Talk:Karpman drama triangle/Archive 1

Archive 1

Transactional Analysis

Is it legitimate to translate the roles of Persecutor, Rescuer and Victim to the TA ego states of Parent, Adult and Child. I have studied the example arguement and feel that the red (Persecutor) sentences appear to be of the Parent State. The blue (Rescuer) sentences apear Adult And the Green (Victim) ones Child like.

Is this translation justifiable, or am I wrong? NinjaKid 13:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the roles are always changing,its just important to notice whats going on when it happens.After a long time of using those types of interactions-they seem very normal,but not emotionally fulfilling.kimmee42@msn.com

NO!!! the Persecutor, Rescuer and Victim are all dysfunctional positions...people playing roles that are limiting of one's true potential for good...the Adult on the other hand is a phenomenon of one's personality that integrates the child and parent pheonomena with the possibility of making good decisons..................decisions that are good for the individual, and more important, good for the group. The persecutor can only act selfishly...and one can usually argue that the rescuer and victim are reactive, also in selfish ways...

what is confusing is that the ADULT can act like a perpetrator, and by acting too much like a the "bad" parent.......the adult can also act like a rescuer by acting too much like the "good" parent, and the victim, powerless and vulnerable, can act like a child. But the parent, adult and child of TA are INTERNAL, intrapsychic phenomena, whereas the perpetrator, rescuer and victim are interpersonal roles, and interpersonal phenomena. sjschicago----

Theory Widely Acknowledged?

Can someone please provide evidence for this assertion? TA has been roundly criticised as "pop psychology", so I find this statement hard to believe. Also, the word "acknowledged" is dubious since it tacitly connotes that the theory has been widely accepted, when it's possible the theory is simply widely mentioned in the context of derision. 72.78.7.69 23:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

：I don't have a specific answer to your point, but can I ask if you have a source for your assertion that "TA has been roundly criticised as pop psychology"? I found a comment like that on the TA main page some while back but couldn't find any justification for it. For the record, I have personally found TA useful but don't have strong feelings about whether it's pop psychology, or if it is whether that's good or bad. I am just intrigued that this assertion about TA being pop psychology seems to keep surfacing without a source Hugh Mason (talk • contribs 19:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Terrible example in article

I realize it's a side issue, but the example of the welfare agency and worker as rescuers malevolently perpetuating dependence on the system is ABSURD in the US, where since the PRWORA law some 15 years ago, the legally required goal of welfare agencies and workers has been to prevent, shorten or break dependency; and the performance of states, county welfare departments and individual caseworkers is judged on how many people they get OFF aid, sometimes with little regard to the consequences for the families affected. (In the US context, the word "welfare" refers to family income support.) How about an example that doesn't perpetuate false and damaging stereotypes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.213.193.159 (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

what you fail to realize is that the example you have rightly recognized as ridiculous, is an example provided by Karpman, not the author of the article. Berne called himself a 'cowboy therapist'. All the original TA materials are steeped in victim-blaming constructs. Remember, you don't have any real issues, you're just 'playing games'. Especially if you're female. That's the essence of TA, which is too bad, because if you can manage to cut through all the ideological obfuscation in the material, there are some remarkable post-freudian insights available in TA. As a therapy, however, it is little more than a band-aid for the egoistically immature to function somewhat more effectively in everyday life. It neither helps the ego mature and strengthen, nor does it give the client any useful tools for personal development. It's aim is to help people get along without ever getting to the crux of why they weren't getting along, which, for all intents and purposes does not improve the quality of interpersonal transaction, but rather encourages people ways of tolerating dysfunction in themselves and the people they interact with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.248.176 (talk) 10:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this for real?

I'm not a psychology student, but this whole example sounds less like science and more like political POV. Since a better example has been added, this should probably be removed. Open for other views though.

There may be subtle or overt pressure from her agency not to have too many successful clients. Threatening to cut off benefits to obviously lazy or selfish clients would be frowned on -- even if or especially if such tactics resulted in clients suddenly finding gainful employment after years of dependency.

--- Arancaytar - avá artanhé (reply) 10:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It definitely IS social-darwinian rhetoric which is rampant is Berne, Karpman, and most of the leading TA proponents and developers of the 1960s. TA was a significant breakthrough, but Berne shoehorned his data to match his ultra-conservative ideology. At its worse, this has resulted in countless therapists attacking their clients as 'whiny victims' or people who would rather 'play games' than get well. It's an unfortunate legacy of TA that still reverberates through the profession of psychology. This does not undermine TA's worth, but means that the interpretations that today's TA practitioners make must be rational, and many of Berne's were not. The consequences of going to the 'next step' of TA after Berne and Harris was the 'rebirthing movement' that resulted in much torture and several deaths. The foundations of TA are sound, but its practitioners, following in the footsteps of TA's progenitor (Berne), systematically distorted those foundations and turned a potentially effective means of therapy into pure abuse.

As for the welfare example itself, perhaps somewhere in some socialist country something similar to the example might have occured. But social-services agencies that operate under capitalist governments are under immense pressure to cut welfare benefits, rather than pork them up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.248.176 (talk) 10:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's also worth keeping in mind that psychology, sociology, and anthropology in North America, and to a lesser extent in Europe, in the 1950s and 1960s, was deliberately slanted to demonstrate that the 'Red Menace' (Sino-Soviet communism) was faulty in every aspect of life. At that particular time employment was plentiful, and the bare necessities were easily affordable by anyone with employment. So, it stood to reason that anyone who wanted welfare, or even unemployment insurance benefits, was a lazy bum. Since the 70s, when new economic realities like 'stagflation' were seen, a 'social safety net' suddenly started looking like a good idea to even the most staunch conservatives. But we're still suffering from the anarchronistic values of the 50s and 60s. The domestic bliss of the 50s and 60s was a direct result of the Roosevelt 'New Deal' socialist values that sweeped the country after the Depression. We can only hope that now that we are in a comperable Depression, that these old remnants of now-ancient and useless 50s and 60s social-conservative academia will be superceded much more expediently than they have been.

Material here that belongs under 'games' or the main TA article?

I wonder if some of the general stuff about games here should move? I'll leave this a month or two for comments and then dive in if I've heard nothing from the regulars on this page - in the meantime, merry christmas to all readers who celebrate it Hugh Mason (talk • contribs 19:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The transition to that topic seemed awkward and unexplained to me, as I read the article in full. Huw Powell (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

This article lacks sources and had too many external links.

I made major edits to this article today including adding the "citations missing" template and noting a couple of specific places where cites are needed (in particular, the opening claim that this construct is "widely used" in psychology).

I deleted a section which had an "example conversation" purporting to illustrate this idea. It contained no sources, and seemed likely to either be an editor's own example that s/he wrote, making it original research, or an extensive, unsourced lift from elsewhere, creating copyright issues.

I also deleted most of the external links at the end, using http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided as a guideline. Most of the provided links fell into categories 5 (web pages that exist to sell products or services) or 11 (blogs) as they were articles written by the website owner on websites promoting psychotherapy, coaching, etc. services. Two links did not illustrate the content of this article at all - one went to an essay describing Virginia Satir's model of communication styles, and one (which was not in English) seemed to go to the front page of a website with many mental health articles.

76.218.69.148 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC).

Altering of Pic

The drama triangle illustration at the top of the page should have victim at the bottom & perpetrator/rescuer at the top (http://www.angriesout.com/grown20.htm) as it reflects the perceived power positions within the triangle. 86.63.26.124 (talk) 12:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

How many people?

The writing needs help especially this line: "At times a third person may be enveloped in the situation." There are already 3 people listed so shouldn't that be a fourth person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.165.123 (talk) 05:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to fix it. - 23:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Ratings are worthless

How does this article have such high ratings when it has few sources, is poorly written and lacks citations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.165.123 (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Because people gave it high ratings. If you disagree, feel free to give it low ratings and add sources, clean up the writing and add citations. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Reorganized article, subject matter unclear, self promotion

The article reads like a stub and has many broken and unconventional links. There is also advertising and promotion (e.g., Karpman, Stephen B., M.D. A Game Free Life: The definitive book on the Drama Triangle and Compassion Triangle by the originator and author. Drama Triangle Publications (2014). ISBN 978-0-9905867-0-8. Only available at www.karpmandramatriangle.com.)
Start: [661055382] End: [666394261]
Still needs work on transactional analysis - the section reads like a term paper.
Wiki-psyc (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Wiki-psyc Wiki-psyc (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Karpman's book does not have a valid ISBN number

A Game Free Life does not have a valid ISBN. I confirmed that the number listed is the same as appears on the back cover of the book. I did an external database search by title and author and there is none listed in any database.
I also could not find any information on Drama Triangle Publications
Book is not available from any book reseller - only from Karpman's website.
I edited the listing to read "self published".
Wiki-psyc (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Necessary corrections to the Karpman Drama Triangle

As result of the "hatted" discussion, the following article 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.

Additionally, it was discussed that adding a section on the development of the concept would be useful.
Wiki-psyc (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hatting counter-productive COI discussion, allegations, disruption
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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:, 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 out back here 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) I had to take out your inappropriate paragraphs again. You gave no intelligent reason not to, and I gave many intelligent reasons to take them out which you couldn’t rebut. And there was never a viewer need for your history lessons which are a stretch to say the least. Who had a need for your distorted revisionist history? No one had a need. You forced this misleading disinformation as a distraction on the viewer and occupied unnecessary reading time and space. Why do we have to listen to your commercials for your history hobby. We will need the space to post the missing 80% of the drama triangle developments and you waste valuable space on yourself. Will you harass us about adding more information? 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:, I respected your comments and made changes/compromises to accommodate them (see above). It is important to note that we are not editing the Transactional Analysis Journal, this is a people's encyclopedia with an audience that starts in junior high school. Providing context is important especially for an esoteric and technical concept like Karpman's Triangle. To a novice doing a Google search, rationalizing the concept of Triangulation and Karpman's Triangle, two triangle based psychology conflict models from the 60's, is not obvious. I'm not asking you to agree - just offering the explanation you requested. At this point you are edit warring and I encourage you to stop before your membership gets suspended. I see that a large number of your edits in prior years to this article were removed as they violated Wikipedia policies. I encourage you to respect the policies and recognize that your zeal and fervor for "Karpmans Masterpiece" may not translate well in this format. The comments in your note related to the design Wikipedia should be raised here: Policy and Guidelines Other than to disclose that I am not advocating for Eric Berne MD, Murray Bowen MD, or Nathan Ackerman MD - my edit history will substantiate this - I'll address the personal comments made to me on your talk page here. Wiki-psyc (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC) Wikipedia wrote 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. These erroneous connections you suggest are artificial and misleading. It suggests to the casual reader that Karpman’s Triangle is a spin-off of another man’s work. The originality is valid and you are in error in saying it is not valid without any discussion. Please professionally deal with my reasons presented to you. It is your responsibility as an objective reporter. Karpman had not knowledge of Bowen’s work and should not be related to it chronologically. This page is for seekers of Karpman’s Triangle information and not for the history of psychotherapy, therefore those Wikipedia entries are inappropriate. As you know, 1. A reporter should report history, not make history, and 2. A reporter must deal with valid objections presented in dissent. you have not. This one way conversation is very frustration and it is caused by lack of scientific communication by Wikipedia. It seems you just override me because you have the power to do so. Please deal with my points one by one to maintain the respectability that you ask of me, beginning with the list of Lies I gave you. I saw where you violate the Wikipedia rules of UNDUE BALANCE in the line by line weight of the article. Discuss that professionally, don’t just say again that is not valid. If there is another back channel for us to use, let’s do that. FOUR HISTORICAL DISCLAIMERS OF ANY KARPMAN-BOWEN LINK: The Karpman Drama Triangle has no chronological links whatsoever to Dr. Bowen’s work as implied by being placed on the same page by Wikipedia. I consulted with Dr. Karpman to confirm that his work has no connection to or use of Dr. Bowen’s work and should not be presented side by side which suggests a link, and even worse, that Dr. Karpman’s work is a mere spin-off of Bowen. This false history could spread and eventually be damaging to his reputation, of transactional analysis, and of the clean separate invention of the Drama Triangle, and to the standards of the scientific community. We present four disclaimers below as proof that there is no connecting trail by chronological association to Bowen’s work as Wikipedia persistently suggests. Please reply professionally to this and to the points listed, one by one, in my previous post HISTORICAL DISCLAIMER #1. IN TEACHING. Dr. Karpman moved to San Francisco in the Navy in 1961 and throughout the 1960s supervised psychiatric residents at the UCSF Langley Porter institute in out-patient psychoanalytically-oriented group therapy which never discussed any dyadic or triadic patterns nor any mention of Dr. Bowen’s work, not from the residents nor at the conferences there. There never was any mention of, no knowledge of, or use of Dr. Bowen’s work, so there is not the chronological link that Wikipedia falsely publishes. HISTORICAL DISCLAIMER #2. IN THE WEST COAST 1960s NEW AGE CULTURE. TA was influenced and inspired by the rebellious counter-culture in San Francisco in the swinging 1960s and it was almost heresy to mention the East Coast old schools, There was no looking back. Dr. Berne’s break from psychoanalysis was so clean that any mention of it was disallowed in his weekly seminars. Dr. Karpman was once kicked out of the seminar for repeating the Freudian word “dependency” This can be found published in Karpman’s book A Game Free Life, p.293. The therapy culture there in the 1960s was competitive and revolutionary and fiercely dedicated to overthrow any “old school” ways, so obviously Bowen would not have been mentioned. Karpman wrote up that California culture in his article on the Bias Box For Competing Psychotherapies. There is no mention of the old school East Coast family therapist Murray Bowen. The influences were TA and some from Gestalt and C.B.T, which are closer links to the drama triangle. The hard evidence of these influences on him was written in his following article: Karpman, S. (1975). The Bias Box For Competing Psychotherapies. Transactional Analysis Journal, 5(2). 107-116. http://www.karpmandramatriangle.com/pdf/BiasBox.pdf retrieved October 1 2015 HISTORICAL DISCLAIMER #3. DR. KARPMAN‘S HARD EVIDENCE IN PRINT: Please read again Karpman’s write-up of how he doodled the development the Drama Triangle using exclusively references to excellence in trickery in two sports, primarily basketball with his favorite three low post fakes while winning two MVPs in Little League basketball. This, obviously by no stretch of the imagination, could that relate to Bowen’s family therapy. http://www.karpmandramatriangle.com/pdf/AwardSpeech.pdf retrieved October 2015 HISTORICAL DISCLAIMER #4. DR. BERNE’S HARD EVIDENCE IN PRINT: As hard evidence in print, please look up the Author Indexes in Berne’s publications below and note that, among dozens and dozens of professional references, there are NO REFERENCES TO DR. BOWEN. Karpman trained and attended every Berne seminar weekly since 1964. Additionally he has edited the full body of the taped lectures there that can be found stored and catalogued at the Eric Berne Memorial Library at UCSF, San Francisco. Berne, E. (1961).Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy. New York: Grove Press Berne, E. (1964). Games People Play: The Psychology Of Human Relationships. New York: Grove Press Berne, E. (1966a). Principles Of Group Treatment. New York: Oxford University Press. Berne, E. (1964-1970). Personal communications. San Francisco Transactional Analysis Seminars. Berne, E. (1970). Sex In Human Loving. New York: Simon & Shuster Berne, E. (1972). What do you say after you say hello? The psychology of human destiny. New York: Grove Press. Ricepark (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Ricepark (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. @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) If you check again the ISBN # 978-0-9905867-0-8 of the book is valid. Also, Dr. Karpman says that 95% of the seekers coming to the website are looking for escapes to the games. Only 5% will be interested in the history of psychotherapy. Ricepark (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Ricepark (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. @Ricepark:, we're going around in circles here a bit. That number and your name is not listed in the ISBN directory. You can verify that here 978-0-9905867-0-8 and here Book sources Why is it that no book distributors carry it? Amazon lists a lot of self-published books. If you don't want to compromise or collaborate by adding text regarding the "competitive culture of the 1960" or other text to address or qualify the independence of the work from the other conflict triangles in the historical context subsection, then I will revert your deletions and we can move on. If you continue to make bad faith deletions, your account may be suspended. Wiki-psyc (talk) 08:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC) I talked again to Dr. Karpman: PLEASE REFER TO POINT ONE. He states his self-published book is legally registered with the Copyright offices in Washington, D.C. with the ISBN number I gave you. He has the email of proof. You are in error. You are also in error referring to functional TA as structural. You do not know TA and should not be monitoring this page. And other errors. Ackerman has a 1968 by his name and uses the word “persecutor” as if he thought of it first, but it is a 2014 article that wrote that, long after Karpman’s work. This is tedious correcting all your errors. I may ask for a Wikipedia appeal to remove you from the page if you remain stuck in your old history of psychiatry that is not in the interest of the reader who wants to know what Karpman himself has to offer going forward, not backward. PLEASE REFER TO POINT TWO. Dr. Karpman chooses not to be listed on Amazon and others as this would limit his ability to take his book to a major publishing house in the future. He was selling his book briskly until you would no longer let him link it on Wikipedia, but yet you let secondary authors have a link to their bookselling websites. Please address this issue. I asked previously and it was ignored. Should I follow your lead and delete all the Johnson references as “inappropriate promotion” because you did it to Karpman? They lead to Johnson’s, and others, website where they sell their books. Double standards? People want to buy books to increase their knowledge. Why is that called “inappropriate” for Dr. Karpman but not to your Johnson you quote and have invested in so much? They want Dr. Karpman’s book but Wikipedia took over the top spot on Google and seekers are now led to the dead end on Wikipedia and can only get the first 10% of his work that you know about. I asked you for help to find a way to solve this very serious problem that started with you. No answer. PLEASE REFER TO POINT THREE. We are not in “bad faith” as you accuse. Why is it not you are who are in “bad faith?” Please answer that. Is this a corporate a power play game you play? Looks so. If you cannot control your communication games you shouldn’t be monitoring a Games People Play website. There was never trouble here until Wiki-psych took over. For instance, you say that you ‘have considered my issues’ but you did not, and you made no changes, but instead give me more in-house corporate-speak. Please note that this page refers to Dr. Karpman’s copyrighted material and he does not approve of the “Undue Balance” of your going on and on about Bowen and Ackerman and the misrepresentation of the origins of his work. It should be obvious to you that Karpman knows far more about what the public wants than you could. But you act like you are the expert. Why? Please answer what are the appeals steps Dr. Karpman can take short of pulling his page of copyrighted concepts from Wikipedia. This is his copyrighted intellectual property he must protect. You have put so much work into creating your own historical work of false origins that you have difficulty letting go and perhaps the Appeals process can deal with that. Dr. Karpman will add the important new information this weekend. Will Wikipedia delete it? Ricepark (talk) 01:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC) Ricepark (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. @Ricepark:, I will file for administration intervention as you have requested. To fact check what you say above: • You cannot removed documented "facts" from article 7 times based on your personal opinion. • Reduced book sales is not justification to add back promotional links that fall outside of Wikipedia standards . • The ISBN number on Karpman's book is invalid as per Bowker, the official source for ISBNs in the United States. The info you are supplying has no standing. • Karpman did use "Structural" as per the citation in the article (page 74, 4th para) HERE • Ackerman's work did preceed Karpman as per the citation in the article HERE Wiki-psyc (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC) Apparently reliable sources discuss the Karpman Drama Triangle in a historical context, mentioning previous work such as that by Murray Bowen. You are free, Ricepark, to argue that this information is insignificant, but that is not to be done simply by insisting on such over and over again. You'll have to address the sources themselves and argue their inadequacy. I do not see an editor rationally arguing that his version of the article is superior in following Wikipedia policy, but a child whining that he's not getting his way. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC) Ricepark indefinitely blocked for promotional editing. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard Archive search "Karpman". Valid/verifiable suggestions added to article. Wiki-psyc (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that The Empowerment Dynamic be merged into Karpman Drama Triangle in a section entitled Escaping the Karpman Drama Triangle . I think that the content in the The Empowerment Dynamic, Acey Choys concepts, and other escape concepts can easily be sub-headed and explained in the context of Karpman Drama Triangle. Consolidation is fitting as Karpman Drama Triangle is widely recognized as a theory developed in practice rather than one closely held by its originator. The Karpman Drama Triangle and all the antidotes are simple enough to be collected in one article without it being too lengthy - conversely, they aren't notable enough to stand on their own Wiki-psyc (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd say best to keep them separate to prevent confusion of material, but add a small section in Karpman Drama Triangle that summarizes The Empowerment Dynamic and links it for more details. Tom Ruen (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

There is an article describing an evolutionary set of process stages to escape the Karpman triangle by adding 2 more dimensions to it. The first dimension is the Karpman Triangle considered as a 'Conditional State' of Shame. The second dimension as The Empowerment Dynamic where a 'Conditional State' of Empathy is achieved. Then a third dimension can be evolved to where a 'Conditional State' of Self-Esteem allows the tension dynamic at play between the triangle points to dissipate, effectively freeing any of the positions from the Karpman triangle conundrum. There is also a fourth point of relevant consideration in the position external to the triangle. The article can be seen here http://www.thetemplespace.com/evolving-through-the-karpman-drama-power-triangle/ I would like to propose it is considered for inclusion into both the Karpman Triangle and the Empowerment Dynamic wiki pages as a way to tie them in to one another (or Alec Choys Winner Triangle for that matter) as well as offering an escape from the dynamic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.22.79.114 (talk) 05:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I would like to propose an addition to the Karpman Drama Triangle wiki under Further Reading section / Articles of the following link (which I cannot add myself due to Wiki's conflict of interest guidelines) thanks - * Berry, Mark (2015). Evolving through the (Karpman Drama) Power Triangle - Persecutor, Victim, Rescuer. TheTempleSpace — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.21.35.218 (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

As there is no significant opposition, I created a subhead entitled "therapeautic alternatives" and merged The Empowerment Dynamic as one of two. There are others and hopefully these will be added in time. Wiki-psyc (talk) 10:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)