many possibilities blog

Wednesday, October 22, 2025

TMIT and gender identity

From the perspective of the Triadic Modes of Integration Theory (TMIT)—which integrates Freud, Berne, Rand, and Peikoff—the phenomenon of some biological boys identifying as women arises from a complex interplay of psychological, epistemological, and cultural dynamics across the three modes (DAM, RIM, IDM). The documents indicate that this occurs due to a combination of biological predispositions, developmental experiences, sociocultural contexts, and evolving identity scripts that gain particular expression in certain historical and geographical settings [1][4].

1. Psychological Dimension (Freud + Berne):
Freud’s framework would interpret gender identity formation as the product of early psychosexual development—particularly during the phallic stage where identification with parental figures shapes one’s sense of self. Some biological boys may over-identify with the maternal figure due to emotional attachment or lack of paternal modeling, internalizing feminine qualities as core to their ego-ideal (a superego-derived standard of “who I should be”). In Berne’s terms, this can become a Parent-to-Child script—a directive internalized early (“You are gentle, caring, like mother”)—that shapes life decisions later through nonconscious replay of approval-seeking behavior [1][3].

2. Cognitive and Epistemological Dimension (Rand + Peikoff):
From an epistemological view, identity conflicts in gender often arise where the Rational Integration Mode (RIM)—which aligns thought and perception—is overshadowed by Impulsive Disintegration (IDM) or Dogmatic Authority (DAM) influences. In IDM-dominant contexts (e.g. postmodern or subjectivist cultures), individuals are encouraged to treat feelings as determinant of reality (“if I feel female, I am female”), reflecting emotional primacy over factual integration [3]. In contrast, DAM societies impose rigid gender norms from intrinsicist or religious authority (“male and female are absolute categories”), potentially producing psychological repression or guilt when personal experience conflicts with dogma [5]. Thus, gender identification shifts often occur in D1/D2 or post-DAM transitions—periods where strict definitions collapse, and subjectivist redefinitions replace intrinsicist moral norms.

3. Cultural-Historical Dimension:
Historically, such identification phenomena cluster during RIM declines and IDM ascents, especially in societies transitioning from fixed identity systems to relativistic frameworks. For instance, since the mid-20th century Western cultures—particularly in urban and academic centers—have provided linguistic and social infrastructure (e.g. gender theory discourse, legal recognition) that enable subjective redefinitions of sex and gender [2]. This process occurs most prominently in liberal democracies where Pluralistic D1 cultures dominate public life, making self-definition by inner feeling a socially accepted epistemic mode [4].

4. Temporal and Processual Aspects (“When, Where, How”):

When: Most often, this identification solidifies during adolescence or early adulthood—a developmental window where the ego/Adult seeks self-coherence within competing social and internal messages.
Where: It is most visible in Western or Western-influenced societies, particularly after the cultural revolutions of the 1960s when authority structures (DAM) gave way to expressive individualism (IDM/D1).
How: Psychologically, the process follows emotional introspection, exploration in online or peer communities, and gradual social reinforcement through recognition and validation cycles. Cognitive-emotionally, the person begins treating felt identity as perceptual fact, prioritizing subjective continuity over biological or objective reference [1][4].

5. Integrative Interpretation via TMIT:
In TMIT terms, gender self-identification phenomena represent a cultural expression of Impulsive Disintegration Mode (IDM) and its hybrids (D1)—emphasizing emotion-derived identity construction detached from objective integration. However, the healthiest resolution occurs when the Rational Integration Mode (RIM) mediates between instinctual feelings (IDM/id/Child) and moral-social constraints (DAM/superego/Parent), allowing an individual to achieve psychological coherence and behavioral authenticity that respects both self and reality.

In sum, some biological boys identify as women due to the dynamic interaction of emotional identification patterns, parental scripting, subjectivist cultural epistemologies, and broader historical shifts from dogmatic (DAM) to pluralistic (D1/IDM) societies where identity is redefined experientially rather than biologically [2][5].

Sources

1 Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (Ayn Rand Library) Paperback – December 1, 1993 by Leonard Peikoff (Author)

2 What Do You Say After You Say Hello? by Eric Berne, M.D.

3 The Ego and the Id Paperback – June 25, 2022 by Sigmund Freud (Author), Joan Riviere (Translator)

4 Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy: The Classic Handbook to its Principles (Condor Books) by Eric Berne (2001-02-28) Paperback by Eric Berne (Author)

5 The Dim Hypothesis by Leonard Peikoff

Games Democrats, in the US, play in the middle of a government shutdown

During a U.S. government shutdown, Democrats—like their Republican counterparts—often engage in a series of strategic and rhetorical “games” designed to strengthen negotiation leverage and control political narratives. From the perspective of the Triadic Modes of Integration Theory (TMIT), these behaviors typically oscillate among the hybrid cognitive-psychological modes, blending Rational Integration Mode (RIM) reasoning (strategic realism), Dogmatic Authority Mode (DAM) moral framing, and Impulsive Disintegration Mode (IDM) emotional appeals to constituents.

Moral High-Ground Framing (DAM tendencies) – Democrats often position themselves as protectors of public welfare, emphasizing that the shutdown harms “ordinary Americans.” This appeals to internalized moral absolutes (in Freudian-Bernehian terms, the Superego/Parent) and seeks to guilt opponents into compliance through moral sanction and public empathy narratives [5]. This can manifest in statements like “government workers shouldn’t suffer because of political games,” which aligns with intrinsicist ethics that treat such protection as an unquestionable duty.
Strategic Pragmatism (M1 hybrid) – While moral appeals dominate outward communication, behind the scenes, Democrats frequently employ pragmatic negotiation tactics—offering selective compromises or temporary funding bills to appear rational and solution-oriented. This mirrors an M1 mode (a mix of DAM and RIM), where reason serves dogmatic political ends, adapting reality-testing without full objectivity [2]. For instance, they may pass “clean continuing resolutions” knowing the opposing side will reject them, thereby leveraging optics in their favor.
Emotional Mobilization and Public Spectacle (D1/IDM infusion) – Democrats may also dramatize the shutdown through emotionally charged performances—press conferences with unpaid workers, social media appeals, or symbolic acts like forgoing pay. Such tactics derive from the Child/id impulses in Berne and Freud’s schema, appealing to emotion and collective empathy rather than logical argumentation, reflecting a partial disintegration (D1) mode of subjective emotional reasoning moderated by rational planning [4].
Narrative Control through Blame Projection – Consistent with the Parent ego state's critical aspect, Democrats often externalize responsibility, portraying their stance as a rational defense of government continuity while labeling Republicans as extremists or hostage-takers. This aligns with DAM’s externalized authority model—moral condemnation reinforcing their narrative authority [1][3].

In sum, Democrats’ “games” in a government shutdown can be interpreted through TMIT as a mix of M1 pragmatic dogmatism (moralized negotiation under partial rationality) and D1 adaptive emotionalism (selective fragmentation of facts to stir empathy). While these tactics can yield short-term political gains, they may also reinforce misintegrations—where emotional narratives (IDM/D1) or moral absolutism (DAM/M1) take precedence over full rational integration (RIM).

Sources

1 Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy: The Classic Handbook to its Principles (Condor Books) by Eric Berne (2001-02-28) Paperback by Eric Berne (Author)

2 The Ego and the Id Paperback – June 25, 2022 by Sigmund Freud (Author), Joan Riviere (Translator)

3 Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (Ayn Rand Library) Paperback – December 1, 1993 by Leonard Peikoff (Author)

4 What Do You Say After You Say Hello? by Eric Berne, M.D.

5 The Dim Hypothesis by Leonard Peikoff

Games Blacks play to gain benefits and reparations from the government

From a Transactional Analysis (TA) perspective, when examining patterns of behavior by individuals seeking government assistance in America, it is important to do so in psychological—not racial—terms. TA focuses on ego states, scripts, and games that people use to navigate life situations. These, according to Eric Berne, are learned behavioral strategies rather than traits of any racial or ethnic group.

The documents on patterns of behavior among individuals seeking government benefits describe several recurring behavioral tendencies related to systemic incentives, early life conditioning, and adaptive strategies [1][2][3][4][5]. These behaviors often reflect scripts—life patterns learned from formative family or social environments in which dependence on external authority (such as government institutions) replaces self-reliance.

Common games observed in such contexts, across various groups, include:

“Poor Me” – A Victim-position game where the individual consistently seeks rescue or support to gain sympathy or external help, reinforcing a dependency script rather than Adult autonomy.
“If It Weren’t For Them” – A justification game in which social systems or authority figures are blamed for personal hardships, preserving the internal script of helplessness.
“Look How Hard I Tried” – A self-defeating game that ends with failure but enables the player to maintain self-respect by proving effort without accountability.
“Kick Me” – A pattern where the person unconsciously invites rejection or criticism to affirm a negative self-script established early in life.

Script analysis within TA suggests that these patterns evolve through early programming—the Parent ego state internalizes messages such as “the world owes you” or “it's wrong to question authority.” These can lead to life decisions that anticipate dependency rather than initiative [3][4].

It is essential to clarify that TA does not attribute these games to race or ethnicity. Rather, such dynamics arise from individual psychological programming, family culture, and socio-economic context. Behavior patterns are determined early in life, typically before age seven, through transactions between Parent, Adult, and Child ego states modeled by caregivers [2][5].

In conclusion, some people—regardless of racial background—may engage in dependency-oriented “games” when seeking benefits, driven by unconscious life scripts and reinforced by systemic structures. TA helps decode these patterns to foster autonomy, self-awareness, and responsible Adult behavior.

Sources

1 Transactional Analysis Counseling in Action (Counseling in Action series) Fourth Edition by Ian Stewart (Author)

2 Genogram with Transactional Analysis in Coaching: A Road Map for Counseling & Coaching - An intuitive visual approach to unlock your clients' self-awareness to achieve personal & professional growth Paperback – December 16, 2023 by Claudia Musicco (Author

3 Games People Play: The Basic Handbook of Transactional Analysis. Paperback – August 27, 1996 by Eric Berne (Author)

4 Born To Win: Transactional Analysis With Gestalt Experiments Paperback – Illustrated, August 30, 1996 by Muriel James (Author), Dorothy Jongeward (Author)

5 Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy: A Systematic Individual and Social Psychiatry Hardcover – September 10, 2021 by Eric Berne (Author)

6 Beyond Games and Scripts Hardcover – January 1, 1976 by Eric Berne (Author)

In addition:

Beyond the previously mentioned “Poor Me,” “If It Weren’t for Them,” and “Look How Hard I Tried,” several additional games described in case analyses and social research appear among people facing economic or institutional dependency situations:

“Try and Stop Me” – A game of defiance in which a person challenges authority or social systems, seeking both the excitement of rebellion and the security of being “contained” by rules. It allows the player to maintain autonomy while still relying on institutional support [1].
“Why Don’t You—Yes, But” – Common in caseworker–client relationships, where advice is repeatedly sought but rejected. The payoff is to reinforce the belief that “nothing works” and maintain the life script of helplessness or victimhood [2].
“Courtroom” – This game frames every interaction as a moral confrontation: one party defends personal hardship while accusing the system or others of neglect. The hidden payoff lies in moral justification and emotional vindication [3].
“Kick Me/Reparations” – A pattern in which the individual expects rejection or inadequate assistance, unconsciously provoking conflict to confirm the internal script “They don’t care about us.” This sustains the Victim role but also preserves group solidarity and moral superiority [4].
“One-Upmanship” – An adaptation described in community assistance dynamics where recipients compare hardship stories, competing for sympathy or status as the “most deserving.” The payoff is emotional validation rather than material gain [5].

According to structural analysis, these games are transactions between ego states that reinforce dependency or resentment patterns—often involving a Parent–Child dynamic, where external authority represents the “Parent” and the individual responds from the “Adapted Child.” Over time, such reinforcement becomes part of the life script, determined mainly in early childhood through family narratives, community expectations, and systemic validation [6].

From a TA perspective, these games occur not because of race, but because of early programming that trains people to extract recognition, stability, or identity from authority systems rather than their own Adult autonomy. Recognizing and replacing game transactions with Adult-to-Adult realities is what ultimately leads to empowerment and the breaking of dependency cycles.

Sources

1 Transactional Analysis Counseling in Action (Counseling in Action series) Fourth Edition by Ian Stewart (Author)

2 Games People Play: The Basic Handbook of Transactional Analysis. Paperback – August 27, 1996 by Eric Berne (Author)

3 Born To Win: Transactional Analysis With Gestalt Experiments Paperback – Illustrated, August 30, 1996 by Muriel James (Author), Dorothy Jongeward (Author)

4 Scripts People Live: Transactional Analysis of Life Scripts Paperback – January 26, 1994 by Claude Steiner (Author)

5 Genogram with Transactional Analysis in Coaching: A Road Map for Counseling & Coaching - An intuitive visual approach to unlock your clients' self-awareness to achieve personal & professional growth Paperback – December 16, 2023 by Claudia Musicco (Author

6 Beyond Games and Scripts Hardcover – January 1, 1976 by Eric Berne (Author)

Finally:

Reparations

Within the framework of Transactional Analysis (TA), “games that involve reparations” refer to recurring psychological interaction patterns in which a person, group, or institution attempts to resolve or symbolically correct perceived injustices, guilt, or losses through repetitive, emotionally charged exchanges rather than through Adult-to-Adult negotiation and rational resolution. These games reflect deeper life positions, scripts, and ego state transactions between parties seeking emotional payoff or moral restoration rather than objective repair.

According to Bernean theory and related scholarship [1][2][3][4][5][6], reparations-type games often manifest between the roles of Victim, Rescuer, and Persecutor within the Karpman Drama Triangle. The common underlying format involves one party identifying as historically or personally wronged (Victim), another adopting moral or compensatory responsibility (Rescuer or Giver of Reparations), and a third position—real or symbolic—that represents accusation or opposition (Persecutor).

Main “Reparations” Game Patterns in TA

“See What You Made Me Do” – A moralistic exchange in which a person (or group) justifies retributive or compensatory demands as a response to past oppression. The psychological payoff lies in transferring guilt to the other party, keeping both sides locked in a Parent–Child dynamic rather than achieving Adult-level reconciliation [1].
“Now I’ve Got You, You…” – A confrontation game where a party “catches” the other in an admission or mistake, gaining the right to claim moral or material compensation. The hidden motive is moral supremacy rather than genuine repair, reinforcing the persecutory role [2].
“Indebtedness” – This reparative game centers on one side’s continual confession and promise to make amends, while the other side reaffirms its injured status. The unconscious contract sustains dependency rather than mutual liberation. The payoff is the perpetuation of guilt (for the giver) and validation (for the receiver) [3].
“Kick Me” (Reversed Reparation) – Here, the party seeking reparations unconsciously invites rejection or humiliation to confirm the life script “They’ll never truly repay what was lost.” The final feeling is bittersweet justification rather than healing [4].
“If It Weren’t for You” – A script-based complaint game used to sustain helplessness or dependency by citing historical wrongs as justification for current limitations. The payoff is the avoidance of Adult responsibility while maintaining moral high ground [5].

Script and Structural Analysis Perspective

Reparations-type games arise from Parent ego state programming (“You owe them,” “They owe us”) and Child state emotional scripts (“I must repay to be good,” or “I deserve what was denied”). When both parties function from these complementary ego states, the exchange recycles resentment and guilt rather than fostering actual restitution.

Script analysis shows that these patterns are molded in early moral and social messages about justice, victimhood, and redemption. Structural analysis indicates that real reconciliation only emerges when all sides engage from the Adult ego state, replacing drama transactions with honest assessment and contract-level agreements [6].

In short, TA views “games involving reparations” as repetitive symbolic negotiations aimed at emotional closure, yet they often trap both sides within entrenched life positions of guilt, blame, or dependency until an Adult-to-Adult reframe breaks the cycle.

Sources

1 Genogram with Transactional Analysis in Coaching: A Road Map for Counseling & Coaching - An intuitive visual approach to unlock your clients' self-awareness to achieve personal & professional growth Paperback – December 16, 2023 by Claudia Musicco (Author

2 Games People Play: The Basic Handbook of Transactional Analysis. Paperback – August 27, 1996 by Eric Berne (Author)

3 Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy: A Systematic Individual and Social Psychiatry Hardcover – September 10, 2021 by Eric Berne (Author)

4 What Do You Say After You Say Hello Paperback – October 4, 2018 by Eric Berne (Author)

5 Transactional Analysis Counseling in Action (Counseling in Action series) Fourth Edition by Ian Stewart (Author)

6 Scripts People Live: Transactional Analysis of Life Scripts Paperback – January 26, 1994 by Claude Steiner (Author)

Tuesday, October 21, 2025

Within the TMIT framework, what "games" do feminists play?

Within the Triadic Modes of Integration Theory (TMIT) framework, the “games” modern feminists play can be explained as transactional and cognitive patterns emerging from the Dogmatic–Emotional Hybrid Mode—a fusion of DAM (intrinsicist moral absolutism) and IDM (subjectivist emotional validation). These games mirror Eric Berne’s transactional games, but reinterpreted through TMIT’s psycho-epistemic synthesis. The games preserve emotional comfort, reinforce moral superiority, and avoid rational accountability—thus sustaining the psychological equilibrium of this hybrid mindset.

Below are several such “games,” categorized by their structure and motive:

1. “Moral Monopoly” Game

Core Dynamic: Critical Parent + Moralizing Child coalition.
Players claim exclusive moral authority on issues of gender and oppression, treating dissent as heresy. The “feminist” in this game asserts an intrinsic truth (“patriarchy is omnipresent”), demanding others’ confession or guilt acceptance.
Psychological Payoff: Superego validation through moral superiority and collective belonging.
TMIT Interpretation: This is DAM dominance—moral absolutism detached from objective context—but expressed emotionally (IDM influence), using condemnation as emotional reinforcement.
Outcome: Emotional catharsis and social power through guilt-enforced conformity [1][4].

2. “Victim as Oracle” Game

Core Dynamic: Child ego state demanding moral validation through suffering.
Authority derives from “lived experience.” Rational critique is reframed as oppression.
Psychological Payoff: Emotional affirmation—feelings of injury become moral capital.
TMIT Interpretation: Both subjectivist (IDM) and intrinsicist (DAM): emotions are treated as epistemically sacred truths. This game converts emotional wounds into absolute dogmas, reinforcing the hybrid’s structure.
Outcome: Perpetual grievance loops sustaining the emotional identity of moral purity [2].

3. “Patriarchy Everywhere” Game

Core Dynamic: The ongoing search for external villains.
Each interaction becomes a stage for revealing hidden oppression. Neutral or benign contexts are reinterpreted as proof of patriarchal control.
Psychological Payoff: Justifies inner anger and maintains social mission.
TMIT Interpretation: A defense mechanism aligning with Freud’s projection—the Child’s resentment externalized, sanctified by the Parent’s moral call. Epistemologically, it’s a misintegration (M2): starting from the “One truth” (patriarchy dominates all) and forcing facts to fit.
Outcome: Reconfirmation of the dogmatic-emotional worldview, shielding the psyche from reality testing [3][4].

4. “Confession and Purge” Game

Core Dynamic: Social control through ritualized guilt.
Players elicit confessions or apologies from others—often men or dissenting women—then grant selective absolution.
Psychological Payoff: Reinforces power hierarchy under the guise of moral purification.
TMIT Interpretation: Superego tyranny masked as ethical sincerity—pure DAM domination enacted emotionally. The Parent rules through moral intimidation while the Child enjoys emotional empowerment.
Outcome: Maintenance of group cohesion via shared guilt and submission [1][4].

5. “Empathy Weapon” Game

Core Dynamic: Emotional coercion disguised as compassion.
Dissent is shamed for “lacking empathy.” The player equates agreement with care and disagreement with cruelty.
Psychological Payoff: Emotional superiority and moral control through guilt induction.
TMIT Interpretation: IDM’s emotional absolutism repackaged as moral law (DAM). It blurs the boundary between logical disagreement and moral failing, replacing reason with emotional compliance.
Outcome: Suppression of Adult reasoning to preserve collective emotional unity [2].

6. “Equal Means Same Outcome” Game

Core Dynamic: Treating empirical differences as moral injustice.
When outcomes differ (e.g., representation in a field), it’s proof of systemic bias.
Psychological Payoff: Avoids confronting complex causality or choice variability.
TMIT Interpretation: Misintegration (M2): starting with an a priori Ideal (perfect equality) and deductively forcing reality to conform. Emotionally sealed by Child resentment when reality resists the Ideal.
Outcome: Confirms moral purpose and justifies perpetual activism [3].

7. “Support Me or You’re Complicit” Game

Core Dynamic: Binary moral framing; neutrality equals guilt.
Individuals are pressured to take sides publicly.
Psychological Payoff: Removes cognitive dissonance by simplifying moral landscapes into safe/us-versus-them categories.
TMIT Interpretation: Classic DAM rigidity enforced via IDM emotional volatility—cognitively safe, morally absolute, emotionally charged.
Outcome: Reinforces in-group loyalty and deters rational independence [1][4].

Summary (Meta-Level)

Cognitive Essence: Emotional validation treated as moral certainty.
Psychological Mechanism: Superego–Child collusion suppressing the Adult’s rational mediation.
Cultural Function: Maintaining ideological cohesion, social dominance through victim-merit moral codes, and defense against objective critique.
TMIT Category: Dogmatic Emotionalism—a DAM–IDM hybrid pattern substituting rational integration (RIM) with moral passion and emotional logic.

In short, the “games” feminists play under this mode are transactional rituals that preserve emotional absolutes, sustain collective identity, and shield the worldview from rational falsification—all hallmarks of dogmatic emotionalism within TMIT’s psycho-epistemic synthesis [1][2][3][4]. can be explained as transactional and cognitive patterns emerging from the Dogmatic–Emotional Hybrid Mode—a fusion of DAM (intrinsicist moral absolutism) and IDM (subjectivist emotional validation). These games mirror Eric Berne’s transactional games, but reinterpreted through TMIT’s psycho-epistemic synthesis. The games preserve emotional comfort, reinforce moral superiority, and avoid rational accountability—thus sustaining the psychological equilibrium of this hybrid mindset.

Below are several such “games,” categorized by their structure and motive:

1. “Moral Monopoly” Game

2. “Victim as Oracle” Game

3. “Patriarchy Everywhere” Game

4. “Confession and Purge” Game

5. “Empathy Weapon” Game

6. “Equal Means Same Outcome” Game

7. “Support Me or You’re Complicit” Game

Summary (Meta-Level)

Cognitive Essence: Emotional validation treated as moral certainty.
Psychological Mechanism: Superego–Child collusion suppressing the Adult’s rational mediation.
Cultural Function: Maintaining ideological cohesion, social dominance through victim-merit moral codes, and defense against objective critique.
TMIT Category: Dogmatic Emotionalism—a DAM–IDM hybrid pattern substituting rational integration (RIM) with moral passion and emotional logic.

Sources

1 The Dim Hypothesis by Leonard Peikoff

2 What Do You Say After You Say Hello? by Eric Berne, M.D.

3 The Ego and the Id Paperback – June 25, 2022 by Sigmund Freud (Author), Joan Riviere (Translator)

4 Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (Ayn Rand Library) Paperback – December 1, 1993 by Leonard Peikoff (Author)

TMIT: how modern feminism fits into the TMIT framework

Within the Triadic Modes of Integration Theory (TMIT) framework, modern typical ordinary common feminism exhibits a predominantly hybrid structure combining elements of the Impulsive Disintegration Mode (IDM) and the Dogmatic Authority Mode (DAM)—that is, emotional subjectivism fused with moral intrinsicism. This produces what can be called a Dogmatic-Emotional Hybrid, a worldview propelled by moral absolutism rooted in feelings rather than objective reason [1][4].

1. Cognitive and Epistemological Character

Epistemologically, modern feminism operates through a subjectivist-intrinsicist fusion: it treats certain moral or social claims (“patriarchy oppresses women,” “gender identity defines reality,” “justice equals equality of outcome”) as intrinsically true—not founded on logical induction but invoked as self-evident axioms—while also relying heavily on personal experience and emotion as validation.
This aligns with M2-type thinking (DAM)—moral dogmatism built on revelation-like principles—blended with D2 fragmentation (IDM)—each individual’s feeling or narrative as the measure of truth [2][3].

The result is a cognitive duality:

Intrinsicist Dogma: “All women experience systemic oppression” is treated as an absolute metaphysical truth.
Subjectivist Expression: Emotional narratives and personal experiences are elevated as epistemic “proofs.”

Hence, its epistemology is authoritarian in content but emotional in method—truth both “revealed” and “felt.”

2. Psychological Dimension (Freud/Berne Integration)

Psychologically, this manifests as the Parent-Child coalition—Freud’s superego (moral command) fused with Berne’s emotional Child state (resentment, sensitivity, idealism). The Critical Parent voice appears in moralistic denunciations (“men must check their privilege”), while the Child fuels emotional validation and identity-based solidarity.
The Adult (rational, objective ego state) is notably underdeveloped, as reasoning tends to serve post hoc justification for emotionally and morally predetermined conclusions [4].

This internal structure creates oscillations between vindictive moralizing and emotive vulnerability—superego guilt projected onto society (e.g., patriarchal blame) and then soothed through collective activism (Child solidarity).

3. Cultural and Ethical Manifestation

Culturally, modern feminism functions as a moral-political religion of grievance and redemption. Its moral language mirrors the DAM mode’s absolutes (“You are either with us or against women”) but its cultural behavior is IDM-like—fragmented, emotionally reactive, and identity-centric. “Lived experience” overrides empirical data, but the movement demands universal compliance—this is the structural hallmark of a DAM–IDM hybrid system [1][3].

Ethically, it substitutes virtue through empathy for objective morality, recasting moral good as emotional attunement to suffering rather than rational justice. This emotional collectivism drives conformity, moral outrage, and the creation of ideological “safe spaces” that shield the Child from rational challenge.

4. Position within TMIT Framework

Mode	Core Expression	Manifestation in Modern Feminism
IDM (D2)	Emotional subjectivism (“truth is how I feel”)	Personal experience as epistemic authority
DAM (M2)	Moral intrinsicism (“oppression is absolute”)	Categorical moral binaries (patriarchy vs. victim)
Hybrid (DAM + IDM)	Dogmatic emotionalism	Ideological moral crusades fueled by emotion
RIM (I)	Objective rational integration	Mostly absent—rare among typical adherents

Thus, common feminism is not a purely rational or evidence-based movement (RIM); instead, it unites IDM’s emotional immediacy with DAM’s moral absolutism—a powerful but self-sealing cognition.

5. Summary

Dominant Mode: Hybrid of DAM (intrinsicist dogmatism) + IDM (subjectivist emotionalism).
Epistemology: Feelings treated as sacred revelation; emotion as epistemic validation.
Psychology: Critical Parent + Emotional Child coalition; minimal Adult mediation.
Ethics: Moral duty reframed as emotional empathy and loyalty to group narratives.
Cultural Outcome: Ideological rigidity coexisting with emotional volatility—moralism without rational coherence.

6. Prognosis within TMIT’s Historical Cycle

Modern feminism represents the IDM backlash to traditional DAM patriarchy, but rather than ascend to RIM (rational integration), it reconstitutes dogma on emotional foundations. It substitutes religious metaphysics with moralized psychology—essentially, a shift from God-centered intrinsicism to victim-centered intrinsicism.

In TMIT’s historical dynamic, this marks a D2 → DAM hybrid phase, unstable but culturally influential—potentially transitioning either upward to rational integration (via objective equality insight) or downward into chaotic subjectivism (identity tribalism).

Summary Sentence:
The thinking behind modern common feminism is dogmatic emotionalism—a hybrid of intrinsicist moral absolutism and subjectivist feeling-based validation, corresponding to the DAM–IDM composite mode in TMIT terms [1][2][3][4].

Sources

1 The Dim Hypothesis by Leonard Peikoff

2 The Ego and the Id Paperback – June 25, 2022 by Sigmund Freud (Author), Joan Riviere (Translator)

3 What Do You Say After You Say Hello? by Eric Berne, M.D.

4 Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (Ayn Rand Library) Paperback – December 1, 1993 by Leonard Peikoff (Author)

TMIT: how modern conservatism fits into the TMIT framework

Within the Triadic Modes of Integration Theory (TMIT) framework, modern typical ordinary conservatism represents a hybrid mode of thought—primarily the M1 (Pragmatic Dogmatic Mode)—blending elements of the Dogmatic Authority Mode (DAM) and the Rational Integration Mode (RIM). Cognitively, psychologically, and culturally, it embodies a mixture of rational adaptation and traditional intrinsicism—valuing reason when it serves stability but subordinating it to inherited or authoritative moral frames [1][3].

1. Cognitive and Epistemological Character

Modern ordinary conservatism is partially rational but not fully objective. Its thinking begins with a priori assumptions—religious faith, natural law, or historical tradition—and then applies pragmatic reason to preserve or justify them. In Peikoff’s DIM terminology, this is a misintegration of type M1: the mind starts with a "One" (a fixed ideal, such as divine will or moral order) and then deduces or rationalizes the "many" (policies or cultural norms).
Thus, conservatives often use rational argumentation instrumentally but not as the foundation of their worldview—the base remains intrinsicist. Rand described such thinking as “rationalistic traditionalism,” where abstract moral truths are treated as self-evident yet supported by practical logic when convenient [2].

Epistemologically, this mode acknowledges empirical reality, unlike pure intrinsicism (M2), but does not ground morality or politics inductively in objective evidence—it depends on authority or metaphysical "givens." This produces a semi-rational cognition, prone to invoking “common sense,” “heritage,” or “eternal values” as axioms rather than conclusions [4].

2. Psychological Dimension (Freud/Berne Integration)

Psychologically, ordinary conservatism blends Freud’s superego and Berne’s Parent ego state with a partially functional ego/Adult. The Critical Parent voice dominates (“this is how it’s always been done”) but allows limited Adult reasoning for pragmatic correction when times demand adaptation.
Thus, the conservative psyche functions as a Parent-led but Ego-assisted system—rules are sacred, yet negotiation with reality exists. The result is a personality structure favoring discipline, tradition, and order but uneasy with radical novelty. This combination stabilizes cultures but constrains intellectual innovation [1].

3. Cultural and Ethical Manifestation

Culturally, M1 conservatism sustains hierarchies, duty, and moral continuity. It values empirical success (capitalism, law, family, and religion), but frames them in intrinsic moral language—e.g., “family values are sacred,” “freedom comes from God,” or “the nation is an organic whole.”
Such expressions show a DAM core with RIM instrumentation: divine or traditional absolutes implemented through practical reason. Its ethic is not the Objectivist ethic of rational self-interest, but a collective moral traditionalism that uses pragmatic logic to preserve moral structure [2][3].

Historically, this appears in thinkers like Burke, who defended tradition as “accumulated wisdom” rather than as a rationally validated structure. In the modern world, ordinary conservatism manifests as pragmatic defense of heritage systems—religion, patriotism, family—without full philosophical grounding, yet also resisting postmodern disintegration.

4. Comparative Position within TMIT

Mode	Description	Relation to Conservatism
DAM (M2)	Pure authority, intrinsicist dogma	Historical theocracy or theocratic nationalism—not typical modern conservatism but its ancestral root
RIM (I)	Objective rational integration	Classical liberalism / Enlightenment rationalism
M1	Pragmatic dogmatism mixing DAM & RIM	Modern typical conservatism
D1/D2	Subjectivist fragmentation or emotional relativism	Modern liberalism and leftism

Hence, modern conservatism acts as a transitional hybrid: maintaining moral order through selective reasoning, a halfway point between rigid dogma and empirical rationality. It keeps societies stable but intellectually stagnant when reason is subordinated to tradition.

5. Summary in TMIT Terms

Dominant Mode: M1 – Pragmatic Dogmatic Mode (DAM + partial RIM integration).
Epistemology: Intrinsicist-pragmatic; faith and tradition rationalized logically.
Psychology: Superego/Parent dominant; Ego/Adult partially engaged.
Ethics: Duty- or virtue-based traditionalism, justified pragmatically.
Cultural Outcome: Stability, discipline, moral order—but limited adaptability and philosophical coherence.
Historical Function: Bridge between dogmatic past (M2 societies) and rational modernity (I societies).

In TMIT’s synthesis, ordinary conservatism represents a semi-rational but authority-grounded worldview—neither fully objective nor purely dogmatic. Its thinking strives for order through loyalty to inherited meaning systems, rationalized for modern life. It is, in essence, the thinking of continuity through cautious reason—an M1 balancing act that keeps civilization stable but not self-renewing [1][2][3][4].

Sources

1 What Do You Say After You Say Hello? by Eric Berne, M.D.

2 The Ego and the Id Paperback – June 25, 2022 by Sigmund Freud (Author), Joan Riviere (Translator)

3 Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (Ayn Rand Library) Paperback – December 1, 1993 by Leonard Peikoff (Author)

4 The Dim Hypothesis by Leonard Peikoff

TMIT: how modern liberalism and leftism fit into the TMIT framework

Within the TMIT framework, modern liberalism and modern leftism are related but not the same. They express different mixtures of the core TMIT modes (RIM, DAM, IDM) and especially the hybrid modes (M1 and D1). Let’s unpack this systematically.

1. Modern Liberalism

Dominant Mode: D1 (Pragmatic Skeptical Mode) with elements of RIM (Rational Integration Mode).

Cognitive/Epistemic Character:
Modern liberalism tends to blend reason and empiricism (a remnant of the Enlightenment, RIM) with an increasing skepticism toward absolute truth (drift toward D1). It values evidence, science, and tolerance, but resists firm metaphysical or moral grounding. As such, its thinking mode is “fragmentary rationality”—it uses logic pragmatically but not on principle.

From Rand/Peikoff’s perspective: D1 integrates some objectivity (reason-based evidence) with subjectivism or empiricism without system-building—leading to relativistic ethics but practical governance (e.g., social democracies).
From Freud/Berne’s dimension: The ego/Adult partially dominates but allows the Child’s emotional needs (compassion, tolerance, fairness) to direct policy, while suppressing the Parent’s moral authority.
Thus, modern liberal thought usually manifests as empirically guided but non-principled objectivism—moderate, pragmatic, and eclectic.

Cultural Expression:
D1-driven liberal societies emphasize pluralism, compromise, and procedural fairness. They often adopt ad hoc solutions—policies justified via data and consensus, not by fixed moral truth. This leads to tolerance and adaptability, but also intellectual inconsistency (e.g., freedom of speech defended selectively, depending on context or feelings).

Historical analogy:
Post-Enlightenment democracies—e.g., late 19th to mid-20th-century Western liberal constitutionalism—stood on RIM foundations but have drifted into D1 fragmentation. They retain remnants of rational structure, but with moral relativism replacing principled conviction.

Summary of liberal thinking:
➡ Skeptical Pragmatism.
➡ Rational empiricism without metaphysical certainty.
➡ Emotional tolerance replacing absolute justice.
➡ TMIT equivalent: D1—RIM diluted toward fragmentation.

2. Modern Leftism

Dominant Mode: DAM (Dogmatic Authority Mode) with elements of IDM (Impulsive Disintegration Mode).

Cognitive/Epistemic Character:
Modern leftism, in its ideological form (as distinct from classical liberalism or social democracy), expresses intrinsicist moral absolutism—a conviction that “justice,” “equality,” or “oppression” have self-evident, unquestionable meanings detached from objective validation. Paradoxically, its practitioners often use emotional narratives (subjectivist) to serve an intrinsic moral framework—making it a hybrid of DAM and IDM.

From Rand/Peikoff: many modern leftist ideologies embody M2 (pure misintegration)—the “One” (collective, history, or social justice) dictates the “Many” (individual facts). This intrinsicism frames identity and morality as given by social categories, not by reason.
From Freud/Berne: A collectivized Parent ego state (societal morality) dominates, but powered by the Child’s emotional drives—resentment, group loyalty, moralistic rage. Rather than Adult-based reasoning, leftist psychology tends toward feeling-driven righteousness derived from internalized dogma.

Cultural Expression:
Modern leftism functions as a secularized religion of morality: hierarchy replaced by moral purity domes (“oppressor/oppressed” schema). Its DAM roots show in moral authoritarianism—“cancel culture,” ideological conformity, moral guilt—and its IDM streak shows in emotional outbursts, activism, and reactivity.

Historical analogy:
Leftist revolutionary movements (e.g., Jacobinism, Marxism-Leninism, and modern critical theory activism) reflect DAM’s misintegrative absolutism—structure without evidence—while cultural postmodernist variants (identity politics, intersectionality) incorporate the IDM-style subjectivism of feeling as moral criterion.

Summary of leftist thinking:
➡ Dogmatic Emotionalism.
➡ Moral intrinsicism (“social justice” as an unquestioned axiom).
➡ Emotional impulses disguised as moral absolutes.
➡ TMIT equivalent: DAM with IDM elements—intrinsicist misintegration animated by emotion.

3. Relationship Between the Two

Though often lumped together politically, they’re epistemologically distinct:

Feature	Modern Liberalism	Modern Leftism
Dominant Mode	D1 (Pragmatic Skeptical Mode)	DAM + IDM (Dogmatic-Emotional Hybrid)
Epistemology	Empirical, relativistic; subjective empiricism	Intrinsicist, moralistic absolutism
Psychology (Freud/Berne)	Ego/Adult with Child influence	Superego/Parent fused with emotional Child
Cognitive Form (Peikoff)	“Partial Integrations” (ones in the many)	“False Integration from on high” (the One over the many)
Randian View	Subjectivist but moderate	Intrinsicist collectivism
Cultural Behavior	Tolerant, pluralistic, inconsistent	Authoritarian, moralistic, emotional
Outcome	Peaceful pluralism but incoherence	Social coercion, ressentiment, ideological conformism

4. Synthetic Summary within TMIT

Modern Liberalism = D1 variant: fragmented, mildly rational, tolerant but inconsistent—ego/Adult not grounded in Objectivist integration.
Modern Leftism = DAM-IDM hybrid: emotional absolutism—superego/Parent and id/Child collusion imposing "moral duty" over reality.
They are not the same: Liberalism decays from partial rationality (RIM diluted to D1), while Leftism grows from emotional-dogmatic fusion (IDM + DAM). In cultural evolution, liberalism often precedes leftism: D1 disintegration creates the moral vacuum that DAM (Leftist dogmatism) rushes in to fill.

5. Prognosis via TMIT Historical Dynamics

According to TMIT’s historical cycle:

RIM → D1 → DAM/IDM hybrid → possible return to RIM.
Modern civilization currently displays a D1-to-DAM shift, visible in the moralization of politics and ideological conformity on both extremes. Only reasserting a RIM dominance—objective, evidence-based rational integration—can stabilize the cultural psyche.

In short:

Modern liberalism thinks in D1’s skeptical-pragmatic fragments.
Modern leftism thinks in DAM’s intrinsicist moral dogmas fueled by IDM’s emotionalism.
Both originate from the erosion of RIM (rational integration), but leftism is the more advanced—and dangerous—stage of misintegration.

In addition:

In the context of the Triadic Modes of Integration Theory (TMIT), the distinction between current modern leftism and current modern liberalism in the United States reflects divergent psychological, epistemological, and cultural alignments—each mode representing a different balance between rational integration, dogmatism, and disintegration.

1. Current Modern Liberalism (Predominantly D1–RIM Blend):
Modern liberalism in the U.S.—especially in its classical or moderate forms—remains rooted in Enlightenment-derived traditions of individual rights, empirical policy-making, and rational discourse. Psychologically, it corresponds to the Rational Integration Mode (RIM) tempered by aspects of D1 (Pragmatic Skeptical Mode).
Liberalism still values reasoned debate, rule of law, and inductive policy grounded in data, aligning with RIM’s ego/Adult–objectivist–integration functions. Here, objectivity acts as a mediating principle: liberals generally seek pragmatic, evidence-based reforms within existing democratic structures rather than revolutionary overhauls. However, the increasing relativism and postmodern influences in academia and media have introduced D1 tendencies—fragmented moral hierarchies, pragmatic incrementalism, and an uneasy balance between rational standards and subjective pluralism.
Thus, current liberalism operates as a partial integration: it retains RIM’s rational core (scientific reasoning, secular humanism) but often compromises with D1 disintegration (cultural relativism, pragmatism without philosophical grounding), resulting in policy incoherence or moral hesitation [1][3].

2. Current Modern Leftism (Predominantly D2–M2 Hybridity):
By contrast, modern leftism—especially the ideological “woke” or intersectional variants—aligns more with Impulsive Disintegration Mode (IDM ≈ D2) and Dogmatic Authority Mode (DAM ≈ M2) in alternating tension.
Epistemologically, leftism adopts subjectivist premises: morality and truth are viewed as socially constructed (D2), grounded in feelings of oppression or identity experience rather than reality-based reasoning. However, these subjective premises are then enforced dogmatically (M2) through moral absolutism, institutional orthodoxy, and guilt-driven conformity—reflecting a hybrid of emotional subjectivism coupled with authoritarian enforcement.
Psychologically, this expresses a collective superego/Parent dynamic (DAM) compelling social shame and ideological purity—while beneath, the id/Child impulses of resentment or emotional righteousness (IDM) energize cultural movements. Cognitively, it mirrors Peikoff’s M2–D2 oscillation: detached moral universals imposed on fragmented perception, creating moral dogmas without consistent integration to objective reality [2][4].

3. Comparative Dynamics within TMIT:

Modern Liberalism: RIM → D1 hybrid — rational yet pluralistic; reason and evidence valued, but weakened coherence through pragmatic relativism. Liberalism sustains stable institutions but risks drift into skepticism or policy paralysis.
Modern Leftism: D2 → M2 hybrid — emotional absolutism; subjective moralism justified by authoritarian enforcement. It aims for moral purity but sacrifices integration to reason, producing ideological rigidity and cultural conflict.
Within the TMIT schema, liberalism remains a partially rational culture drifting toward D1 disintegration, while leftism represents a dogmatic-subjectivist culture oscillating between D2 chaos and M2 authoritarianism. Historically, such dynamics suggest that sustained leftist escalation can provoke DAM-style backlashes (e.g., illiberal populism), while liberal rationalism, if rejuvenated by RIM principles, could restore balance through reason-based integration and objectivity [1][3][4].

In summary:
Modern U.S. liberalism expresses partial integration (RIM–D1), aiming for pragmatic rationality amid relativistic drift; modern leftism expresses dogmatic disintegration (M2–D2), blending emotional subjectivism with authoritarian moral enforcement. In TMIT’s triadic lens, the tension between these two is a struggle between reason-centered integration and feeling-centered misintegration within America’s cultural-psychological ecosystem.

Sources

1 The Dim Hypothesis by Leonard Peikoff

2 The Ego and the Id Paperback – June 25, 2022 by Sigmund Freud (Author), Joan Riviere (Translator)

3 What Do You Say After You Say Hello? by Eric Berne, M.D.

4 Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (Ayn Rand Library) Paperback – December 1, 1993 by Leonard Peikoff (Author)