behavior by the physical, visible motion of some portion of the listener’s body; movement caused by voluntary (striated), cortically controlled muscles. To listen is to move, to be moved.

“Chambers Etymological English Dictionary”[6] defines listening “to give ear or hearken, to follow advice.” The word originated in the Old English “hlysnan.”

“Colliers' New Century Dictionary” [7] 1936, defines listen “to give attention with the ear, attend closely for the purpose of hearing, to give heed, to yield, to advise.” Under the sub-title “listening post”, as a noun “in general use any position maintained for the purpose of obtaining information. The origin of the word, Anglo-Saxon (Northumbrian) ‘hlysna’ from Middle High German ‘lusenen’ (listen).”

“Webster's New International Dictionary” [8] defines the word listen “to give close attention with the purpose of hearing, to give ear, to hearken, to give heed, to yield to advice or admonition; to hear with attention.” Webster's also states “listen originated from Anglo-Saxon ‘hlystan’, derived from ‘hlyst’ (hearing), akin to Old Saxon ‘hlust’, Old Norse ‘hlusta’ (to listen), ‘hlust’ (ear), and Anglo-Saxon ‘hlosnian’ (to wait in suspense),” (in the general sense of hearing, obeying, and giving obedience.)

Listening as an activity has met with few, if any, previous scientific definitions or measurements. Advertising firms, public relations companies and personnel sections of corporations devote thousands of man-hours annually to lectures and seminars on the subject of “developing good listening habits” and print tons of hand-outs on this topic. These “guidelines for being a better listener” invariably proclaim the undeniable, self-evident importance of “a good listening attitude.” Similarly, in the field of the social sciences, professionals in the field of human encounters also would describe the clear-cut value of “being a good listener.” No one lists the contra-indications; no instances have been found saying listening is not good for a person.

Xerox Corporation has sold a “Course on Listening” to telephone companies. It was primarily directed at “improving the retention” (by their employees) of what was being told to the listener and it emphasized that retention is a big part of “good listening.” [9]

Psychotherapists, psychologists repeatedly emphasize in their training, teaching and in their treating that “listening is the principal tool of the method and technique.” Yet listening has not previously been defined or studied as such. Those scientists who do write on this subject do not come to the point of defining the activity of listening. There has to this point been no finite measurement definition of what listening is and what is not listening.

Dominick A. Barbara, M.D. has written a picturesque, scientific and artistically titled treatise on “The Art of Listening.” [10] He does not come to a definition of listening; instead he attempts to define it in a circular manner, writing on the listening activity; that it is something “we must do, we should do, we have to do, (and ways) we should not do it”from the very first chapter. Even so, and in spite of this quality of a disciplining Parent doing the writing, it is a lucid, clearly-written and an enjoyable treatise.

Coincidentally, Dr. Barbara dedicated his book, probably his best, to his mother. That he did have a picturesque ability to view listening, to know what is listening and what is not, is depicted, for example, by the chapter titles he chose. Some of these are reminiscent of the functional qualities of the personality's ego states, e.g., rebel Child, nurturing Parent, etc. (See also Chapter 3, “Listener Ego States”). Other chapter titles by Dr. Barbara are: “Listening With the Outer Ear”; “Listening With the Inner Ear”; “Listening With the Receptive Ear”; “Listening With a Modest Ear”; “Listening With a Rebellious Ear”; “Listening With a Deaf Ear”; “Listening With the Third Ear”; “Listening to the Essence of Things”; “Where We Stop Listening”; and “The Magic of Listening” which refers to ritual, ceremony, and stroking activity. The reader is encouraged to read Barbara's work. On pages 24 and 25 he is reminiscent of the Renaissance physician and writer Paracelsus (Theophrastus Bombastus Von Hohenheim, 1493-1541) as he (Barbara) says “a child is notorious for his involuntary refusal to listen when he does not want to. He (the child) may have heard what was said, but he does not respond, either because ... or because ..,” alluding to his unconscious and/or because of repression. In Transactional Analysis terminology, this refers to learned and imitated behaviors and games of parents. In this text Dr. Barbara refers to the child's use of “selective responsive stroking,” (See also Chapter VIII of this book) namely, as learned in the home, non-acknowledgement of an audible stimulus by the recipient equals no obligation to be responsive.

Otto Fenichel’s [11] “Psychoanalytic Theory of Neurosis”, 1945, has 100-plus references indexed on “libido”, 100-plus on “masturbation”, 100-plus on “development”, four on “hearing”, none on the subject of “listening.” This is despite the fact that listening is central if not the essence of what psychoanalysis is! And without listening there is no psychoanalysis.

Psychiatric literature [12] and scientific conferences have very few references to the activity of listening. One very good reference is Theodore Reik's “Listening With the Third Ear.”[13]An interesting commentary is that Reik makes no mention of “listening with two ears.”

What is variously referred to as nonlexical communication,[14] “nonverbal communication,” and “the non-audible aspects of semiotics and kinesics,” can be reviewed appropriately, redefined, and restudied as aspects of the phenomenology of listening -- The Listening Activity.

Nonverbal Communication

A search through medical, psychiatric, and non-medical dictionaries, encyclopedias, and psychiatric texts fails to reveal anyone willing to define this oft-used term “nonverbal communication.” In the article on “Communication” in the World Book Encyclopedia [15] under “Kinds of Communication” reference is made to gestures and signals. “Much of our communication is face to face and without words. We smile, we frown, we tip our hats, we hold up our hands in one way to say we want to recite in class, and we hold them up in another way to say 'stop'.”

We show a variety of information on how we feel by the expressions on our faces, the tones in our voices, the number of fingers shown to another person.

In Kinesics and Context one chapter is titled “Talk and Motion...” In context, the people-to-people movements, signals and gestures have language and word equivalents.[16] The terms “kinemes, kinemorphs” referenced in that book can be understandably termed listener moves in rituals, pastimes, activities, and especially in games. The joke “She couldn't talk at all if you made her hold her body still” while probably true is even better paraphrased “I couldn't listen at all if you made me sit completely still.” [17] “Kinesics” is the visual, gestural band of unspoken language.

No listings could be found in the “Index Medicus” under “Listening” for the years 1968, '69, '70, or 1971; although the volumes cited must each contain, must have references to well over a million different medical articles and treatises.

In the writer’s clinical experience listening has been found to be an experience, an activity of a viable ego state stimulated by and stimulating of an audible source. Quite frequently in groups, the analysis of transactions and game moves demonstrated that the listener (his listening attitude) was exerting a significant, if not controlling influence on the speaking person. How? Via the non-audible movements or non-movement, via attitudinal and postural sets, via the altering of bodily position, via the production of non-vocal sounds.

Listening is a non-speaking, often (sic) non-vocal, perhaps inaudible activity in response to or evocative of audible activity from another person. Listening individuals are regularly found to be moving individuals -- physically, visibly expressive.

Listening is a neurophysiologic activity, a neuromuscular activity; it is often a trained activity, it is quite regularly an activity for the person involving adaptational adjustment. It is a focusing and converging activity; it is a selectively selecting and differentiating activity with the (audible) environment. To be listening is to be engaged, involved, attentive. Listening is to be cortically stimulated and physically responsive.

Electroencephalographic tracings show a different pattern when a person is listening, “Low Voltage Fast,” compared to the tracings obtained when the person’s “head-is-in-neutral” (withdrawal and fantasy).[18]

Listening is to be stimulated and animated, meaning muscularly (physically) active; it is therefore to be stimulating of the talker's interest. (The question of whether the listener is stimulating “angled” or “on-the-level” interest will be dealt with later.)

Listening and Hearing Compared

Those activities available to the not-now-talking person in a social or work setting can be divided into

(1) Listening

(2) Hearing (the semiautomatic, auditory-environment scanning operation)

(3) Withdrawal (one of six categories of activity whereby a person can structure listening) eg “day dreaming.”

The person sitting motionless in a group situation is not listening. When other visible, voluntary-muscle activity is no longer evident and the interval between eye-blinks is longer than five (5) seconds, the reasonable assumption can be made that listening by the particular person in that situation has effectively ceased. Persons having this verbalized to them, quite often and in short order, become not only more efficient in their own listening but much more effective in talking to others, i.e., they begin looking for the listening of others to whom they are listening and/or talking.

A little twenty-five-year-old woman with a Goldilocks-way-of-life had her leg fall asleep during her brief inspection tour of a therapy group. She stood, she fell down. “Oh, yes, doctor, I was listening to everything you said.” Was she?

HEARING

The new group psychotherapy patient may be noted to be unmoving in a group. When asked about his listening, almost routinely he will respond: “Oh yes, I heard (sic) everything you said.” And often if not interrupted, begins to recite the transactions of the 30 seconds immediately preceding. In the group setting this is related to another phenomenon, that of “absolute hearing recall for the last 30 seconds.” This is different from listening activity. Hearing is the non-volitional, non-differentiating, nonselective appreciation of incoming audible signals. As such, hearing has many more similarities to (audio) tape recordings than may appear at first blush.

Hearing is a semi-automatic, continuous and ongoing scanning operation involving the auditory environment. With hearing, the auditory signals are indiscriminately picked up, are held in (memory) readiness for turning back to, are retained in imagery at readiness for bringing into focused (awareness) attention (if the person has cause to do so) for an interval of about 30 seconds after the events. Then the auditory image fades out (decays) over the next 60 seconds. This hearing image, as such, could be referred to as having a half life of, say, 30 seconds. This is analogous to having a continuous loop of audio (video) tape 100 seconds in length, on which tape the imprint, the image, begins to fade out after 30 seconds unless other events intervene which cause a convergence of attentiveness, i.e., unless listening to external events takes place. Eidetic imagery is the opposite of hearing; eidetic memories are composed of moments which were “fixated” by the action of something akin to a “developer and neutralizer” (to use the terminology of photography). This latter process is probably an enzymatic action involving the fixation of a particular protein molecule that has just been polymerized. If the particular hearing event was not attended to with a focusing and fixation, then the protein molecule just previously polymerized breaks down to its polypeptide components through the action of another enzyme.

Hearing continues in the waking or in the sleeping person without much discrimination or volition. It is the operation which, for example, awakens a parent from a slumber when in the next room an infant's breathing pattern changes or he makes a muffled cry; or when a sixteen-year-old daughter makes her soundless return entrance into the home from a date at 2:00 am instead of 11:30 pm. This 30 to 100 seconds supply of stored memory for the immediately preceding events provides a basis for “instant replay” of these events for a comparison of alterations of sequencing, alterations of audible tempo, and changes in a sound's intensity.

In the social, clinical, or teaching setting the viewer can reliably assume that the unmoving, non-blinking person is a non listener. Exceptions to this include; (1) the “um-hums” head-nodding borderline listener (dealt with later under “Game Maneuvers”); (2) the non-blinker who is carrying on some other form of movement out of the line of sight of the talker (“illegitimate listening”), see the chapter on Listener Game Maneuvers; (3) non-blinking, peripheral vision (“peeping”) with the listening-watching “focused” not on the talker, but on a moving non-talker in his side vision. In these latter three exceptions, however, the listening efficiency is reduced (20 percent or lower) as far as the particular vocal person(s) is (are) concerned. At a very minimum (of movement), eye-blinking occurs at least once every five seconds in the legitimate listener. With this basic information, a group leader (speaker or teacher), for example, can estimate with a high degree of confidence which individuals are and which are not listening to the group activity or lecture. Something will be said later in the chapter on “Listening Efficiency” about the percentage of time a person in a classroom, meeting, other group can profitably spend in listening during an interval of time (maximum efficiency of listening is not 100 percent listening.)[19]

One criteria used in a group to determine how well a person was coming along, how well he was getting, was his freedom to deal with the question “Were you listening (to Joe) just now?”, such as to respond with “No, I wasn't (listening just then).”

Chapter III

Listener Ego States

A person can improve his listening activity skills by studying:

(1) The effect of the talker upon the listening person.

(2) The influence of the listener on the talking person's productions, the effect of the listener's manifested physical postures, body attitudes, vocal and other sounds made by the listener, and the effect of the listener’s (behavioral) gestures on the talker.

In groups of eight people usually only one person speaks at a time. Seventy-five percent of the man-hours spent during a four party group will be in some activity other than that of talking. Therefore, it becomes advantageous for the leader to distinguish and define what is listening and what is not listening activity among the not-now-talking individuals in the group. Listening is here defined as being manifested by an organized set of movements of the not-now talking person in response to an audible stimulus, usually the talking of another person.

It has repeatedly been found that the postural and attitudinal receptiveness of the listener is influential, if not decisive, in determining the ego state of the talker. Various works on semantics tell of the influence of the talker on the listener. Transactional Analysis literature also contains numerous references on the effects of the talker’s stimulus and the influence the talker’s stimulus has on the listener’s readying of his response when it becomes “the listener’s turn” to be the responsive talker. ^{^[20]}

An ego state is here defined as an organized system of coherent behavior patterns, motivated by a related system of emotion-reasoned experience (feelings) with capacity for adapting to the social situation at hand. More simply, an ego state can be defined as “a state of mind with its related behavior.” ^{^[21]}

An individual’s behavior has been shown to be determined by and emanating from one of the three general categories of ego states, i.e., Parent, Adult, or Child (See Figure No. 3). ^{^[22]}

For the clinician it is desirable and advantageous to be able to reliably diagnose and classify the quality of the listener's listening activity; that is, whether it is Parent, Adult, or Child listening behavior from moment to moment; for most other people the ability to socially recognize when his companion is “in his Parent, or Adult, or in his Child.” Then he will be better able to handle his encounters with those others.

It is also handy for any person to be able to recognize where the other person in the vicinity “is coming from” i.e. from Parent, Adult, or Child.

To summarize the functions of the three categories of ego states:

I. Parental Ego State Operations are for the purpose of handling, taking care of Childhood ego states. As such they are classifiable into:

A. Nurturing—both physical and emotional, and

B. Prohibiting—disciplining and training.

II. Adult Ego State Operations have to do with “the-now-and-the-here” situation. They include:

A. Information input: “Tell me-what-happened”

B. Information organizing: “Give-me-a-minute-to-think”

C. Solution producing: “The-best-approach-to-this-situation-at-this-time-is ...”

III. Child Ego State Operations are for the purposes of:

A. Adapting to Parental influences and training, and as such are either:

1. Rebellious, “Fighter” Child, and defiant in adaptive nature or

2. Compliant Child, believing and memorizing in nature, or

B. Non-adaptive, “Natural-Child” operations, e.g., spontaneity. These Natural-Child qualities are related to how a Child-like person organizes his time when there is an absence of a Parent-like person in his surroundings. This class is some times called the “Free Child.”

These three classes of ego state functioning are diagrammatically represented in Figure No. 4 on the following page.

Of the many jobs the Adult does one stands out. One’s Adult computes relevant information about himself, his own (inside) Parent and Child, as well as that information at hand and known about the other person’s set of three circles (Parent, Adult, and Child). This is called, in the transactional analysis colloquial as “Owning your own (transactional) diagram.”

“Symptomatology” of the Listener Ego States

The following is a description of some of the behavioral characteristics (“symptoms”) of the Listening ADULT, the Listening CHILD, and the Listening PARENT.

LISTENING ADULT

Adult listening is evident in the non-audible, moving, transacting person when his head is vertical and his eyes are parallel to the horizontal. This gives a balanced, level-headed, straight-forward appearance in which there is consideration of the situation at hand. This is manifest Adult. The mouth line is horizontal, often the mouth is closed with (back) teeth touching. There is usually a slight turn of the head to one side or the other on the vertical axis. This latter has the effect of bringing one eye and one ear closer than the other to the speaker, and provides the opportunity for horizontally triangulating on the source of stimulation. The level, horizontally positioned head as measured across the eyes (contrasted to the angled face and head positions) among other things, makes for more reliable and more efficient searching-by, locating-with, and converging-on an object by the two pairs of distance receptor organs (eyes and ears). More simply, the level head that is slightly turned to one side will get the stereophonic pick-up on the event.

The Adult listener is evidenced by blinking about every three five seconds and the gaze periodically shifting from location to location, by the intermittent changing of trunk and limb position. Adult listening activity is “being-on-the-level” with the other person. From time to time there will be some “tilting.” This is to take into account the other internal ego states, e.g., “what-does-my-Parent-also-think-of-this” and “let’s-see-what-my-Child-says-about-this,-too,” i.e., intuitive Child. When the Adult has the “executive” the person will return to his level at least once every thirty (30) seconds, for a minimum of five (5) to six (6) seconds.

To illustrate: Nan, previously conversant with “squaring-up” and physical movement meaning Adult listening, was noticed to be unmoving-for and staring-at someone talking to her in group. Dr. B asked her: “Say, Nan, you're not very interested in what she’s saying. So how come you’re putting Jane on?” Nan replied “Oh, Oh yeah! I know (smiling), I'm not blinking!” while fluttering her eyelids playfully and “squaring-up.” Jane, after a two-second pause, resumed her conversation to Nan, but this time more animatedly and with a concommitant increased interest on the part of the other members of the group. Jane later brought out that she had not noticed Nan’s nonmoving appearance until it was brought up, but that after she resumed talking to Nan she felt more confident that she was getting through to Nan. Also, Jane later reported she became less worried about whether she was boring to the other group members.

LISTENING CHILD

Child listening ego states are action portraits of (how) a Child (appears while he is) listening:

1. Impatient, restless-Child listening (such as occurs in the four to five year old during church services). This is also seen in social settings at times. It is epitomized by the individual turning to the speaker, then away, then back to him again with gross trunk and limb movements. Attentiveness does not appear to be focused in one place for any interval of time. This (compliant-defiant) adaptation is often stimulating of the directives “Stop wiggling,” “Don't talk,” “Be quiet,” “Don't interrupt when someone else is speaking,” “Sit still!” This quality of Child listening may be accompanied by (one or two syllable) vocal utterances or other audible sounds originating from the body skin or the clothing turning or twisting in the chair. Notwithstanding opinions to the contrary (by parents, well-meaning teachers, and others) about this not being listening, this is listening; it is a psychological, a neurophysiological responsiveness to the now-talking-person (as with a sermonizing, disciplining Parent ego state).

Teaching (Transactional Analysis) to high school classes with “restless” members has shown the author the accuracy of this conclusion. The fact is, the movers are Child-state listeners, as shown by the quality of questions in the post-sessions by their responsive giggles when credited by the speaker for being moved by his words, and thirdly, by the warmth of later greetings outside the classroom setting.

2. Pouting-Child listening is defiantly-compliant: secretly listening more intensely than he would care to admit to anyone. With face tilted slightly down and forward, gaze and face averted, he is witnessed as secretly peeking (or “peeping”) at the one toward whom the pout is directed. (See also “peripheral-vision-listening”) Movement is often partially concealed. Gestures and attitude are seen conveying non-vocalized active listening (responsiveness) to the other person(s).

3. Coy-Child listening is with head down, turned at a slight angle away from the speaker, looking up for brief glances out of the corner of the eye (inviting “come-after-me,” “catch-me-if-you-can”).

4. Embarrassed-Child listening has an accompanying increased coloring. Blinking is decreased or increased, often there is jerkiness of movement (“awkwardness”) .

5. Defiant-Child listening is with the head tipped up and tilted to one side, not unusually horizontal lines on the forehead, facial musculature perhaps with a flat or “stony faced,” some squint, and maybe jaw jutting forward. Blinking or other body movement is in progress.

6. Challenging Child listening with head tipped forward, face tilted off the horizontal plane about fifteen (15) degrees to left or right, gaze directed up under the eyebrows; horizontal lines on forehead, blinking rate somewhat reduced, perhaps a leering smile on the face.

7. “Floppy-headed-Child” with head way over to the side with ear (almost) touching his (her) shoulder to convey “It's-too-much-for-me,” “I’m-just-a-li'1-kid. How-could-you-expect-me-to-know?” “You-couldn't-expect-me-to-do-that!”

8. Natural Child, e.g. in the act of vocalizing an “Um!” or “Tsk!” (tasty goodie) while another person is talking; turning to other more stimulating sounds and words if these occur, listening with cocked or level head, e.g. to the trees in the wind, a new kind of bird chirping, or other.

LISTENING PARENT

Parental listening is in the manner of and with the attitudes, opinions and views of mother and/or father. These opinionated ways of listening are meant to convey messages of approval (nurturing) or disapproval (prohibiting) to Childlike individuals via the listening gestures, attitudes and non-vocal sounds, and the “looks” (“communications”). These minimal movements, changes of expression on the part of a Parent are intended to bring about, are meant to accomplish maximal results in the behavior of the stimulating and/or responding Child.

Prohibiting listening is often with a scowl (vertical forehead lines) on the tilted head, with as little as one fourth inch side-to-side rotation of the head meaning “NO!”, “DON'T!” Two pairs of these rotating head movements: “I-wouldn't-if-I-were-you!”(usually), “No! No!”, “You-better-not!” of annoyed disapproval. This disciplining Parent (head) will be angled ten (10) to twenty (20) degrees to one side or the other.

The nurturing Parental listening attitudinal appearance is very close in posture to the disciplining, prohibiting Parental listening appearance. With this latter (nurturing Parent) the neck is arched forward, the base of head is brought forward, head tipped forward about ten (10) degrees and tilted ten (10) to twenty-five (25) degrees to one side, perhaps eyebrows raised. This listening attitude is often accompanied with head movement in a fore and aft plane to describe (feeding) approval.

People trained in acting learn a variety of Parent mannerisms and attitudinal “tilts” that convey many different meanings.

Public speakers and group leaders have occasion to view the head-nodding, head-bobbing Parental listener in the audience in front of them who nods while the speaker is talking, as if to say, “I completely agree with you. You are so right.” It is as if the listener were feeding soft candies or marshmallows to the speaker during his recitation of the particular and approved of topic.

These platitudes, this “marshmallow-like feeding” Parent is usually offering “sweet nothings” to the problems of others, murmuring soft, “nice sounding” (seemingly) sympathetic phrases to indicate how much he cares not to have the distressed talking person give-himself-away, i,e. to not tell of his distress. These “reassuring nothings” have the effect of plugging the complaining mouth of the “troubled person.”

When head bobbing is accompanying this same individual’s own words, then this head-bobbing Parent is referred to as the “coach.” As the bobbing goes ahead with the person’s own accompanying words and the words are being directed at the intended listener, the “coach” is emphatically affirming his opinion that “What-I-am-telling-you-is-important-for-you-to-know. It-is-for-your-own-good, and-I-mean-for-you-to-learn-it. You-do-agree-with-me, don't-you!” Implicitly it is understood that the affirmative headwagger, the “coach”, will become indignant if the listener does not recognize “the-perfectly-obvious-truth” of what he, the “coach”, is saying and bobbing about.

Tones of Value

Each individual has four or five voice tones. These different voice tones are most often noted (and commented on) in telephone conversations where, e.g., a spouse will instantly recognize her mate when he is using one of the usual three or four voice tones that are regularly heard. When THAT very infrequently used one is heard, it will often induce a “I-had-best-watch-out, because-I-didn't-recognize-what-was-going-with-him (her), in-fact, it-took-me-a few-seconds-to-recognize-it-was-him (her).” Listening to the tone of a person’s voice probably gives as precise a compact set of (coded) information as there is available in a unit package (miniaturized circuitry) to collect about the other person’s state of mind.

Chapter IV

Childhood Development and Listening

The Childhood development of talk-listening, listen-talking, look-pointing and show-looking evolve in an intimately related pattern. From one-and-a-half to four years of age these in-motion mentation activities are mushrooming in numbers and skill of use, corresponding with the myelination of the central nervous system and accumulation of experience (practiced techniques). Consider, however, that earlier in life, even from the age of 6 weeks on, infants are producing vocal utterances, “cooing, gooing”, “gurgling,” making “babblings” that are imitated by the grown-ups around them; are imitated both in tandem (sequential) and in parallel (simultaneous dueting) by persons in the nurturing position. These consecutive (taking turns) and concomitant (at-the-same-time) duplication of syllables are done for the mutual pleasure of the involved infant and parent, as well as whatever language training may be involved.

This is to say that from the earliest days of the organism’s vocal productions, these exchanges are sometimes sequential and in tandem between two talker-listeners and, at other times, the exchanges between two talker-listeners are at-the-same-time and in duet. Sometimes talking-listening takes place as a mutual reciprocal sequencing, and sometimes talking-listening occurs as a mutually programmed simultaneous vocalizing-listening production. This means then that talking and listening are portions of one and the same activity; as are also look-listening (“staring”), look-showing (“pointing”) and show-looking (“nosey”). “Duet talking” is eventually subjected to suppression in the home “You-aren't-supposed-to-talk-at-the-same-time-as-another-person-dear!” (Persons who can “duet-talk” with others are probably also better at duet-dance, duet-orgasm, and/or other-duet activities with their selected playmate.) This means that from the earliest days of the infant’s vocal productions there are mutually reciprocated, sequential, tandem exchanges between talker and listener and also mutual simultaneous programmed vocalizing-listening productions.

Initially, talking and words are for the fun in using them, the exercise of the talent and technique. Listening is for the adventure of finding new pleasures. To start with in life, talking and listening are living-life for the values in playing, attracting, moving of each other.

Secondarily, listening and talking come to be used to exchange information with another, to collect information from another.

The making of voice sounds is in order to move the other person, to stir him up. To listen is to be moved, to be stirred up. Emotion means (Latin “e” plus “movere”) “stirred up, moved” (by the talker). To “emote” means “to stir up, to move” (the Listener).

Fine focusing and pointing, specificity in discriminating, selecting and differentiating, these capabilities are all rapidly advancing in the first half decade of life. The ability to detect and listen to nuances, tonal changes, accents, and inflections are the capacities to “take in secondary-personal-information about-another-person” (the intuitive process), to then organize this data and come up with verbal estimates about the other person. These qualities of natural Child are impressive (if not disconcerting) to witness in the three (3) to five (5) year old child as his naive “intuitive self” develops.

Childhood Training and Adaptations

At the same time as these in-motion, mentation qualities are evolving in the little creeper-turned-ambulatory-vocalist, he is receiving a steady diet of listening-talking training (both disciplining-prohibiting and nurturing-encouraging) to which he devises various adaptational responses.

Childhood learning during preschool years is heavily invested in finding the best ways for adjusting to injunctions of the nurturing person who has turned disciplinarian, injunctions and edicts about anti-looking, anti-pointing, and anti-listening.

Here are a few of these injunctions:

1. “Don't point, dear.”

2. “Don't stare, dear (at cripples).” (i.e., at individuals with appearance discrepant from previous experience.)

3. “We don't listen to those things in our family.”

4. “We don't listen to those things, do we?”

5. “Don't pay any attention to how he sounds. He means well!” as with the following vignette: “Mommy, Mommy. Daddy's mad at me.” “Don't pay any attention to how he sounds, dear. He's tired!” (At 6:00 PM?) “He really loves you!” So back to Daddy for the harsh word or hand which proves it. Proves what? That you can't trust Mommy, or that you can't trust your own ears, or your Daddy’s love for you? Why not tell this coming “Cute Kid”, “Kick-Me” player, “Okay! So then go play with somebody else for now!”

6. “Pretend you don't notice.”

7. “Don't give yourself away.”

8. “Don't let them see it bothers you, that it gets to you!” (“Why's-this-Always-Happening-to-Me" (WAHM) game training).

These injunctions have the effect of training the child away from giving evidence of having been stimulated to listen. This decreased responsiveness, by the pretender, leads him to be an unrewarding listener, as far as the talker is concerned. With continued practice of these pretenses of not noticing, it becomes possible to become almost perfectly unnoticing. People who don’t give-away that they are listening, that they have been gotten-to with the word, those who practice these masquerades successfully, may well become frugal, frightened, and/or frigid.

More Listening Injunctions:

9. “Don't give them the satisfaction of knowing you heard them, that it bothers you.” Mommy says something...

Little Joe doesn't respond (doesn't move).

She says, “Now you listen to me!”

Little Joe still gives no satisfactory evidence of listening to her (he has not moved). So Mommy hits on him: Bang! Bang!

He is now becoming more (grimly) determined to (not) show that he is (not) bothered (not moved to action or words).

So she goes Bang! Bang! Bang!

Result:

She shows she has become bothered (infuriated).

He wins.

This is how to make them tougher; besides “Look-How-Hard-She-Was-Trying.”

10. “Answer when you are spoken to.”

11. “Listen when someone is talking to you, dear.”

12. “You listen to me when I am talking!”

13. “When I am speaking, you listen!”

A derivative corollary of the latter three is:

“When I am speaking you are supposed to be listening.” (So)

“When I am speaking, you are not supposed to be talking.”

(Therefore,)

“WHEN I AM SPEAKING, I AM NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE TO BE LISTENING” (to me), (because) “You are the one who is supposed to be (doing the) listening.”

14. Some children are taught: “Listen (all the time and) to everything said to you” is not only good but required of them. “That's being a good girl (boy)!”

To illustrate:

Barbara recovered from intermittent episodes of schizophrenia when her Child self became protected against this last injunction and she was no longer required (internally compelled) to “listen to everything that was said” to her. (See also: Reese T. Jones, & Enoch Calloway III, “Auditory Evoked (EEG) Responses in Schizophrenia”, Biological Psychiatry, 1970, 2:291-298.)

One training method for turning-off listening, for becoming a good non-listener, goes as follows:

15. “Stop moving while I am talking to you. Shut up and stop wiggling! SIT STILL and LISTEN TO me!” This is how a person learns how to “Let it go in one ear and out the other.”

Chapter V

Transactional Analysis of Listening

The Listener and the Transaction

A transaction is defined as one social (conversational) stimulus and the related social response to this stimulus. (See Figure No. 5) [23] In the analysis of transactions, there is attention to identifying the nature of the activated (cathected) ego state in the person giving the (conversational) stimulus as well as identifying the operating ego state in the not-now-talking other person who may respond vocally later.

Analysis of transactions in groups has shown the talker is exerting an influence on the listener. In addition, however, there are the specific dynamic, transactional effects of the listener on the speaker. These latter are the factors which sway the talker’s behavior as he talks, how the listener persuades or dissuades the talker’s continuance along a particular line. [24]

A talker successfully moves his listeners because he pays attention to how he is moving or not moving his listeners with his words. A talker who is (much more) responsively alive to the physical attitude and type of movement of his listeners has re-discovered that information available from listeners will offer (reliable, predictive) instructions back to himself (the talker and other observing persons) of the quality of listening reception which is being stimulated in the listener.

Beyond this too, the listener has large amounts of social control at his disposal. For example by “Squaring-up,” “Listening-on-the-level” and being “Straight,” he can influence not only the quality of his own listening perception, i.e., turn on his own Adult with a corresponding change of his own internal experiencing and feeling, he can also in the act of “squaring-up” become influential on the quality of conversation coming to him from the talker. A listener, by tilting his head, reveals an “angle-in-mind” to the speaker (and other onlookers). This “angle-in-mind” indicates a quality of listening, in which (figuratively) one side of the listener’s mind is weighted more heavily than the other (See Figure No. 6). [25]

Keep track of the “angle” (angle of the eye sockets) [26] of a person’s head and across the face. The talking person who notices that the listeners have a tilt to their faces might reflect that (1) the listening may be occurring from a prejudicial or playful point of view, or (2) he, the speaker, may be presenting himself in a manner that is less-than objective. The listener can keep track of, be aware of attempts being made to persuade, convince, fool or play with him.

During serial transactions between two parties, an “angle-in-mind” stimulus from the talker usually (within three transactions) stimulates an “angle-in-mind” attitudinal response in the listener. The converse also has held true where an angled listening stimulus attitude has brought about responsive angling of the talker’s presentation, as with the head-wagging listener. The readiness of a pair of “players” to initiate a game often is first noted when listener and talker each have assumed an angled countenance.

Varieties of Mentation

Those working in the social and behavior sciences are looked to by their clients and public for ideas, opinions, and thinking of these professionals. Professionals are also relied on because of their training, experience, and skill to make informed deliberations on people events. From this it is postulated that the professional person's own method of deliberating, cerebrating about the people events in question is of importance. Thus an on-the-level, “I think ...” (equaling “my-best-estimate-is”, “from-the-information-I-have-to-date”) can be assumed to be objective and unbiased.

It is proposed here that objective, on-the-level, straightforward, reasoned, thoughtfulness can be the most compassionate method of approach one person can give to another.

“I-have-a-feeling” type of thinking originates either from anachronistic (Childhood) thinking patterns or from the Parental (ego state) repository of prejudice and opinion about what is “good-and-bad,” “right-and-wrong.” True, they (the feelings) are in the gut, but there is another organ in the body of most people which is more capable of making determinations of, understanding, computing the best solution for the equation of the self and the other-person configuration (gestalt, relationship). It would be a prejudicial conclusion to infer the writer is denying the value of a person having feelings, emotions. For it is the feelings of those strivings and those dreams, born in childhood, which provide the mainstream forces for the “purpose of life,” the “lust for life.” The above is to say, instead, that patients who have their situations computed to them and have been able to objectify their own troubles have then gotten well of their loser commitments more rapidly in emotionally charged situations. They have gotten well of their “really feeling” decisions which were made in childhood. It is these “really feeling” decisions, originating in childhood, which later in life result in the disappointing and depressing daily social encounters. The most compassion for another is inherent in the amount of time and work it takes to produce reasoned thinking about “me and you so we both can come out OK.” [27]

The sorting of ego state functions by a person lends considerably to the efficiency in that person’s ability to view and handle people events. Other texts refer to “emotional filters” [28] as being a disadvantage for improving listening efficiency. One project report cited [29] that “initially the greatest task a teacher (of listening efficiency) has to perform is to bring the class to the realization of what they do not ‘hear’. The clients had the attitude that they did not need a listening class, as they had been listening all their lives... They (the clients) would initially complain that the exercises were repeated too fast...; however, quite soon the person began to recognize that this was a tendency to avoid the responsibility for ... organizing his own thoughts, and most of all to help the individual to recognize his own responsibility in learning to listen.”

The “Child” ego state (“emotional filter”) in the client was viewed as interfering and needing to be exorcised from his personality. Apparently the “Child” self in the client was rebelling against certain (disciplining Parent) directives such as recognizing “his own responsibility in learning to listen” and “jumping at conclusions.”

In operation the functional disciplining Parent does listen differently from the functional rebel Child. The compliant Child function of listening is different from the information organizing Adult (ego state) function. The listener’s listening includes a selecting-in and selecting-out of audible data and the selecting of which function (See Figure 7) of which ego state is to process the accepted input. This selecting of the views from which the person will assess the event is analogous to a televised event where several cameras are simultaneously monitoring the same event, but only one view, one picture of the event is put out on the air waves. [30]

TALKER phrases intended “to angle” the listener

Sometimes referred to as “prefatory phrases,” there are a series of talker phrases which have been identified as having the intention of angling the listener. It will be seen that these phrases are often predatory in nature, used to “creep up on” a listener in order to persuade the listener’s beliefs and to undo his thinking/reasoning. The latter is necessary in order “to make a believer out of him,” “to bring him around and into line.” The following are some of these phrases: [31]

“As I see it …” “As it looks to me …”

“As I was saying …” “Well, anyhow (anyway) …”

“True, but …” “In my opinion …”

“As anyone (fool) can see …” “Right! And …” (dismissal)

“As everyone knows …” “I consider that (to be) …”

“Of course, you …” “Wouldn't you agree that ..”

“In other words …” “It occurs to me that …”

“In other words, you are saying that …” “Has it ever occurred to you …"

“(Well) It seems to me that …” “I was wondering if …”

The objective with most of these phrases is to decrease the listener’s data input, to instead, offer comforting (words, strokes) with the implication of withdrawing this comforting if necessary, in order to bring about the change of belief. “It seems to me that” when used with any frequency, is directly decodable as “My daddy (mommy) says that... .” rather regularly as the person continues past the introductory words and into the ensuing opinionated remarks, his body posture shifts (in his chair) and his physical gestures and the angle of his head change. His voice tone, pitch, volume, cadence of syllables and perhaps vocabulary also change.” (See also ''Manipulating Listeners," Chapter 7.)

Some of these talker angling phrases are of the “pseudo-mentation” variety as follows: [32]

1. “I'm not altogether convinced that ...”

“I'm not convinced ....”

This phrase is best used to invite more proof from the initiator “beyond any reasonable doubt” and it is given by the legalistic minded person.

2. “I don't accept that!”

This response, whether challenging or other in delivery, is given back to some observation or conjecture by another person (in the social setting). It is intended to induce the other person into more “stuffing” type, cramming down the throat feeding efforts.

3. “I believe that ...”

“It is my belief that ...”

“It-is-a-matter-of-(sacred)-belief-to-me, my-deity-told-me, my mommy-and-daddy-led-(fed)-me-to-not-question-that, it-is-my-firm-opinion.” These can be called deified conclusions and opinions.

4. “I don't believe I ...”

The forthcoming responder would seem to be offered the chance to try to convert (if he can) a belief of a “non-believer.” Believing is a different order of experiencing from that of data-processing, thinking and, as such, is not readily modifiable with new information. The implication is that the “non-believer” currently has a stronger commitment to beliefs and believing as compared to computing/thinking. Similarly, compare “I don't think I care to (want to) believe that (what you are saying)!”

5. "I feel..."

“My feeling is ...”

“I have a feeling that ...”

“In-my-opinion-it-is, in-my-heart-I-feel, my-gut-tells-me, my-vague-general-impression-is, don't-quote-me-but-it-seems-to-me-that.” These are nonspecific, impressionistic (gastro-intestinal?) noncommittal recounting of opinions. Substitution of the word “feel” for “think” decreases the precision, reliability and crispness of a presentation. It shows a preference of the talker for “feeling experience,” “the feelies” as compared to a reasoned form of compassionate thoughtfulness.

6. “Has it ever occurred to you that ...”

“Are-you-stupid-or-something-man?”

7. “I was wondering if ...”

This is checking out the other person’s resistance. It is a preliminary probing and means “I-don't-plan-to-tell-you-what-I-think-(what-I-am-up-to)-yet-until-after-you’ve-told-me-first-what-you’re-doing-(thinking).”

8. “You lost Me!”

“I was following you before, but you lost me now.”

This stimulus not infrequently leads the preceding talker into talking-circles and eventually into confusion or anger. Often “Go-to-He__” can be substituted for “you-lost-me” and will account for the laugh which the “stupid” player is getting as he says “You-lost-me,” followed by the (“Demon Child's”) “Haa , haa, haa!”

9. “I know …”

“It is a known fact that ...”

“As we all know …”

“As you know …”

“As is obvious to all of us here …”

“It-is-a-matter-of-strong-opinion-to-me, it-is-my-prejudice, don't-give-me-facts-man, because-my-mind-is-made-up, nothing-you-can-say-or-do-will-change-me-no-matter-what.” This is prejudice airing and opinionated sermonizing.

10. “It seems to me that …”

“My-daddy-says-that …” This is “seeming” (pseudo) thoughtfulness.

11. Succinctly Parental

“Oh, you're just playing gameS!”

“Stop playing gameS and be serious!”

“I don’t want to play any of your (silly, little) gameS now!”

The above are said in tones of irony and disparagement. The plural of the word GAME is reminiscent of the use of the pronoun “we” as with “super-mommies” on a hospital ward telling patients, “Now we are going to take our baths.” The speaker of the “your games” lines is disparaging, belittling, and unsympathetic toward playfulness procedures. These latter phrases are used to stop the other person and push aside (other) thoughtfulness in order to “finish getting my point across to you” (often “It-Is-For-Your-Own-Good-That-I-Am-Saying-This-To-You”). These Parental “points” tend to be tedious, tricky, or trying to the would-be listeners. The Parental talker is trying to stop the other person’s activity which might tend to blunt the sharpened point of the disparaging Parent’s pointed remarks. [33]

Listener Gestures

A few gestures intended “to angle” the talker are:

1. Cheek puffing, facing forward and looking directly at the talker, angled head, eyes momentarily going down, cheeks being puffed out and corners of mouth going down for a second or two: meaning “You-don't-say-so. I-wouldn't-have-thought-so-(and-I-still-don't) .”

2. Basket Hands, Finger-tips touching, open-basket hands. This is the seemingly contemplative, carefully considering posture and gesture of the hands and fingers in an inverted basket position. The head of this person is tilted to one side and slightly forward, gaze directed up away from the speaker or listener somewhat; both hands are brought together with the fingers separated and arched forward to form an inverted basket structure, the fingertips only of the two hands touching. Body is bent, seemingly in an attitude of praying. Many a talker after a few moments of this attitude of being contemplatively listened to has found this apparent praying for him changing into a preying upon him. This gesture has been pictured as a money-lender; not sure that he has exacted enough collateral or interest for a loan, “so to speak.”

A variation of this pseudo-contemplative preying, basket-hands is the one where the listener is sitting back and “casually” upright, head tipped back. With this, the angled listener has his “point in mind” and is waiting for the propitious moment for pouncing, as with “Wouldn't you say (agree) then, that …”

3. The foot-swisher, foot and ankle undulating side to side (beast of prey, tail-undulating tiger) ready to pounce on misbehavior of the other. A variant of this is the high-speed foot twitcher, “ like a rattle snake just before striking.”

Is this the same as the “Restless Leg Syndrome” for which a prescription medication is advertised (2007)?

4. The “Look-at-Him-Would-You!” Eyes Rolling. Catching the eye of a second person to then perform a semi-circle, “rolling-the-eyes” up and out (laterally) away from the “on stage” third person with a momentary shrug of the shoulders and raising of eyebrows to return the gaze to the second person. It conveys “that’s-weird,” “He's-pretty-far-out, huh?”, “I-don’t-get-him, do-you?” It is a discounting, ridiculing, a discrediting and done “so-to-speak, behind the other guys back,” “laughing-at-a-person behind-his-back.”

5. Shoulder Shrug: The simple Shoulder Shrug “I-don’t-know (and-I-don’t-care).”

a. A Specialized One: Shrugging both shoulders, a momentary raising of both eyebrows and pulling both corners of the mouth to the side and down, with knotted brow and a rapid turning the head side to side, two oscillations (the “No! No!” gesture) to mean “I-don't-get-it-(you),” “I-don't-understand-YOU!”, “You-just-don’t-make-any-sense,” “Are-you-daft-or-something?”

6. Head nodding - five kinds:

a. Parent - rate two or less cycles per second fore and aft. “Yes! Yes!”

b. Child - “I know, I know” at the rate of five to six oscillations per second fore and aft. This is the cervical disc hammer and wrecker. [34]

c. Weaving side to side: Search-and-Corner.

d. “Wobble” side to side: e.g. “You wouldn't do that to 1i'1 ole me would you?”

e. “No. No” rotations of head on neck (vs fore and aft bobbing).

7. Corner-of-the-mouth pulling back for:

a. “Oops, I goofed"

b. “Oops, stupid you”

c. “You dumb s - - -” disgusted.

The farther lateral and to the side of the mouth, the mouth-cheek tuck occurs, the more likely the disgust registered is at the “me.”

Listener Sounds “to Angle” the Talker

The sounds referred to here are those produced by voluntary muscles.

1. Drumming: Finger and foot drummers are usually observed in Parental ego states indicating “hurry-up,” “get-to-the-point,” “quit-wasting-my-time,” etc.

2. Thumping: Thumping as on the arm of a chair or side of a desk for the room-filling resonance created, ”For emphasis!”

3. “TSK”: The “tasty” audible is made by the tongue being pulled down from the moist upper teeth and front palate. One system of decoding “tsk’s” goes as follows:

One “Tsk”: “(You) Dummy,” “Stupid,” “Oh, gee. How awful!” or the introjective forms:

“I shouldn't have” “Oh, S - - -!”

Two “Tsk’s”: “No, No!”, “You mustn’t!”, “Don't do it!”

Three “Tsk’s”: “I feel sorry for you,” “It's your fault,” “You shouldn't have (done it),” “You'll be soorrrry!”

Four “Tsk’s”: “Naughty, naughty, look what you did, you bad boy!”, “No! No! Mustn't do!”

These “nonverbal communicants” are describing what is in-good taste and what is in-bad-taste. These individuals tastily give their taste approval or disapproval of the stimulator. “TSK’S” have been tastily referred to variously as “Tasty, Sweet Kisses,” “Tough, Sour Kicks,” “Tiny, Shiny Kisses,” “Tough, Shitty, Kicks,” etc., as expansions of the initials “TSK.”

4. “Leather-working” sounds are described in more detail in the section on Listener (game) maneuvers, Chapter VIII. These sounds are made by a person's shoes being worked on each other, a stiff leather purse, or a leather (plastic) coat, etc.

5. The monosyllabic vocal utterances, the expletives such as “Ohhh!” (“How awful!”), “Umm!” (“I think I understand”), etc.

6. Sighs, sighing as an audible non-vocal involves several variables which are discussed in more detail in section on Listener (Game) Maneuvers, Chapter VIII. To note some of the physically controllable variables:

a. The length of time of the sigh,

b. Looking at the person (or not) for whom it is primarily intended,

c. Inspiratory or expiratory (sighing),

d. Intensity, volume of sound produced.

Sighs are listened to by the children and used by the parents in some families as the primary warning signal given “when-you-better-darn-well-watch-out.” As warnings of a parent, sighs may draw a “What's wrong?”, “What’d I do?”, or “I didn't do anything?”, “I didn't do it,”

“It was her (not me) who did it.” There is a similarity of sighs to some families, so also with the use of TSK’s in other families. Just as “TSK!” can be used to convey “You Stupid S - - -!” so also with a sigh.

Transactional Formulation

To listen is to move, to be moved. To listen is to be moved by the talker, physically and psychologically. To listen is to be influenced by the talker. The listener, in his responsive moving, is showing that talker's talking is making a difference to the listener. The difference, if nothing else (and it will be more) is the moving from one position to another. The listener, in being changed by a series of moves, is changing for, is being changed by the talker. To move is to change. To be moved by the talker means, therefore, that the listener cared, i.e., was moved. [35]

Chapter VI

Game Moves and the Listener

The author has written about Game Moves in many of his monographs and books. The “Handbook of Listening, Transactional Analysis of the Listening Activity” first published in 1971 opened the door to the topic of Game Moves. He further developed this thinking in his monograph “The Game Diagram” in 1972.[36] In his book “Who’s Listening, Transactional Analysis of the Listening Activity” (1973) Chapter VI he develops his thinking further.[37]

The following is Game Moves and the Listener as presented in 1971.

In his (adaptively) selecting a particular method of obscuring what is listened to and looked at, a person is reflecting how his anti-listening-looking training of childhood was perceived as a game. The reader is invited to reflect on and contemplate the following two Parental injunctions:

1. “Pretend that you don’t notice,” (“that you're not interested,” “that you don’t care”).

2. “We don't let anyone see that those things bother us, do we?”

Each of these has a drama-laden, a make-believe potential. Each has implications rich with play value as heard by children. Furthermore, individuals in their growing years learn that a game can be played for smaller stakes; for example, a smile, a scolding word, a nickel, or a small confusion. And a game, on the other hand, may be played for very high stakes; the “hard games.” The latter are referred to as the third (and fourth?) degree games [38]; played for a pay-off of a jailing or a whipping, or to prove “I don't care” or “You-can-bet-your-sweet-life-on-that,” meaning the bettor is willing to bet his own life.

People select their friends from among those who play their (complementary and same) games.[39]

A game is a series of seemingly plausible transactions, repetitively carried out with concealed motivation, with ulterior transaction, a gimmick (artful stratagem), with a dramatic payoff (denouement). These sets of game transactions, these sets of serial transactions at first seem plausible and reasonable but the duplicity (the duplex quality of the transactions) becomes evident as the particular encounter is unfolds.

Analysis of the Serial Transactions of a Game

A game is played by two (or more) parties. Each game is initiated with at least one reasonable sounding, complementary transaction between the players. This initial “reasonable sounding” (plausible) complimentary transaction occurs in the social level of the game and is found within the opening move, the HOOK move of the Game.

There are nine (9) types of complimentary transactions with which to introduce the “reasonable” opening move of a game. ( See Figure No. 9)

The four (4) types of complementary transactions which most regularly introduce a game in the social settings are: Adult to Adult (Type I—as with the opening for “Ain’t It Awful”), Child to Parent (Type II—as in “Kick Me”), Parent to Child (Type III—“If-it-Weren't-For-You”), and Child to Child (Type IV) in “Indignant” (Also known as first degree “Cool It Man”).[40]

Figure No. 10 describes the four (4) types of initial plausible complementary transactions most often used to initiate the social level of a game. It is from this social level of the opening that the duplicity of the succeeding moves of a game develop. Type I Social Level Adult to Adult as in the game “Ain’t It-Awful.” The series of diagrams that follow depict how the moves of games involve complementary, angular, duplex, and crossed transactions.

The picture of Figure No. 11 changes as the transactions of a game unfold, as shown in Figure No’s 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22, as the Hooks are sunk so that the Angle and Con Moves can then be set in motion, and then the Gimmick (artful stratagem) can be played through (a sufficient number of times) in order to obtain the ulterior gratification sought, namely, the Pay-Off. The predominant and driving impetus, the dynamic force behind this series of social exchanges is the latent, the hidden, “ulterior” motivation, i.e., the thirst for a Pay-Off. When this picture of a game is understood, then the transactions of a game can be seen as duplex in nature. This duplex quality is called the psychological level of the transactions. [41]

Out of the Social Level Type I transactions, games are seen in practice to evolve in one of two (psychological, duplex) directions. This is shown by the diagram progression from Figure No. 12-A into either 12-Bi or 12-Bii.

In a game, the above form of “social level” can evolve transactionally in one of two directions to bring about one of two different forms of game structure and one of two different psychological levels of dynamics. The Type II form of complementary (Social Level) transactions can evolve in one of two general directions via the duplicity of the angular, the con, and the gimmick transaction as follows:

* The game of '”Corner” is analogous to the “Check’ of Chess and to be contrasted with “Checkmate!”

The Social Level is shown by the heavier transactional arrows. This Parent to Child Social Level evolves into a game in one or the other of the two ways shown, Figure No. 14i and 14ii. It will be noted that 14i is the complementary design to 13-Bi and that 14ii is the complementary game design to 13-Bii.

As seen in each of the transactional diagram series (Figures No. 12 to 15), there is a (major) crossing of a pair of transactional lines. A step-by-step diagrammatic representation of the transactional events proceeding toward the major crossing (the gimmick) and the playing of the gimmick move is shown next, using as the example a game of the Type I Social Level Initial Transactional Game Move.

In Step 1A, (Figure 16) “It” directs his initial, his Adult controlled, tentative angular-stimulus to the ADULT and the Parent of the other person. Adult of “It” has the executive as shown by the heavy outline. [42], [43]

In Step 1B, (Figure 17) the stimulus offered by “It” in the above diagram is now, in fact, stimulating the response back from the “Other Person” to “It.” “Other Person” now directs his Adult controlled tentative angular (and complementary) response back to “It” and this is directed so as also to stimulate both the Adult and the Child of “It”.

In Step 2A, (Figure 18) the response in Step 1B by the “Other Person,” is now the Stimulus (“S” in Figure No. 18) for the next move of “It.” In the second move of the game, the tentativeness of the angular stimulus (in Step 1) is changed to a committed angular stimulus offered by “It”.

“It” now makes a commitment to angularity as his Child is contributing (through his own Adult) to the response. “It” is responsively now stimulating both the ADULT and the PARENT of “OP.” In Step 2A, the Adult of “It” continues to have the executive; however, it will be seen in that the Child of “It” is making a significant contribution to the responding stimulus, albeit the contribution is Adult monitored and is directed through and by his Adult (dotted line going up to Adult from his Child).

In Step 2B, (Figure No. 19) “OP” is seen responding in a complementary manner with his own commitment to angularity as he responds to the stimulus of “It” (Step 2A) in a manner as to be simultaneously and in return stimulating the ADULT and the CHILD of “It.” In Step 2A and 2B the ADULT of each person continues to remain in the executive. Unquestionably, the Parent in the “OP” is making a contribution to the Angular response as shown in Step 2B but the Adult of “OP” is programming the response which is aimed at counter stimulating the Child and the Adult of “lt.”

The tentative commitment to duplicity of Step 3A (Figure No. 20) shows the CHILD of “It” taking over the programming of the response to Step 2B. In Step 3A the Adult of “It” continues to remain in the executive, but is now relegated to being a “consultant” to the Child and as such contributes to programming this step of the game move. There is, however, now a clearly duplex nature to this (responsive) stimulus as it is sent out to “OP.” Here, the Child of “It” offers an angular stimulus back to “OP” which, while also aimed at the Adult of “OP” (“Other Person”), is primarily directed to stirring up, getting under the skin of the PARENT of “OP.” The Adult of “It,” even though no longer Program Director for the outgoing (responsive) stimulus to “OP,” continues in the executive and is, therefore, making a contribution to the response, which is itself also angular. This means that “It” is now making a duplex angular offering to “OP”. Here the Adu^lt of “It” now sees himself dealing with the duplex nature of “OP” and so would seem to be required to placate the Parent of “OP” while also handling the Adult of '”OP.”

In Step 3B (Figure 21) “OP” is responding primarily from his Parent. His responding Parent is offering in return an angular stimulus to the Adult and CHILD of the “It” person. “OP’s” Adult, however, also continues (as in Step 1B and 2B) to be in the executive. In fact “OP’s” Adult, in making contributions to the 3B response, provides the duplex nature of the response to “It,” as his Adult is also offering an angular stimulus back to the Adult and Child of “It.”

As the reader will have guessed, by Steps 3A and 3B, the Adults of the two players are clearly showing signs of relinquishing the executive AND the Child of each player has taken over being the PROGRAMMER.

Another way to describe the events of Step 3A and 3B is that in Step 3A, the Adult of “It” is now heavily “overlapped” or contaminated by the Child of “It”; similarly, in Step 3B, the Adult of “OP” is “overlapped”, (contaminated) by “OP’s” Parent. (Figure 22)

Step 4 (Figures No. 23 and No. 24) shows the Major Crossed Transaction of the Game. In Step 4A (Figure No. 23) “It” is clearly committed to playing his trick (Gimmick) and his duplicity will now show up. In Step 4A the CHILD of “It” has taken control of both the Program Directorship and the Executive and, thus, is clearly in charge.

Here in Step 4A (Figure No. 23), the Child of “It” is fully committed to his own trickery (and to being tricked in return). He has thrown away his own Adult monitoring as he directs his Child's trick, committed duplicity to “OP's” PARENT while lulling “OP’s” Adult into non-alertness. The prime intention of this is to stimulate the “Heck” out of “OP’s” Parent. [44]

In Step 4B, (Figure 24) “OP” having been elected by “It” as a complementary game player, is not without his own recourse. As shown in Figure 23, “OP” comes back with his own countering artful stratagem (gimmick). From his Parental ego state, “SURPRISE!” He plays back his own trick to nick the Child of “It,” while at the same time pulling the wool over the eyes of “It’s” Adult. This completes a major crossing up of the initial, seemingly mutual, Adult intentions of the two people-players.

The reader is, at this point, reminded that this game is a drama. In the above described events, each of the players has been pursuing his own ulterior, hidden objective. Each has been driven and motivated by the underlying dynamic forcefulness of the search for the individual and unique quality of the fifth move of the game, i.e., the PAYOFF event. The Pay-Off of a game bears more than just a resemblance to the definition given for Intimacy.[45]^, [46]

Analysis of the Moves in a Game

Each game develops and unfolds through (a serial usage of) the categories of moves in that particular game. Each of the games studied (for specificity and the number of moves it has) has had five classes of moves. These are identified as follows:

The thesis that there are four categories of moves to a game before Pay-Off and three moves before the Gimmick move, has been checked out by married and unmarried couples, children with their parents, and parents with their children. The test has been the development of a reliable control of “the urge” to commit oneself to playing through all the moves of a game when transacting with “the favorite fellow player.” This test of the hypothesis that there are five (5) categories of moves in a game, four (4) before payoff and three (3) moves before the major commitment (of self) to duplicity, has been the use of the Rx: “Have three (3) transactions with your ‘friend’ ---, then disengage from him; stop looking and talking to him for at least three (3) minutes. Talk to someone else, do something else.” Carried out in group by various pairs with each other, individuals have invariably been able to control the appearance of their particularly troublesome gimmick and payoff.

The effect of the Rx: “Have three transactions and then do something else with someone else” has been to stop short of the Adult of the person relinquishing control of the executive (to his own game player ego state). “Players” in teaching groups were reliably able to keep track of counting the number of sequential transactions up to three, but then were seen losing track of the number of their sequential transactions (relinquishing their Adult) after more than three. This test then confers the title of “Theory” onto the thesis that there are no fewer than three (categories of) moves in a game before the move of the Major Commitment to duplicity, i.e. the gimmick of the game.

It is infrequent and only in special circumstances that two persons will proceed directly through the first four categories of moves of a game and then, after only four previous transactions, go onto the fifth transaction to collect Pay-Off. The excitement value of Pay-off is heightened by the advances and retreats, via returning to Move #1 for a re-hooking, for the replaying of the con and the gimmick as with a quality seduction to then finally yield to giving-in. These advances and retreats in the playing of the game and as the game unfolds, proceeds and is played through the categories of moves in the game. The healthy game player has a wider repertoire of variations for each category of move in his game than the “hard (less skilled?) player.” The intriguing game player has a greater imaginativeness and inventiveness at his disposal for each class of move and, therefore, more choices open to himself in a given social setting. This includes the ability to choose with greater flexibility and regularity which quality of Pay-Off he will get for himself as the end result of playing his Game.

The Pay-Off of a game can be viewed as the outcome or quality of resolution of a social encounter. When the totality of a game is treated as an encounter, then games (as well as other transactional, time-structuring sequences) are seen as ending with a quality of “I am Okay (or not) AND You are Okay (or not).” The classes of Pay-Off for a game, therefore, are four in number. (See Figure No. 25 next page.) ^{^[47]}^{, ^[48]}

They are shown here and in the OK Corral: Grid for What’s Happening Figure No. 25:

1. Get-On-With:

For a mutual exchange of “I-AM-Okay AND You-Are-Okay.”

Encounter Process: Evolution.

2. Get-Away-From:

As an operational “I-Am-No t-Okay AND You-Are-Okay.”

Encounter Process: Devolution.

3. Get-Rid-Of:

For an operational “I-Am-Okay AND You-Are-Not-Okay.”

Encounter Process: Revolution.

4. Get-Nowhere-With:

As an operational “I-Am-Not-Okay AND (BUT) You Are-Not-Okay-Either).”

Encounter Process: Obvolution.

Game Moves

To date, each game studied for its moves has a characteristic psychological quality for

(1) the Hook,

(2) the Angle,

(3) the Con and

(4) also for the Gimmick move, and

(5) in the end the Pay-Off of the game as described above. The payoff, will be selected from among the four classes available to the player from his own OK Corral.

The sequencing, recycling and replaying of the moves of a game is pictured in diagrammatic form by Figure No. 26. [49]

The following examples show that each category of game move can be effected (carried out) by a player in a non-vocal, moving, listening manner, i.e., without the necessity of words in the stimulus-response sequence of transactions as a game unfolds between the (two) parties.

Example of a Listener Hook Move in a Game

One “Gotcha” player, Della, often selected to initiate her game by using a non-vocal LISTENER HOOK. This involved a sudden turning array from the talker in a chin up and out pouting manner, to then return her gaze directed toward the would-be player. This Hook came to be known as the “That offends me” Hook of her “Gotcha” game. That this adroit hook was effective and did hook “Pounce” and “WHAM” players, was well attested to by others who knew her. [50]

Example of a Listener Angle Move in a Game

A LISTENER (non-vocal) Angle move in another player Virginia, in another game, “Do-Me-Something” (DMSO), was seen in the skill and well timed use of the rapidly oscillating ankle movement, in which the heel of the foot was elevated and only the toe portion of the foot rested on the floor. This was only one of several different sets of oscillating voluntary muscle movements and sites of body movement and/or vocalizing used by this player to portray dramatic “quavering” in one or another part of her body for this particular move of her DMSO game. This was intended to depict hesitancy, (dramatic) quavering pauses of increasing length which seemed to be offering the other person chances to make sympathetic comments or inquiries back to her!

This particular LISTENER Maneuver by Virginia was frequently accompanied by nary a vocal (sound), not even an “Oohh?” or “Uumm?” as the recycling through the Angle move of her game would occur for the third or fourth time in the sequencing of her game moves. The ulterior motive for Virginia to play her game of DMSO (Do Me Something) was to have a “moment of feeling alive,” as she was to call her game Pay-Offs. That the above “Listener Move” was a distinct move in her game, was evident by the unique body posture, head tilt, and attitude of her neck and head, the positioning of her head on her neck and curve of her neck which characteristically accompanied this second move of her game. On those occasions that she did use vocal means for this particular Angle move of the game, then there was a corresponding and characteristic uniqueness of vocal tone, pitch, rate of syllable production which regularly was associated with the aforementioned head tilt, expectant attitude, sitting forward in her chair, arms folded and “quavering-ankle-drama” of this Angle move of her game “Do-Me-Something.”

Example of a Listener (Non-vocal) Con Move in a Game

An example of a LISTENER style CON move of a game was with Julie, a thirty-two-year-old, highly-articulate mother of five, as she played her game of “Ain’t-It-Awful.” The third move of this game characteristically was intended to convey (a) “You-don't-understand-me, you-just-don’t-understand” with (b) an appearance of being overwhelmed, fading out to a “Nobody understands,” variously performed by a fading away of voice, a fading out of words, a giving up on explanations toward an appearance of pouting and helplessness. Julie often carried out this fading away to apparent overwhelmed helplessness by rapid slumping in her chair sideways, arms extended out onto the arms of the chair, palms open and up, lower lip out about a quarter of an inch to half an inch beyond her upper lip. As a game move it evoked responses of “Let-me-reassure-you,” “Build-up-your-morale” from other people around her, whether in words or not. At times she made loud “self disgust” sighs how “awful” she felt, in this (the third move of her) “Ain’t It Awful (AIA) game.

Example of a Listener Gimmick Move in a Game

A LISTENER style Gimmick (move #4 of a game) is poignantly viewed in the “Stupid” game. It is the dramatic slowing of eye-blinking to a flattening out, sagging facial countenance with the onset of unmoving body limpness in the hard playing, dedicated “Stupid” game player. This Gimmick may be played through one or more times consciously or not with unawareness: (“How's that for stupidity!”) depending on how hard it is for the Stupid game player to bring along the other person playing with him in their complementary game (usually “I’m Only Trying To Help”) in order to then get a first-rate Pay-Off. Teachers of (Educationally Handicapped) E.H. classes report the infuriating experience of “being HAD” by some of these hard “Stupid” game players multiple times, as the teacher would for the fourth or the twenty-fourth time go over the same material with the particular student (“He comes on more like a professional” one teacher reported) and then at the end of the “patiently given explanation” have the student again come up with his same uncomprehending, bewildered, puzzled, stupified expression, meaning (it has been said in words on occasion) “I’m sorry teach, I sure must be stupid, but I don’t think I quite got it down yet. I got lost (confused). I just went blank.” [51] One particular teacher, Tim, reported having to get up and walk away from one particular pupil in his class in order to collect himself because of having become so infuriated at the pupil. In this last instance, the “Stupid” (Blanked out[52]) game player was playing the game to a Get-Rid-Of Pay-Off. The fury in the teacher would occur after the major crossed transaction, the Gimmick of his game “I’m Only Trying To Help” (you, my student). The teacher's fury was precipitated at the realization of how he was “being had”; he was being shown how “stupid” a teacher he, the teacher, was. He was “Stupid” if he thought his pupil had learned something as a result of any teaching he had done. Later this teacher came to join up with the pupils in his “Educationally.Handicapped” class by adopting for himself the student given nickname of “Stupid Teacher” and/or “Mr. Stupid.” [53]

Example of a Listener Style Game Payoff

Payoff of a game may also be of (a non-vocal) Listener quality. This quality of Payoff has been found in the Get-Nowhere-With (GNW) Payoff of some “Stupid” players who fall into an extended interval of slowed or unblinking, motionless, warm faced, tight faced, steady, semi-smile directed to the other player. The fact of it being a GNW (Get-Nowhere-With) Payoff, here, is in the extended silence, in the extended period of slow or non-blinking, compelling quality toward the other party. A Payoff which says “I'm-not-Okay-but-neither-are-you,” “I-can't get-anywhere-with-this-and-you-can’t-get-anywhere-with-me-either- (on this particular item).” The player with this Payoff has a tight-faced, fixed-smile look, while an intimacy quality of red-pink coloring slowly suffuses the countenance and whites of his eyes. It is also called “feeling bleary-eyed” by the players who get these Get-Nowhere-With Payoffs. That it is a Payoff, is also contained in the information from the “other person” players at whom it is directed, “She was so still, but underneath, so alive; I felt her warmth, but I couldn't reach her. I was reaching her, but she was cutting me off at the same time. I couldn't get through to her, but I was (getting through to her).”

The reader will note now that a listener attitude and gesture and a talker phrase or his attitude or gesture:

1. Can be diagnosed as originating in a Parent, in an Adult, or in a Child ego state,

2. Can and will have specificity of objective, which can be brought about by the quality of stimulating, in order to bring about the desired result in the transactional response.

3. A (talker) phrase, or a (listener) gesture may, either one (or both) be used as a specific move in a game, during the sequence of moves toward the achievement of the ulterior ends of the game, the Pay-Off.

Chapter VII

Manipulating Listeners

Semantics, as a subject, is concerned with the talker manipulating the listener. ^{^[54]} Analysis of transactions and games in the psychotherapy setting as well as observations in teaching and social settings, reveals that the listening person is just as often manipulating the talker. ^{^[55]}^{, ^[56]}

This chapter is concerned with describing and defining some of the game moves encountered in groups. The game moves referred to are the Hook move, the Angle move, the Con move, the Gimmick move, and the Payoff move of a game.

Talker Maneuvers Intended to Angle (Influence) the Listener

I. Delaying of being dismissed by the other party

A. “I know, I know!” (what-I'm-talking-about, what-you're-getting-at), said rapidly, within one second, fending off an interruption, or an (expected) accusation of ineptness, and/or shutting off the other person’s vocal demonstration.

B. “You know” (enunciated “Ya know”). With any frequency of use, this high-speed phrase means “You know what I mean, don’t you?” Or it can mean “You know what I mean, don’t you!” Either one often stirs the other party to nod their head back affirmatively. It is not a request to deny knowing what the “Ya know” is talking about.

“You-know-that-I-know-what-I'm-talking-about, DON'T-YOU?” This conveys the paradox of a desperate player intending to secure an affirmative head-nodding back to himself, e.g. that the other party “understands,” knows what “desperate” means. At the same time “Ya know” is said, the intent is to keep the affirmative nodder from adding any responsive words or otherwise interrupting the talker: I-have-my-point-I-have-to-get-across-(to the nodder)-and-I-haven’t-finished-getting-it-across-yet,-you-know!…” If the “Ya know” player is interrupted, he may get confused, lose track of what he is saying, or not be able to understand what the interrupter is talking about, etc. The amount of desperateness of the particular party for being credited by the other party, as being understandable, is proportional to the frequency of his use of “you know.”

When “Ya know” has “Man” attached to it, as “Ya know, Man…” or “Man, ya know, man…” the listener best take heed that the talker is at the moment, betting, at the least, a large stake, a sizeable chunk of his own life in the particular game he is playing at the moment. When “man” is spoken in a hard voice, tight-throated, deeper-pitch, “Ya know, man. Ya just gotta listen to me, man, and you know, man, ya better do it, man; ya know, man, you can bet your life on it, man! Ya know, man?” “Ya know, man?” has a much more ominous portent than the phrase “ya know” alone.

This phrase “Ya know!” is often used brinkmanship players. The expectation of dismissal comes from the anticipation by the party that he may be told that “you don't know what you're talking about.” To be told this may be equated to “you don't deserve any recognition (and/or respect ) for being you.”

There is another form of “You know”, often said “As you know.” At the first of a sentence or fitted in mid sentence, it is slowly spoken, clearly enunciated, used by Parent ego state in “Ya-gotta-listen-to-me” and in “IOTTHY” (I’m Only Trying to Help) and “WAHM” (Why’s this Always Happening to Me). It may mean “obviously”, “as-you-recall (and-if-you-don’t, you-are-demented)”, or “if-you-don't-know, you’re-stupid!”

II. “Politeness and Courtesy Rules”

These are the maneuvers which invoke the sanctity of certain “sacred and inviolate (courtesy and politeness) rules of conversation.” The violation of these rules, according to the instigator of the rule, would prove that “Miss Impolite” or “Mr. Discourteous” had a deficient and deprived (or was it depraved?) background and is now showing the results of his “poor-breeding.” The invoker of these rules is endeavoring to carve out a special sanctuary for himself from which to make invasive incursions into the other person’s (“personal talking space”) vocalizing procedures, verbal reasoning, or speaking work.

Examples:

A. “One-little-thing”

“Let-me-say-just-one-little-thing-(more)”

“Excuse-me-just-a-moment-I-have-just-one-more-little-thing-I'd-like-to-add-before- (you-go-on-with-your-business).”

“One-little-thing” is interjected as an interruption and is said when the other talking person pauses momentarily for a breath or to collect the words of his next thought.

“Let me say one thing” can be said in as little as 0.6 seconds. Regularly the effect is to prevent others in a group from carrying out their work. There is the very slightest breath of a pause after this interloper's “(excuse me) I have just one little thing (more) I'd like to say (before we go ahead)”, perhaps as long as 0.2 of a second. If this “li'l-ole-me” with his “one little thing” is not reined-in promptly at this precise point (by the meeting chairman or other), then you can count on it, “one-little-thing” will be off to the races and around the track for a few more laps” before business on the agenda can be returned to. The odds are 10 to 1 that this “Li'l-ole-me” player has more than “one-more-little-thing-in-mind-to-say.” One pert, snippy odds-maker in a group on hearing “just-one-little-thing-to-say” used to immediately quip “Ya wanna bet?” at the split second pause which occurs just after the “one-li'l-thing” phrase was interdicted. This had the effect of drawing the group leader’s attention to the con being introduced, and often drew the interrupter up short with a “Why? What do you mean?” Quipster then would come back and offer to bet a cigarette or a candy bar on the “one-li'l-thing” “multiplying like a pair of rabbits” and that several more than the one li'l thing was going to be brought up. On occasion he even invited others to participate in a pool on how many items would be introduced by “Li'l-ole-me” before “this (minor?) disruptive muckraking incursion into affairs at hand would come to an end this time.”

B. “I-was-just-wondering-if ...”, “Has it ever occurred to you …”

These phrases, in fact, are how a salesman literally gets his foot in the door to get inside to sell his merchandise.

C. Simultaneous initiation of syllables by two persons.

A “syllable bumping” person will persist about one-half syllable less than the other person. And then “Mr. PoliternuAr” will with seeming deference and politeness stop his own words. The person who goes ahead, Mr. Overrider, may assume that Mr. PoliternuAr is listening. Indeed he is!, for the next break in the conversation, for his own chance to gain the floor. Mr. Overrider proceeds to “try to get my point across” to Mr. PoliternuAr; however, Mr. PoliternuAr is not at all concerned with Mr. Overrider’s point. Mr. PoliternuAr is intently concentrating on his own point; he has his own point securely locked in place in his mind and is heeding only for the moment that Mr. Overrider relinquishes the floor. Is Mr. PoliternuAr listening? Yes, he is listening, listening for Mr. Overrider to stop. When it does come his turn, he then in his turn will be able to start running his own counter-point which he has carefully nurtured and held tightly in his mental grasp.

The point of this is that Mr. PoliternuAr does not listen to the speaker’s content. He listens instead for the other person to stop. If he stops moving then he is not listening. He holds onto his own words, stores up his own words, waiting for the moment it will be his turn to then get his point across. “Syllable bumpers” with their sharpened points (harpoons) to get across (and into the other person) experience these events of having to stop talking out of politeness considerations as validating or invalidating the meaningfulness of their existence. They will politely give-up “the floor” for a while but when their turn for “the floor” has to come or life's meaning is lost, lost unless vigorously defended (as with the so-called “Free Speech Movement”). “Syllable bumping” is similar to, in fact is, “duet talking.” See Chapter VIII. Stutterers are the classic “syllable bumpers,” even bumping into their own syllables, let alone anyone else’s syllables who night “try to help them” or ignore them.

III. CONTENTION BREEDING STRATAGEMS

A. “Throw-out” comments:

“I-just-want-to-throw-out-my-thoughts-on-this-matter.”

“I-have-a-comment-I-want-to-throw-in-to-the-group-as-a-whole-(for-some-feedback)”

“Throw-out” or “Throw-in:” these comments are regularly “Throw-up” comments, causing (psychological) vomiting or a sick stomach in two or more of those who were “thrown-up” on. A “Throw-out” is a “throw-up” and is, therefore, something for others to clean-up (later).

B. “I-hate-to-say-this-but ...” Hate merchant.

C. “I-don’t-see-anything-wrong-with-that-(what-he-just-said).”

This is often said to the “upperdog” by a third person (“arbitrator”) in “defense” of an “underdog.” It is implying that the leader intended criticism and harm to the second person who has just been spoken to. The intent is to invite the person just-spoken-to to view the leader’s just-concluded comments as criticism, as an unwarranted calling-down on the part of the leader.

This Contention-Breeding-Strategist (CBS) is seeming to be siding with “Just-Spoken-To.” The implication is that the latter was “treated-like-a-Dawg” and that “arbitrator” is “for-the-under-dog” and “against-the-upperdog-taking-unfair-advantage-of-pore-li’l-ole-underdawg.” This siding with one person and against another is to invite the “Just-Spoken-To (Dawg)” to look for some hidden, mischievous, critical, maligning motive in the preceding talker’s comments. This “protectiveness” has the aim of becoming a “protection racket.” Also the “protectionist”, by implying wrong-doing, is encouraging “Dawg” to “stand-up-for-your-rights, man. Be-a-man!” This CBS (Contention Breeding Stratagem) here has the aim of alienating one person from another, turning “underdog” against “upperdog” so that the CBS becomes the “top dog.”

Example:

Marijane continued to repeatedly use this tactic even after every member in her group had discontinued direct responses to this stimulus from her, except for the likes of “Oh, come on, Marijane!” or “Thanks very much for your best piece-mealing, peace making”, or the like. Her “solicitous” Parent was remaining fixated on “attempting to set the record straight,” correcting an injustice. She meticulously watched for a member, any group member, to “wince” when another two people with her were working out this problem. Even in the face of the distressed wincer calling her on her “interfering tactic” she often would continue. Her “I-felt-I-just-had-to-help-him-out” came to be seen as Marijane’s (Parental) protection for “taking-a-second-helping”, protection for her “snacking-and-seconds” operation (she was very obese).

D. “Stick-by-your-guns.”

“Stand-up-for-yourself.”

“Don't-let-them-push-you-around.”

“Stand-up-for-your-rights (beliefs or what-you-believe-in ).”

These are rather straight-forward immoral encouragements by fight promoters to “underdawg” to go out and risk losing his own blood fighting in order to be right and praiseworthy by Contention Breeding Strategist (CBS). Thoughtful responses such as “I want to think on it first” will usually be jeered.

E. Other interjected talker maneuvers:

1. “What I am telling/showing you is for your good.”

2. “What you will be doing will be for the good of humanity.”

3. “I hate to say this, but with all due respect … .”

4. “Let me play the devil’s advocate.”

5. “I don’t mean to be a fly in the ointment but … .”

6. “I don’t mean to be rude but … you’re boring me (you are putting me to sleep).”

7. “It strikes me …”

IV. Rewording Tactics:

“For the record”

“To straighten out what was”

These tactics alienate the originally wording person; they are to get him if possible, to question his own thinking and way of expressing himself.

A. “In other words then, you are saying that ...”

B. “I suppose then, we could say that ...”

C. “Well now, let me see. What you seem to be saying is ...”

D. “Well now, let me see if I understand you correctly. What you seem to be trying to say is ...”

E. “Now, let's face it! You ... (you-had-better-well-admit-it).”

F. “I guess (think) what you’re saying is …”

G. “If I understand what you are trying to tell me …”

H. “I think what you are telling me is …”

The reworder in effect is telling the preceding talker (now the listener) that he, the reworder, is far better qualified, if not indeed the only one who knows how to say it; he, the listener, is obviously inept, stupid, and/or incapable of speaking clearly; he is unable to make himself understandable.

V. The Agreeableness Artifices:

These are intended to impart a sense of agreeableness and peaceableness on the part of the talker toward the listener.

The intent of the talker is to convey an attitude of open-mindedness while at the same time luring the listening person into a “cornered” or “trapped” situation. This quality of seeming to be impartial and objective has as its aim the presentation of a preconceived idea, a view about which the talker made up his mind years ago (i.e., an opinionated idea, a prejudice), but around which he wants to appear to be the “good guy.” In a group there are additional advantages which come from his self-created “forum for a discussion” which he is“holding for the benefit of others and is offering out of the goodness of his heart.” Some examples of the agreeableness maneuver openings are as follows:

A. “I was wondering if ...”

B. “Have you ever thought that …”

C. “Now I don't want you to think that ...”

D. “I don't want you to get the wrong impression ...”

E. “Well, it seems to me that ...”

F. “Now wouldn't you say that …?”

G. “I suppose then, you could say that ...”

H. “ …, right?” “Right! ...” “Right!”

I. “Well now (friend, doctor, etc.), you don't mean to tell me that ...” This is agreeableness played harder.

If this person is allowed to get farther, is allowed to go beyond this point, then the listener might just as well give in to an extended, if not vitriolic, rebuttal. If this “friendly talker” is not interrupted at exactly this point, then any later interruption of him will be fought off as if the interrupter were questioning the virtue of the current talker’s mother and that person’s family honor. The listener’s option in this case is to interrupt at just this point.

The interrupting options could include:

1. “Well, I guess not,... to you!”

2. Hold up one’s hands (in mock terror) saying “Oh , No! No! Certainly not! Oh, please forgive me, Kind Sir!” or equivalent.

Whatever is done or said has to be gotten off prior to the beginning of the recitation, because once the recitation has started the talker’s “family-honor-and-all-else-that-is-sacred-in-this-world” will be bet on the line by this “friendly-meaning-Crusader.”

The plan of the Agreeableness maneuvers is to appear desirous of avoiding argument or disagreement: first by stating his case gently, then to draw the other fellow out. While drawing the other guy out “good-ole-agreeable” at the same time is carefully pruning his buddy’s responsive options down to two in number, and two only : His friend, “Ole Buddy,” gets to be either:

1. IN AGREEMENT with “Ole-Agreeable,” or “Ole-Buddy” gets to be

2. A DISAGREEABLE PERSON as he becomes vexed and irritable at “good-ole-agreeable” who “only-wants a little consensus and thoughtful consideration.” “Ole-Agreeable” has it all nailed down “because after all, you’d have to agree, you know; you'll just have to admit that Ole-Agreeable:”

(a) opened the subject,

(b) listened carefully, considerately and thoughtfully to “Ole-Buddy” through all of “Ole-Buddy’s” points, and

(c) conceded some points to “Ole-Buddy”, such as with: “I guess you could put it that way,” “Yes, yes, you do have an excellent point there but have you ever noticed how ...”, etc.

“Ole-Agreeable” did listen to “Ole-Buddy’s” points even though he may well not have been in (complete, if any) agreement with them himself, you know, but he did listen thoughtfully anyhow, and then how could you possibly be so crass as to have become vexed at “good-ole-agreeable.”

J. “Well, it seems to me ...” Agreeableness:

Example:

Jerry repeatedly cut in when germane items were being handled in group. He would invariably preface his remarks with, “Well, it seems to me that…,” and launch into a monologue, a filibuster. Various measures were initiated by members of Jerry’s group to cut through this. Invariably he responded with “You're barging in on me.” Jerry’s “It seems to me that after all, you know, when I have the floor the least you could do is give me the courtesy of listening while I am talking, until I have finished.” The fact was, that the phrase “It seems to me ...” was explosively wired. One time Ron gave very careful attention to what Jerry was saying, even though Jerry’s head-tilt matched the angled prejudice of his presentation. After Jerry’s opinion had been well portrayed and at an appropriate moment, Ron gave an appreciative “WOW!”

“Seeming” Jerry was quite angered. When Ron did not take back the “Wow,” did not cringe or apologize, Jerry barged out of the room. Later, after the “Well,-it-seems-to-me ...” bomb had been disarmed for exploration, it became evident that there was a little boy inside who had carefully copied and memorized in detail what his daddy had taught him. He had been very accurately delivering himself of these teachings. Jerry later, by way of a slip-of-the-tongue, told the group “It-seems-to-me-that ...” stood for “My-Daddy-says-that ...”

Individuals who use this phrase, “Well,-it-seems-to-me-that ...” with any degree of frequency are probably having trouble experiencing the reality of events. For them, their own experiences are of a “seeming” quality because of the extensive and intensive internal harking back to past teachings in order to deal with the now-and-the-here events. For them, the manner of dealing with today events is less often handled directly through the reality of today, but rather must first come into accord with “the sacred laws of my sacred teacher” (Mommy, Daddy, or psychoanalyst, etc.). [57]

VI. The One Hundred (100%) Percenters, “Without a Doubt” (Opionated)

A. “ABSOLUTELY”

B. “TOTALLY”

C. “COMPLETELY”

D. “WITHOUT A DOUBT”

E. “PRECISELY”

F. “THOROUGHLY”

G. “BASICALLY”

H. “FUNDAMENTALLY”

I. “DEFINETLY”

J. “NECESSARILY”

Listener (Game) Maneuvers to Angle the Talker

The listener (game) strategies studied here are:

1. The visually attracting gesturing-movements without any audible or vocal elements;

2. Those that are visually attracting movements/gestures with an audible (sound)., but no vocal (spoken) component; and

3. The visually attracting, gesturing movements with a vocal, audible element.

To summarize: This section of the “Handbook of Listening” is concerned with more listener strategies available to a person in the moves of his games.

Resources the listener has at his disposal to use or not (in response to the talking person) include:

1. Visible body movement, including eyeblinking,

2. Visible body movement with absence of eyeblink,

3. Positioning of trunk and shoulders (posture).

4. Head-Neck-Countenance angle (Attitude):

Tilt-Angle: To the side, or

Level Countenance: Upright or Tipped: Forward or Back

5. Non-visible body movement (out of sight of the stimulating talker).

6. Cessation of all voluntary body muscle activity (trance, yoga, catatonic, “going blank”).

7. Shifting of trunk, body movement.

8. Shifting countenance angle, side to side and head tipping forward, upright or backward for variations of “attitudinal set.”

9. Intermittent non-vocal audibles (sounds made with a chair, clothing, thumping, tapping, sighing, etc, )

10. Intermittent vocal audibles (“ah”, “oh”, “um-hum”, “yeah”, “so”, “tsk”, etc.)

Some of the more unique and recognizable (listener resources) are:

1. The moving, non-audible, non-vocal. For example the pseudo-contemplative, inverted-basket hand gesture (fingertips-only-touching) without accompanying audible,

2. The moving, audible, non-vocal:

a. The “hell-on-leather”, “sufferer” listener: These are heard from a person who is causing leather (or plastic) articles such as coats to (See Chapter V) make audible squeaking sounds during the talking of another person. When heard from a person whose ankles are locked around each other, their shoes working on each other, there is a noteworthy frequency with which these ankle-locking, audible-leather individuals affirm having chronic low back (lumbar) pain. Try it!

These “hell-on-leather” listeners are describing particular listening experiences as having been “saddled” onto themselves. It is this intent to convey that the talker is being experienced as “riding” him.

One man regularly “worked leather” when his wife was talking in her monotonous, plaintive tone from which she could be jarred or loosened only with considerable difficulty. He did not interfere in words with her talking, but was efficiently and effectively complaining “What’s-a-poor-guy-to-do, his-wife-the-way-she-is” to the others via the “squeak, squeak!” of his shoes.

Transactional analysis of the “hell-on-leather”, “cowhide” audible, has depicted the listener as “saddled”, “suffering”, “ready to be ridden”, “why doesn't the person get off his back”.

Heavy “leather (plastic) coats” worn in social settings “crackle” and “squeal” at every movement of the person. Conjecture about the feeling experienced by the person inside this heavily weighted, squealing piece of “legitimate” apparel offers interesting dimensions. “Leather” coats or purses or shoes, as they make the high-pitched sounds, produce fine vibrations on the underlying tissues of the wearer.

These small incremental vibrating movements are perceptible to the wearer and occur at “unpredictable” moments depending on the constancy or variation of the tension in the underlying muscles of the wearer. Therefore, the wearer can be experiencing “minor, small moving surprises” for himself/herself and non-vocally, non-committed stimulating of interest toward himself (herself) .

b. Sighing:

Sighs are used in some homes to impart a major portion of prohibitive messages. Factors in sighs include:

(1) The length of time of the sigh. A sigh can be long or short.

(2) Looking at the person for whom it is primarily intended (or not).

(3) Inspiratory and/or expiratory sighing.

(4) Variations of audible intensity, volume (decibels) of sound produced; a sigh can be “tall or small”, “high or low”, etc.

(5) A sigh can be nasal or oral, constrained or ejaculated, a snort or a “phew!”

A sigh can say:

“I'm tired”

“You're a bore”

“You're silly”

“You stupid s - - -”

“I'm scared”

“You better watch out”

“Haarrrummph!”

“This is more than a body can be expected to stand”

“You're too much!”

“You're much too much!”

“How could I?”

“How could you?”

“You'll be sorry”

“You'll be sorry if you do (it)!”

“There! Just like I thought you would say!”, etc.

Example of sighs:

In one case, Larry told how his mother used to control and direct him and his siblings about what was right and what was wrong by the variety of sigh she used; then he found that his children were carefully responding to his own various sighs as directing cues for their behavior. One variety of sigh he eventually found had literally been evoking cringing, obedient compliance when his children were small, and now could be traced as stimulating reckless defiance in their behavior.

3. Moving, audible and vocal (listener resources):

a. The “Um-hums” head-nod maneuver:

b. The “ah-huh”, “uh-hum” head-wagger, listener maneuver is in response to another person’s seemingly “endless talking” as in the game “Ya-gotta-listen-to-me” (YAGOLITOME). In this maneuver “ah-huh” head-bobber fancies himself to be giving reassurance to the speaker, letting the talker “unwind.” This person often believes he is being “understanding” of the talker. In groups, the “um-hum” head-bobber reports wishing that the talker would stop boring him, but at the same time he trys to be nice to the “yakker,” because he would not want the “yakker” to get mad at him. Nor would he want to hurt yalker’s feelings. After all, Mr. “Uh-huh” is doing the right and courteous things. These extended series of closed-lip murmurs usually are discontinued by the head-wagger before he stops his nodding. The “um-hum” is done with a deadpan expression, jaws slightly apart, teeth not touching, lips closed, and muscles of the cheeks below the eyes sagging. At this point his eyeblink rate is markedly slowed. When Mr. “Um-hum” lapses into silence but continues his wig-wagging, his hope is that if he is silent long enough, the other person, Yakker, will take the hint, stop talking, and get off his back. As the course of events is played through there is, however, invariably a different outcome which resembles the initial example of DOM, the Old Man whose appetite for being audibly stimulated (being talked to) was repeatedly disappointed. Invariably, the “angled” wig-wag, nodding listeners with their “um-hum’s” report either

(1) That people they listen to keep getting mad at them, or

(2) They “wind up getting mad at” the Yakkers.

On the other hand, the Yakkers tell how this “unwinding” gets them all wound up, that these “listeners” wind them up tight: the wig-wagger is playing “Look-How-Hard-I-Am-Trying-(to-listen-and-be-polite-to-you,-can't-you-understand?)”

The serial “um-hum” nods of the head-wagger have stood for:

“Sure is good to see you”

“I understand”

“I hear you”

“Sure is hard to talk to you”

“Yeah, like you say, it sure is awful”

“Yeah, it sure is awful boring listening to you”

“Isn't that all?”

“This is all very nice to know”

“Won't you ever dry up?”

“Why don't you get lost; get off my back”

“Yeah! So go practice drowning!”

“So very nice to talk to you!”, etc.

In a treatment setting the treatment regime for the “listening” head-wagger is to increase the number and frequency of his audible responses and decrease the amount of head-nodding.

Example:

Ray wanted to be friends with his mother: “But, Doc, you know, sometimes she drives me batty, out of my mind, with her talk, talk, talking all the time.” Ray’s Adult and Child selves were well sorted, so he was told: “OK, Ray, but you want to do better with her so here’s what you can try out. When she’s talking this way you give her 1 to 3 syllables and no more. Do this every 4 to 10 seconds.” Examples of short syllable sayings were given to Ray: “OK”, “Yeah”, “I see”, “Fine”, “Yep”, “Could be”, etc,

Continuing, Dr. M said: “When she begins to pause for a second or two as if she is finished making her point to you, then you start up a sentence. You'll see she will override you with her words, so you let her over-ride your words after three or four words. Then you go back to using the one to three syllables again every 4 to 10 seconds. She’ll begin to pause again and you’ll repeat your sentence again and she’ll bump you aside again. Carry out this set of steps until she wants you to talk. You’ll find that after 3 or 4 repeats of this that she’ll be listening to you, wanting you to talk to her.”

Ray used this prescribed course of action on his next visit with his mother. He reported back, “Hey, Doc, it works!”

Other individuals have also found this set of procedures to be quite successful. Several head-waggers have reported back their increased satisfaction talking to the particular person and their preference for introducing a one to three syllable phrases every three to five seconds and cutting down the amount of head-wagging.

Other examples of one to three syllable phrases are “Oh, yeah?”, “Oh, I see,” “Okay”, “Oh, really”, “That’s good”, “Uh-huh!” (open-mouthed, vs. closed mouth “Um-hum!”), “Right!” “Is that so”, “You bet!”

These phrases can all be noncommittal as to the content of the talker but show a commitment to giving the talker the “You-are-OK-with-me” by a tone of voice which Yakker is searching for. The vocal tone in the spoken one to three syllable phrase gives far more information as to the quality of reception and goodwill being extended to the talker than any number of head-nods. The “Ya-gotta-listen-to-me” (YAGOLITOME) player is quite familiar with getting nodded off.

“Ya-gotta-listen-to-me” is the name of the gimmick and the name of the game; the trick of the talker is somehow to get someone to talk to him, to praise him, to debase him, or to cuss him out. Any one of these being preferred to being ignored or indifferently nodded-on and nodded-off. In the treatment setting head-nodding motion has been interdicted sometimes on the basis that it was without awareness and that the decrease or discontinuance of nodding and the increase of vocal audibles was to get the wagger well of encouraging others to bore him, stupify him, discourage him. [58]

Chapter VIII

Adult Procedures for Better Listening

Problem listening activity can be corrected by implementing adult procedures. The following treatment setting gives an example of how this is done.

Harriet thought (was taught as a child) that being a good listener meant “You are not supposed to talk when the other person is speaking. Don't interrupt the speaker.” However, affirmative head nodding was permissible. When her turn came to talk she could ask questions of the talker. She had been taught that a good conversationalist was one who didn’t make “flat statements” but instead asking polite questions was “showing interest.” The serial questions of her game “Look-how-hard-I-am-trying- (to-get-along-with-you)” were identified. In their repetitive nightly appearance at home to her spouse, Ben, these serial questions were trying and tiring to him at the end of his working day. Harriet described how infuriated he would get at her and “how hurt” she would become when “after all my interest I tried to show to him,” Ben would work it to get away from her and into another room which was “sacred” in her home.

Her treatment objective was to get well of being a “Bitch Queen” at home (Script: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs).

Job number one with her was to increase the amount of her vocal responsiveness to the other person when she was listening. Initially, she had a trance-like appearance while “I was just listening to you!” She would stop almost all body movement except for some head nodding; she would have a sagging face (she verified her teeth were riot touching). Her eyeblink rate would become markedly reduced (one every 6 to 18 seconds).

In the first session, her lack of audible responses was identified to her and she was shown she could give back more vocal recognition, recognition which she was “probably unknowingly, withholding from your husband, when he gets home and starts talking to you.” It was recommended to her that she increase the number of her single-syllable, audible vocals during the sentences of her spouse’s pastime offerings to her when he got home. Additionally it was noticed on her first visit but not commented on then that smiles she gave when she was asked to give back vocal responses during the session. She also told then of having headaches. No recommendation was made about her head-wagging during the first session.

The treatment agreement reached before the end of the first session was to get well of getting “hurt by and mad at” her spouse. During the following week, the increased number of realistically stimulating vocals back to husband and the coincident decreased amount of her silent (Parental) head-wagging, led to improvement at home. She also reported fewer headaches (as a result of less head nodding).

The next step with her was the control of her tedious, tiresome, trying comments ending with a question mark. The separation and control of this tiresome “Why?” Child who was “overlapping” (contaminating) her Adult (Figure No. 26) was initiated by the recommendation that she begin tabulating the number of questions she asked in the first hour after hubby got home. To her immediately forthcoming “Should I stop asking him questions when he gets home?”, she was promptly told “No!” That her conversational questions to him were to be counted by her; that it was not only permissible but desirable for her to continue her questions, especially as she kept track, as she “tabulated” (counted) the number of them. The treatment prescription was: “Once a week count the number of questions you ask Ben during the first hour after he gets home!”

Next session: “I don't think I caught all of them Thursday, but there were 26 that I counted!” She graphed the number of these questions on a weekly basis and brought the graphs in. Soon the correlation was being made by herself that the more questions she asked, the more “bitchy I was getting with him.”

Her own Adult monitoring of (listening to) herself was thus expanded and strengthened as her Child decreased the “overlapping” (contaminating) of her Adult. By explicitly recommending the continuance of (a portion of) her questions to him which she was already doing, her Child ego state justifications for the reasonableness of her questions were by-passed. Effectively, this act of counting by her newly “freed” Adult served as a protection for her Child from the injunction “be nice to him (husband) even if it hurts you.” The “tabulating” of the number of questions stimulated her Adult awareness of her Child-self, Harriet, and the counter-injunction prescription: “Don’t-stop-them, count-them!” gave her effective permission to try something besides questions “to show interest” -- (it was expected she would show more smiling interest in him as a by-product). The statement that “My-questions-are-to-show-I-am-interested-(even-if -it-hurts-me)!” could be changed from “protestingly” affirmed, as based solely on a “Now-and-Here” reasonableness, into a valued and attracting talent of long standing which need not cause her to be hurt. Her (Childhood originating) “Then-and-There” basis was established as still reasonable in attracting and holding Ben. The questionings of her “cute Child” were affirmed to her as attracting Ben during courtship and therefore likely still stimulating to him.

Considerations in Harriet's case. Shortly after the start of the first session, it was decided that her Childhood based teachings about how to listen were in need of re-tuning. About halfway into the first session, the first recommendation was given. She was urged to “give-with-an-audible-vocal more often” and told this was a “prescription for getting well of getting hurt.” One, two or three syllable phrases (no more than 3 syllables) which can be inserted into the transactions while the other person continues his talking and “holds the floor.” This particular “prescription” was selected because it would (1) activate her spouse into more regularly looking at and talking to her (stroking her) as she became more immediately pleasurably stimulating to him with more vocals from herself; (2) her trance-like “going-blank” face meant that a growing internal confusion (of her Child) was in progress and needed to be reversed; (3) this particular prescription for Get-Well would aid in setting aside a Parental injunction which was estimated to exist (but which was not inquired into). Without asking, it was clear to therapist that whatever (Parental) protection her Child had against this growing confusion, this protection was not working. However, any act that might “lift” (turn off) her Parent would likely aggravate her Child’s sense o£ being orphaned. (4) In having a program (a prescription to take) to work on between visits to the office she was enabled to turn some portion of her at-home-alone time, her obsessive ruminating time, into figuring out some new sets of three syllable phrases to fit into her “openings with Ben” when he got home and began to talk to her. These particular intervals of time “at-home-alone” which were used to figure out new words, new vocal articulations to use that night, these intervals would predictably be “anxiety free” and unconfused. Now she had a program wherein her Child didn't have to wait until next week or next month or next Christmas. By the third session in the office, her “Harriet Self” was now enabled “I told myself I can wait until later in the day and I knew I could, because he was really smiling and laughing like his old self when he’s getting home now. So I thought of some other funny sounds to make... (pause without going blank). That’s funny. I just remembered. I used to do that when we were first going together.”

The treatment of “My ... Bitchiness” was underway. Harriet’s case illustrates some of her clinical “listening idiosyncrasies” and aspects of them which were dealt with early in her sessions.

Techniques

Techniques have been developed for improving, correcting specific listening difficulties. They are called “prescriptions.” A prescription is what a doctor writes for you to get well of an illness. For example bacterial pyelonephritis (kidney infection) may for example be treated with:

(1) Rx: Drink three quarts of liquid per day;

(2) Rx: Take body temperature twice daily and record;

(3) Rx: Purchase a quantity of a prescribed sulfa drug preparation and take 2 teaspoons of it (4 times a day).

“Prescriptions” for Getting-Well

Listed here are procedures recommended for improving various listening syndromes.

1. Get-a-Level-Head

2. Get-a-Move-On

3. Give-with-an-Audible

4. Duet-Talking

5. Use-His-(First)-Name

6. Get-Your-(First)-Name given to you

7. “Brush-Touch” the Other Person (0.2 second on a non-erotic skin surface)

8. Use-a-Sound-Screen

9. Get-a-Replay (Re-Listen)

10. Give-with-a-Move

11. Teeth-Touching

12. Blink-Up

13. Thought-Pause, “Give-Yourself-a-Second-to-Think”

Get-a-Level-Head

“Get-a-level” refers to the specific activity of the person squaring up his head and face so as to have it be vertical in the horizontal plane, so that a level headed physical posture is evident; so that a straight forward presentation of attitude is apparent to the other person, whether he was the listener or the talker. This technique (more reliably than any other) has the effect of activating (cathecting) the Adult ego state in the talker and/or listener.

Example:

Jason, a young man of 23, sought an appointment because he was about to be dismissed from his job as a police officer. As he talked Jason was initially objective in tone and level in physical attitude. He wanted to keep his job. In fact, he wanted to stay in his present unit with the same personnel and the same duties. He saw that because of his present predicament with his superiors this might well mean his spending some time off-duty and with an unfavorable report in his personnel file, whether he liked it or not. He said his unit commander called him “cocky and unreliable.” During this portion of his treatment session his reasoning about his situation was well thought-out, including his own background motivations. As he went on in his story, he told of instances which showed that this “problem” was an intermittent one for him. In one of the examples he gave, he told of getting back at a particular sergeant and bugging the sergeant with his own rules (known as “cramming the other guy’s Bible down his own throat”). As Jason ended this particular story a broad smile broke out on his face. His neck and head moved forward some and then to the left. His forehead was furrowed. His face was tipped slightly forward and down, his gaze was directed up at the listener, to be looking almost through his own raised eyebrows. The doctor also noticed a slight pinking of the whites of Jason eyes and thought, “So this is what is called cocky.” Jason was immediately asked if he could guess what his captain would say about his appearance at that immediate moment, if the C.O. could see him. After a second of thought, Jason asked, “Cocky?” Affirming this, he was asked what he felt like at that moment. Jason leveled up his physical posture in the seat and told that inside himself “Right now? Right at this moment? I feel scared!”

Then as he reported the balance of this particular feeling state, his face, physical posture, and head angle and his forehead all came back to the “cocky” appearance. Then he said that what he wanted to show outside himself was “I could care less. You don’t scare me.” Followed by “Why, Doc? What do I look like to you?” Matter-of-factly the doctor told Jason of the physically evident postural and body attitudinal changes described above, especially his head angling. Then immediately following the verbal matter-of-fact description the doctor simulated Jason’s “cocky attitude” in posture and then answered Jason in a second way: “Well, Jason, I’ll tell you,” etc., in a manner of miming (mimicking?) Jason. Then therapist leveled himself and matter-of-factly talked some more to Jason about the C.O. and Jason. Jason did some homework after this session. He studied himself at home in front of his mirror (his posture and his appearance) on three different occasions during week before the next treatment session.

During the next session, he enthusiastically began “It worked! Doc, you know! You got something there. It really works!” And then he told of his practicing in front of the mirror and of finding that when he could hold his head and face level while talking to the captain or the sergeant that they were straight in their dealings with him. He also told how he had not had as much fun with the two of them. He didn’t have as many laughs with them. They didn't have as many laughs with him. “I reckon this is sort of a reasonable trade off, though.”

The treatment job with Jason was done. He was cured. Jason did not get fined or fired. After two more weeks he discontinued his treatment sessions. He wrote back a few months later describing that he had in fact not been “canned” and that he had been promoted by the same commanding officer he had been bugging earlier. He was doing the work he wanted to do.

What is it that is weighing down a person’s head more to one side than the other? What is it that at times causes this angling of the countenance when talking or listening to another person? It is often a Parental prejudice or opinion. Angling can also be present when a Childhood belief is under consideration, either to be fought against or protected from attack, or adhered to. Thirdly, an angle may show on the person's face if the “Child self” spots some potential for playful (mischievous) pleasure in dealing with another person. Such as persuading the other person to join with him in a belief to act on. What does it mean “an-angle-in-mind”?

What is portrayed by a person with an angled countenance? It means that the person showing an angled countenance has “an-angle-in-mind.” Conversely, a person who is “on-the-level” looks like it to the outsider. “Leveling” has been presented to patients by the leaders of groups, as well as by group members to each other. It has been taught to classes of high school students. (See Figure No. 28 on the next page.)

At an appropriate moment the “tilt” and the “squared up” are identified. Demonstrated as follows:

Using both hands, the group leader places his thumbs on the posterior angles of the right and left side of his mandible (at the back side of the lower jaw). Both index (first) fingers are placed one on each of the bony ridges (zygomatic process) running from the ear forward to the cheek, and the tips of the middle fingers are placed at the outer angles of the two eye sockets. Using these points and the kinesthetic (balance) sense of the hand, arm, and shoulder muscles with the head position, a good quality leveling of the head, as visualized across the eyes, can be obtained, i.e., within less than two (2) degrees of a horizontal circle (one percent). The level can be verified by a person looking in a mirror. Those wearing glasses often use the upper rims of their spectacles and a known horizontal plane e.g., wall shelving, to aid in aligning their head posture. This procedure can be called a gimmick or a trick; it can be referred to as educating or training the patient, or by any other equally “opprobrious term” to dismiss its self correcting significance.

However, since its “discovery” and introduction as a correcting oneself procedure, “leveling” has been used with beneficial results for cases in various diagnostic categories including sociopathic disturbances, chronic and acute anxiety, panics, psychoses, etc. It has been used by patients in institutional and private treatment settings. Members of training seminars have found it useful when they were having difficulty picking up what was going on. “Is it me or the talker who is angled and angling?” It has been useful as a backup aid in a person counter-checking his own quality of receptiveness and perception; to increase his own individual learning efficiency and capacity, to locate when he is “on-the-level” or is “tilted.” It has been used to assess and discriminate when speakers are likely to have an “angle-in-mind” or are “coming on straight.”

One high school teacher ^{^[59]} of “learning disability” students reported that the “get-a-level” procedure as “the single most useful item to watch in students and to tell the students about themselves. The students don't question it. They use it right now, then later when I've asked them they say 'I don't know why it works, but it works.’ ” The same teacher told that there was a 15 to 20 point increase of functioning I.Q. in 80 percent of his students after one school year in this Transactional Analysis oriented “Educationally Handicapped” class.

Of those instances studied to date, a level appearance in a visibly moving person has corresponded to an actively activated (cathected) Adult ego-state. That is, individuals who are appraising, objective, thoughtful, reliable, reasoning, etc. are “on-the-level” both in their listening and in their talking. These persons without an “angle-in-mind”, without a “tilt” on their faces are, with remarkable regularity, workmanlike in approach, are thoughtfully compassionate and non-opinionated, and are humorless with this attitude.

The “Get-a-level” procedure has been used by married couples.

Example:

Ethel, an “Old-Woman-in-the-Shoe-at-twenty-two,” late for her first treatment session, arrived disheveled and talking at 350 syllables a minute. By the end of the session she was talking at 250 syllables a minute. On time for the next interview, she started talking at 300 words a minute. After about 30 minutes of this she rather abruptly sat forward in her chair and asked “What can I do? (pause) I get so mad at him (fiancé) I can't think; I don't want to be screaming at my kids all the time!” and then she stopped for a few seconds. This moment was taken to introduce her to the procedure of “leveling” her facial countenance and head. At that particular moment she did have a level countenance. She had just described her boyfriend’s “angle.”

Doctor: “You can watch your boyfriend to see when he has his angle going. By that I mean you can watch his face. When he’s on-the-level with you his head and face will be leveled. And when he has an angle-in-mind he will very likely have an angle on his face. If you can get yourself to come-on straight with him, then .., I mean set your own head and your face level, like this ...” describing by example the “leveling” exercise and method to her.

She carried out the leveling procedure shown and talked in a more organized manner for 30 to 40 seconds. Then, taking her hands from her head she again began to “angle” her face and increasing her talking rate up to 250 syllables per minute. At her next 0.4 second pause for air, doctor asked: “Why not level yourself again? Looks like it works pretty good for you!” while again demonstrating for her the physical face leveling procedure.

“What? Oh! Okay!” she said. She did the face leveling exercise again. Her composure returned. This was done once more near the end of that session. She had to stop coming after a few more sessions.

A year later, when she was able to resume treatment, she started right off at 300 syllables a minute about her current domestic troubles. After an initial 15-minute burst of Indianapolis Speedway speech she slowed to look at doctor and comment about her own handling of the particular instance of being baited which she had just cited “but that time I kept my level and he didn't get to me!” with a reflective smile of self-assurance and acknowledging glance to the doctor.

As measured across the person’s eyes, the Adult of a person will be level with the horizon.

In practice, a listening or talking person will be seen shifting his head forward and back, tipping and moving his head side to side, from moment to moment. What is referred to here is the principal attitudinal mode (posture) and the executive^{^[60]} attitudinal view inside the person; the ego state which is “really me” then. There is the additional factor noted by students of “angles-and-levels” that very few people have a perfectly symmetrical face. The nose and the jaw may be more to one side than the other. The eyes may look like they are somewhat off the horizontal. These are the characteristics of facial countenance which are noted by the “hemi-face” student, e.g. photographic studies, and has to do with individual characteristics of a person’s physiognomy.

What does an angled countenance convey? What does “tilt” on a person’s face mean? In the listening (moving) person, it means that when an imaginary line is drawn across the eyes which is parallel to the horizon, the person is more than likely listening with a reasoning view of the situation, is portraying an objective view, is assessing the particular event in order get the facts. When a person’s face is angled off the horizontal as measured by an imaginary line across the eyes, this means that one view of the situation carries more weight for the person than another (internal) view of that same situation. When the angle is present, it may be that there is a partial withdrawal from the situation to some related fantasy, or it may be that the angle is for cheering-on of the speaker, or the jeering of the speaker. Persons who are “square shooters” and 1istening-in-a-level attitude are predictably giving a reasoned quality of attentiveness to the situation and are quite likely also influencing the situation toward reasoning. These references to angles and levels also have to do with which ego state has the executive (Adult or non-Adult) in the particular listener-talker, at the particular moment.

Example:

In her twentieth session, Holly was level most of the time. Her eyes were pinking intermittently. About every 3 to 8 seconds her head moved to one angle or another. Periodically she held up her Parental pointing finger to tell of events between herself and her husband, to tell about their children, and to tell about her own background. Her choice of words and voice tone remained objective. There was a lack of impassioned pleading. She returned to the leveled countenance for 6 to 20 seconds at least once every 20 seconds during that session. At first glance it looked as if she might be trying to persuade the doctor that she was expounding on the right, correct and only true way of raising children as contrasted to her husband’s lack of good quality child-raising techniques. Looking and listening closely to her descriptions, it became apparent that she was looking, watching, listening, and carefully assessing how she was being listened to by others she was talking to. AND she was also listening to herself and assessing how she might be influencing the resolution of events in her home.

Holly wanted to get well of intermittent hives. She knew she alienated Howie by her “If it weren't for you” game and “I’m only trying to help you” game. He, her husband, played back his complimentary game of “Yes, Holly, you’re entirely right,” his variant of “Holly-you're-always-right.” In the past, her payoff event for these game sequences had been either to (1) yell and scream him out of the room, out of the house (a Get-Rid-Of payoff for her game) or he’d go to sleep for a Get-Away-From game payoff for his game, or (2) she’d go quiet, as would he, and they would “put each other on silence for hours or days” for a mutual “Get-Nowhere-With” each other quality of mutual payoff. First he and then she had come to recognize that after this latter event had gone on for twelve or more hours then the chances of her breaking out with giant hives would greatly increase. Although previously a hard “Cool it, Man” player (Frigid Woman), they infrequently locked onto this game now for a mutually repelling set of payoffs.

“But,” she continued in this twentieth session, “sometimes I get to telling him about how I want to go live closer to my family” (head tilted 15 degrees), “and how much my mother and brother want to see our children” (head brought up to an 8 to 10 degree tilt), “and I can just see him start to go blank. Then he goes to bed. Night before last (head level, eyes pink) Suzie, our oldest, got sick again and started fussing. So by the time I got to bed I wanted to talk some more, to tell him I shouldn’t have brought it all up” (head to side 20 degrees, pink eyes) “and that he was right, that we probably shouldn't go to live near them. But I'd gone too far already. He just said, 'Yes, yes, you're right. You're entirely right, dear,' and he rolled over and went to sleep.”

“I thought to myself” (leveled face, clear eyes) “right then, 'Hey, this is it. I wonder if I'm going to get hives tomorrow. I hope not, but I may.' You know I could see then, he didn't say my name once after I started all this stuff up to try to get him into a corner” (angling of her face for 6 seconds). “Then yesterday morning I got the hives bad. I started to itch all over. The lotions wouldn’t work. When he came home far lunch he began to call me 'Holly’, to say my name to me. Then (leveling again, pinkened eyes), I saw he wasn't mad, he did care. He did want me.” (Head now way over 25 to 30 degrees.) “You know," (smiling and coming upright) “my hives got well by, by supper time.” (Leveling) “I guess then it’s my Parent who gets on him” (finger up and pointing with an 8 to 10 degree tilt to her face) “and he gets inconsiderate and unwilling to listen to me or hear out my views.” (Smiling, shaking her head side to side, then leveling and going ahead.)

During the twentieth session, she watched carefully for information as to what she could learn about her own behavior from the doctor and what she (her Adult) could better keep track of, on how and when her game-playing self adversely affected the outcome of the events at home. This was predominantly ADULT. For more than 50 percent of the total number of seconds in that session, she was on-the-level, was able to keep track of her hurt feelings and able to deal with her feelings about how “he was being so mean to me, not on my side.” She also was able to listen to him and check out her own feelings, keeping her Adult active most of the time.

Characteristically, when a person is actively angling and someone inquires “What is your angle about?” the angled person will laugh, then level, and within a few seconds discontinue the activity he had previously been embarked on as if to say “Aw shucks, you caught me.” This single act of “leveling” the head and then holding it a few seconds will, with rather good regularity, lead the way towards a rearrangement of the internal way of thinking with corresponding modifications of the rest of the expressive behavior, such as tone of voice, the setting of other muscles of the body. Several persons have also told of having alternative views of a situation come to mind; putting it differently, the person’s own ADULT becomes more available to himself. This is the kinesthetics of behavior and experiencing.

If during the demonstrating of leveling, the person’s elbows can rest on some level surface, such as the arms of a chair, table, or his knees, there will be the added information about where a physical, horizontal (“level”) is. Several people, in order to be able to assume their own level with minimal conspicuousness in social settings, have practiced leveling in front of a mirror, as with one hand cupped under the chin, to then be able to verify for self what it feels like (with their own body muscles) to be leveled.

Ferris in a prison psychotherapy group coined the term “my Adult locators,” referring to his eyeglasses. He had been in several different groups and locked up for many years. He had no prospects, as far as he could tell, of being released in the near future; nevertheless, he “glommed onto” using “my eyeglasses as my Adult locators” within 3 months and 25 group sessions. Then he began to note that he could interrupt his own repetitive sequence of (1) a laughing remark, (2) righteous anger at someone followed by (3) a provocative statement and then (4) a remark and/or physical attitude meant to infer to the second person “You don't know what you’re doing,” or “You don’t know what you’re talking about,” for a game of “See-what-you-made-me-do!” With this Move #(4) in the above sequence he would have a head angle of 25 to 30 degrees to the side and head tipped back 10 degrees. The sequence usually ended in a pouting silence. After having located this sequence and found the usefulness of being able to have his own “Adult locators,” Ferris could be asked by doctor or other person at Move #1, #2, or #3 of the above sequence, “What’s your angle about?” and he would be able to interrupt his activity, his program for earning a big get-away-from pout. He found he could instead exchange his “angle” for a mutual laugh with the other person. He found that his eyeglasses were so very reliable for himself that he was able to discontinue the procedure of putting his hands to his face to get his own level. His “Adult locators” now allowed him to play his game as far as he wanted to. He next became adept at listening for his own tone of voice. He wore his glass frames regularly. He would listen for his tone or he could look over the rims of his glasses and catch himself in his game (just) before he would have, for example, told the persons important for his release to “Kiss my ass.” After six months of being in the group he secured his release. At this writing, 30 months after release, Ferris continues to be outside of prison. He writes back every once in a while saying, “I’m watching my angle, Doc.” He became enthusiastic about “Adult locators” to the extent of persuading his best friend to wear eyeglass rims without lenses. For Ferris, his “Adult locators” continued to be both effective and efficient for him in his continued social rehabilitation (cure). For the first time in the last 10 years of his 28-year life, he became “trouble free” for 30 sequential months out of prison.

This procedure of leveling can be and has been called “a trick,” “educating the patient” and other similar terms. It has been haughtily referred to as “training” and “just plain educating the patient.” The fact that leveling has afforded many a person a chance to obtain relief from his symptoms continues to be repeatedly reaffirmed.

Leveling has offered the opportunity to many a person to locate a psychological and physical position, an attitude with which and from which a significant number of individuals have been able, within a short period of time, to be more in charge of their own behavior, to be better able to organize their feeling experiences (on a realistic basis).

Once objective thinking can be initiated and feeling states sorted, that is, once the Adult ego state is separated from “troubled Child” and activated, then better control and management of internal distress can be obtained. The leveling procedure could be called, “not letting a patient work through his problems” and has been called “artificial,” but for those treaters, whether “artists” or “scientists’” who are intent on successfully reducing the distress of the ill and troubled person and are intent on using procedures which will aid their patients (clients or students) in overcoming and reducing suffering; then the objective is to use those methods which do no harm to others and will provide personal relief.

Persons with intermittent panic attacks as the reason for entering treatment have referred to leveling as “When I held it (the level) for a while it was like a temporary sanctuary that I could find.” “It was a refuge from my panic.” “I did what you said to keep it (symptoms) from taking over.”

“Leveling” as a procedure has been taught and used by several known athletes with success in their sports.

In treatment, the leveling technique is often introduced as early as the middle of the first session. Factors taken into account before introducing “leveling” this early include: is a patient being alternately level and then angled two or three times early in the first visit? Is that person objectifying (vs. objecting to, e.g., “there’s no reason at all for me to be feeling that way”) his presenting situation initially? These individuals indicate having access to different qualities of their own personality structure within themselves.

A person can be asked early in treatment if he wants to have more control of himself; be more in charge of his own internal switch that turns the trouble on and off . When answering affirmatively the person can then be shown the leveling procedure.

The leveling procedure/technique aids in organizing, in securing an organized approach, even though sometimes only briefly. It aids in setting aside internal agitation and disorganized kinds of behavior.

The procedure for locating the level position of the head is described to some patients as being a method to better locate an objective viewpoint, an unbiased view of a situation at hand. Since “bias, prejudice and opinion” are ordinarily thought of as “being bad,” the doctor had some increased leverage when introducing it as a way to control personal bias, prejudice and being opinionated.

Squared up listeners are “straight shooters.” Leveling with an individual, being on the square, both in the physical and the psychological sense, regularly induces increased self confidence and also confidence when it (the leveling) is coming from the other person.

Being on-the-level is quite regularly humorless. In one instance, a student who had just seen a demonstration of “leveling” as “Adult locating” tried it the same evening at a dinner party. Introducing it (leveling) to her guests with “I have a new trick I just learned,” then she invited her guests to follow her example by placing their hands on the side of their heads to level their faces. The very considerable amount of pleasure which was being had by the guests and the hostess up to that point and for the previous 30 enjoyable minutes vanished within 30 seconds and remained absent until one of those present began to “angle” himself “in fun” again.

Her party had come to a dead standstill in terms of fun. No jokes were told. The laughter died out. The individuals, rather impressively surprised at the turn of events, were reasoning to each other and with each other, for that interval. The hilarity and euphoria of the particular situation were eliminated for that “leveled” interval. The enjoyment and the laughs came back into the situation almost as soon as the guests again began to tilt their heads and angles were again “allowed.”

The very few instances of individuals who are level but are in a non-Adult ego state fall into 3 categories:

1. Trance-like Child ego state: Marked diminution of body movement and an almost absence of eye-blink has been noted. In these instances the Child ego state is working at avoiding confusion.

A 23-year-old male with schizophrenia, being cynical was trying to stimulate an Uproar game. He was quite motionless when others were talking, did not laugh and had very minimal amount of bodily movement except for his two lips during the time he was talking. His game was “Doctor-is-always-right,” and he regularly said “Yes, sir!” as an automatic response when such a response could be used by him.

Another instance was a young “dopey” ex-user of LSD housed in prison. As a patient in a psychotherapy group, he was episodically seen motionless and unblinking when talking except for the movement of his jaw.

In these instances Shelly was in a semi-hypnotic state, as if he were drugged. He was almost unblinking, in his “looking-through” (non-convergent gaze at) another person as he would go ahead talking, “steamrollering-ahead” in his conversation, recollecting disconnected thoughts without converging his eyes or his voice onto any one person. When asked who he was talking to, he said “Everybody,” to which two other group members said meant “nobody was supposed to be listening.”

2. Point-in-Mind Listening: Watching, looking, listening for the occasion when next the particular person “finds an opening” to talk, holding his own next point-in-mind for when he can expect to be able to perform. Waiting until it gets to be his turn to climb back on the stage again with his words.

Example:

Marijane was carefully hoarding an item (a point she wanted to make) in her mind because she wanted to bring it up at the first opportunity when it would be proper to “barge in" to ask the question she had. She was waiting only for the slightest pause in the talk (0.3 of a second would be enough) to insert her peripheral but “jeweled” item into the conversation.

She would remain alert and leveled throughout her waits. There was almost no perceptible movement from her except occasional eye-blinks. She was “not going to let anyone see if things bothered me,” or that what was said in group had any perceptible effect on her.

More than once it was evident she was doing a lot of listening in group. This could not be accounted for in terms of any immediately evident movement unless …unless she were moving in some self stimulating but out-of-sight or overlooked manner. It turned out that she kept the tip of one fingernail of each hand in touch and continuously riding over the edge of a fingernail on her other hand, one object being to do it with as little slipping off or down the other fingernail on the other finger as possible. The second object being to make no perceptible noise. Those in her group who tried this movement reported and showed a significant rise in attentiveness, especially in their readiness to be responsive to situations at hand; with a little practice they also were able to begin to affect an appearance of level-headed, unblinking, almost unmoving nonchalance about these same events.

3. Listening, waiting with little movement except for some minimal eye-balling of the scene, almost unblinking. This was also called peripheral-vision or a “peeping” style of listening, blinking.

Example:

Slim could be apparently listening, with rapt attentiveness, as level as could be, some periodic body movement. Episodically he was a disconcerting person to talk to or observe. Aged 36, he was in prison for his third term; this “Cinderfellow” (Cinderella) wanted to get well of going back to jail and also wanted to revive previously renounced ties with his childhood family. In prison this time for burglary, he told of occasional peeping-Tom activities in his youth. Eventually it became evident that when the “peeping Tom” in him was active, his cheek muscles below his eyes, and his lower eyelids were relaxed and sagging “flattened out.” He acknowledged on being asked that at these times in question, his teeth were not touching. Always polite to the women professionals (students) visiting the group, he did not seem to ever be looking at any of them at least he never was caught at it by any of the women or the group leader. Yet coloring and huskiness of tone at times coincided with other data he gave to indicate he was looking at and watching some of the female visitors very attentively. The secret worked out (and which he corroborated) was that he would become interested in a woman who moved, who had a fairly steady stream of body movements, hair, clothing movements. He then would fasten his gaze on another (usually talking) person in the vicinity of this particular woman and yet also appear attentive to the talker. He would be ready with some words in case he was called on. Then by stopping almost all of his own blinking and otherwise becoming almost completely motionless, he could let his peripheral vision peep on her and take in this female vision. Another advantage: He couldn't be accused of peeping. Another advantage was that being motionless decreased the likelihood of drawing adverse or unwanted conversational stimuli toward himself.

In a second instance, a man reported an event where he was preoccupied in concentrating on his own physical posture and in showing a squared-up posture (“being-an-upright-and-on-the-level-citizen”). Instead he got “uptight” to the extent of almost overlooking a significant external noise event. (There was no one else available for him to talk to and he was alone, driving his automobile.) He very nearly got hit by an oncoming, loudly-honking train at a railroad crossing.

Many a person has told of not previously taking the opportunity to study his own countenance while angling in the mirror to locate whether his countenance was level or not, and under what circumstances. Most individuals who later became adept with “leveling” have found their leveling correlated with at least one of their Adult tones and a pitch of voice.

The inference of the Parental injunction “There is absolutely no reason at all for you to feel (do) the way you do,” was heard from some new patients indirectly in the form of “I had no reason at all to feel this way.” As treatment candidates, these individuals were resistant to professional recommendations and taxed the skills of the professional while achieving a successful outcome. For example, when “leveling” was introduced to Mrs. “There's-No-Reason-at-All-Why-I-Should-Feel-This-Way,” she threw it up. She regularly also threw up other “prescriptions” given to her. Those who have been resistant to the head-leveling procedure were better handled by not bothering to contend with the resistance (commitment) to not carrying out the leveling procedure. Instead they were told “Come on let's do it now. Let’s get well. Let's do the treatment and analyze how it works later.” Occasionally a patient responded with words: “No, I don’t want to do this. I don’t see why I should do it. I don’t have to do it if I don't want to.” Assuming that the professional’s timing was good, the treatment contract would be cited back to the patient, as with “You came here to get well of ...”; then continue to “OK, so you don't want to do it, but come on now anyhow and let's do it now.” And then proceed to show how leveling is done, both with word description and simultaneously carry out the physical moves with his own hands and fingers on the sides of his head as described, to demonstrate it.

A man who said he did not want to do the leveling was persuaded: “Ah, come on. Let's do it anyhow.” He was told, shown, and did do it the second time through, with other group members who came along with the therapist in doing it. During that session and the succeeding 60 group sessions he continued to, in his words, “practice leveling.” One of his rewards was the description a woman in the group gave him: “Rob, you sure have a heck of a lot more sex appeal than you used to.” She was comparing that previously he had either been reluctant to commit himself in a conversation when talked to, or he was furtively looking up the legs of the women members. His games had been: “See-What-You-Made-Me-Do! (Wash-Out,-That's-What)" and "Look-What-I-Made-You-Do! (Scold,-Rebuff -Me).” Rob changed from a “stiff-necked boy” with a “chronic washout” style of life to one of the more active and warm individuals in the group. Starting from the single procedure of leveling, he described that now he no longer felt compelled to “have to be ready to wash out of conversations because I was afraid I would goof; now I can stay better with the talk.” Both his confidence in his own staying abilities, as well as his “staying ability,” increased.

There were additional advantages which accrued to the group leader who noticed and made predictive estimates to himself about the success of particular intervention events depending on the angle (or level) of the person’s head. For example, one leader was able to gauge more reliably when he was likely to be talking to the objective person (Adult) and when instead he would be talking to one of the non-objective qualities of the particular individual’s personality structures. Such a professional can choose to talk when the leveling is going on, or ask the group member “Hey, I want to talk to your Adult. Get a level for a few seconds, OK?” in order to then decrease the other ego states e.g., from taking umbrage. The group leader could ask the group members to temporarily set aside the particular personality quality (Parent or Child) of the moment in favor of his Adult-self and then watch to see if, in fact, the person had temporarily set aside, e.g., his internal prejudices, opinions and beliefs which might interfere with assessing what the group leader figured was appropriate to say then.

Keeping track of the level-vs-angle of a person is of aid in locating “when the person has his cool on” so that his objective self can be talked to. By decreasing and de-emphasizing the importance of outrage and emphasizing the “getting-on-with-it” job at hand itself, the leveling offers protection for getting well. Those who have had leveling available to themselves can increase the efficiency with which group sessions were used. The person in group who had temporarily come off his angle and into leveling could then, later, go back to his tilt in order to secure the advantages and satisfactions which would come from getting a laugh or annoyance, the sense of aliveness that comes from the crossing of a transaction, or disrupting the activities of another person, or alienating and estranging others from himself., etc. Since a person can carry out these activities (“making my points” games and payoffs) either later in group or external to the group situation, a temporary postponement in group may well make for a more efficient usage of the time for the work in the group. This is not to say that an individual’s playing of his game has to be permanently given up in his group sessions.

The measure and test of demonstrating the usefulness of the head leveling procedure to the reader is to ask the reader to carry out the same procedure that has been described above, namely, bring the positioning of his head from an angle so that the two eyes are level with the horizon, and hold this position for 30 seconds. Then go back to an angle of 7 to 10 or so degrees off the horizontal. This is a minimal angle, but can be measured. Hold that angle for another 30 seconds, similar to how the level was held. Then assume a “cocked” head angle of 20 or more degrees. Note that after about 30 seconds in this second and then this third position a person can expect himself to experience for each, a separate way of living the same social (physical) situation.

New mental pictures, new fantasies will come into mind. The information from the body muscles, body posture and the body position in space, which is conveyed back to the central nervous system from each body attitude, rekindles a different picture which will bring up a different way of perceiving the situation at hand. Different qualities of perceptive awareness and conceptualization become opened up by shifting one’s physical attitude (position of head on one’s neck). Different imagery inside the person can often be encouraged by this procedure of relocating the position of a person’s head (on his neck.)

Another method by which the reader can verify these facts for himself is to alter the position of his head from level to tilt and then back to level when listening or talking with another person.

One group leader reported that by moving his head to the side and bent slightly forward, with horizontal wrinkles in his forehead and perhaps a vertical knotting in the center of his forehead, that a higher frequency of physical and psychological ills came up for discussion among the members of his seminars, i.e., the angle at which he held his head induced an increased or decreased amount of playing “Ain’t-It-Awful.” Conversely, by reducing the number and frequency of “concerned knots” and wrinkles, and instead bringing his head back to the vertical, he reduced the amount of “Ain't-It-Awful” (i.e., reduced the expectation of getting “marshmallows”/platitudes back) from others in his group. There are times, as clinicians know, when it is appropriate to have this above angle-in-mind and a corresponding tone of voice when, for example, the client’s suffering is acute and a complimentary, reassuring listening quality response would be most therapeutic. Listening in a sympathetic manner can be internally activated (cathected) and realized by assuming that (physical) attitude.

There are times when it is not appropriate to tilt with the client, but to face the situation squarely in order to enhance the client’s own capacity for dealing with his situation. There are occasions when it is reasonable to be angularly persuasive, and other occasions when a reasoning, on-the-level attitude is clinically the best for the patient.

Persons familiar with “angling and leveling” report that at times “it is a good idea to let yourself become angled by (with) the other person.”

Example:

Tom told that “now when (my supervisor) gets sore at me, most of the time I sort of hang my head a little and give him, give his Parent, the satisfaction of telling my Child I had done wrong on a job. We sure get along better than when I was fighting him for my rights. And last week I was bombing along on the freeway in my new Charger and got stopped by the constabulary. I decided I didn’t want this ticket, so I met the man and bowed down my head, and allowed him to angle me. You know what? I didn't want a ticket, I didn't expect one. I figured out how to not get one that time. I practiced my angles, and it paid off. I felt OK about it and so did the officer.”

Clinically, each tone quality of voice a person uses has it’s own characteristic accompanying head-tilt, angle, or level.

A skillful speaker, whether he is aware of it or not, welcomes seeing the angles of the listening audience members, inasmuch as these angles are indicative and representative of the opportunity to reach the listener, whether it be for good-natured or for more persuasive reasons. Speakers with an angle in mind are interested in persuading the listeners, convincing them, suggesting to them. Most listeners who go to talks and listen to lectures have preconceived ideas in mind. These are the intellectual excitements, opinions or the mischief which keep their interest stimulated.

Theoretical considerations about leveling are multiple: treatment, “get-well-first-and-find-out-why-later," the reticular activating. system, “really feeling like it”, and the kinesthetics of behavior with associated feelings and experiencing and state of mind, and manifest behavior and internal mental experiencing. These do not long remain divergent from each other in the individual. A change of one will bring about some change of the others.

Previous mention was made of the “Harvard Cats” where rotation (“tilt”) of a straight edge anywhere in the field of vision of as little as 5 degrees caused different and separated sets of occipital brain cells to be fired off in the cortex of these animals. (See footnote no. 24, Chapter 5) A speculative extrapolation to homo sapiens from the study about the “Harvard Cats”: Different “tilts” of the head and the visual apparatus stimulate different sets of neurons in the brain of a person, and also stimulate a different aspect of personality, for example through reciprocal activation between the cerebellum and temporal-parietal cortex. This is highly speculative. Other factors to consider are the cerebral reticular activating system selectively opening and closing differing qualities of attentiveness and awareness within different areas of mentation; the semicircular canals for balance and gravity; the cerebellum, whose functioning with personality is very little, if at all, understood: etc.

There is, however, this to say: the kinesthetic sensory nerves in the small muscles at the back of the neck that balance the head on the neck have a great deal to do with locating one’s body position in space and in orienting many other sets of muscles in the performance of precise physical acts. Performers of complicated athletic, artistic feats such as ballet, ice skating, football, skiing, gymnastics, aerial acrobatics, jugglers, entertainers handling “live audiences”, all are quite regularly “keeping a level head” (holding their eyes/head on a perpendicular level) as they carry out complicated, complex performances. The empiric finding is that “level” is much more regularly Adult than any other single criterion known to the writer, and “non-level” is much more regularly non-Adult than any other single phenomenon available for measuring.

Clinical measurements by several observers point to the fact that the least angle (tilt) off the level which induces an ego state other than Adult is 7 degrees left or right. The ego state regularly reported for this 7 degree off level is a “calculating,” “shrewd” Parent who is out to back-up certain disciplining opinions, e.g., dietary propriety, “I-mean-for-you-to-see-it-this-(my)-way!”, etc.

Get-a-Move-on

“Get-a-move-on” has been prescribed at times for patients to get well of various: “I-can't-talk-to-my-friends,” “Nobody-talks-to-me,” “I-lose-track-of-what-people-are-saying,” “Nobody-likes-me,” obesity, etc. The nonmoving, unblinking person can reliably be estimated to be a non-listener, as with the example of Harriet at the first of this chapter.

When consistent with the treatment goal, the writer had occasion to remark to the nonmoving person in a psychotherapy group about the probable non-listening that the party was manifesting. This was the example of Nan and Jane earlier in Chapter III. When other visible moving had ceased and the eye-blink rate had fallen below once every five (5) seconds, listening, for practical purposes, had stopped. Persons who drive long distances and for extended intervals will use gum chewing, eating an apple, smoking a cigarette to stimulate their wakeful (listening) attentiveness for the task at hand. High school students seen chewing gum and moving (“restlessly squirming”) in class (lecture) have been learning more, attending more to what was being taught than (the other extreme of) the minimally moving, almost unblinking student.

Get-A-Move-On means to increase the amount of visible personal physical body movement, including eyeblinking, when in the position of being the listener. The intent is for the listener to let himself be moved more by the selected-for-listening-to talker.

Example:

Baloney Bob was given to periodic “Now-that-I’ve-got-the-floor ...” filibusters alternating with barely (blinking) listening to other talkers. Suzy, in group to get well of her “dead-pan,” was talking with a warm animated face to unmoving, sagging-faced Bob. The group therapist asked Bob how come he was putting Suzy on. “Oh, I didn’t think it showed,” to the group’s and his laughter. Baloney Bob described in order to stop listening he would let the cheek muscles just below his eyes sag. As a child he had learned that by doing this he could save himself from some of Mom’s rages and beatings. Later he told that along with increasing the numbers of his eyeblinks and facial and hand movements, and decreasing the amount of “sagging” (of his face) at home, his wife’s rages at him had also become less frequent, and his trouble working with colleagues had become almost nil.

Give-With-An-Audible

Particularly in treatment groups, the effects of non-audible attentiveness compared to audible, syllabic recognition by a listener are noteworthy. The biological value (“stroke value”) of an audible response has greater social, recognition value, and impact effectiveness than an extended inaudible, although moving responsiveness from the listening individual. In group treatment and training seminars. “A single syllable is worth 10 head-nods.” This “give-with-an-audible-vocal” (to your spouse) prescription, when given to one or both members of certain couples, decreased the number of complaints that “spouse-keeps-getting-all-wound-up-explaining.” Letting the other person talk endlessly, presumably with the intent of “letting him unwind,” instead of giving back an audible responsiveness serves to “wind-up” most talkers. In families where a member plays a hard game of “ya-gotta-listen-to-me” (YAGOLITOME), the specific programming and scheduling of vocal syllable productions has been vital to the “snowed-under-with-his-words” person’s recovery. The prescription “give-with-an-audible (vocal)” here is “Offer-one-two-or three syllables-episodically-and-keep-on-doing-it, every-6-to-10-seconds.” While listening to the particular person you can contribute a comment of a syllable or three every 5 to 10 seconds. Don't let the time between your utterances be longer than 20 seconds. When your turn to talk seems to come, let yourself be overridden again. Repeat this sequence 3 to 5 times. By then YAGOLITOME will be having you talking to him/her, or if not, talking with you by then, you can excuse yourself in mid-sentence of the yakker and leave, etc. The one to three syllable comment examples demonstrated are “OK”, “I see “, “Fine”, “Good!”, “could be”, “Yeah,” “Right,” “Wow,” “Uh-huh” (open-mouthed), “No kidding,” “It is?,” “Oh, really?,” “That's good,” “That’s right?,” “Is that so?”, etc.

Example:

Beth, 28 years old and single said: “I'm not very popular with my friends. I don't seem to know how to talk to them.” One Get-Well prescription given to Beth was: “Give-with-an-audible-vocal-tied-onto-the-last-talker’s-last-words. Repeat one or two of the words that the other talker last said.”

She reported she had success later the same night when out with friends. In group she had not been giving recognition to the just-concluded talker when she started her own words. As the listener, she would turn to the now-talking person, then when “it came her turn” she started talking on another subject and also turned away from the person speaking last and to a third person not previously in it. The prescription was for her to say one to three words to the “just-concluded” talker before “shoving on ahead with” her own “point” and program. It was suggested she could also insert some words into the beginning of her talking, phrases such as “Hey, that was good, and I …,” “No Kidding ...,” “You sure can handle those ...,” “Is that a fact ... and I was... ?,” “I can see what you mean, and it reminded me ...,” “Oh, man ...,” “No fooling,” etc. She was told that the phrases could be murmured or mumbled (they were not mumbled by her.)

The prescribed regimen given to her was directed toward her decreasing the frequency that she would grab the conversational ball, and turn from a possible team-mate, to instead then run away with it (the conversational ball) as fast and as long as she could run, “til midnight if necessary.” When Beth had mastered this procedure she, in effect, became the “Fairy Godmother” of her own “Cinderella script.” This was her magic wand. She became better able to manage and control where and/or with whom she would work up a sweat, and which prince she would let “find-out-where-she-lived-at.” “It took me a little while to get the hang of how to use the prescription, and at first I felt like I was being insincere, a phony, but I got to laughing with them.” (How long did it take to get the hang of it?) “Oh, yeah. Well, during the first 20 to 30 minutes I felt funny using it. That' s not really me, I thought; but then they seemed to like me and I forgot to feel self-conscious.”

This is similar to the regimen to set aside the “um-hum” head-nodding responsiveness of Ray to his mother who played “You-gotta-listen-to-Me.” The audible response, especially the quality of recognition, and which ego state is heard in the tone, is the clearest indicator to the talker of the quality of reception being given to his words, much clearer than any number of head-nods. Recall, for example, that “um-hum” head-nodding has the equivalent meanings ranging from “That's very interesting” to “Go practice drowning!” The (“angled”) rebuttal sometimes heard from students, in response to the “Give-with-an-audible-vocal” prescription, was “I can’t think of anything to say,” to which the teacher may respond with “I wasn’t asking for you to think of something to say. How about giving me a word like you just did?” “How about talking to her (him, me)!”

A man who had recently graduated from medical school reported he was taught that interview technique consisted primarily of “listening” without comment or other audible responses; that to be “listening” meant to be non-audible and to not interrupt; that nodding, however, was permitted. He did not say, however, what nodding his professor specified as acceptable; whether it was preferably in the vertical, horizontal, or inclined plane. This quality of non-audible listening, when carried out in marriages, may lead to “uproar” and perhaps divorce; when non-audibleness is initiated with vigor in childhood it may lead to later psychosis; when adhered to by the entrepreneur of the psychotherapy consultation room it often will be coinciding with “too many openings in my schedule.” In any case, what the above recently-graduated medical student got from his course on interviewing technique and thought the professor was teaching to medical students “how-to-bug-the-medical-school-patient.”

The childhood training from which a person’s Child self makes his decisive commitments leading to non-audibleness may include such edicts as “Think before you talk,” “Think before you speak,” “Put your mind in gear before you let out the clutch of your tongue!” so the “thinking-sayer”, in his silences with his blank face and confusion is thinking to himself: “I can’t think of anything to say.” These “thinking-sayers” learned and committed themselves to think and rehearse ahead of time for their “conversational recitals.” The “I can't think of what (anything) to say” is an individual looking for a “double-your-acceptance-of-me-if-I-feel-you-disapprove-of-what-I-say.” “I-can't-think-of-anything-to-say-(that-I-can-think-of-that-you’d-approve-of-if-I-said-it).” This person is searching through his “approved-topic, sayings list,” his “approved-thought-of-to-say topic list” for some item that will guarantee (instant) acceptance. He expects that given a little time he will be able to prove and substantiate his decisive-commitment and position that “Whenever I do try to talk to anybody then they end up rejecting me and then I'll wish I hadn't opened up and given myself away to them!” When and after initiating some talk, these persons will shut-up at the earliest (“interrupting”) responsiveness and claim a “hurt feeling,” “a foul deed,” “you didn't mean it, that you wanted to hear from me; it’s too late now,” annoyed when someone responds to them claiming “You barged in on me!”

Clinically, they came to treatment because they felt friendless. The problem was described “I can't seem to communicate with people, I can't seem to think of things to say when it comes my turn.” Treatment for this situation was to locate with them that they were infrequently giving audible responses to people who talked to them (e.g. “I see,” “Is that so,” “no kidding,” etc., waiting instead for their turn to have the podium, then either monopolize and be boring or forget their lines.

The procedure of choice in dealing with this syndrome-game was to increase their frequency of articulated audible vocal sounds (not the number per day but), to decrease the time interval between vocalizing productions to the other particular person they were talking-listening to: “Ah,” “Hum,” “OK,” “Swell,” “That so?,” “I see,” “No kidding,” etc. This was to draw more people to talking to Mr. “I-Can’t-Think-of-What-to-Say.” The result was less opportunity for friendlessness, improved respect for social rituals and increased facility in social transactions. In the non-responsive treatment silences, inquiry usually brings out “Oh yeah, I was just thinking about what you said.”

Intervention then can be: “And this is what cools people toward you.” The procedure introduced into this situation was (in fact even to write it on a prescription pad) “Increase the frequency of audible syllables you give to your friend when being talked to, and decrease the number of non-audible responses, headnods.” Used on a day to day basis it goes: “After each ten things said to you that are worth a moving response from you, reward your friend with one vocal audible syllable back to him.” A headnod, a non-audible response, is not as productive of getting-well of “I-can't-think-what-to-say.”

The solution to “I-can't-think-of-what-to-say” is “I didn’t ask you to think of something to say; I want you to talk (a word) to me,” “Talk-to me.”

Rx for Get-Well of “I CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING TO SAY”: “Give-with-an-Audible;” “Give-with-a-Word.”

These people have trouble with giving away their words, giving the other guy “the-time-of-day,” moving the other person with their own words.

Formulation: Talking to somebody is the opposite of knowing-what-to-say; K-W-T-S comes from the approved-sayings list of topics. This approved-saying topic list is recited from in order to secure the (dis)pleasure, indifference or approval of the person to whom the recitation is being made. Training in these approved sayings often has come from a head-wagging, “nurturing” Parent who withdraws not only the nurturing wig-wag (approval) nod but other signs of recognition if a non-approved saying subject is brought into the talk; to then even become physically motionless until a topic from the approved-sayings list again makes appearance in the conversation.

Knowing-what-to-say is the opposite of talking to somebody. Talking is for the listening to it. Talking is for the physical, visible moving it produces in the listener.

From a treatment orientation, as well as from an educator’s vantage point, the acts of choice-making, learning, focusing-converging on events and differentiating; the acts of making new information one’s own information involve listen-talking, talk-listening, and look-pointing.

Selective Stroking

At times it is inappropriate to become responsively engaged in certain particular transactions. When the potential responder can determine ahead about the virtue of remaining disengaged, of not becoming hooked, then the following procedure can be useful. When and immediately following an unwelcome initial talking stimulus, offer to let the next 4 to 6 seconds pass with as complete a non-acknowledgement as possible (non-looking, unchanged rate-of-moving, non-audible, no responsive recognition.) With this 4 to 6 seconds of “oblivious” non-acknowledgement, the likelihood of persistent, undesired reattempts by the would-be stimulator of “some action” is reduced by about 75 percent. While to some this may seem like “cruel and inhuman” responsive behavior, many a poised individual has referred to this procedure as “selective, discriminatory listening.”

Example:

In group Larry told that he and his wife were walking downtown at night on a wintry evening when they walked past three inebriated youths sitting in a darkened alcove. About 20 yards ahead, a fourth member of this group was noted heckling another passerby on the then minimally-peopled sidewalk. Larry and wife were duly “picked up” by the second of the four, treated to profane and obscene epithets, asked for money, and in other provocative ways invited to retort to the tormentor. Larry, however, kept his same walk, continued his same rate and tone of syllable production to his spouse, who in turn also continued her responses and gait unvarying as from before the onset of this “sidewalk disrupter” event. Neither of this couple made a startled gesture, looked at, spoke to, or in any other way acknowledged the presence of the would-be sidewalk highwayman.

Larry told that he was aware during this encounter that if the two of them “made it through” the first 4 to 6 seconds without any visible or audible responsive awareness (becoming hooked into the game) their chances of being “dropped off” unmolested within 60 seconds were 95 percent or better. This was borne out when after 45 seconds and 50 yards of harassment the young man dropped off from them, presumably to return to his initial perch.^{^[61]}

Brush - Touch

Brush-Touch the other person, 0.2 seconds on non-erotic skin surface. This particular self-describing procedure is Adult ego-state energizing. It is an activity which stirs up the “now-and-here” awareness in both individuals, presumably stimulating the cerebral reticular-activating-system.

This procedure was most often given to married couples in treatment. Interestingly, couples have reported occasions of one “brush-touching” the other in the midst of playing “If-it-weren’t-for-you!” and it took at least 12 seconds for the touched one to resume the “mad” she/he had going previously. Although the instant verbal response may well be “What did you do that for?” the heightened awareness of the “now-and-here” will be evident to both and clearly contrasted with the just preceding “feeling-mad” experience with its inherent anachronisms (Child feelings). Couples have recorded bringing their marriage to effectiveness with the utilization of this procedure and the procedure of “Give-with-more-audibles to each other.”

The Sound Screen

The “sound screen” uses a sound source such as (a radio, tv, CD, I-pod, etc.) music to screen out external distractions. Contrary to what many parents will say, it is advantageous for the adolescent studier to have his radio on while studying. This “Sound Screen" diminishes the sense of isolation and being shut-out, shut-away from the surroundings. It serves to stimulate the student’s cortex, it aids in keeping (the learning mind) awake (stroking advantage). The “sound screen” will act to screen out external disruptive stimuli, as when Mom and Dad are screaming at each other or one of the other kids in another room. This is to be compared to the attempts to maintain an almost absolute dead silence in a library, which silence is often reported as disruptive and distracting from reasonably efficient studying. Such silences may well be soporific, hypnotic; alternately the minor whisper of the librarian can so stimulate the curious Child of the studier that the studying, learning program is superseded by curiosity directed toward the librarian, e.g., as the mischievous “How can we bug the librarian’s disciplining Parent?” Students who get very good grades with a remarkably high frequency have their radios on while studying in their rooms.

Duet Talking

The “duet talking” is a procedure of simultaneously enunciating syllables with the other person. It is introduced in groups by first telling the person with whom it will be used “I am going to talk at the same time as you do on occasion. Will you try it with me now?” Persons to whom it has been introduced have regularly taught this procedure to others they knew.

One objective of duet talking is to stay at the same volume of sound (decibel) production as the other person. Another feature is to be as distinctly articulate as possible. The third objective is to pace the rate of syllable production to match the other person’s rate. This pacing of one’s rate of syllables to match the other person’s rate takes a specialized form of listening. The fourth objective is to continue producing words and syllables, to produce them in sequence and cadence with the other person and disregard (to the extent of the duet-er’s ability) the programming of the words into “sensible form and meaning.” The successful talk-duetter frequently will produce a “word salad,” “scrambled words,” words that are not related, phrases and clauses in sequence that, content-wise, are unrelated because he is keeping track more especially of the other person’s rate of vocal production. This is a different and infrequently used method of listening. It is, however, identical to one of the two principal methods of vocalizing with the small infant from earliest days of the new born’s life.[62] See Chapter IV.

Duet talking is one of two methods used to encourage learning, to encourage vocal productiveness, to encourage “stroking” of the nurturing person and of the infant.

Duet talking (duetting) is carried out to get into listening-talking step with the other person. The skilled duetter is much less concerned about the meaning and logic of his verbal, vocal content. He is much more intent on the mutual pacing of his syllable cadence in the twosome in which he is one member.

Duet talking has been used in various settings. Duetting has been used by parent and child in a home to bypass the games of “Uproar” and “Look-how-hard-I'm-trying.” Duet talking has been used by an occasional teacher with a pupil who is beginning to be irate, used by married couples to bypass the exchange of “heated points” and in treatment groups used by the therapist as protection (an “umbrella”) to let the Adult of a confused Child patient use his own permission to “fall back and regroup” in order to become unconfused. Duet talking has been used in the successful treatment of stammerers-stutterers.

The prime condition for the successful use of “duet talking” is to introduce the procedure to the other person ahead of time, to tell him what the teacher/treater is going to do: “I am going to talk to you at the same time when you will be talking, talk in duet with you.” The user of this “Duet talking” (Rx) prescription for Get-Well is advised that (the) listening (activity) is the most heavily trained of all his activities from the earliest years of the existence of most individuals.

This business of listening is the most rigorously and vigorously dealt with of all the trainable, teachable, educable, disciplinable activities during and throughout the childhood years of life. ^{^[63]} The person’s listening, whether as an infant, a child, an adolescent or a grownup, is more attended to than his bowel training, his bladder activity, or his genital activity. It is more regulated than the other half of talk-listening, i.e., his talk activity. This is substantiated, for example, by the fact that listening recognition can be denied to the vocal person “by putting him on silence” (no vocal recognition of himself). In so doing, the vocal person’s listening is being trained. Listening activity is more heavily regulated than “wall-marking,” even though there is the almost universal injunction of “You-are-not-supposed-to-mark-on-walls. Why? Well-you're-just-not-supposed-to,” as an individual makes his initial attempts at “leaving his mark,” sometime between 2 and 6 years old.

Duet talking is used, for example, to sidestep the intensification of heated “point-making, point-sharpening, and point-building” in NIGYYSOB (Gotcha), Pounce, Kick-Me, Uproar, and Make-Me. It is a “de-pointing procedure” with which to bring about cooling of each other’s (game-player) Child state of mind. It is an aid in the control of the playing of “the games of home.” This is not to define that “heated games are bad.” It is to say there are occasions when keeping the intensity of the game-playing, the intensity of the commitment to a particular form of payoff, at a decreased level may be important. These occasions can be decided upon in order to bring about some sought-for change in quality of payoff or a decreased likelihood of alienation of oneself from the other favorite playmate. Families wherein duet talking has been introduced, whether it is child and parent, mom and dad, or two siblings, when introduced, leads to laughing with the continuance of the duet-(or-trio)-talking. This selection of laughing over getting a “good” mad going comes about because it takes time and attentiveness to getting the “mad points” together, to getting the memory systems turned on and getting the “mad tapes” going in order to build up one’s own anger during one’s own recital, or listening to a well-known, old recital of the other. It takes time and special tapes to “get-it-on-the-other-guy” and “drive-the-point-all-the-way-home,” before “angry” is able to energize his angered self. Also it takes some time and the proper “points” to successfully intimidate the recipient of his points. If the sacred memorized “point” sequences and words are interrupted, if the memorized material is kept from being assembled, sequenced and run in sequence, then the angry form of game payoff is decreased if not set aside in favor of (another quality of payoff such as) mutual laughter. While duet talking during laughter you don’t have to run old tapes, just start laughing.

The fact is that laughter enters when this (mutual) duetting procedure is carried out (in order to deter points from being built or sharpened); that almost routinely laughter erupts after a short interval of duetting between the would-be contenders. This is also verification that whichever emotion is being experienced (played out) can well be a matter of choice and option. Individuals can and do have a choice about which quality of payoff operation they will conclude a game with. Mutual laughter is a classical example of “I’m-OK-AND-You’re-OK” for a winner’s get-on-with style of resolving an encounter, a game payoff. A “win-win.”

Duet talking has been used to abort the full anger potential of the games of “Uproar” with assaultiveness, “If-it-weren’t-for-you,” “Ain’t-it-awful,” “Why-is-this-always-happening-to-me?,” “Now-I-got-you,-you-S.O.B.” etc.

Chapter IX

Listening Efficiency

Optimal listening efficiency a person has varies between 30 and 70 percent of the time, of the content of an event. Listening efficiency less than 30 percent is correlated with for example a lowered rate of clinical improvement. People in treatment groups who listen 50 percent of the time accomplish their treatment objective. So also with other listening / learning settings: classrooms, seminars, meetings. Theoretically, this is consistent.

Events in groups are first experienced, then reviewed and lastly, if fitting and useable, are assimilated in some measure during a session. When an event is being assimilated externally directed listening activity will be decreased. Some events are of less significance and some are more pertinent to the particular individual in the particular group activity. In order to most efficiently utilize the time and the information coming in, the particular individual will store some information, partially working through other information, and occasionally complete a piece of working-through during a meeting, class, or group therapy session.

Many of the transactions in a group meeting are repetitive, especially as to new information coming up. So there will be times when there is less call for continuous unique listening attentiveness.

Cerebral assimilation of (“reflecting back on”) the selected-for-listening-to experience maximizes the value and vividness of that experience. “Everything Hearing” [64]serves to adequately cover the survival aspects of the non-listening intervals and also, it is quite adequate to alert and key the person back into listening to an event in the audible (visible) learning/treating situation. This is the situation with many a group member after he has done the work of sorting his Child from his own Adult and he is not preoccupied or distracted by his Parent or Child. Then, when and if something new to him is developing, he can get with it within a few seconds because of his continuing at least a slowed rate of movement.

The Parental injunction “Sit Still and Stop Moving All Around (Wiggling) when Someone is Speaking to You!” is the childhood training for non-listening, for “letting-it-go-in-one-ear-and-out-the-other.”

One hundred (100) percent listeners have been found to be ruminants, grazers, who later go home to sit down, regurgitate, and chew over the material (away from the meeting, away from the group leader, teacher) to then formulate and energize countering, interfering, opinionated rebuttals to treatment-education thinking.

“I’ll have to think that over some more later (vs. now).” “I will think on that later,” when accompanied by a “head tilt” from the particular person, usually means the person is figuring out how to disregard what was said to him, to prove that it is not useful or true.

Maximum efficiency of the listening operation for any given person lies between one third and two thirds. More listening or less listening, either one is accompanied by decreasing usefulness of, decreasing efficiency in the listening activity. The one third to two thirds listening for maximum efficiency, depending on the situation, refers to: (1) the sum of incoming (audible) material and/or (2) the portion of time spent with externally directed auditioning.

Individuals who have consistently reported and manifested “100 percent listening” in working groups, to date, have been troubled either with (latent) psychosis or manifest obesity.

Chapter X

Formulations, Prescriptions,

and Learning Procedures for Listeners

Following are samples of some procedures and regimens worked out and found useful in treating the named symptom (of listening trouble). The programs and rationales presented in schematic form have been part of the get-well agenda for specific individuals with the described symptoms.

PARANOID: Prescription for Getting-Well of Paranoid: Raise and wrinkle the lower eyelids and the cheeks just below the eyes.[65]

SOBA CRUSADES: Regimen for Getting-well of being a SOBA-Hunting-Crusader (SOBA = SOB-Authority).[66]

This is Exchanging a Get-On-With (the job) instead of a Get-Rid-Of-that-SOB-Authority boss:

1. Up the number of daily “hellos” to the SOBA by 20%.

2. Give the SOBA his “certificated name” at least once a day, best with the “good morning! (Mr. Fowler)” or day-ending “good-bye! (Mr. Fowler)”

3. Give an audible, vocal response at least once every 30 seconds during (verbal) transactions with “this chief” including the time during his “(Parent) lectures” as with “Urn hum!”, “OK!,” “I see!,” “Yes,” etc.

4. Keep your (head) “level” most of the time while he is talking to you. Let yourself be swayed (head physically tilted) by him, up to 20 seconds at a time, if useful, to keep the transactions uncrossed. This is to say that an Adult-programmed, compliant-Child set of procedures may well satisfy the disciplining Parent of the boss so that his own Adult can later step in and Get-On-With the job program (with you).

The (self imposed) limitation of “20 continuous seconds at one time” (between “renewal of the level”) has to do with the length of time the Adult ego state, the level-headed person, can remain in charge inside the person’s head while an authentic Child (behavior) is evident. When the Adult interrupted posture is extended beyond 30 seconds, the likelihood of the Child-self becoming “hooked” into taking charge inside yourself, accelerates rapidly. Result: the SOBA-Hunter (Crusader) of Childhood is more easily enticed into playing through to the Pay-Off (e.g., Uproar) in the available bilateral game. Again! Go back to being on-the-level again within less than 30 seconds. This “30 seconds phenomenon” is a matter of the “kinesthetics of feelings and behavior.” [67]

SNORING: A Program for Getting-Well of a Snoring Spouse: The waking spouse is to lightly rub, stroke or caress some area of exposed non-erotic skin of the snorer for 3 to 8 seconds at a time and repeat the process 3 to 10 times at 20 - 30 second intervals.

This treatment, alone, causes temporary discontinuance of the snoring but, in itself, it is not regularly curative. Nocturnal physical separation by the two persons does not improve the snoring, does not improve the quality of restfulness for either person; nighttime separation usually leads to more separation from each other during the daytime and more and louder nighttime snoring.[68]

People who lie on their side are much less likely to snore.

HEADACHE: One Successful Program for Getting-Well of “I’ve-Had-A-Headache-All-Day-Long”:

1. Get your head level for intervals of 30 seconds at a time when you think of it.

2. Move yourself, move your muscles, especially your facial muscles more when around other people.

3. Touch, rub your teeth gently (and quietly) across each other periodically for ten to fifteen seconds at a time. Repeat this three times at 30 second intervals. Result: (As early as two hours later) “I forgot to have my headache and I had a good time (the balance of the day).” [69]

URTICARIA (Hives) and PRURITUS (Itching): Several Treatment Programs for Getting-Well of HIVES and Itching have included: “Get called by your first name more often.”

In group, in family and in one-to-one treatment sessions, urticarial lesions have receded within six hours or less of using of the person’s own first name to him at a more frequent rate; eg, by the person getting his first name given to him ten or more times in a group treatment session. This was the sole additional social action; no pills, shots, or ointment needed.

Persons with repeated episodes of hives have been told explicitly “Get Yourself called by your first name more often, more regularly,” “Get your first name given back to you at least fifteen times a day.” This is done, e.g.,, by the hive-ridden person increasing the use of the names of the other persons with whom he is in touch during the day. Persons with hives are “pale-faces.” Increasing the use of their first name to them, leads to their becoming more “warm-faces.”

Clinical Hypothesis: Rheumatoid arthritis and urticaria (repeated hives) may be based on similar psychophysio-pathology. [70]

STAMMERING: Treatment for Getting-well of STAMMERING: “DUET TALK” with the stammerer.

PROCEDURE: At a time after the stammerers has begun to sort his own Adult and Child ego state, the leader then tells the stammerer he is going to talk at the same time as the stammerer is talking. Then leader begins to initiate and discontinue his own words simultaneously as the stammerer is also making audible syllables. This DUET TALKING is done with the stammerer at first for 5 to 10 second intervals. Within a few sessions of using this procedure with the stammerer, the game basis of stammering becomes locatable (similarly with stuttering). [71] It is unwise to tell the stammerer or stutterer his speech impediment is a game or racket.

FORMULATION: Stammering in the two person encounter is the second part of the set of ulterior transactions. The first part of the ulterior transactions proclaim “I have the floor, don't interrupt me while I am still able to talk fairly well.” The stammer maneuver in a two person encounter can be adapted to the games of “Wooden-Leg,” “Ain't-It-Awful,” “Look-How-Hard-I-Tried” and some other games.

The gimmick, depending upon which game is being played, is 1) to become repetitively stuck on an obvious word and then stop as if for breath, 2) to pronounce an apologetic but clearly recognizable syllable or 3) proceed directly after an inspiratory breath and just barely after the first syllable is started by the other person. With the DUET TALK procedure, the objective is that the stammerer is unable to continue to audition his own stammer, instead becomes disconcerted by and/or curious about what the other person is talking about or perhaps vocally describing “my Child is getting angry.” ^{^[72]} This statement of “My Child is getting angry” is a way to coercively complain to the duet talker about the duetting procedure. Nevertheless, when this procedure is carried through, it leads to success in (temporarily) discontinuing of the stutterer’s stutter activity.

Stammering stutterers (stuttering people) intimidate those other persons who ask the stutterer/stammerer about themselves. They hold people off by their stammering, deny people access to what “kind of a person” they are like. For example, teacher, Mrs. Smart, had a student, Carl, 17, who had been dedicated for over a decade to his stutter. By the end of the school year, and after learning transactional analysis in the classroom, he was talking clearly, distinctly. This means being able to correctly differentiate the Parent, Adult, Child of both himself and other classmates. One time after clear talk was present 40% of the time, he complained about Mrs. Smart interrupting him and about his having to listen to her. Thinking rapidly to herself about his progress and her consultations with Dr. B about Carl, she clearly and in an Adult tone quipped back to him “What do you mean you're having to listen and my interrupting? I have had to listen to you all the time. You only have to listen to me once in a while. I have to put up with that garbage from you, how you talk, day after day.” Both broke out laughing as his “racket” (coercive feeling) was clearly exposed. Later he told her how his “stammer comes from a sick stomach that bubbles and jumps when I am talking.” Up to his senior year in high school, Carl had held speech therapists, social workers, teachers, parents and relatives at bay. He had kept them from getting to know him by using this ‘racket” of his, stammering. Anyone who wanted to intervene, to get him to talk straight, was held off, either by the impossibility of not becoming (Parentally) impatient with him themselves, or because of a “kindly (third) person,” (protector) being in a triangle with Carl and the interviewer. Then Carl could set up the interviewer as the persecutor, Carl, being the victim and “kindly third person” as a “rescuer.” (“Drama Triangle”)

There is a large amount of pleasurable entertainment which the stammerer furnishes himself and others. “The Professor”^{^[73]} in the Child of the stammerer is aware of this “trick” and of the fascination of people in “How does he do it?” “How does he carry out his trick?” “What is this trick of his?”

The supposition here is that stammering/stuttering is equivalent to high-speed vibratory eructation or throwing up, and quite similar to something several female people have called the “woman throw-up equivalent of an orgasm.” The fact is that stammerers/stutterers get hung-up on a syllable of a word (called momentary blocking), where with seeming gasping, hiccoughing silence or loud vocal, machine-gun repetition of a part of a word. With the “release from the blocking,” the stammerer “comes” to eventually finishing the word. The stammerer plays at taking away both “the talk license” and “the laugh license” of those around him. He plays at withholding satisfaction from those waiting for him and around him, and plays at withholding his own act of “Coming” to a conclusion. Stammering/stuttering in other terminology is a racket, i.e. a coercive feeling and activity. [74]

PREOCCUPIED: Prescription for Getting-Well of Preoccupation: “Get-a-Move-On.” [75]

OBESITY: Program for Getting-Well of Obesity Given to a 14-year-old: Say “Hello” to 20 fellow students a day at school using their first names. [76]

FORMULATION: Original Contribution to the Theory and Treatment of the Obesity Syndrome: 100 lbs. overweight equals 100 lbs. times 454 grams/ lb. times 9 kilo-calories per gram (of fat tissue) times 1000 (small) calories/ kilo-calorie. One small calorie is the heat energy required to raise 1 cc of water 1 degree Centigrade between 6 degrees and 7 degrees.

Therefore, 100 lbs. of fat equals 410 million calories. Why are fat people fat? Watch the faces of fatties and ex-fatties. The uncured-obese person (whether he has lost weight or not) is still “thinking fat.” He will show it with a much reduced or an absence of facial and body movement when listening to another, when being talked to. The facial and other animation of the “Thinking-Fat (Obese)” person becomes impassive, inscrutable, and unmoving for the talker; the obese person gives himself away (is characterized) by a facial and body muscle attitude which (as he is being talked to) says “Your words don’t move me,” “I don't have to listen to you if I don’t want to and (I have decided) I don’t want to.” This unmoving quality of facial expression of fatties and uncured ex-fatties is true whether the person be at the extremes of being a public figure or a recluse. Recently a well-known television personality took off a large amount of his bulk. His facial expression, however, continued to remain impassive, unblinking and unmoving when someone else in the cast was talking to him; in fact, his arms usually went limp at his sides, let alone his facial expression sagging.

OBESITY is not letting the other person’s words move Mr. Obese. Therefore, Mr. Obese is an un-responding, unrewarding listener to talk to because he disconnects the power to his own muscles when the other person is talking. True, Mr. Obese usually is moved by the words of other's as with coloring and hidden or microscopic skeletal muscle movements (illegitimate listening), but he conceals his moving so as not to let anyone see he is emoting (is being moved, stirred up), so no one will guess he cares (“is bothered” by his own definition). “Yeah, but, So why is he fat? What’s all that got to do with being fat?”

It has this to do with being fat: In order to compensate for that absence of external (other person) (recognition) stroking, coming to him which he has discouraged (from others), he suffers, therefore, from a (stimulus) stroking hunger. To make up for this self-instituted and maintained stroking deprivation, he uses his own sensory apparatus “to keep his head turned on.” He chews food, swallows food, and the vivid imagery he has in mind is that of being a fat-head and maintaining the pretense of not being bothered “when he is caught” snacking or taking three helpings of food. Then, in addition, his teeth and tooth sockets are each one very richly endowed with finely discriminating sense organs (teeth are very sensitive to minor changes, thicknesses, to distances apart, e,g., 0.001 inches). This quality of fine discriminatory end organ and central nervous system input is heavily tied in with the “now-and-here” quality of Adult data processing. Therefore, fatties are fat as a by-product of getting and keeping their Adult turned-on while at the same time managing to adhere to their decisive commitment of Childhood that the “other person” will not get-anywhere-with me, in order to maintain the position that “I-Am-Not-Okay, but-Neither-Are-You-Okay (with Me)!” The objective is to not give himself away to the (ogre) parent; to show that parent's words have not bothered him, scared, or moved him; to withhold satisfaction from the “other person” seeing that the Other Person’s words got to “fatty.”

(Food) mastication activity also stimulates the abundant supply of reticular-activation-system end organs in the masseter muscle and, coincidentally, this also moves, stretches, stimulates the large amount of separately controlled strands of the facial muscle complex which is chewing and eating. For “Fatty,” eating is the thing he does to keep from going crazy, to keep from succumbing to the effects of his self-perpetuated, marked diminution of external stroking of those around himself.

In passing, the author notes that fatties cannot, will not, are not able to throw-up. Emesis is about the most feared and centrally to be avoided activity in the life of the obese person’s life. This would mean, then, that to give listening recognition when being talked to, to be moved when being talked to, to be “bothered” when being talked to has become almost permanently linked in the Child’s imagery to the act of Emesis. Emesis likely evoked a terrifying reprisal from the Childhood parent feeding him.

[1] Darrach, Brad, “Meet Shakey, The First Electronic Person,” Life Magazine, Nov. 20, 1970, Vol. 69, No. 21, pp. 58-68.

[2] Formulation: Communication in the Social Sciences”, The Encounterer, Vol. 2, No. 25, March 5, 1970.

[3] Stocker, Claudell S., “Methods for Improvement of Listening Efficiency in Individuals With Visual Impairment” Final Report of Project 83-R025.6, July 1, 1967- June, 1970, Kansas State Dept. of Social Welfare, Division of Services for the Blind and Visually Handicapped, p. 17.

[4] Berne, Eric, M.D., “Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy”, Grove Press, Inc., New York, 1961, pp. 85-86.

[5] This was to make sure that 30 seconds had elapsed since she concluded – see “Hearing” section, “absolute hearing recall for the last 30 seconds”. She and many of the onlookers would have been able to recite exactly the words within 30 seconds of the event. After that the replay of exactly recorded events and words is difficult.

[6] Pyramid Book Publications, Inc., 444 Madison Ave., New York 10002.

[8] Second Edition, Unabridged, H. L. Houghton & Co., Riverside Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1939.

[9] Xerox Corp. “Course on Listening,” Education Division, circa 1962

[10] Barbara, Dominick A., M.D. “The Art of Listening”, Charles C. Thomas Publishers, Springfield, IL.

[11] Fenichel, Otto, M.D., “The Psychoanalytic Theory of Neurosis”, W. W. Norton & Co., Inc., New York,1945

[12] Nichols, Ralph G. & Leonard A. Stevens, “Are You Listening?” McGraw-Hill, New York 1957.

[13] Reik, Theodore R., Ph.D., “Listening With the Third Ear”, Farrar-Strauss, New York, 1948. 515 pp.

[14] Scheflen, A.E., "Alexis, Non-Lexical Communication". Talk given at the Golden Gate Group Psychotherapy Society Annual Conference, University of California at San Francisco, UCSF Medical Center, May 20, 1967.

[15] Schram, Wilbur: “Communication”, World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, Field Enterprises Corp., Chicago, 1967

[17] Ernst, F.H. Jr., M.D.: “Formulation: Original Contribution to the Theory and Treatment of the Obesity Syndrome”, The Encounterer, November 5, 1969, Vol. 1, No. 18.

[18] Yeager, Charles L., M.D., Ph.D., Clinical Professor, Director of EEG Laboratory, Langley-Porter Neuropsychiatric Institute, UCSF Medical Center -- Personal communication.

[19] “Memory Short and Long” Time Magazine, April 19, 1971, pp, 45-47

[20] Scheflen, A. E.: “Significance of Posture in Communication Systems”, Journal_-of Psychiatry, 1964, Vol. 27_, pp. 316-331; Scheflen, A. E.: “Quasi-Courtship Behavior in Psychotherapy”, Journal of Psychiatry, 1965, Vol. 28, pp 245-257; Birdwhistell, Ray, ed.: “Kinesics_- and Context”, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1970.

[21] Berne, Eric, M.D.: “Transactional Analysis In Psychotherapy”, Grove Press, New York, 1961, p. 17, 30.

[22] Interesting to note is the work of Pike (1954), Scheflen (1965-66),and Birdwhistell on Kinesics, describing the effect of the nontalking person's attitude and behavioral set, gestures and mannerisms on the talking person.

[23] Berne, Eric, M.D.: “Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy”, op. cit.

[24] Scheflen A.E.: “Quasi-Courtship Behavior in Psychotherapy”, Journal of Psychiatry, op. cit.

[25] Interesting suggestive evidence of the neurophysiologic basis that a change of head angle will lead to a change in ego state is contained in “Machinery of the Brain” by Wooldridge. The experiments cited with the “Harvard Cats” shows a rotation of the axis of a straight line across the visual field of the cat caused stimulation of a differently located set of occipital neurons in the brain of the subject cat for every five to ten degrees of change, regardless of where the line was located in the field of vision.

[26] Ernst, F.H., Jr., M.D. The Encounterer, 1969, Vol. 1, No. 20.

[27] Ernst, FH, Jr. : “Formulation: Objective Compassionate Thoughtfulness”, The Encounterer, 1969, Vol. 1, No. 11.

[28] Nichols, R.G. and Stevens, L.A., “Are You Listening?”, cit.

[30] Ernst, FH, Jr.: “FORMULATION: Programmed Spontaneity”, The Encounterer, 1969, Vol 1, No 2.

[31] Ernst, FH, Jr.: “FORMULATION: Parental Prefatory (Predatory?) Phrases”, The Encounterer, 1969, Vol. 1, No. l0.

[32] Ernst, FH, Jr.: “FORMULATION: Varieties of Mentation”, The Encounterer, 1969,Vol. 1, No. 7.

[33] Ernst, FH, Jr., M.D.: “Parental Succinctism”, The Encounterer, 1969, Vol. 2, No. 21.

[34] Ernst, FH, Jr., M.D.: “Theory of Cervical and Lumbar Vertebral-Disc Syndromes”, The Encounterer, 1969, Vol. 1, No. 8.

[35] Ernst, FH, Jr., M.D.: “FORMULATION: To Listen Is To Move”, The Encounterer, 1970, Vol 2, No 22.

[38] Berne, Eric, M.D.: “Games People Play”, op. cit.

[40] The reader is referred here to the Chapter on Games in “Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy”, where the author (Eric Berne M.D.) appears to have begun a study of games from this aspect.

[41] E. Berne, M.D.: “Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy”, op. cit., p. 104 141.

[43] Berne, Eric., M.D.: “Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy”, p. 40-41. Berne differentiates the executive cathexis and “real self” cathexis. Each ego state has executive cathexis. The quality of cathexis which moves from one ego state to another is called “real self.” This construct was used to describe that there is an energy system within each one of the classes of ego state, and another quality of energy which moves from one ego state to another. This latter is called the “real Self” energy and it determines the Self which is experienced as real. See also Berne’s notes in the introduction and preface of the book on the works of Federn, Penfield and Kubie. (p. 68)

[44] Ernst, F.H., Jr., M.D.: “The Game Diagram”, Addresso’Set Publications, Vallejo, CA, 1972, 2004.

[45] Berne, Eric, M.D.: “Games People Play”, also taped lectures, “Introductory Course to TA”, 1959 and 1963.

[46] Ernst, F.H., Jr., M.D.: “Intimacy Classified”, The Encounterer, 1970, Vol. 2, No. 27.

[47] The Encounterer, 1969, Vol. 1, No’s. 3, 6, 7, 14, 15, 17, 19; 1970, Vol. 2, No’s. 27, 30. F.H. Ernst Jr., M.D.

[48] Ernst, F.H., Jr., M.D.: “The OK Corral: The Grid for Get-On-With”, Transactional Analysis Journal, Vol. 1, No.4, October 1971.

[49] See also The Encounterer, 1969_, Vol. 1, No. 10, “Game Moves Unraveled”, No. 12 “Game Moves of Troubled Couple”, No. 17 “Moves of Game ‘Do-Me-Something’,” No. 20 “Games and Game Moves” and The Encounterer, 1970, Vol. 2, No. 30 “The Facial Warm-Up.”

[50] “Why's-this-always-happening-to-me”, (that-I-get-HAD, I-hope-it-doesn't show), WAHM.

[51] This is the name of the experience as reported from “the-inside” of the player. “Stupid” is the name usually given to the outside appearance and what is seen by the onlookers. See also The Encounterer, 1970, Vol. 2, No. 27 and No. 30 by F. H. Ernst Jr., M.D.

[53] Ernst, F.H., Jr., M.D.: “ENCOUNTER: Game of Stupid”, The Encounterer, 1969, Vol. 1, No. 16.

[54] Hayakawa, S. I., “Language in Thought and Action”, 2nd Edition, Harcourt Brace & World, New York, 1964.

[56] Scheflen, “Significance of Posture in Communication Systems,” op. cit.

[57] Parenthetic to Ron's “WOW!”: Why was a WOW appropriate? Why work to get a “WOW”? “WOW” is what to say to the small person who has done something of considerable proportions. It is said to the (small) person who has an appropriate expectation of being credited for such an accomplishment. The reason for saying or doing something big, something creditable, is first for the big “WOW” from Mom. Mom is the one who initially teaches the “good manners” of listening and who teaches the individual what the major accomplishments in life are. These are deeply etched into the memory. As archived records, they are not to be forgotten after she has departed the scene_. This is to make sure that the person later in life will “make good impressions on people and friends”; that his friends, in later years, will know that he has been well-taught by a good and proper Mommy. Mommy wants to make sure that the archives are properly established in the little person, so they will last a lifetime.

Mom gives “WOW”s for the very important learning accomplishments of early life so that the teachings will be indelibly inscribed into the offspring’s archives. The big thing to get from somebody later in life is a “WOW!” (for-my-Mother-The-Archives!) After all, you know, WOW upside down spells MOM.

[58] Intriguing to read on this subject of listener manipulations and listener moving of Other Person is “Body Language” by Julius Fast, M. Evans & Co., 1970.

[59] Personal communication from a teacher, Vallejo Senior High School, Vallejo, California, 1971.

[60] Berne, Eric, M.D.: “Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy”, op. cit. pp. 38, 40.

[61] Ernst, F.H., Jr., M.D.: The Encounterer, 1969, Vol. 1, No. 9.

[62] See Chapter X. Note references to Ernst, F.H. Jr., M.D. and to article by Yates, A.J.

[63] Recall also Renee Spitz’ sensory deprivation findings on marasmic children who went untouched (and untalked to), and died of intercurrent illness before a year and a half of age.

[64] See The Encounterer, Vol. 1, No. 6, 1969.

[65] Ernst, F,H., Jr., “Rx For Getting Well of Paranoid,” The Encounterer, Vol. 1, No. 4, 1969.

[66] SOB Authority or Silly Ole' Billygoat Authority.

[67] Ernst, F.H., Jr., M.D.: “Rx Program for Get-Well of (being) a SOBA-HUNTING-CRUSADE-AT-WORK,” The Encounterer, Vol. 1, No. 9, 1969.

[68] Ernst, F.H., Jr., M.D.: “Rx for Get-Well of Snoring,” The Encounterer, Vol. 1, No. 15, 1969.

[69] Ernst, F.H., Jr., M.D.: “Rx Program for Get-Well of I've-Had-A-Headache-All-Day-Long,” The Encounterer, Vol. 2, No. 26, 1970.

[70] Ernst, F.H., Jr, M.D.: “Rx for Get-Well of HIVES,” The Encounterer, Vol. 2, No. 21, 1970.

[71] For an account of and physiology involved in stammering, reader is referred to Yates, A., “Recent Empirical and Theoretical Approaches ... in Stammerers,” pp. 352-378, in “Experiments in Behavior Therapy” edited by H.J. Eysenck, Pergamon Press, 1964.

[72] Ernst, F.H., Jr., M.D.: “Rx for Get-Well of STAMMERING,” The Encounterer, Vol. 1, No. 19, 1969.

[73] Berne, E., M.D.: “Transactional Analaysis in Pschotherapy”, op. cit. pg 207.

[74] See also English, Fanita, “Rackets and Real Feelings” Transactional Analysis Journal, Issue No. 4, October 1971. Also cited, articles by Berne, “Games People Play”, “Principles in Group Treatment”, “Trading Stamps”, Transactional Analysis Bulletin, No. 3, p, 127, April, 1964 and “Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy.”

[75] Ernst, F.H. Jr., M.D.: “Rx for Getting-Well of Preoccupation,” The Encounterer, Vol. 2, No. 22, 1970.

[76] Ernst, F.H. Jr., MD “Rx for Get-Well of Obesity Given to a 14-Year-Old,” The Encounterer, Vol. 1, No. 17, 1969.

Chapters

Figure/Drawing page no. (PDF view)

Transactional Move of a Game …………………………………….……………... 60

“As I see it …” “As it looks to me …”

“As I was saying …” “Well, anyhow (anyway) …”

[34] Ernst, FH, Jr., M.D.: “Theory of Cervical and Lumbar Vertebral-Disc Syndromes”, The Encounterer, 1969, Vol. 1, No. 8.