This material is for informational and educational purposes only and is not medical, psychological, or psychotherapeutic advice. If you are experiencing an acute psychological condition or need professional support, please contact a doctor, psychologist, psychotherapist, or crisis service.
Andriy is telling a friend, once again, that he cannot stand his job. She suggests speaking to his manager, looking at vacancies or taking a few days off. Every suggestion meets an objection. Half an hour later, she snaps: “Nothing is ever good enough for you.” He replies: “I knew you wouldn’t understand either.” The conversation ends in hurt, while the problem at work remains.
In transactional analysis, a psychological game is a recurring interaction with an ulterior level of communication and a familiar outcome. Here we examine one particular loop: an unspoken expectation, an attempt to guess it, frustration and mutual accusations. An unpleasant feeling after a conversation is not enough to identify a game or label someone a manipulator.
AI-generated illustration. A fictional conversation between friends.
Where the conversation starts going in circles
His friend hears a problem and takes it as a request for a solution. Wanting to help, she responds to every objection with a more convincing suggestion. In this conversation, Andriy wants sympathy but does not say so directly. He hears the new suggestions as a demand to change his life immediately and starts defending himself.
When her suggestions are rejected, she interprets her efforts as dismissed, feels angry and turns to reproach. Andriy takes the reproach as confirmation that nobody understands him and withdraws. Both reach a familiar conclusion, although both wanted connection. This explanation concerns the episode described here; actual objections need to be explored, including money, health and working conditions.
When helping, helplessness and accusation alternate, the Karpman drama triangle offers another way to examine the exchange. A position describes an action in a conversation rather than a person’s identity.
Clarify the request before trying to persuade
After the first or second objection, his friend could pause: “Would you like me to listen, or are we looking for options together?” This question makes an agreement possible. It cannot force honesty or guarantee a calm response.
If he wants support, she can clarify its limits: “I can listen for fifteen minutes. I’ll hold off on advice.” If he wants a solution: “Let’s look at one option and check exactly what gets in the way.” A specific shared task replaces the endless search for the perfect suggestion.
Notice your reaction and choose an action
Feeling hurt, afraid or angry during a conversation does not mean you have lost. Feelings tell you how you are experiencing the situation. What you do next is a separate step: accuse in return, keep defending yourself, clarify what was said or take a pause.
Rather than “You always manipulate me,” name what is happening: “I’ve offered several options and I’m starting to feel angry. I don’t want to keep persuading you.” This leaves responsibility for your own response and decision with you. It does not assign the other person a hidden plan.
An agreement needs room for refusal
You can agree on the time, topic and ending: “We can discuss this until eight; then I’m going back to what I was doing.” If the exchange becomes insulting: “I’m willing to talk about work, but I won’t continue a conversation with insults.” Your boundary becomes clear through your action: ending the call, leaving the room or returning to the subject at an agreed time.
A compliment, an unruffled manner or carefully chosen words cannot make someone invulnerable. When there are threats, violence or dependency used as leverage, safety and available support come first. Ending an unsafe interaction matters more than proving which game someone is playing.
What helps between these conversations
A direct request reduces guessing: “I’m feeling lonely. Could you spend some time with me?” rather than testing whether someone notices on their own. Recognition and attention support connection, but they do not oblige you to soothe another person indefinitely. Respect can coexist with refusal and disagreement.
After a difficult exchange, write down five things: what was said; what you expected but did not ask for; what you concluded and felt; how you responded; and how the conversation ended. Then formulate one request or boundary for next time. Separate your interpretations from facts about the other person.
You can use the personal-boundaries diary or the MriyaRun online diary for these notes. A diary helps you revisit specific episodes and notice repetition; it cannot determine someone else’s motives or guarantee conflict-free relationships. If you spend a long time proving yourself right after conversations, you may also find the article on rationalisation useful.
Leaving this loop begins with a change available to you: clarify the request, stop offering unsolicited advice, state a boundary or end the conversation. The other person remains responsible for their response. A recurring painful pattern can be explored with a psychotherapist without turning game names into accusations.
Source of the model
Eric Berne, Games People Play (1964): the model described on the author’s family website. The practical phrases and conversation analysis in this article are editorial examples of applying the model, not quotations from the book.
"Diary of the Mistress of Her Boundaries"