Talk:Double bind

Double Binds in Science

I think the following needs to be included in the entry on Double Bind. However it isn't easy to define and so I'm leaving it here for now.

Gregory Bateson and Lawrence S. Bale described double binds in science. These help clarify the kinds of dilemmas that cause double binds--Bateson in his Introduction to Steps to an Ecology of Mind (1972)and Bale in his article Gregory Bateson, Cybernetics and the Social/Behavioral Sciences(1995) see pp. 1-8. Both these need to be read in their entirety for full clarity, but the following gives an idea of what they were saying.
In his Introduction to Steps..., Bateson describes how the excessive use of inductive thinking, while ignoring the fundamental principles of science and philosophy, has led to decades of delays in correcting errors in analysis (p. xxv). He says, "Many investigators, especially in the behavioral sciences, seem to believe that scientific advance is primarily inductive and should be inductive" (p. xix) but that "...in scientific research you start from two beginnings, each of which has it's own kind of authority: the observations cannot be denied, and the fundamentals must be fitted. You must achieve a sort of pincers maneuver." (pp. xx-xxi). In other words, the defining of scientific research as overwhelmingly inductive eliminated correctives to errors in analysis which have been an obstacle to scientific progress. This was central to much of Bateson's work on epistemology in the last 10 years of his life.
However, it wasn't until 1995 that Lawrence S. Bale made a further clarification, much easier to understand, of what was central to Bateson's thinking--describing the paradigms of classical science and of general systems theory and cybernetics. -- The paradigm of classical science required reducing studies to two variables, "The analytic, mechanistic, one-way causal paradigm of classical science" as von Bertalanffy describes it, leaves out the "wider, more inclusive patterns of interaction [which] are disregarded as immeasurable" --such as in ecosystems. "In short, the classical paradigm of science has proven inadequate to the task of mapping the natural world." (We could also say that science broke reality down in little pieces the better to study it, and then forgot to put the pieces back together again). In both these examples, when scientists defined a key factor as beyond the realm of science it became "like any self-correcting system which has lost its governor" (Steps)--205.167.120.201 (talk) 03:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Sorry, somehow I got logged out by accident. The above is mine.--Margaret9mary (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

== URGENT NEED FOR INSIGHT ON DOUBLE BINDS == Our nation is facing a major crisis--which is why I am putting this comment here. NOT COVID-19, but mental crises. The USA is facing an epidemic of extremist conspiracy theories that millions of people have gotten trapped in and don't know how this happened. The first step to find the way out is to understand the process. For some 10 years we have been hearing talk of a Deep State that is controlling the country outside of the will of common citizens. This results in triggering fear and distrust in the federal government. We've been hearing the traditional, hard-copy news being called "fake news" although they have a strong, multi-generational tradition and ethic to get the facts first and do investigative reporting and even correct themselves when needed. Double Binds were used repeatedly on reporters--a statement, a contradictory statement, a refusal to clarify the conflicts, followed by public verbal attacks. We've heard demands for loyalty, not to the nation, not to the rules of law or the informal rules of healthy social relationships, but to personal loyalty. Mental health professionals have been told to not speak up or they would be violating professional ethics rules (with the implication that their jobs and professional standing would be in danger).
How all this happened is complicated, but understanding the basics is essential: Double Binds have long been known as a form of control, that is, to use confusion in place of direct coercion in order to disarm opposition. Fear and confusion in social situations affect the limbic (also called mammalian) brain, the midbrain that senses social safety and social danger and that under sufficient stress may bypass our thinking neocortex.

 I want to recommend to editors of Wikipedia Double Bind Theory to read or reread Paul Gibney's  article.  He took the time as a psychotherapist and family therapist to think and research the issue for his 2006 (?) DBT: Still Crazymaking After All These Years.  As he notes, Bateson was working in a VA Hospital on a grant to study Paradoxes of Abstraction in Communication.  Not until that grant ran out did he begin to address the problem of schizophrenia--and remember, he was working with veterans of World War II who had fought courageously, but PTSD wouldn't be recognized for another 25 years, and so were assumed insane and were saddled with the catch-all definition of schizophrenia. And Gibney uses a pop term--Crazymaking--that clarifies the meaning of Double Bind.  My sources?  I grew up surviving double binds of various types and so understood immediately what Bateson was talking about.  And I spent 3 years researching for an article on the transition from primates to humans that included social behavior and changes in the brain. And I am still Margaret9mary and can't remember my old password so you can check my IP address which is in a community college in the Southwest.  --205.167.120.201 (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I know the WP rules and I'm violating them because our entire nation is facing a terrible crisis and the concept of Double Bind can help find solutions. In the last 10 years this article has become overburdened with professional jargon that laypeople will not understand and has become too long. It needs reediting. Margaret9mary --205.167.120.201 (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Notes Nov. 2010

Re recent changes by Margaret9mary--
the term Crazy-Making is a pop term related to Double Bind. In the Reference section please note that Paul Gibney uses the term in his title: DBT: Still Crazy-Making After All These Years. The first time I saw the term used was in Dr. George R Bach; The Intimate Enemy (1976) see also Stop! You're Driving Me Crazy (1979)--Margaret9mary (talk) 04:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC).
WP has an entry on No-Win Situations--Margaret9mary (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
WP also has an entry on Type Theory that mentions Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead's Theory of Logical Types in their book Principia Matematica but G. Bateson's discussion of it in Steps to an Ecology of Mind is probably more directly comprehensible.--Margaret9mary (talk) 04:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Technical Assistance Needed

In the section--Explanation--the numbering is 1 2 3 1 2 3 whereas it should be 1 2 3 4 5 6 and under 6 should be a b c. Someone who knows how to get around this programming--would you please correct this? --Margaret9mary (talk) 03:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Done, newer § go at the bottom of a talk page, thx—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Defending against DB

Please add some references to works or papers about defending against double binds, if there are some.87.207.228.153 (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC) I don't know if it fits Wikipedia standards, but here's one site with one example. http://www.kevinfitzmaurice.com/commu_double_binds.htm

Request for help

Would someone please set up a page on Logical Types--as yet I lack the skills to do so. It could initially start with the example, see below: Logical Types in Biology. This is a quote from Gregory Bateson,in the Introduction to Mind and Nature, a Necessary Unity. Logical types in communication are more difficult to describe because they have many more variables
Also needing to be amended is reference #4 which should also include Part II: Matthijs Koopmans (1998) Schizophrenia and the Family II: Paradox and Absurdity in Human Communication Reconsidered. The web page is: http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/1998/KoopmansPaper.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margaret9mary (talk • contribs) 20:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC). Signature added by SUM1 (talk) 27 January 2020

contradiction tag

does anyone else find the self-contradiction tag somewhat ironic to the subject matter of the article? 160.36.236.186 (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, definitely Reidlophile (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I had to lough when i saw it - i think it should stay ther no matter if the article does so. 84.114.242.41 (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Fourthed. I really laughed out loud when I saw it - I suspect it was put there for humorous purposes, and I just hope it stays there. It is one of those things that doesn't affect the article's quality and that I find to be intelligent humor. Ana Sofia Paixão 00:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

A self-contradiction tag is totally appropriate for an article on Double Bind Theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Margaret9mary (talk • contribs) 19:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

So very brilliant! --Martinor (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Levels of learning?

The last paragraph in "Explanation" needs work. I don't think Bateson's levels of learning are accurately represented or explained. (Bateson implied that the highest level of learning in living creatures was evolution itself). Also there was an implication that the only way to solve a double bind situation was to shift to a new level of learning, when in fact any change of context in which the messages are exchanged (or a cessation of those messages) has the potential to resolve the bind, with or without any insight on the part of the victim. I changed the wording to imply that other solutions may be viable. Brennanyoung (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Request to remove cleanup tag

Hi all, after reading the link in the See Also section that quotes Bateson directly I've cleaned up the explanations and the phrase examples to conform with the definition. I've also added the Zen section. I feel that this article is now a more accurate and comprehensive explanation of the double bind and so I'd like to remove the cleanup tag, any objections or support for this motion? Itistoday 18:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm impatient, I will remove it for now, if there's any opposition against this please reply here. Itistoday 18:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

is the victim's prohibition from calling attention to the contradictory nature of the messages a fundamental part of the double bind? (it's not currently in the article, maybe it should be). --Johnjosephbachir

I've not heard that one. If its accurate and sourced maybe cite a source and add it?

Yes, I believe that's an essential characteristic. (See the quote under 'Laing', below). However, we need to qualify 'prohibition'. It doesn't necessarily mean that the victim is merely forbidden to expose the contradiction, but may (in most cases?) even be unable to recognise that the contradiction exists. Brennan Young 20th February 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 16:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to drift OT here, but does that mean that if you realize that you are in a double bind, you aren't? Kalleguld (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Feminism

The concept of the double bind is quite important in feminism. Some discussion of that would be excellent. - Liz Henry

I'd welcome this. Go for it Liz! Brennan Young 20th Feb 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brennanyoung (talk • contribs) 15:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

HAL in 2001

Don't really have time to add this now, but I believe the issue with HAL in the movie (and especially novel) "2001: A Space Odyssey" is considered to be a double bind: The programmed dictum of "always process information accurately" combined with the specific order to "keep this [true purpose of the mission] a secret from your fellow crew members" creates a schizophrenic situation. (From which the only solution HAL could come up with was to murder the crew.) -- Etcetera 12:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Laing

Much of R D Laing's work (esp "Self and Others" and "The Divided Self") also details the double bind and schizophrenia, would be good to reference him in this article. --Whitespace 20:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree. Laing formulated it like this:

Rule A: Don't.

Rule A1: Rule A doesn't exist.

Rule A2: Do not discuss the existence or non-existence of Rules A, A1 or A2.

Brennan Young 16:34, 20 February 2008 (GMT+1)

Sounds too much like "Fight Club." Ileanadu (talk) 05:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Criticism section

I've added a criticism section, which needs to be expanded. ---=-C-=- 13:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

To suggest that the double bind theory is an attempt to proffer an anti-biological is an absolute misrepresentation of Gregory Bateson's philosophy. Throughout his career, Bateson was largely concerned with transcending nature-culture dichotomies and oppositions (1979), so he would not cast his views in terms of a biologist/anti-biologist dichotomy. Such dichotomies are rather a reflection of a persistent tendency to antagonise the two in scientific debate, which is why some theorists may interpret the double-bind theory as an attempt to proffer an anti-biological explanation of schizophrenia.

Bateson, G 1979. Steps Toward an Ecology of mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Can you source some recent publications along those lines so we can represent the counter-argument? --Comaze 16:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to back Comaze in this one because just skimming over the link he provides it seems clear that the double bind was originally introduced as a means of explaining schizophrenia as occurring from something other than biological causes. Itistoday 02:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

—I think to say 'if it is to overturn genetics based accounts' is a bit disingenious. DB was the common explanation, it is more that genetics has overturned it, because there is strong evidence to support the genetic case, but none to support the DB case, as regards schizophrenia. That's not to say DB isn't interesting, but as a causal factor for schizophrenia it's not only wide of the mark but morally dubious - it places the blame for schizophrenia on parents. As if they haven't got enough to contend with already, they now get the blame for causing a condition which is largely hereditary (with some environmental factors such as cannabis having an effect).— —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.159.11 (talk) 14:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The double bind fits the communicative aspects of schizophrenia rather well, and double binds are also effective in therapy, so it's by no means disproved or useless. Yes, the 'jury is still out' about the exact balance between genetic and social factors in the cause of schizophrenia. Most likely, it's a mixture of both, so I wouldn't throw out the Double Bind theory right away, even if you find it upsetting that it 'blames the parents'. Some parents really do screw up their kids, and screwed up kids often grow up into screwed-up adults, then become screwed-up parents that screw up their own kids. Madness is then seen to run in families. So something which closely resembles a hereditary pattern could still be entirely social, without hard genetic evidence, which we lack. My understanding is that dysfunctional parents are themselves victims, so I don't see how the double bind theory necessarily blames them. On the contrary, it is a strong argument for family therapy, rather than individual therapy, which of course is where Haley and Watzlawick went with the idea, with great success, I might add.

The more immoral thing would be to reject scientific evidence for fear of making parents feel bad. Where's your data for a 'largely hereditary' cause? I understood there was only evidence to support 'partly hereditary'. brennanyoung 20 February 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 15:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

- By now there's growing scientific evidence that childhood trauma is very likely to cause so-called "schizophrenia" (cf. Hammersley and Read's metastudy), while there still is no such evidence to support any biological causation. Also, recent research has shown that childhood trauma may cause changes in genes and brain structure (cf. "Childhood trauma has life-long effect on genes and the brain", and epigenetics [[1]] , while "life-long" is a qualified truth taken neuroscientific findings concerning neuroplasticity [[2]] into account), which renders occasional findings of anomalies in both genes and brain structure of individuals labelled with "schizophrenia" rather an effect of childhood trauma than the cause of an alleged brain disease.

Apart from the scientific evidence, countless accounts about all kinds of abuse, physical, sexual, emotional (the double bind), verbal, by individuals labelled with "schizophrenia" support Bateson's theory.

Although he doesn't rule out biological factors to enter into the picture, Bateson clearly states, that he regards dysfunctional communication patterns, especially in the shape of the double bind, decisive for the development of "schizophrenia". Bateson died in 1980. The dopamin-theory was abandoned by Arvid Carlsson [[3]] , one of its initial proponents, in 1992 as no longer tenable. Other leading researchers were to follow his conclusion, that the persistent lack of evidence in spite of decades of intense research was a strong indication for the theory to be an error. (Cf. Robert Whitaker [[4]] , Mad In America) In the light of the fact that neither the gene nor the dopamin, or any other biological theory have been verified so far, it is unscientific to dismiss Bateson's theory, and the countless accounts of abuse and trauma that support it, as irrelevant and "anecdotal".

Bateson's theory is not about blaming parents. It's about asking both parents and everybody else to become aware of and take responsibility for their words and actions. I think, that is an absolutely reasonable request, taken into account the enormous damage and suffering dysfunctionality does cause both in individuals and on a larger scale. Marianbg (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment from a Russian batesonian

What is written in the main "Explanation" shows poor understanding and misses the point of the matter. Contradictory demands in itself do not constitute double bind. If you are driving the car with your parents on a backseat and your mother's yelling "Turn left or I don't love you!" while your father's shouting "Turn right or I kill you!" this is NOT a double bind. This is simple explicit single-level contradiction.

Double bind in turn implies different levels of Russell's hierarchy of Logical Types. Double bind is something like this: suppose there is a Context-1, which imposes some demand on your, that is supported by the threat of punishment. Then there is a bigger Context-2 which is a meta-context or context for Context-1. Context-2, having higher Logical Type then Context-1 CAN NOT make any direct demands on you for this is exactly what Russell's principle prohibits (class can't be it's own member). But Context-2 has the power to CLASSIFY demands of the Context-1 as wrong.

So then you either fail to fulfill demand of the Context-1 and punished for that at the Level-1, or you manage to fulfill demand of the Context-1 and then punished for that at the Level-2 exactly for your success at the Level-1. In other words your either lose, or you win and punished for that you had won the WRONG GAME.

This is the core of the double bind. In a field of psychiatry it is additionally aggravated by the 1) prohibition to comment on the whole business; 2) prohibition to escape. In other words, double bind is a multi-level Russellian paradox played in a context of the extreme victimization. Then (according to Bateson) it can become schizophrenogenic.

Double bind is a TRICKY BIND. There is nothing specially tricky in the open conflict. Quite the opposite, bringing conflict into open often relieves schizophrenia.

The most familiar example of the double bind outside of psychiatry is an ex post facto law enforcement.

Dimitry, Moscow, cat4chat[doggy]yandex[dotty]ru

I have made changes to this article and would like your input on whether or not the explanation is better. Itistoday 19:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm writing new expanded comment that I hope will be ready within a days. Just to start — you write: "Double Bind is a communicative situation where a person receives different or contradictory messages". This statement is meaningless. We receive "different" (say, visual, audial and kinestetic) messages all the time, and receiving contradictory messages (as I already said) does not neccesarilly make a double bind. Correct statement is: "Double Bind is a communicative situation where a person is chronically confused about the LOGICAL TYPES of messages he receives." (And BTW he is equally confused about the logical types of messages he TRANSMITS.)

Dimitry, Moscow

Actually I didn't write that, my changes were mainly to the Explanation, Zen Buddhism, and Phrase examples sections, what do you think of those? I agree with you that the introductory definition needs improvement, but I think that using the word "Logical Types" is confusing and should be explained. Looking forward to your response. Itistoday 23:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Bateson's presentation of the double bind involves a mixture of logical types. And playing with logical types is discussed explicitly in the early works of the NLP founders. So the section on Persuasion Technique fails to do justice either to the concept of double bind or to the principles of NLP. The cash-or-credit-card example is trivial and doesn't even satisfy the criteria stated earlier in the article. Meanwhile, in my opinion there is no decent article on Logical Types in Wikipedia - Type theory is too technical and Neurological levels doesn't really say anything useful. --RichardVeryard 14:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree we need a section (or Wikipedia article) on logical types (and indeed something about levels of learning, see [5]). We also need to rescue this whole article from those who seek to keep it solely within the realms of psychiatry/schizophrenia. Also I'd like to see it mentioned that Bateson got his clue about the theory from studying the language of schizophrenic patients, and noticing that they systematically mixed-up logical levels. Questions asked in one context would be answered as if in another context, and so on. Then, at the other end, we have the development from Learning III to evolution and such. All is relevant. Double Bind patterns must necessarily operate on logical levels that psychiatry ignores. There are many good examples of logical typing in Bateson's writing, for example (from "Mind and Nature"):

"Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius" is on a higher logical level than "That molecule will be the first to go".

Brennanyoung (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Beating one's wife

"if one had never abused one's wife, the answer "no" would be incorrect, as one could not have stopped performing an action one has never performed.)"

It seems to me that "yes" is the answer which would be incorrect; see Mu. --Acepectif 13:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Schizophrenia/MPD

This sounds like what I've read as a possible root to Multiple Personality Disorder, or Dissociative Disorder, Not to be confused with Schizophrenia. However, I do not know if this argument actually was used against schizophrenia, or not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.84.24.126 (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

NLP

I recently rewrote the section called "Persuasion uses" to Neuro-linguistic programming. It was giving a one-sided view of its application in NLP. Wasn't this just imported into NLP from Erickson/Bateson? ----Action potential ^{t c} 06:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think there’s some influence from Virginia Satir too. I wouldn’t say “imported” as such as I know Virginia Satir was unhappy with what had been done with her work in the name of NLP Ambitus (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Not Watzlawick

Until today, both this article and the Gregory Bateson article included the incorrect claim that Paul Watzlawick was one of the founders of the Double Bind theory. He was not one of the authors of the original paper, and he didn't join the research team until 1960, so I have removed his name and inserted the name of John H. Weakland (about whom I know practically nothing, but he surely deserves a Wikipedia entry on the strength of his co-authorship of this important paper). --RichardVeryard 16:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to say someone has now created a page on John Weakland. --RichardVeryard (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Evolution, dammit....

Context of (edited) discussion - the inclusion/relevance (or not) of the evolutionary double bind in the main article. Has been added and removed twice already.

Also, I would suggest you would do better with an example from nature rather than fiction. Evercat (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, as Bateson pointed out, mind and nature are one, and all our conscious understanding is fictional. Heheh.

But I can understand there's a need for a stronger metaphor taken from biology before you 'get it'. Have you considered the Rhinoceros horn? It evolved as a 'defensive weapon' (possibly also used in courtship also). But the Rhino is now almost extinct because some humans think that its horn - the very thing which is supposed to give it an evolutionary advantage - is imagined to be a supernaturally powerful aphrodisiac. On one level, the horn protects the species, helping to prevent it from becoming extinct, and on another, more abstract level, the horn threatens the species with extinction. Even if a Rhino kills a hunter with his horn, he has merely 'won the wrong game'. We are talking about two different logical types of 'survival'. The horn therefore has a contradictory role in Rhino survival (and evolution). This is a classic double bind, and no species can escape the double bind of natural selection. To quote Lewis Carroll: "It always happens".

Lewis Carroll's bread-and-butter fly was the example that Bateson himself chose to illustrate the evolutionary double bind. He has also discussed the use of metaphor at great length, especially as a means to illuminate 'difficult' scientific matters. So.. what's wrong with fictional illustrations?

OK Here's how it works; If the bread-and-butter fly (which lives on weak tea with cream) does not get its food, it dies. However, if it gets its food, it also dies, because its head is made of a sugar lump, which would be dissolved by the tea. It's a lose-lose situation, with two contradictory injunctions, one on a more abstract level than the other, and both threatening the survival of the individual. That fits Bateson's specifications for a double bind perfectly. I'd appreciate if you made some effort to understand how this aspect of 'natural selection' matches the double bind pattern, instead of just dismissing it as 'nonsense'.

I haven't changed the main page this time, just hoping you guys will be able to think outside the communications/psychiatry box for long enough to help me formulate this important aspect of double bind theory adequately enough for it to merit even just a MENTION on the main page at some point.Brennan Young 20, Feb 2008

Confusion between contradiction, paradox, and double bind

Starting with the first sentence, this article frequently confuses, as has been noted in the discussion on this page, contradictions, paradoxes, and double binds. This article is not up to snuff yet. Jim Keim Jamespkeim (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'm reminded of Bateson's criticisms (in one of the later essays in "Steps...") of those who would study recordings of family groups or therapist/patient dyads and try to 'count' the double binds, which is as ridiculous as trying to count the jokes in a Charlie Chaplin movie. Double bind is, above all, about context. Double binds can not be counted or enumerated, rather we can speak of a double-bind situation - a configuration of contexts where communications reveal the double-bind pattern inherent in those contexts.

The situation described in Catch-22 is, in my opinion, a true double-bind situation: Yossarian wants to get out of the war on medical grounds, so he pretends to be crazy, but he is told that only crazy people would want to be at war, so he is not allowed to be discharged for medical reasons. The word "crazy" is being used on two different logical levels.

I think it's correct to say that double bind situations are a subset of contradictions, but that the contradiction is invisible if only one of the logical levels is considered. e.g. criminals are punished for their crimes, but the criminal himself experiences only a 'tit-for-tat' response to his actions, and is likely to respond in kind. In this way, the justice-system/criminal muddle the class of 'crimes' with the lower-level class of 'actions', (which may explain why crime rates are never reduced by tougher sentencing).

The paradox is that the contradiction exists and does not exist simultaneously, depending on whether you are looking at both logical levels, or just one at a time. Double binds are therefore also a subset of paradoxes, in fact they may be defined as "Contradictions which exist between logical levels, but do not exist on either of those levels individually".

The problem is that every simple contradiction (and indeed every simple statement) can be represent a double bind if the appropriate context is provided, in the simple contradiction: "Eat your fries, but don't eat them", this could actually be a therapeutic double bind or zen koan if the word 'eat' was stressed differently each time (with tone of voice, body language, or whatever). Compare with: "The doctor said you're overweight. Finish your fries so we can take you to the gym." in which the context (an authoritarian ethos) is implied.

Brennanyoung (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Reexamining underlying assumptions

I finally (!) checked your entry on double bind theory—and agree it needs more work. I don’t want to start with editing suggestions but to first examine some things needed for improving the article.

Talk page guidelines ask for references—my first reference is G. Bateson’s Introduction in Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Among other things, Bateson cites the excessive use of inductive thinking in the field of the behavioral sciences as leading to missed errors in logic which have delayed development in the field. It would seem that science itself is caught in a double bind—i.e. if it’s not inductive reasoning based on data it’s not considered science; discuss a missed paradigm and your colleagues will scorn your work or ignore it, so that simple errors aren’t corrected for many years. Indeed, the problems Bateson described have never been resolved. A clearer definition of double binds might help clear the way and I hope Wikipedia will do this. The following is long, around 1000 words, but is edited down to a minimum.

Your article says Bateson’s theory is complex; but rather it’s not fully explained—or understood. After all he wasn’t entirely clear because he was (as he described himself) an explorer in a new field. I think you could greatly improve the article if you consider the following issues.

It’s important to keep in mind that in the 1950’s when Bateson and his colleagues were writing about double bind theory there was no recognition of child abuse as such (which didn’t fully enter public awareness until the 1980s), otherwise they might have described destructive double binding as a form of psychological abuse. However they did recognize DB as part of unhealthy family systems, and their work was a precursor to family therapy. And, unlike today, they did extensive interviews of both the patient and family member, listening very carefully, assuming that what was said might make sense within the context. And so they began to pick up on what might make possible something still missing today from the DSM—the differentiation between true schizophrenia, and the mental confusion and trauma encountered in child abuse and PTSD. (Note: Jules Henry; Pathways to Madness, was doing similar research around the same time).

Catch-22 and double bind are very similar; the most important difference is the former is a pop novel description of double binds in military systems in wartime; the latter is a scientific description attempting to account for schizophrenia without an organic brain dysfunction. Both Heller and Bateson use a similar format: repetitive and circular reasoning in order to illustrate how the mind goes around and around, seeking a way out of seemingly impossible dilemmas. And Heller is talking about a large, impersonal system in which discussion of conflicts is nigh on impossible whereas Bateson is referring primarily to double binds imposed by one person on a subordinate within an ongoing personal relationship.

Bateson notes that double binds are common in life and that there are positive therapeutic double binds possible (in Zen and in psychiatry, etc.) as well as destructive double binds.

Alan Watts is good, but both types of double binds would be easier to understand if you begin with the example used by Bateson of a Zen koan (in Towards a Theory…): “The Zen master… holds a stick over the pupil’s head and says fiercely, ‘If you say this stick is real, I will strike you with it. If you say this stick is not real, I will strike you with it. If you don’t say anything, I will strike you with it…” and the student submits to the conflict in order to learn. “The student might reach up and take the stick…” away from the Master, or break it, or make it into a broom stick to sweep the room—this would resolve the impasse and the relief in finding a way out would be its own reward. Also, the Zen master is relatively open about the contradictions he is presenting, and accepts and approves of the student finding a solution. In contrast, in a destructive double bind relationship, unacceptable contradictory parts are presented covertly or in a way that makes them inaccessible, and the victim who finds any way out of the double bind is punished or put in the wrong.
Bateson's example illustrates that there can be multiple conflicting primary injunctions. The issue of different levels of thinking—primary, secondary and tertiary injunctions—is a slightly different matter which, for clarity, should be dealt with in a separate paragraph.

I believe there is sufficient evidence that Bateson was proposing that the behavioral sciences had set itself up a double bind. To give an example of an unresolved problem in behavioral health: D.L. Rosenhan’s article in Science—On Being Sane in Insane Places—published the same year as Steps. It describes a brief test made of the ability of psychiatric hospitals to recognize a sane person—of vital importance, for example, when a whistle-blower is hospitalized on false grounds. In over 35 years this test has never been followed up on with research—and of course acknowledging frequent errors in diagnosis would endanger the whole MH system. One might say that the behavioral health system, caught in its own double bind, has been unable to find its way out of what Bateson called “dormitive hypotheses” (in the Introduction to Steps..., and Bessel van der Kolk has called “psychiatric amnesia” (In Traumatic Stress…; 1996) in relation to PTSD). Which is another reason why a better understanding of double bind theory is needed.

Nowadays a pop term sometimes used for destructive double binding is “crazymaking”—referring to abusive relationships involving psychological control.
Another example of double binding is often found in families with alcoholism. The alcoholic considers s/he doesn’t have a drinking problem. If a family member complains about the negative effects of the drinking, the alcoholic sees the family member as a problem and as disrupting the relationship. The family member is double binded into being an enabler or being forced to leave the family.
Perhaps you would recommend leaving out personal matters, but the following is an excellent example of double binding from my childhood—my mother’s general take on me was that I ‘couldn’t do anything right’. At the same time she’d expect me to do everything perfectly and would criticize or punish me severely if I didn’t because my failure threatened her image as an effective mother. But if I did manage to do something correctly this would prove her mistaken in her judgment of me, and so she’d become upset, angry and threatening. If I asked her what was wrong she would say, “You know exactly what’s wrong” and go into a violent rage--which made any discussion impossible. (Consider the effect on the development of a toddler's mind in the face of continuous double binds. Needless to say it took me many years to find my way out of them).

There are a number of other issues to address (especially double bind and schizophrenia. Also possible is to ask the question are people who consistently use destructive double binds mentally ill or in denial or sociopathic, etc.) but certainly this covers a sufficient number of issues.

I should clarify this is my first time contributing to discussion of an article. Any feedback would be appreciated. Also, my computer skills are limited and I use a computer at the local community college. Margaret9mary (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for editing variation

Before editing the first time I asked around the local community college for someone with experience with Wikipedia--and found no one. (The head of the virtual campus did help on general matters). So I tried editing and was immediately reverted. Itistoday said I had caused bad wikilinks (this was entirely unintended) but didn't explain how to prevent it for another time. So, until I figure it out or someone explains it to me I will not try to alter existing text. Help! would be greatly appreciated in Farmington, NM.

Before editing again I reexamined my sources carefully. These are:

1. Bateson, G. (1972) Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Ballentine paperback. (Also, Mary Catherine Bateson's Introduction to the new edition clarifies a number of things.)
2. Bale, L.S. (1997?) Gregory Bateson, Cybernetics and the Social/Behavioral Sciences first published in Cybernetics and Human Knowing. This includes an excellent description of the differences between the paradigms of classical science and systems theory, essential for understanding Bateson's work.
3. Gibney, Paul (May 2006) The Double Bind Theory: Still Crazy-Making After All These Years. in Psychotherapy in Australia. Vol. 12 No. 3.
4. The NLP University Press Encyclopedia's entry for double bind at http://www.nlpuniversitypress.com/html/D48.html
5. Koopmans, Mathijs (1997 and 1998) Schizophrenia and the Family (in two parts): Double Bind Theory Revisited and Paradox and Absurdity in Human Communication Reconsidered.

Bateson said, "[T]he vast majority of both metalinguistic and metacommunicative messages remain implicit...(in Steps..A Theory of Play and Fantasy). Most of these messages are determined by the context or were stated or hinted at on previous occasions.
To give and example: In the military one cannot leave without being discharged, and one cannot ignore an order, or question it or disobey it without leaving oneself open to discipline for insubordination. This is a tertiary injunction. There are many secondary injunctions in the military, but I'll leave that for another time.

The following are excerpts from the first page of the nlp university press encyclopedia entry on double bind:
Double binds occur quite frequently in everyday life ... such conflicts are at the root of both creativity and psychosis. The difference is whether or not one is able to identify and transcend the bind in an appropriate way ... many double binds have another degree of complexity in that they involve different levels [of messages] ... double binds are related to what has become known as a Catch-22 ... Double binds often share the quality of circularity (a "circular argument") illustrated by the Catch-22 and lead to a similar sense of confusion and helplessness."

It could be said that double bind theory is part of systems theory--which could be clarified by calling it eco-systems theory.Margaret9mary (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

On the formatting question. Wikilinks are explained in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links). Put simply, you are supposed to put the name of another Wikipedia article into double square brackets. What you put into the double square brackets was nothing like that. --RichardVeryard (talk) 07:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

On the substantive question - what is the nature of Catch-22. If you read it carefully, all the NLP encyclopedia actually says is that Catch-22 has a "quality of circularity" whereas double binds have "another degree of complexity". So your claim that "The double bind is essentially the same as a Catch-22 situation" is not supported by your sources and is incorrect. The article already explains the difference. --RichardVeryard (talk) 07:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a comment on Itistoday's talk page complaining about the statement "The double bind is often misunderstood to be a simple Catch-22 situation...". I am not sure whether the complaint refers to the alleged frequency of misunderstanding or to the assertion that the double bind is not a simple Catch-22 situation. The word "simple" is critical here - this statement is not refuted by any arguments about complex Catch-22 situations. --RichardVeryard (talk) 09:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I do accept that Catch-22 is a rich fictional device, which can possibly be interpreted in many different ways. So perhaps it is possible to analyse Catch-22 in Batesonian terms. There are some hints of this analysis on this Talk page and on Itistoday's talk page; but until this analysis is published in a reputable source, it counts as Original Research and is therefore not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. And since the common (and simple) interpretation of Catch-22 is much less complex than the Double Bind, it should not be used for explaining the nature of Double Bind. --RichardVeryard (talk) 08:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

== Thanks RichardV for formatting help ==
and for your feedback.

I reread the section on No original research. While I strongly agree with the principle, I also know that if taken too far it can become an implicit 'don't think'. It also says, "only make descriptive claims...which [are] easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge..."
Gregory Bateson was a non-linear thinker so that he seems to jump around from idea to idea--but this is because he's trying to get us to see the connections between things--and to do our own thinking. Often he's hard to quote; relevant passages may be pages apart. (As a non-linear thinker myself I'm aware of this difficulty). This is where consensus is a key element.

There are a number of ways to improve the article without lengthening it--by making clearer distinctions between (or about)
double bind and systems theory
double bind and levels of messages
double bind and schizophrenia
double bind and Catch-22 (mainly because more people are familiar with the term).

Yes, it's possible to analyze Catch-22 in Batesonian terms--and it would seem no one has done so. It would involve analyzing the military as an organization that lacks a system for adequate feedback from subordinates, has conflicting messages and no way to resolve them.
Perhaps Bateson commented in a published interview on similarities and differences between DB and Catch-22--but it might not be available in print. I think it best to contact Mary Catherine Bateson to ask her--and am working on that.
Part of the problem is that double bind theory was inextricably identified with schizophrenia.
But Gibney says, [T]hey [Bateson, et al] saw the double bind hypothesis and the schizophrenic dilemma as part of a continuum of human experience of communication, that involve intense relationships and necessity of discriminating between orders of message. Such situations include play, humour, poetry and fiction (Bateson, 1972, p. 222). Thus located it is 'depathologized'".
Bateson also spoke of nonpathological therapeutic double binds and zen koans, another indication that it was being seen as a general principle of communication tangles. --Margaret9mary (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the reasons for the No Original Research guidance is that it reminds us that Wikipedia is merely an encyclopedia and is not trying to be the ultimate source of all human knowledge, ideas and insights. It is impossible to chop Bateson's work into simple chunks, and an encyclopedia can never represent all of his thinking, but hopefully Wikipedia will inspire a few more people to read Steps. I am sure the Double Bind article can be improved, and you clearly have some interesting ideas and insights, but I suggest you focus on helping people who are unfamiliar with the concept of Double Bind and who need a simple and clear introduction. Given that most people have a simplistic understanding of Catch-22, I think it is unhelpful to invoke Catch-22 when explaining Double Bind, and especially unhelpful to talk about Catch-22 as if it were a real object with a definitive interpretation rather than a fictional device with a wide range of possible interpretations. The insight that Catch-22 could be (but usually isn't) interpreted as a Double Bind actually tells us more about Catch-22 than it tells us about Double Bind, and this would still be true even if the insight could be traced to the Bateson family, so it might be more logical to add this insight to the Catch-22 article rather than here. However you may expect to encounter some resistance from Wikipedia editors to adding your own interpretation of fictional work (however plausible) without external verification. --RichardVeryard (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

References

I had intended to use as references the WP articles on systems theory and cybernetics. However these articles aren't as clear as L.S. Bale (1995) Gregory Bateson, Cybernetics and the Social/Behavioral Sciences (found in the WP article on Gregory Bateson). His description of the difference between the classical scientific paradigm and the systems theory/cybernetics paradigm is the best I've found so far--outdoing Bateson himself! (However there is no real contradiction between the two paradigms. Science broke down reality into parts and limited itself to two variables to have better controls and be able to confirm facts. But then it forgot to put the pieces back together to observe whole living systems in nature. Systems theory/cybernetics is...the rest of the story.

I received an informal response from MC Bateson last week. She didn't say if it was okay to quote her, however the changes I made to the first paragraph are her suggestion. She also notes that WP doesn't have an entry on logical types and that the DB article isn't clear enough.

Bateson indicates, in the Introduction to Steps..., that others often didn't understand what he was trying to convey. And Paul Gibney says about double bind theory that, "Later attempts to locate 'blame' in the family or to suggest the hypothesis was aimed at 'blaming families' was the work of less skilled theorists, given to dull and reductive readings of complex work." This probably has to do with the continuing lack of understanding about the different paradigm of systems theory/cybernetics.

In the Introduction to Mind and Nature Bateson gives an interesting example of logical types in comparative anatomy. More on that later.--Margaret9mary (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: MCB. While I recognize her unique position to comment on and clarify her father's work, as well as her own contribution to this subject, I think you are correct to rely more on independently published commentaries such as Bale. Good secondary sources are often clearer than the primary sources, which is perhaps the reason for WP's preference for secondary sources. --RichardVeryard (talk) 03:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Re Logical Types. I agree with you and MCB that this subject is not satisfactorily handled in WP. The term "Logical Type" currently redirects to Type theory. You might want to add something to the section Type theory#Social Sciences. See my comments Talk:Type theory#Bateson and NLP and Talk:Neurological levels#Logical or Neurological? --RichardVeryard (talk) 03:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree that Type theory (and other articles) should be written so that laypeople and professionals from other fields can understand WP--and also their colleagues, who too often miss nuances and even essentials in difficult analyses.
But Logical types has been hard to explain for many, which is why Bateson's example in the Introduction to Mind and Nature is so interesting. It's a visual illustration of logical types in biology.
Bateson recognized the pattern in the mathematical theory and in biology and saw that it applied also to social/cultural systems and to human communication, among other things.--Margaret9mary (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Logical types in Biology

On pp. 6-12 of the Introduction to Mind and Nature, Bateson tells of two classes he was giving simultaneously in the 1950s--to psychiatric residents and art students. The whole section bears reading.
He says, "the question set for the psychiatrists was the same question as that which I set for the artists: ... What is the difference between the physical world of pleroma (the nonliving), where forces and impacts provide sufficient basis of explanation, and the creatura (the living) where nothing can be understood until differences and distinctions are invoked?"
Then he continues on with what he presented to the art students concerning comparative anatomy--comparing a crab and a lobster, and a man and a horse. And says "it turns out that gross anatomy exhibits three levels or logical types [my emphasis]. (In the previous paragraph) he explains, "The parts of a crab are connected by various patterns of bilateral symmetry or serial homology, and so on. Let us call these patterns within the individual growing crab first-order connections. But now we look at crab and lobster and we again find connection by pattern. Call it second-order connection, or phylogenetic homology. Now we look at man or horse and find that, here again we can see symmetries and serial homologies. When we look at the two together, we find the same cross-species sharing of pattern with a difference (phylogenetic homology). (Then #3) "The comparison between crabs and lobsters is to be compared with the comparison between man and horse to provide third-order connections.
As a visual aid to this, see D'Arcy Thompson, a mathematician and biologist (1860-1948). The WP article shows his illustrations of comparative anatomy of fish; then at the bottom of the page, in Sources see--Using a computer to visualize change in biological organisms for further cross-species comparisons which are second-order connections.(These images are from his book On Growth and Form 1917).
[And note--the originals were done without a computer!] --Margaret9mary (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

To be more specific, for those who don't have the book on hand, for first-order connections, a crab shows bilateral symmetry, except that one claw is larger than another, but the two claws function the same--they have a "symmetry of formal relations." In a human skeleton, the humerus in the upper arm corresponds to the femur in the leg and the radius-ulna correspond to the tibia-fibula; if one sets the skeleton of a human next to a horse (or a chimp) it becomes evident the skeletons share cross-species equivalencies throughout the skeleton.--Margaret9mary (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hierarchy of Ideas

In the first paragraphs there were difficulties in the order of ideas.
For example, in the first (now second) paragraph, mention of the history of double bind in relation to schizophrenia might be confusing to people unfamiliar with DB Theory. (They might think, 'I'm not interested in psychosis' and not read further). Mention of the history of DBT belongs farther on.
Since A Theory of Play and Fantasy (in Steps...) was presented a year before the first paper on schizophrenia (in which play, humor, fiction and ritual are listed, in Towards a Theory...), and Bateson wrote on Deutero-Learning* in 1942, his developing understanding of the paradigm involved in systems theory and logical types antedated their application to schizophrenia.
Also, for clarity, the three levels of injunctions need an introduction and examples.
* (in footnote ¹ of Social planning and the concept of deutero-learning in Steps..., Bateson quotes M. Mead: "...those students who have devoted themselves to studying cultures as wholes, as systems of dynamic equilibrium...."--Margaret9mary (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Time for feedback!--Margaret9mary (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Bravo 71.154.233.103

Your contribution of Milton Erickson, who had a working relationship with Bateson in the 1950s, is excellent. One might say that Erickson had severe physical double-binds in his life--first dyslexia, and then polio--and his capacity to overcome them on his own is an inspiring example of a positive response to a double bind. See also Man's Search For Meaning by Viktor Frankl; Frankl was a Viennese psychiatrist who survived the World War II Nazi concentration camps--another type of ordeal from which there was no escape.--Margaret9mary (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

A physical disability does not constitute a double bind AFAIK--it is not simply a term for a difficult situation it's a psychological conunudrum imposed by someone else. Likewise what should we see about Frankl's work? If you think it's important enough to mention you should put forward the material yourself. Btw small numbers of people *did* escape from concentration camps--and a much larger number survived them, as did Frankl himself, which is a kind of escape (not to mention Jehovah's Witnesses, who could obtain release from the camps simply by renouncing their faith). Historian932 (talk) 12:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

There were many double binds within the examples that Historian932 gives aboove. The emotional distress of dealing at the same time with dislexia and the aftermath of polio is similar in degree to that of double binds. The extreme physical and psychological hardships of the concentration camps of WWII--a combination of slowly starving to death, psychologically life-destroying circumstances and the danger of being killed for the slightest misstep. Many in the camps lost their will to live before they died physically. Viktor Frankl was an Austrian neurologist and psychiatrist who did indeed survive the death camps, and after the War developed a type of therapy (Logotherapy) based on what he learned from his own experiences in struggling to survive psychologically in order to help others recover from extreme emotional trauma. Many Jehovah's Witnesses preferred to endure the camps rather than lie about their faith.
In any case, Milton Erickson provided Bateson and his colleagues with ideas for transforming destructive double binds into positive ones.Margaret9mary (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Quotes

For paragraph 6 concerning double bind and schizophrenia, Bateson said, "In our approach we assume that schizophrenia involves general principles which are important in all communication....Such situations include play, humor, ritual, poetry and fiction. (p. 222 in Steps... Ballentine paperback, 1972.)
"To Jay Haley is due credit for recognizing that the symptoms of schizophrenia are suggestive of an inability to discriminate Logical Types, and this was amplified by Bateson, who added the notion that the symptoms and etiology could be formally discribed in terms of a double bind hypothesis. The hypothesis was communicated to D. D. Jackson and found to fit closely with his ideas of family homeostasis." (Note, p. 202. Ibid.) Re the discussion in the Criticism Section, above, about whether Bateson believed schizophrenia to be a genetically determined organic brain dysfunction or a pattern of mental confusion learned in a dysfunctional family, it would be best to say that Bateson and his colleagues didn't spend enough years working on schizophenia to determine what their ultimate theories would be, or even if they developed them. What they did find, in working in the Veteran's Administration Hospital in Palo Alto was an extraordinary frequency of dysfunctional communication in families of patients. And they took all the time necessary to follow up on this as few psychiatrists in mental hospitals can ordinarily do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Margaret9mary (talk • contribs) 20:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

more quotes

One of the difficulties in defining Logical Types in communication is its complexity. Bateson says, "...human verbal communication can operate and always does operate at many contrasting levels of abstraction...the vast majority of both metalinguistic and metacommunicative messges remain implicit." (pp. 177; 178).
He also notes that animals, and especially mammals use metacommunicative signals--in play, deception, threat, etc.--all of which, of course, lack words. (see p. 179 #3) and says, "...the evolution of play may have been an important step in the evolution of communication....Indeed, it has lately been argued that a great part of what appears to be combat among members of a single species is rather to be regarded as threat." (p. 181)
"Most jokes...are weavings of multiple logical types." (p. 196) "...the ability to handle the multiple types of signals itself a learned skill, and therefore a function of the multiple levels of learning." (p. 204) "...humans use context as a guide for mode discrimination." (p. 206)

About double binds he says, "Indeed this sort of dilemma is not rare and is not confined to the contexts of schizophrenia." (p. 238) and, "...if double binds are imposed during infancy, escape is naturally impossible." (p. 207) (page numbers are from the paperback edition of Steps...--Margaret9mary (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Response to Admiral Norton

I apologize for the delay in replying to your concerns of 11.11.08 (and previous concerns of others). The problems with footnotes #1 and #2 are a result of the limits of my computer skills (as I noted on the discussion page: Apologies for editing variation on 6.10.08). After the end of the semester I will sit down and try to fully digest the details of Wikipedia citations--and get help from campus experts--in order to correct this
What I've written is from an extremely careful reading of Bateson. I've quoted Bateson (see above: More quotes--10.25 and Logical Types in Biology-- 6.28). If needed I will make a compilation of quotes concerning double bind theory.

One of the difficulties in describing double bind theory is it requires understanding both complex systems theory and logical types--and classical science has defined itself so that complex systems are outside of its purview! Lawrence Bale pointed this out in Gregory Bateson, Cybernetics and the Social/Behavioral Sciences. p. 28ff. htp://www.narberthpa.com/Bale/lsbale_dop/cybernet.htm This has caused decades of delays in developments in science.
To put it simply, Complex Systems Theory depends on a scientific paradigm that describes systems with multiple variables (ecosystems being the best known example) whereas the paradigm of classical science limits study to two variables, and describes systems with multiple variables using Chaos Theory. Cybernetics and complex systems theory recognize that, although multiple variables make exact precision in prediction impossible, nonetheless the parameters within which variations will occur can indeed be predicted. Classical science says we can't predict exactly how global warming will take place and therefore delays conclusions; complex systems theory says we can recognize alterations in the environment that are destabilizing locally and globally --Margaret9mary (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

(Added 11-24) Also, note that quoting Bateson presents difficulties. Not until 1969 did he fully realize he was exploring and developing a new field of science (see p. xvi of the Intro to Steps...). Important ideas are often contained in short sentences without him following through immediately with an explanation. Instead he tends to write discontinuously--starting an idea, then seemingly drifting off into an aside, and only coming back to the core idea a few sentences, or paragraphs or a few pages later. But the concepts are repeated in various ways in different articles. I've found it extremely helpful to read Bateson slowly and patiently, especially the Introduction to Steps to an Ecology of Mind.

Concerning the Wikipedia article: the first paragraphs in both versions explain the double bind concept. The original version is good, but it condenses Definition, History and Schizophrenia into one brief paragraph, which can lead to confusion. In addition, Bateson and his colleagues were speaking of schizophrenia as a dysfunction of thinking and communication resulting from doublebinding communication in families*, and not as an organic brain dysfunction--something most people would assume on hearing the term. Instead, Bateson, et al, saw double binds as encountered frequently in daily life**.
*"...if the schizophrenia of our hypothesis is essentially a result of family interaction..." (in Steps...p. 206).
**"Indeed this sort of dilemma is not rare and is not confined to the contexts of schizophrenia" (p. 238 Ibid)
--Margaret9mary (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No apology is necessary, I too sometimes have things to do for several days. Regarding the article, I'm asking you to choose one version of the article and delete the other, as having two versions displayed simultaneously confuses readers. The other version will not be permanently deleted, as Wikipedia keeps a revision history of every of its pages. You don't need to explain the matter of the article to me, as I'm quite a layman here and have a very limited understanding of the matters you just wrote. However, both versions of the article describe the double bind concept in a way I can understand. Admiral Norton (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Margaret9mary"

Calling All DB Editors

I have left the original opening paragraph (located now just above Explanation because it contains an important concept: "...the contradiction [of a double bind] is not present or obvious in the immediate context..." and because it contains the citations of "Towards a Theory of Schizophrenia" and "Steps to an Ecology of Mind" which should be citations 1 and 2. (Also, note #4 no longer directs to the cited article, which is Mathjis Koopmans. Schizophrenia and the Family II: Paradox and Absurdity Reconsidered. 1998, which is located at the same site as Koopman's first article)
This is why "This article appears to contradict itself" "Please help fix this problem".
I don't know how to access the section of Notes to correct it. Please help. Also, all comments and helpful criticisms would be appreciated. The next step after this would be to examine the continuity with the rest of the article.--Margaret9mary (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I believe most major problems have been solved, although I invite you to take a thorough look at the article and see if there's any contradicting material left, as I don't have time to do so right now. When you feel it's safe, you can remove the contradict box. P.S. Please do something about those "1" and "2" citations. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 16:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"Damned if you do; damned if you don't"

Does anyone else think the above phrase should appear somewhere in this article? 88.104.215.121 (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Heads I win, tails you lose" is also a part of double bind, but what makes for a real double bind is to not be able to ignore, nor confront, nor comment on the conflict.

---

Fundementally, no, I disagree. Maybe I need to back down from this position, but "double bind" means two things to me... "double" meaning two, and "bind" which implies something like pressure. I don't understand why this has to be structured as "lose/lose" at all. Shouldn't this whole concept be opened up to include any "double bind," not just negative ones?

My introduction to this topic was via M.Erickson, and his focus on "positive" or "therapeutic" double binds. I see the reference to his usage, and I like that. I would suggest the opening definition be changes to include positive/therapeutic binds.

Here are some specific Erickson quotes:

Erickson says "we will use the terms bind and double bind only in a very special and limited sense...," (Hypnotherapy, An Explanatory Case Book, pg 42.). So maybe my understand is overly skewed by this exposure, but Erickson's use of what he calls binds are so interesting. It's there emphasis on "positive" binds I find the most useful.

• "...which ever choice is made... leads the patient in a therapeutic direction."

He goes on to talk about the difference between avoidance-avoidance conflicts, as compared to approach-approach conflicts (pg 43). The "damned if you do/don't" relate to the former, and the therapeutic types of binds are more like that latter. I think all are acceptable, but this article seems "biased" toward one view of this concept.

• "Would you like to enter a trance now or later?" (pg 42)

A friend once asked, "Would you like to read this poem at our wedding... or would you like to pick one of your own?" She was double binding me into the reading, regardless of the poem. That was not a avoidance-avoidance situation, at least not for me.

Here's one more: "...the case of a meticulous elderly gentleman who took pride in doing all his own housework ...he was told that if he was not asleep in 15 minutes... he had to get up and wax the floors until he felt he could sleep. If he was still not asleep within 15 minutes, he had to get up again, and continue this procedure until he was asleep. The gentleman later reported that he had well-waxed floors and slept remarkably well." (pg 44)

The choice between sleep and well-waxed floors was win win for this case.

I think the opening definition needs to be phrased more neutrally. More emphasis on positive or therapeutic binds should be included - these binds are great therapeutic tools, and this article doesn't do that concept justice. --Guyghill (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

This clarification is in the Psychology Wiki talk page of AWeidman:

In 1959, in Minimal Requirements for a Theory of Schizophrenia (1959)*, G Bateson said, "... the proposed hierarchic classification of learning and/or context is an ordering of what to the Newtonian looks like chaos (my emphasis)..."
Bateson had been working with cybernetics/complex systems theory since 1942, seeing it as a paradigm or metascience that increased understanding, including in the behavioral sciences.

L. Bale says "...many scholars and practitioners of the social/behavioral sciences, as well as the humanities (myself included) were first introduced to cybernetics through Bateson's particular understanding of the cybernetic paradigm. Yet, he seldom offered his audience more than a cursory reference to the key principles underlying cybernetics. Thus the purpose of this essay is both: to present the fundamental principles underlying what is now often referred to as the 'first' cybernetics..." (op cit p. 2)

Complex systems theory helps us understand the interdependence of the parts of a message and so it helps understand double binds. Hence my statement that double bind theory is more clearly understood in the context of complex systems theory.

*in Minimal Requirements... Bateson says, "My purpose, therefore, in the present lecture is not so much to discuss the particular theory of schizophrenia which we have been developing at Palo Alto. Rather, I want to indicate to you that this theory and others like it have impact upon ideas about the very nature of explanation....a discussion of the implications of the double bind theory for the wider field of behavior science and even, beyond that, its effect upon evolutionary theory and biological epistemology." --As an interdisciplinary scientist, Bateson often looks beyond his immediate subject.

Retrieved from "http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:AWeidman" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Margaret9mary (talk • contribs) 21:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

"Note to self"

For reference, I removed this "note to self" (which is not mine, by the way) from the article. Such notes should be put on the discussion page (here) and not in the main article.--fraise (talk) 09:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

A double bind is a communicative situation where an individual, or group, receives contradictory messages, but where the contradiction is not present or obvious in the immediate context (or 'logical level') of each message. The Double Bind Theory, proposed by the anthropologist Gregory Bateson and his colleagues (including Don D. Jackson, Jay Haley and John H. Weakland), attempts to account for the development and "maintenance" of schizophrenia without simply assuming an organic brain dysfunction.

Irony

I don't know if anyone's noticed this, but the lead of this article is wonderfully ironic:

Lead: "A double bind is a dilemma in communication in which an individual (or group) receives two or more conflicting messages, with one message negating the other..."

Template message: "This article or section appears to contradict itself. Please help fix this problem."

Robofish (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

A PUzzlement

Why do so many people imagine that "the person does not realize the inherent dilemma" when caught in a double bind? If they were entirely unaware why would they feel such deep distress? They may not be able to put it into words; they may not be able to find their way out of it; but at least at some level they are intensely aware. Especially when a double bind is used as a form of covert control by a person in a position of authority, in which an unspoken but understood rule is that one must not question or challange authority, the victimized person may feel mentally paralyzed. That causes an agonizing level of distress, but they would feel it only if they were aware of the contradictions. And anyone who had been caught long enough in double binds would know this immediately.
That "the victim is largely unaware of the exact nature of the paradoxical situation in which he or she is" is in total conflict with the fact that even so-called schizophrenics in Bateson's work responded with distress to double binds. Obviously they indeed were aware of the contradictions. --Margaret9mary (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. And, if you (70.107.159.152 re your delete of Nov. 20) eliminate complex systems theory from Gregory Bateson's thinking you will probably miss what he is saying. It is central to all his thinking. --Margaret9mary (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Very good points: in fact the victim is very well aware something's amiss; but the emotional attachment victim has to perp precludes victim from stating emphatically.

"Double bind" was more intricately restated by Harold F. Searles: Six ways to drive the other crazy (1959); e.g., discussing the trivial & intensely essential on same emotional wavelength.

Bateson provided an excellent example in another essay, as he met the mother of a schizophrenic patient for the first time. Bateson brought flowers, & the mom recoiled when he stepped into the house. Before Bateson could formally present the mom with the flowers, she took them from him, implying that he was burdened by them ("Not at all!"), when as Bateson wrote it was evident she did not want them in her house but could not say so. 138.162.128.55 (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

"tertiary injunction"; what does it mean?

the term "tertiary injunction" is used in the explanation section.

quote- If necessary, a "tertiary injunction" is imposed on the victim to prevent them from escaping the dilemma.

and I have tried to find out what this means by googling, but came up with very little.

What does it mean exactly, and could a separate page be created for it? Jellyboots (talk) 07:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

An example of a primary (first level), secondary (second level) and tertiary (third level) injunctions is:

"You must do everything you can to succeed at something (or else I will punish you)".

"But you must fail or I will be angry with you."

"And you must not question the contradiction between these two demands, nor may you ignore them, nor question my good intentions." This is almost never communicated directly in words, but is learned through experiencing repeated rejecting and/or punishing behavior. The goal is often to put the victim in a position of helplessness, cause confusion and gain control. --Margaret9mary (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Following the same logic, another example (which by the way was removed from the examples some time ago

without any reason given, see when -

here http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Double_bind&diff=next&oldid=269215486 )

can be broken down to all three components, as well...

I am referring to the following example:

Child-abuser to child: "You should have escaped from me earlier, now it's too late -

because now, nobody will believe that you didn't want what I have done", while preventing

any of the child's attempts to escape.

I'm going to make the implicit components explained explicitly.

Child-abusers often start the double-bind relationship by giving little concessions and/or gifts

and/or privileges to the targeted child, thus the primary injunction is: "You should like

what you are getting from me!"

When the child begins to follow it (i.e. begins to like what she or he is receiving from the person),

then the interaction goes to the next level and small victimization occurs with the secondary injunction:

"I am punishing you! (for whatever reason the child-abuser is coming up with (for example:

"because you were bad", or "because you deserve it", or "because you made me do it", or "was naughty/mess"

etc ).

If child happens to show any resistance (or tries to escape) from the abuser,

then the words: "You should have escaped from me earlier (...)" serve as the third level

or tertiary injunction.

I think I proved the example above should not be removed from the Examples section in the first place!

-- DancingPhilosopher talk 10:18 (UTC), 2 February 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 10:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC).

Mimesis

thank you for other editors for clarifying my original, but I there were some things I felt to be corrected. One thing was the form and that still could be propably a lot better, both in form and content. On the content: "because the model is not as secure in his or her own desires as the subject assumes" This I find if not incorrect, at least I find it very unclear. The point is, that imitator violates the "copyright" of the model and I think "violation of territory" is quite good description - though perhaps not used as such by Girard - of what takes place, if one understands "territory" in a wider sense. "the model is not only admired, but -- because he or she is now sending mixed messages -- has become an obstacle, not only an object of adoration and respect, but also of rivalry" The orginal "envy and hatred" had been changed to "rivalry". I prefer "envy and hatred", because in my opinion, it is this simultanity of love and hate, that mimetic rivalry is always all about and this use of words makes it very clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.171.101 (talk) 08:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC). Signature added by SUM1 (talk) 27 January 2020

Girard Irrelevant

The section mentioning Rene Girard does nothing to contribute to an understanding of the basic concept of Double Bind. Therefore the section Double Bind and Mimesis adds to the length of the article but reduces its clarity.

Judging by the WP article on him, Girard seems to be primarily a philosopher--not an anthropologist in the sense of studying human cultures, but with the use of the word anthropology in relation to its Latin base (anthropos=human/logos=study) referring to a conceptual understanding of humans. (For example Augustine of Hippo and Karol Wojtyla--Pope John Paul II--are mentioned in the biography, men who have thought deeply on the human condition in religious terms but without a background in science).

Perhaps, if Girard borrowed from the concept of double bind he should be mentioned briefly in the article on DB. And the sections on Double Bind and Mimesis should be transferred to the article on Girard.

P.S. As a contributing editor to the Double Bind entry I think it's still not clear enough, but it's important to recognize that Double Binds are intended to confuse, and therefore are inherently confusing--and this makes them hard to explain.--Margaret9mary (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This is only your opinion. I remind you, that this article is about double bind in general, not only about bateson´s theory. Girard has made important theoretical contributions to the so called human sciences, is a widely read and respected author, and if you don´t know his stuff, or respect it, that is simply your personal matter. Girard´s application of the concept is just as important to mention, as is its use in zen-buddhism, and in my opinion certainly more relevant, than neuro-linguistic programming, but that´s only my opinion. So if why didn´t you delete also those entries of the article and say, they should be transferred to articles on Watts, buddhism, or NLP or left for just mentioning? And in my opinion mentioning is not enough, but the basic idea of application should also be explained just as in those other entries.

The entry is, I admit, a little too long and perhaps unclear, and I´ll try to do something for that matter (I already cut it a little shorter) but it´s the idea of Wikipedia, that the articles evolve and if you destroy a little imperfect entry, it becomes impossible.And you certainly were doing wrong by simply destroying the whole entry without leaving any link to Girard, remove the entry to Girard article, &c. One of the important things in making good articles is linking them with all information, that are crucially connected to it.

ps. Girard is by profession a Scholar of Literature, but has studied anthropological theory and made an important conribution to that field. Actually he might be one of the most important theoretical anthropologists of the 20th century, but again, that´s only my opinion.82.181.171.101 (talk) 06:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Girard Continued

I reviewed the WP article on Rene Girard again and found no mention of double bind theory. The explanation in the 2 sections in the entry on Double Bind that mention Girard make no clarification of how Girard is connected to Double Bind Theory. When I contacted Bateson's daughter she told me there was interest in DB in Europe, but Girard doesn't seem to be part of that. For these reasons I'm removing those two sections.--Margaret9mary (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

NLP not the same thing

An NLP double bind is different to a "Bateson" double bind. Yet people continue editing the NLP section making observations that it might not be a real DB because there is no contradiction. I have therefore made a final clarification so that the NLP section can continue to exist in its own context without being judged by a definition which does not apply. 182.152.214.148 (talk) 06:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This should be moved to an NLP article, or a new Double bind (NLP) article should be started. Is there any reason not to? Somehow, if it needs a note to say it's really that innocuous... "cash or charge" believe it or not... LOL—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 10:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

NLP's use of the term double bind is inappropriate--they are referring to pressure tactics to which one can say no. E.g. A person who believes in the evils of commerce can certainly refuse to buy a book on the subject precisely because of the sales tactics being used that exemplify it. Also, Bateson was critical of Grinder and Bandler as NLP continued to develop: they had not understood the complex interpersonal dilemma of ongoing doublebind relationships.Margaret9mary (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is about double binds, and whether or not the NLP use is a perfect match for what Bateson intended (and thanks for the explanation Margaret9mary) - the phrase 'double bind' is still in common usage in NLP. Therefore it is not inappropriate to have a couple of paragraphs on this variation. I note that what has already been written is short, it does not dominate the article, it's right at the end, and it acknowledges that it's a different use of the phrase. Therefore no need to start removing or moving. 121.203.5.73 (talk) 03:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Correct the article is not about whether the NLP terminology matches, and it's not about the "phrase" either. I don't believe anyone suggested it dominates the article, however, it does unnecessarily suggest the scenario could be made into a "Bateson double bind", (unsuccessfully, IMO). Likewise, a couple of paragraphs obviously wouldn't be WP:UNDUE. There's no question that WP:OR examples and explanations should be removed, so I disagree, in so far as it lacks WP:V.

If it were important as well as common, I'd have thought an awkward mention out-of-context would have been a concern. It was simply a suggestion... In any event, the OP's "final clarification" is in no way final.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 05:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

similar to attachment theory of Bowlby, Ainsworth, et al

I learned about Bateson in the early '60s, and thinking about it, what he described is very similar to Bowlby's attachment theory in which a child develops ambivalence regarding an inattentive or unsupportive mother from whom he both demands love and hates to receive, a condition very familiar to psychotherapists dealing with borderline patients as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.217.70 (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Citations needed!!

This article is badly in need of citations. There are so many places that it doesn't make sense to go through the article adding citation needed at each one. There are whole paragraphs and even sections without citation. Some examples:

In the first section - "Explanation" - the entire first paragraph and the last two paragraphs.

The entire "History" section.

The "Complexity in Communication" section already received a citation needed warning on April 2010.

Also in that section, what is this at the end of the last paragraph?

"[body language and double-bind see ([5])]"

Is reference 5 provide support for the entire section or just be a reference for "body language & double bind" - whatever that is? The source, by the way, is a doctoral dissertation in German, with no indication on where the public may find it. Is this a reference to the editor's own work? See Wikipedia:No original research

This appears to be the only citation in this section. I don't know whether it was there before the warning, or if it was added after. Even if that's the case, it's insufficient.

The second example in "Examples" has no cited source. Given the discussion above on this Talk page about what is and is not correctly classified as a "double-bind" all of the "Phrase Examples" need citations. These cannot be put forward unless there is an authoritative source identifying them as examples of "double-bind." If they came from a book or article, then that work should be identified.

The next 4 sections have only 1 correct footnote citation. Some appear to have inline citations that need to be turned into footnote citations.

I could go on, but I think it is more important for the main editors of this article to read all of WP:VERIFY and when they have understood the need for citations and what kinds of statements need citations, then they need to read WP:CITE. Then someone who knows the subject matter in this article needs to engage in extensive referencing/footnote creation. There's now a template in the edit box to help with the creation of footnotes so that the editor does not need to know how to format the citation. It appears in the toolbar on the far right as "> Cite."

It's been more than 5 years since this warning was placed on one of the sections:

This section does not cite any references (sources). Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2010)

I know there's probably a standard name for this type of warning, but I don't know it, since I have never added that kind of warning and I do not know who has authority to do so, let alone authority to take it down.

I propose some kind of warning at the top of the article indicating that everything except perhaps the introductory section needs to be supported by proper references. At the very least, this would alert readers to the fact that this article is primarily unsourced material and not something Wikipedia can stand behind. Alternatively, after a shorter period of time than 5 years most of this article should be deleted or hidden from public view. Ileanadu (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Response concerning Citations needed

Gregory Bateson was the first to describe Double Binds in scientific terms. He was speaking from life experience, having grown up in a wealthy, well-educated family that used double-binds as a form of covert control. In the Introductions to Steps to an Ecology of Mind he described a double bind he found himself caught in as a scientist which gave him insight into the phenomenon. Since Double Binds are often a form of covert abuse they aren't widely described, since they are experienced but often not understood or recognized. (Catch-22, similar to DB, was presented in the novel by that name as absurd--but Double Binds can be very serious).

All sources available to cite are the articles already listed--the original source is Steps to an Ecology of Mind--a collection of published articles with commentary--plus the articles referring back to it. And note it was not just Bateson but a group of his colleagues who contributed to the concept, and other, later experts who seconded it.

I contributed to this article years ago as Margaret9mary but can no longer remember my password. I also came from a family that used double binds to confuse and control so I understood immediately what Bateson was talking about. (To give a personal example--My mother was publically known for her passionate commitment to human rights. But to me and my siblings she would scream (in private of course) "You don't deserve to be treated like a human being" followed by half an hour of non-stop rage. When little I would freeze, unable to move, speak or think. When I grew up I wondered--was it just said in anger or did she really mean it? From extensive evidence of her other behavior it finally became evident it was one of the most sincere expressions of her feelings. Coming across Bateson's book Steps to an Ecology of Mind was an important part of my recovery and of emotional and conceptual growth.

A rejection of citations from the primary source and demands of secondary sources as a primary source of reference are themselves a Double Bind. If Wikipedia rejects the primary source as authoritative then it is cancelling itself out.

To give a practical example--I experienced this with Attachment Theory which I also worked on editing. A number of experts in the field of Attachment dismissed (and in effect rejected) John Bowlby's references to attachment in non-human mammals as examples paralleling human attachment. Later it was discovered that ALL VERTEBRATES have some biochemical form of oxytocin--a bonding hormone which was first discovered in 1906 in relation to the birth process and nursing (See Wikipedia on Oxytocin) so logically oxytocin is active as a bonding hormone in all mammals between mother and infant. Since so many experts in Attachment rejected dismissively Bowlby's considerations of attachment in animals of course there are few secondary sources available . So I went back to Bowlby and read him slowly, carefully and repeatedly. Clearly he was citing attachment in mammals and imprinting in birds as precursors to human attachment. But when I cited these they were again rejected because Wikipedia rules say you can't quote the original source. That is a WP problematic which deprives it of important sources. Aka Margaret9mary. 205.167.120.201 (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

P.S. It looks like some sources may have been removed. I will get back to this as soon as I can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.167.120.201 (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC). Signature added by SUM1 (talk) 27 January 2020

Zen Buddhism is NOT employing a “positive” double-bind!

Zen Buddhism is just an introverted form of schizophrenia. So instead of forcing one’s delusional model of reality onto the world, their resolve for the conflict between beliefs and reality, is to take themselves out of the equation. Zen “enlightenment” is equal to de-facto death … the end of the person’s existence. So it is still massively harmful. But just against themselves. That doesn’t make any of its properties any more ”positive”! — 87.79.191.84 (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Double bind. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080211090234/http://www.mri.org/dondjackson/brp.htm to http://www.mri.org/dondjackson/brp.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080215124155/http://laingsociety.org/cetera/pguillaume.htm to http://www.laingsociety.org/cetera/pguillaume.htm

https://www.motivationwishing.com/2019/05/good-habits-quotes.html When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Stuff about Tyrone Power

There was a passage of 100 - 200 words in the "examples" section. It was pretty hard to understand, as it was written with some ungrammatical sentences. It seems it had something to do with a glass mural of Tyrone Power and how the mural depicted a possibly illegitimate son, but how Power's wife described the mural as a celebration of their marriage.

Even if this text could be cleaned up, and even if we stipulate that it is in fact an example of a double bind, one historical element from the life of one mid-importance actor is far too specific of an example. It did not fit in at all with the other examples. Therefore, I deleted it.

Text was added by User:Leucadianman on 2018-06-26 and 27. This user has made similar edits about Tyrone Power elsewhere, e.g. mentioning "Illegitimate son Kirk Van Allyn" on Talk:Tyrone Power, or adding text about the glass mural to the Tyrone Power page.

Note to self: there is a second user in the mix. This is user Kirkosify who has stated that s/he is the illegitimate child of Tyrone Power and made edits similar to those of Leucadianman, such as this one.

I don't know if this should go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations or Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. So far I'm thinking "no." These are not really super active or damaging accounts. One edit from Kirkosify in all of 2018, and two from Leucadianman. Doesn't quite fit with "active, obvious, and persistent" that the AIV guidelines recommend.

--Officiallyover (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC) Kirkosify and Leucadianman are the one and the same.

The double-bind of Power's conspiracy of silence "tragidy", evedence etched in glass, with the binding, LOOK magizine interviewing his second wife's interperations of "celebration" and the birth of her daughter. A cultural commoity icon that had to keep his illegitimate son a secret. DESIRE to referance the glass mural to the thumbnail image Tyrone Power.com 50th memorial celebration. The commissioned artwork cover-up with a four page LOOK.Tyrone Power.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leucadianman (talk • contribs) 02:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh that makes complete sense ... in dimension 093845723847a873k.87, kernerflake section, celluloid orbit.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 04:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Child-abuser to child

"You should have escaped from me earlier, now it's too late—because now, nobody will believe that you didn't want what I have done"

Does it really fits here? To begin with, is it double bind ?

"You should have escaped from me earlier" is by no way a realistic proposition, especially for a child...and the conclusion is self admiting guiltiness (what i have done)..whoever posted that part is at least incompetent,at best suspect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:e34:ed00:b920:6974:f13f:e8ee:9871 (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2019 (UTC). Signature added by SUM1 (talk) 27 January 2020