Life script type - 3

Hello KYLady

Thanks for your comments about the percentages of winners, losers and non winners and on how does one define a winner you made in the previous post on this topic.

The percentages cited are somewhat arbitrary. The main point being made is there needs to be a large number in society who basically keep the society functioning as do ‘worker bees’ in a bee hive. If these people do their work then there also needs to be a group who do not follow the customary rules. These people thus give the society an edge, or a continual creative and growth momentum. Without this a society would stagnate and falter sooner or later.

Both the winners and the losers do this. They provide a society with a quality of creative growth. A good example of this in Australia is some what topical at the moment with the American example of the batman movie shootings. It involves a person called Martin Bryant who was in his early 20s at the time. In the mid 1990s he randomly shot and killed 35 people at a popular tourist resort with no motive. The government at the time used this to give Australian society a new direction on the issue of gun control. Laws were significantly tightened to make the purchase of guns more difficult. If Martin Bryant had not done what he did that would not have happened at least then. So this ‘loser’ (for want of a better word) had a significant impact on the direction of Australian society because he broke the rules and in one way forced the society to grow and develop in the way it did.

As you can see from the chart there are a number of similarities between the characteristics of the winner and the loser. The winner has little to do with success in terms of wealth, fame and so on. The key features of a psychological winner are;

Set out and achieve life goals
Things work out well in the end

For most despots throughout history this is not the case and in that sense they would not be considered winners in the way the term is being used here.




In terms of psychological theory to achieve self actualization or psychological health, there is only a small group who do this - the winners. All the others don’t. The losers have tragic life scripts and the non winners achieve only banal lives. Neither of these in terms of psychological theory are the optimum state of psychological health and thus they could then be called neurotic states.

So all this is good and well for the winners who can only achieve this if the non winners do their job. And as I said before this does not seem very fair for the non winners. It is one of those examples where the health of the individual collides with the health of the group (society).

A prime example of this is in the area of child sexual abuse. The research on this is unequivocal. A child who reports being abused and goes through the legal process of the perpetrator being charged, tried and so forth, they will be significantly psychologically worse off at the end, than if they did not go through the legal process. This occurs for whole variety of different reasons including the child being retraumatized a number of times throughout the process. If the child does not go through the legal process the child is better off and the society is worse off. If the child goes through the legal process the child is worse off and the society is better off.


Is the group more important than the individual or the individual more important than the group?




The same kind of situation applies for the winner and the non winner. The winner can only avoid the life of a banal existence and self actualize if the non winners do their job and remain banal. The non winners suffer for the sake of the group and the winners show how the individual can benefit as they do.

Graffiti