Talk:Double bind

message: 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)
thread_title:  Double Binds in Science 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Notes Nov. 2010 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done, newer § go at the bottom of a talk page, thx—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical Assistance Needed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Defending against DB 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Request for help 

message: 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)
thread_title: contradiction tag

message: 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)
thread_title: Levels of learning?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Request to remove cleanup tag

message: 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)
thread_title: Feminism

message: 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)
thread_title: HAL in 2001

message: I've added a criticism section, which needs to be expanded. ---=-C-=- 13:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you source some recent publications along those lines so we can represent the counter-argument? --Comaze 16:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Comment from a Russian batesonian

message: "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)
thread_title:  Beating one's wife 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Schizophrenia/MPD 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NLP 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm glad to say someone has now created a page on John Weakland. --RichardVeryard (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Watzlawick 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Confusion between contradiction, paradox, and double bind 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reexamining underlying assumptions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Apologies for editing variation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  References 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Logical types in Biology 

message: 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)
replies: text: Time for feedback!--Margaret9mary (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hierarchy of Ideas 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bravo 71.154.233.103 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  more quotes

message: 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)
thread_title:  Response to Admiral Norton

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Calling All DB Editors 

message: Does anyone else think the above phrase should appear somewhere in this article? 88.104.215.121 (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  "Damned if you do; damned if you don't" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: 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)
thread_title: "Note to self"

message: 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)
thread_title:  Irony 

message: 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)
thread_title: Mimesis

message: 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)
thread_title:  Girard Continued 

message: 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)
thread_title:  similar to attachment theory of Bowlby, Ainsworth, et al 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citations needed!! 

message: ::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)
thread_title:  Response concerning Citations needed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Zen Buddhism is NOT employing a “positive” double-bind! 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: Oh that makes complete sense ... in dimension 093845723847a873k.87, kernerflake section, celluloid orbit.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 04:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stuff about Tyrone Power 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Child-abuser to child