“Trump derangement syndrome” (TDS) is a popular, non-clinical label used to describe intense, repetitive, and disproportionate reactions—for or against Donald Trump—that appear to override a person’s here-and-now judgment. Transactional Analysis (TA) treats this not as a diagnosis but as a pattern: recurring games, racket feelings, script-driven narratives, and Parent/Child contamination of Adult reality-testing in politically charged contexts. Both pro- and anti-Trump responses can be script-led; the common denominator is predictability of the emotional payoff and resistance to new data. [1]
How TA frames “TDS” patterns
- Structural analysis (ego states)
- Parent–Adult–Child mix: Political triggers often activate critical or doctrinal Parent precepts (“People like him/them are always X”) or archaic Child conclusions (“I’m unsafe unless my side wins”), contaminating the Adult’s data-testing. The result is fast certainty with little fresh evidence-checking. [2]
- Life positions and pronouns: Discourse drifts into I’m OK/You’re Not-OK or I’m Not-OK/You’re OK polarities, with accusatory “you” and absolute claims (“always/never”), signaling script-world over real-world flexibility. [3]
- Game analysis (Berne’s formula)
-
Typical sequence: Con + Gimmick = Response → Switch → Crossup → Payoff.
Example in social media:
• Con (come-on): Provocative post or clip.
• Gimmick (hook): Be Right/Be Strong driver, or a preexisting “They’re evil/stupid” thesis.
• Response: Dunking, moralizing, or doom-posting.
• Switch: Roles flip—poster becomes “victim,” responder feels “persecutor” or “rescuer.”
• Crossup: Surprise escalation or pile-on.
• Payoff: Racket feeling—righteous anger, justified contempt, or vindicated despair.
The feeling is familiar and repeatable across threads and days—hallmarks of a game rather than problem-solving. [4] -
Named games that often appear:
• Now I’ve Got You, You SOB (gotcha clips, entrapment questions).
• Ain’t It Awful (bonding by complaint about “them”).
• Why Don’t You—Yes, But (advice given only to be rejected).
• Courtroom (endless prosecution/defense without a verdict). [5]
- Racket feelings, stamps, afterburn
- Racket economy: The same big feelings (rage, contempt, terror, helplessness, shame) recur regardless of the specific news item. People “collect trading stamps” (rumination, bookmarking outrages) until a blow-up or withdrawal delivers the payoff. [6]
- Afterburn and reach-back: The arousal lasts hours or days (afterburn) and evokes earlier scenes (reach-back), showing past script energy is steering current reactions. [3]
- Script world vs real world
- Script signatures:
• A fixed “story of my (our) life”: “This proves they’ve always been corrupt/they’re our savior.”
• Primal/conditional illusions guiding choices (“If the other side wins, life won’t be safe”).
• Gallows humor or fatalism at decisive moments.
• Persona rigidity (Hero/Scapegoat/Persecutor) and “sweatshirts” (front message vs back message) in posts. [2] - Real-world tests:
• Does new data change minds?
• Are feelings proportionate and brief?
• Is goal time (constructive outcomes) prioritized over clock-burning outrage cycles? [1]
- Drivers, injunctions, and group fields
- Counterscript drivers—Be Perfect, Be Strong, Hurry Up, Try Hard, Please Others—fuel compulsive posting, pile-ons, and “perform to tribe” behavior. [4]
- Injunctions—Don’t think/Don’t feel/Don’t belong/Don’t be you—surface as purity tests, excommunications, or fear of dissent within one’s own side. [5]
- Episcript and overscript: Family and cultural scripts amplify polarization; peer and media ecosystems reward game payoffs over Adult dialogue. [6]
- Symmetry: Pro- and anti-Trump versions
- TA focuses on the structure, not the stance. Whether adoration or hatred, the markers are the same: repetitive games, predictable payoffs, little data-updating, and strong afterburn. The “derangement” is the script’s primacy over the present situation. [2]
What to observe in yourself or others (quick TA checklist)
- Language: Absolutes, must/should, recycled slogans, gallows jokes at key moments. [1]
- Roles: Fast Victim–Rescuer–Persecutor switches in a single thread. [4]
- Game skeleton: Can you name the Con and Gimmick that always start it, and the final payoff feeling? If yes, it’s likely a game. [5]
- Time use: Lots of “busy” engagement (scrolling, posting) with little movement toward real goals (persuasion, relationships, policy literacy). [6]
- Somatic tells: Same body tension, tone, or “electrodes” (trigger words) preceding the same outcome. [3]
Helpful TA moves (not a treatment plan)
- Decontaminate Adult: Pause to gather one disconfirming fact before replying; name the feeling and check proportionality. [2]
- Name the game: Write Con + Gimmick = Response → Switch → Crossup → Payoff on one line for a recent exchange; decide one “exit move” you’ll try next time (e.g., ask for data, set a boundary, or disengage early). [4]
- Permissions: Offer yourself explicit counters to drivers/injunctions (e.g., “You may think; you may slow down; you may disagree without exile”). [5]
- Contracting: If discussing politics with someone you value, set a brief, shared purpose and time boundary; agree on data sources beforehand. [6]
Important note
“TDS” is a rhetorical label, not a clinical condition. TA does not diagnose it; it describes recurring interactional structures and emotional economies that can attach to any hot-button figure or topic. The lens is practical: spot scripts, reduce games, and restore Adult-led choice. [1]
No comments:
Post a Comment