a
phrase that's become, to some,
pop culture. it's one of the mentioned
positions or
states in
Thomas Harris'
book,
I'm Ok-You're Ok: A Practical Guide to Transactional Analysis. Harris explains that there are four states in which
people live their
lives: 1)
i'm not ok--you're ok, 2)
i'm not ok--you're not ok, 3)
i'm ok--you're not ok, 4)
i'm ok--you're ok.
the most
common of these is 'i'm not ok--you're ok'.. surprisingly, there are a lot more
inferiority complexes out there than one might expect. this usually comes from the a
childhood view in which everyone seems much more powerful and able in their lives than the child seems, though really
OK.
the next state, 'i'm not ok--you're not ok' is often caused at childhood when there are many
negative experiences and not as much
support as one would need.. this can result in a view of others as un
helping, though also a view of oneself as unable and
unconfident. not so good for
relationships--trouble with
intimacy and no deep
trust.
'i'm ok--you're not ok' occurs from being brutalised when young and often results in an
adult loner. the thought here is why rely on others when they'll only hurt you? this is pretty much as bad as state three because relationships are still hard, being that
dependance on others is seen as a
weakness and trust is stil hard to accomplish.
the state in which everyone should strive to be is 'i'm ok--you're ok.' this one is
self-explanatory. in this state, one is able to look back at his childhood on up to his adulthood and understand how he's been altered and shaped throughout his
life. from here, all other states are
abandoned. the abandonment of these states will only come through
recognition of them and
working beyond them.
good luck :)