User talk:Ricepark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Karpman drama triangle links reverted[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Karpman drama triangle has been reverted.
Your edit here to Karpman drama triangle was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.facebook.com/notes/deavon-di-prima/when-defensiveness-shows-up/226657640698974) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 05:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent edit to Script analysis[edit]

Information.svg Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you removed some content from Script analysis without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

License tagging for File:KarpmanBookCoverAGameFreeLife266K.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:KarpmanBookCoverAGameFreeLife266K.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:KarpmanBookCoverAGameFreeLife266K.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:KarpmanBookCoverAGameFreeLife266K.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest/Karpman Triangle[edit]

Information icon Hello, Ricepark. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Karpman drama triangle , you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

  • Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
  • Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
  • Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations.
We have some concerns regarding the inappropriate promotion of Dr. Karpman's self published / distributed book and inappropriate promotion of the website with multiple links. We have removed the book photo and left one mention of the book, one link to the website
Wiki-psyc (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:AGameFreeLifeCover.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:AGameFreeLifeCover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletions/Karpman Triangle[edit]

Information icon Hello, Ricepark. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Karpman drama triangle , you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

Please open a discussion on the talk page to discuss your proposed deletions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-psyc (talkcontribs) 22:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Please do not remove the changes which protect Dr. Karpman's origin of the drama triangle from his basketball fakes. The editor should have read the acceptance speech. His diagram has no relevance to old family therapy or any other triangles. There is no "precursor." Would Steve Jobs start off his presentation of his new iPod with a half hour talk of Microsoft. People seeking drama triangle are not interested in your told theories as distractions from what they seek. It may be this editor who has a conflict of interest in preserving old school references. Bowen and triangles? W why not start earlier with triangles of Cleopatra, Ramses, and Moses - or Luke, Leia, and Hans? That's just as relevant as what you have forced onto the page against the readers interest. If you understood the drama traingle you would see at four levels it has no relevance to famiiy therapy of forty years ago. Would you talk of Berne by praising Freud for the entire introduction when Berne sp[ecifically inventer the opposite of Freud, if you knew the story.?
I suggest the editors look at their own conflict of interest in the old days and being "too far" from the subject. You are reducing the originality of the triangle by FALSE ATTRIBUTIONS and attributing it to others by association. This editor seems to violates your the Wikipedia rules against UNDUE WEIGHT of MINORIY interest and create a FALSE BALANCE, with a conflict of interest in his old school training. Karpman cannot be" too near" to his own work - only he knows what people want. The changes are accurate and what was replaced was inaccurate and a lengthy distraction from what the reader goes to the page for. Ricepark(talk) 22:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)Ricepark (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Ricepark:, respectfully, there are potential conflict of issue matters at play here. We appreciate personal feeling on this matter, but personal interests are not the basis of articles. Its best to work out this content issue on theTALK PAGE rather than by "edit warring".
If there is concern with the use of the word "precursor" in the section title, this is valid and the section heading should be changed. However, removing all the cited text on the grounds that it diminishes the originality of Stephan Karpman work is not a valid argument. The purpose of this article is to explain the concept, not to promote its originality. It is factual that Bowen's work (1954 -1959) on conflict triangles preceded Karpman's (1968-1972) and it was similar and substantial contribution (there are 10,000+ citations for Bowen's "Family Theory" in Google Scholar, 1,000 for the Karpman Triangle). This is true even if Karpman (a student at the time) was unaware or not influenced by Bowen's work which was published in 1966.
Conflict Triangles. The critical elements of Bowen's eight part theory was the concept of triangulation - when someone finds themself in conflict with another person they will reach out to a third person. According to Bowen, the resulting triangle (e.g., three-person exchange) is more comfortable as the tension is shifted around three people instead of just two. The Karpman drama triangle was conceived between (1968-1972) by Karpman as a way of graphically displaying the complex interaction that occurs between people embroiled in triangulation. Both concepts are 1960's theories. There are 10,000+ citations for Bowen's "Family Theory" in Google Scholar, 1,000 for the Karpman Triangle.
Wiki-psyc (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ricepark:, the following improvements were made:
Subsection Moved → "Karpman model moved from #4 to #3 position
Subsection Retitled → "Historical precursors" changed to "Historical context"
Text added → [Historical context section] It was through popular usage and the work of Karpman and others that the Karpman's triangle has been adapted for use in structural analysis (defining the conflict roles of persecutor, victim, and rescuer) and transactional analysis (diagraming how participant switch roles in conflict).
Text added → [Transactional analysis section] The Karpman Triangle was initially conceived as a way to analyze the play-action pass and the draw play in American football and later adapted as a way to analyze movie scripts. Karpman credits the movie, Valley of the Dolls, as being a testbed for refining the model. Karpman is reported to have doodled thirty or more diagram types before settling in on the triangle. + Based on the degree of acceptability and potential harm, games are classified into three categories, representing first degree games, second degree games, and third degree games.
Thanks for the feedback. Wiki-psyc (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Editor, your reply is perplexing. It is so dotted with garden variety power plays, lies, debating tricks, and discounts, as a TA person, I must confront this directly so later we can get down to real communicating. I cannot go further until I analyze the games, which is what TAers do.
WIKIPEDIA LIE #1 "Wikipedia is made by people like you."
This quote on your page is a deceiving lie. Wikipedia is NOT made or corrected by people like me. Apparently we are immediately corrected by robots instantly alerting ivory tower autocratic competitive scholars defending their heresies - while actually being “too far” removed from the subject but never admitting it.
Please note that people who make corrections, as I do with 25 years experience in TA and the Karpman Drama Triangle, know far more about the subject than do Wikipedia editors can ever possibly know, but ivory tower egotism apparently will not allow them to admit to anything that exposes their lack of experience and common sense, so they resort to suppression of speech by harassment and bluff. Is this the Wikipedia way?
WIKIPEDIA LIE #2 You say We appreciate personal feeling on this matter, but personal interests are not the basis of articles.
OUCH! My arguments are only “personal feelings?” That is another lie. Reducing excellent reader arguments to only Personal feelings?? What a patent insult! For a learned editor to not know about Critical Parent discount theory is to not know TA and should disqualify an editor from tampering with TA knowledge.
On the other hand, the Adult ego state would respectfully deal with each argument point by point by point but this apparent competitive editor in his ivory tower superiority has not and does not know how to do that, so he dismisses all that he does not know as only personal feelings!.
It suggests that other Wikipedia editors too will defend their biases in a competitive autocratic way – and have company back-up so they can get away with it. “Power Controls the Flow Of Information” is the relevant quote. “Only my feelings??? That is a well known transparent insult to flatly and quickly dismiss all contributions as only feelings. Excellent ideas by insiders are dismissed as only feelings by Wikipedia? How would that look on Yelp? (I won’t do that).
WIKIPEDIA LIE #3. “this is not valid” That too is a blatant lie. It is debating trick so that you can win in your dyad with Bowen or triad with your students (?). It is a sudden intimidating put down followed by no offer of point by point reason, it is an easy quick putdown and another form of discount. In past debates Obama once shut down Romney with a quick “none of that is true!” and then changed the subject. Another debating trick is “That is only an assumption,” etc. I don’t want to deal with debating tricks.
WIKIPEDIA LIE #4. “Ricepark, you are “too near” to the subject to be objective.” Therefore everything I say can be discounted out of hand – as “too near?” But the people “too near” know the most. But I suppose you are not “To Near” to Bowen and your pet projects of crazy triangles and inventing false history connections that you can gat away with it. There is no possible NEED to do that. People looking for the Karpman Drama Triangle find that an annoying distraction. They do not need that or want that. Please come down from the map to the territory.
WIKIPEDIA LIE #5. You publish rules for others to follow but hypocritically you break them yourselves. So the Wikipedia rules are lies. There is an undeclared double standard. You never dealt with the undue weight and balance written below of so much valuable space disproportionably set aside for the minority of your personal compulsion and fascination with history.
Editor, what is your written authorization to force a historical background into ideas when historically there is no direct connection and against objections, or are you just winging it because you want to?
There is no connection to Bowen. Don’t imply there is one! And you do. Karpman was in California in the Navy when Bowen published and the triangle has a totally different set of dynamics you would discover if you studied it as you should.. Below is what I wrote last time that you could not and would not deal with. Please deal with the weight and proportion issue, and count the words if necessary. Editor, it may be you who are “too near” to Wikipedia to see the ironies and hypocrisies and double standards. I wrote:
This editor seems to violates your Wikipedia rules against UNDUE WEIGHT of MINORITY interest and create a FALSE BALANCE, with a CONFLICT OF INTEREST in his old school training.
WIKIPEDIA LIE #6. you wrote against INAPPROPRIATE SELF-PROMOTION but you inappropriately self-promote your Bowen fixations and your unneeded history hobby. Different strokes for different folks? And on another issue of double standards by Wikipedia, note that nowadays normal sale of self-published books from a personal website is the norm today and for the past ten years, but the old school Wiki is back in the 1960s and thinks capitalism is professionally immoral. How behind the times can any organization be? Try Googling “Wikipedia.” You took out all links to Karpman’s website where he has over 30 articles free, but the links of others like Johnson go right to their blog full of their links for seminars and books for sale. But that is not a privilege given to Karpman himself which is the readers #1 priority. He is allowed no way of letting people know he has a book. He can’t put he book on Amazon multiple reasons. Notifying people of availability of more information is not INAPPROPRIATE SELF-PROMOTION. Tell me how I can get people to his website please. On Google, Wikipedia has leap-frogged the KDT website and that link takes them to your dead end where only the first 20% of his work is written. Please research how that leap happened. Did you pay for it? It is quite a coincidence that it happened with in a month of your August 25 re-write.
Dear editor, “respectfully” (as you lied), because have reverted to game playing, I will interpret the game. “Let’s Hijack Karpman’s Masterpiece And Make My Bowen Relevant Again.” Editor, you are the Persecutor in the game of “Let’s Rape The Purity Of The Karpman Drama Triangle” and it is a violation and the unwanted and unnecessary payload you drop is Bowen, Triangles, and Murdoch. We will not allow that baby to grow. Your Victims are the reputation of Wikipedia’s objectivity, yourself, Dr. Karpman, the Triangle, TA, and the public trust in the hands-off policy of Wikipedia in welcoming reader changes to text. And, apparently you think you are the Rescuer in your own mind by outrageous piggybacking on Karpman’s idea without his permission in order to keep Bowen’s fading relevance alive because of your own feelings.
Karpman is 100X more relevant today in actual use than Bowen. You are diluting his ideas.
a. Dr Karpman averages 55,000 hits on his website monthly. How many does Bowen get? (But no numbers can rationalize the inappropriate intrusion onto the Karpman web page).
b. Through Google Alerts, Karpman has record of over 500 blogs mentioning his triangle; several a week. How many blogs mention Bowen?
c. Karpman does weekend workshops around the world – in the past years France 4X, Germany, Poland, Kiev, Spain, Moscow, St. Petersburg, Serbia, Slovenia, Holland X2, Canada X2 and a total of 17 countries over the years. He knows what people want.
How many workshops and audiences does Bowen have?
The Wikipedia sample you gave is academic classroom research and not in the world of use. The triangle is relevant to therapy, business coaching, education, rehab and far more famous now and growing each year. Bowen is taught in classrooms but with very limited use and only used by a tiny number of family therapists, no longer in group therapy which becomes relational. No one uses dyads and triads any more. It is only used in the games in the Survivor TV series but not by the academic names.
DISCLOSURE REQUEST. In closing, I disclose my age as 45 with 25 years expertise and involvement in TA and Dr. Karpman’s work. I assume you will disqualify me again as “too near!” So please disclose in percentages your involvement in TA and your actual involvement in Bowen, triangles, and teaching the history of family therapy. I assume again you will not disqualify yourself as “too near!” to Bowen. If so, this is double standard and hypocrisy to add to the games and there are others I’m not mentioning yet, and errors (the triangle is Functional, not Structural, etc).
Respectfully,
Ricepark (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)Ricepark (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Ricepark, the comments in your note related to the design Wikipedia should be raised here: Policy and Guidelines Comments on the article should be addressed here: Karpman Talk Page
In response to your personal questions, I will disclose that I am not advocating for Eric Berne MD, Murray Bowen MD, Nathan Ackerman MD, or Stephen Karman MD - my edit history will substantiate this. I do, however, greatly respect your work and my involvement in this article has been to elevate its utility and credibility within the Wikipedia conventions. If you look at the TALK PAGE and editing note comments (HERE) you will see statements like "pop psychology", "spam", "political POV", "social-darwinian rhetoric", " poorly written and lacks citations", "unconventional links", "advertising and promotion", and "conflict of interest". Facebook page links, book covers, Dudely Doright cartoons, three color scripts - all of this is unconventional reflects poorly on the subject and its originator as it is not in keeping with the Good Article standards established at Wikipedia.
As a TA expert, I'm sure you recognize that challenging the Wikipedia platform, being uncompromising with respect to the article edits, and making personal remarks about editor skills, philosophies, and integrity, however true, are a lot of drama. Drama does not beget solutions.
Let's go forward with the compromise solutions that were put in place and please make your future suggestions on a more collegial basis.
Please put your future content responses on the article TALK PAGE and any general comments here .
Wiki-psyc (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm JJMC89. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Karpman drama triangle  with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — JJMC89(T·C) 01:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Wiki-psyc (talk) 02:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Block[edit]

I have blocked this user indefinitely for blatantly promotional editing DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Correction[edit]

Dr. Karpman told me, per email, to make this correction in Wikipedia.

ERROR: In the sentence: It was through popular usage and the work of Karpman and others that the Karpman's triangle has been adapted for use in structural analysis (defining the conflict roles of persecutor, victim, and rescuer) and transactional analysis (diagraming how participant switch roles in conflict)

CORRECTION: structural should be changed to functional. Functional is what we do (games and drama), and structural is what we are.

Also, we apologize for omitting information last week from the page without explanation or edit summary. This was an oversight.

Correction[edit]

Dr. Karpman told me, per email, to make this correction in Wikipedia. This description is also seen in his book on page 17. Also, we apologize for omitting information last week from the page without explanation or edit summary. This was an oversight.

(ERROR) The Karpman Triangle was initially conceived as a way to analyze the play-action pass and the draw play in American football and later adapted as a way to analyze movie scripts. Karpman credits the movie Valley of the Dolls as being a testbed for refining the model. Karpman is reported to have doodled thirty or more diagram types before settling in on the triangle.

(CORRECTION) The Karpman Triangle was initially conceived as a way to analyze a three-fakes series playing basketball compared to a quarterback’s three- fake series in football, then find a single diagram to synthesize the two, then later it was adapted as a way to analyze movie scripts. Karpman credits the movie Valley of the Dolls as being a testbed for refining the model. Karpman is reported to have doodled thirty or more diagram types before settling in on the triangle.

Ricepark (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Request for history[edit]

@Ricepark:, you made this point 8 days ago and we changed the subhead from "precursor" to "historical context". Historical context doesn't imply influence. You make the point "The therapy culture there in the 1960s was competitive and revolutionary and fiercely dedicated to overthrow any “old school” ways". Rather than communicate this by removing useful information from the article, why not explain this (with third party references) and lets add a section to the article about the development of the concept. Also, what is the problem with the book. The ISBN on the cover is not valid. Lets get to a solution here. Wiki-psyc (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC) The correct ISBN number is ISBN-13: 978-0-9905867-0-8

@Wiki-psych: This is Dr. Karpman’s email answer to your request above for new history and explains the controversy written from direct observation as a close colleague to Berne for six years. The history is mostly spread out over two sections in his book A GAME FREE LIFE, page 17, and 291-297; and is better to present as a (Personal Communication) - reference below. We can edit this together if necessary but not to diminish the total revolutionary point. This is important information rarely known for WikiPedia from Karpman, the “last man standing.” For the future he has a section planned he can write with references to articles and the book that covers the unknown 80% developments of the triangle over the past forty years. He can send Wiki a free copy of the book to see the 300 pages of original information. that is not known to exist.


A NEW HISTORICAL CONTEXT: CALIFORNIA THERAPIES IN THE 1960s

In California in the 1960s a rebellious counter-culture spirit prevailed. Bob Dylan sang “The times they are a-changing” echoing the mood of a gathering hippie generation who felt they had to change the world to a better place, and that the old had to be thrown out to make way for the new. This was true too for the field of psychotherapy. New therapy approaches multiplied and old ones were disparaged. Many were fun and behaviorally based, like Gestalt, transactional analysis, marathon weekends, past life regression, primal scream, psychic studies, Eastern meditation, NLP, etc. Some therapies remain today, but most don’t. At a meeting someone once called the culture ”this carnival of new therapies.”

In Eric Berne’s Tuesday night 202 training seminars, not the above mentioned family therapy systems, Bowen, or Ackerman were ever discussed. They represented the old “East Coast” schools, nor did they appear in print in any of Berne’s or Karpman’s writings. During the seminars it was forbidden to even mention Freud or use Freudian language, almost considered a heresy. Any one doing so would be asked to leave. The psychoanalytically trained Dr. Karpman once had to leave for mentioning the word “dependency” twice in the same meeting. No connection to previous theories was allowed. Eric Berne the leader used the “us against them” motivation to rally his troops with humor, saying “Back on the East Coast they are still driving a model T Ford, while out here in California we’re driving a Mercedes Benz.”

Berne gathered professionals in his San Francisco home weekly on Tuesday nights for ten years for brainstorming sessions to help create new transactional analysis theory with him. “We were not there to learn TA, we were not there to learn to be good TA therapists, we were there to learn how to create new theory.” (Karpman p17 A Game Feee Life). If the trainees got into idle “pastiming” Berne would interrupt it with a smile and say, “Hey gang, we’re in danger of having an interesting evening, let’s get some work done instead.” Berne had invented Three Rules Of Theory Making which we would have to follow:

1. “Don’t say anything you can’t diagram.”

2. “Use Occam’s Razor” (for Scientific Parsimony).

3. “Write it up in layman’s language, understandable to an 8 year old child, an M.I.T. professor, and a Midwest farmer.”

There was a fourth one, the overriding cultural one, “Don’t say anything that has ever been said before.” Karpman followed the three rules to make his triangle more lasting. He eventually showed his three-fake basketball sports diagram to Eric Berne who was excited - with some editing needed - and said “Write up your Drama Triangle, people will quote you two hundred years from now.”

Berne’s 1964 book Games People Play was a runaway hit on the New York Times bestseller list for over two years. The Joe South song “Games People Play” won a Grammy. An extensive International Transactional Analysis Association was formed with twice yearly meetings. Yet despite the newfound fame, Berne still had an uphill battle to get acceptance by a competitive establishment. Steiner (book 6) wrote “Eric Berne had a wonderful wit which made it possible for him to present the most radical ideas to what is probably the most skeptical, competitive, and discounting audience in the social sciences.”

Berne had been trained at the San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute but dropped out and later explained, “I could have spent the rest of my life disproving psychoanalysis, but I decided to invent TA instead.” Berne’s friends in the local psychoanalytic community would criticize transactional analysis to him, saying “Yours is too over-simplified,” and he would poke fun back at them by saying, “Yours is too over-complicated.” He said those analysts wore a sweatshirt saying “We’re more serious than you are” and TA wore one saying ‘We have more fun than you do.”

After Berne’s death in 1970 the competitive situation continued and Karpman (Articles 4) analyzed the competition between the therapies as an I’m OK, You’re OK game, and published an editorial to expose the personality based motivation for picking a therapy in the Transactional Analysis Journal.

Karpman wrote (4) “With the exciting growth of new psychotherapeutic approaches in the past 15 years there has existed an unexciting war among disciplines, one putting the other down, saying their way is right, the other way is wrong. For example: I’m OK-----You’re Unscientific I’m OK-----You’re Mechanical I’m OK-----You’re Superficial I’m OK-----You’re a Ripoff I’m OK-----You’re Wild I’m OK-----You’re Unstructured I’m OK-----You’re a Head Trip I’m OK-----You’re Incomplete The Bias Box (figure 1) sets some of this in perspective by placing the choice if discipline in the personality of the therapist, and locating the I’m OK ----You’re not----OK position as a bias rooted in personal preference, not proof.

Figure 3. The Bias Box for

Competing Psychotherapies

(Wikipedia has a block on and does not allow us to show the Bias Box diagram). Please click on the link below to view the article. Thank you.

http://www.karpmandramatriangle.com/pdf/BiasBox.pdf

ADD TO:

Articles Karpman, S. (1975). The Bias Box for competing psychotherapies. Transactional Analysis Journal, 5(2). 107-116. http://www.karpmandramatriangle.com/pdf/BiasBox.pdf

References

Karpman, S. Personal communication. Eric Berne’s San Francisco SFTAS seminars; weekly 1964 – 1970. Complete audiotapes available at the Eric Berne Memorial Library, UCSF, San Francisco.

Books

Steiner, C (1976). Beyond Games and Scripts by Eric Berne. Random House, New York. ISBN-13: 978-0394409429

Karpman, S. (2014). A Game Free Life. (page 17, and 291-297) etc....

Please unblock me[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Ricepark (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

We apologize for omitting information last week from the page without explanation or edit summary. This was an oversight.

Decline reason:

You were not blocked for "omitting information", so this request is irrelevant to the block, and nothing more needs to be said about this unblock request. However, I am also posting, below, further information relating to the block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

As I state above, in my message declining your unblock request, you have given no reason for unblocking which actually addresses the reason for the block, and as far as reviewing that request goes, that is all that needs to be said. However, in case you make any further unblock requests, I am giving here a few reasons why unblocking is not likely to be beneficial to the project. I don't know what you mean by "omitting information". Do you perhaps think that "omitting" means "removing"? If so, leaving aside your misunderstanding of the word, you have repeatedly removed the same information numerous times, over a protracted period of time, so the claim that it was an "oversight" is absurd. You have clearly been editing for the sole purpose of promotion of the work of a certain person (who may or may not be yourself); you have done so over a period of more than four years. During that period you have repeatedly added substantial amounts of promotional content to articles, and you have repeatedly removed substantial quantities of content which are inimical to the view you wish to promote. In talk page posts you have repeatedly made it clear that you wish to promote a view, and at least once you even made it explicit that one of your reasons for wishing to keep your content in an article was to use Wikipedia as a means to increase sales of a book. You have been arrogant, contemptuous, and aggressive in your approach to other editors with whom you have disagreed. You have indicated that you have no intention whatever of accepting consensus, as you know that you are RIGHT, and therefore all other editors should stand aside and let you take ownership of the article which you have mainly been concerned with. You have edit-warred persistently. You have been asked to disclose the nature of your connection to the subject you are writing about, but you have chosen not to do so. It is entirely clear that you have at least a conflict of interest, and it seems likely that you may be refusing to disclose that your editing relates to work for which you are paid, in which case you are in breach of Wikipedia's terms of use; that would mean that your editing here is not merely against Wikipedia policy, but actually illegal. Following all that, you make an unblock request which, as well as being completely irrelevant to the reasons for the block, also contains a clear deliberate lie. It is entirely clear that your presence is never likely to be beneficial to the project, so it is highly unlikely that there would be any case for unblocking you even if you were to make an unblock request which attempted to actually address the reasons for the block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)