The Bar Joke
A Freud disciple, a behaviorist, a humanistic person, and a transpersonal dude walk into a bar.
The behaviorist orders a drink, receives a reward, and happily returns the next day for more reward.
Freud’s guy orders a drink, spends 45 minutes explaining that he actually wanted milk, blames his mother, lies down on the barstool, says nothing for 20 minutes while the bartender waits, and then — just as he’s about to leave — has a breakthrough about why he always orders the same drink his father ordered. Then comes back three times a week for the next seven years.
The humanist orders her favorite drink, chooses to take a sip, has a peak experience, writes a 400-page book about it, and never fully recovers.
The transpersonal dude walks in, looks at the drink menu, and realizes the bartender, the bar, the drink, and himself are all one undivided consciousness. Orders nothing. Tips everything. Floats out and never returns.
The Psychology of a Punchline
What would happen if Sigmund Freud’s disciple, a behaviorist, a humanistic person, and a transpersonal dude all walked into the same bar?
The question sounds like the setup to a joke—and it is. But it is also a surprisingly effective thought experiment.
By placing four distinct psychological traditions into a single, ordinary scenario, the joke exposes something genuinely instructive: that each school of thought constructs a fundamentally different account of human motivation, reality, and what it means to act in the world.
In each instance, the punchline serves a purpose beyond mere humor; it encapsulates a nuanced representation of a complex psychological theoretical perspective. This brief moment of levity reflects deeper insights into human behavior and thought, revealing the underlying beliefs and assumptions that shape our understanding of psychology.
1. The Behaviorist: Reward, Return, Repeat
Begin with the behaviorist. In the joke, he orders a drink, receives a reward, and contentedly returns the next day for another. The image is compact but precise. Behaviorism — most systematically developed by B. F. Skinner — holds that behavior is shaped entirely by its consequences in the environment.
Rogers summarized Skinner’s position plainly: behavior is “shaped up” through positive reinforcement, gradually refined toward whatever outcome the investigator selects, and the organism itself remains largely unaware of the process (Rogers, 1961, p. 378).
In this perspective, there exists no internal dialogue to explore, no essence to reflect upon, and no freedom to make choices. There is simply the quantifiable dynamic between actions and their consequences. The behaviorist, in this context, is not returning to the bar for personal desires, fond memories, choice, or deeper significance; rather, he is drawn back because his previous visit was met with positive reinforcement. This cycle will continue, as he will persist in his visits until the reinforcement ceases, highlighting a purely conditioned response rather than a conscious decision.
2. The Freudian: Driven by What He Cannot See
The Freudian disciple presents a sharper contrast. Instead of simply ordering a drink, he spends forty-five minutes explaining that he actually wanted milk, blames his mother, lies down on the barstool, says nothing for twenty minutes, and then — just as he is about to leave — has a breakthrough about why he always orders the same drink his father used to order. He returns three times a week for the next seven years.
The joke lands because it captures something central to Freudian psychoanalysis: that even the simplest present-day action carries the full weight of a person’s history. As Rollo May (influential American psychologist widely regarded as the “father of existential psychotherapy”) observed, Freud uncovered “the vast areas in which motives and behavior… are determined by unconscious urges, anxieties, fears, and the endless host of bodily drives and instinctual forces” (May, 1969).
In this somewhat bleak Freudian perspective (Rowan, 2001; citing Maslow, 1987, p. 50), individuals are portrayed not as active participants in their own lives but rather as passengers, moved by forces beyond their control. This notion aligns with Freud’s concept of being “lived by the unconscious” (May, 1969), suggesting that deep-seated, unacknowledged impulses and desires significantly shape a person’s thoughts and actions, often without their conscious awareness.
The dynamics of early relationships with one’s parents, as noted by May, often resurface in our current interactions. This phenomenon, which Freud identified as transference, suggests that the fundamental conflicts experienced during childhood can reemerge within the therapy setting—and, by extension, in various social contexts, such as a courtroom.
Remarkably, individuals may not even be aware that these underlying issues are playing out in their lives. This intricate mental interplay between past experiences and present behavior underscores the profound impact childhood relationships can have on adult interactions (May, 1953).
3. The Humanistic Reality: A Sip That Changes Everything
The humanistic reality presents yet another picture. This patron orders a drink she clearly likes and wants, no confusion there. She is authentic, takes a single sip, and has a profound peak experience. Overwhelmed by the intensity of the moment, she writes a four-hundred-page book about it and never fully recovers.
The joke points directly at Abraham Maslow, who described the peak experience as “a self-validating, self-justifying moment which carries its own intrinsic value with it” — an end in itself rather than a means to anything further (Maslow, 1968, pp. 81–113).
For Maslow, such moments are among “the ultimate goals of living and the ultimate validations and justifications for it” (Maslow, 1968, pp. 81–113). This is the spirit the humanist carries into the bar: not thirst, not habit, not unconscious conflict, but the possibility of transcendent meaning in an ordinary act.
Humanistic psychology’s quarrel with the two schools preceding it was not simply methodological. As Rowan observed, both psychoanalysis and behaviorism share a fundamentally pessimistic view of what lies inside human beings — identifying the inner life with a seething unconscious or with selfish drives requiring external control (Rowan, 2001; citing Maslow, 1987, p. 50).
Humanistic psychology offers a compelling perspective, suggesting that when we take a deep and honest look within ourselves, we find that the self is not an entity to be feared or avoided. Instead, it reveals a profound capacity for growth, creativity, and self-actualization.
Far from being a mere pleasant illusion or old school’s defense mechanism masking a more negative reality, these qualities actually form the very essence of who we are. The inner self is vibrant, pure, and alive, brimming with potential waiting to be actualized.
4. The Transpersonal Reality: Beyond the Self That Orders
The transpersonal dude closes the joke — and, in doing so, steps furthest outside it. He looks at the drink menu and arrives at a startling realization: the bartender, the bar, the drink, and himself are all one undivided consciousness with no self. He orders nothing, tips everything, and floats out, never to return.
Transpersonal psychology — identified as the “fourth force” in psychology, following psychoanalysis, behaviorism, and humanistic psychology — is concerned, in Stan Grof’s widely cited definition, with
experiences involving an expansion or extension of consciousness beyond the usual ego boundaries and beyond the limitation of time and/or space.
(Grof, 1975, p. 155, as cited in Rowan, 2016, p. 189)
Where the humanist sought peak experience within the self, the transpersonally oriented person moves beyond the self altogether.
Ken Wilber, one of the field’s most systematic theorists, described this as progressing through stages of transpersonal development (above reason) — subtle, causal, and ultimately nondual — arriving at a consciousness in which “the Formless and the entire world of manifest Form… are seen to be not-two” (Wilber, 1995).
The joke’s patron does not return to the bar because, from a nondual perspective, there is no separate self left to do the returning. The boundary between the one who drinks and the act of drinking has dissolved. He tips everything because, at that level of cognition, the distinction between self and other — between the tipper and the tipped — has no ultimate ground.
Conclusion: What Hangs in the Answer
The bar, in this joke, is not really a bar. It is a thought experiment about what psychology holds human beings to be fundamentally. Each school sends a different patron because each is working from a different answer to that question—and the answer, as Maslow observed, changes everything.
When the philosophy of the person changes, he argued,
Then everything changes, not only the philosophy of politics, economics, ethics, and values… but also the philosophy of education, psychotherapy, and personal growth.
(Maslow, 1968, p. 209ff.)
The stakes of these competing frameworks are not merely theoretical.
The behaviorist’s patron returns because the environment shaped him to do so.
The Freudian’s patron returns because the past compels him to —and he does not know it.
The humanist’s patron returns because the moment holds the possibility of becoming more fully himself.
The transpersonally realized person does not return, because the self that might return has been seen through.
Four schools, four accounts of motivation, four versions of what it means to act in the world — each internally consistent, each producing radically different implications for how we understand suffering, growth, freedom, and change.
That is what a good joke can do, when it is doing more than making us laugh.
What does your visit to the bar look like?
– Edmond Cigale, PhD
Book online consulting and coaching today >>
References and further reading
Grof, S. (1975). Realms of the human unconscious: Observations from LSD research. Viking Press. [Cited via Rowan, 2016, p. 189]
Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being (2nd ed.). Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Maslow, A. H. (1987). Motivation and personality (3rd ed., revised by R. Frager, J. Fadiman, C. McReynolds, & R. Cox). Harper & Row. [Cited via Rowan, 2001]
Maslow, A. H. (1998). Toward a psychology of being (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
May, R. (1953). Man’s search for himself. W. W. Norton & Company.
May, R. (1969). Love and will. W. W. Norton & Company.
Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. Houghton Mifflin.
Rowan, J. (2001). Ordinary ecstasy: The dialectics of humanistic psychology (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315787794
Rowan, J. (2016). The reality game: A guide to humanistic counseling and psychotherapy (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Wilber, K. (1995). Sex, ecology, spirituality: The spirit of evolution. Shambhala Publications.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.