Talk:Double bind
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Portal |
This article is within the scope of Psychology WikiProject, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
|
||||||||
Contents |
[edit] 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?
The concept of the double bind is quite important in feminism. Some discussion of that would be excellent. - Liz Henry
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)
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)
[edit] 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
—The preceding unsigned comment was 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)
[edit] 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-2. 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)
[edit] 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)
