Double bond theory

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The double bind (Engl. Double bind theory , double. Double-contrainte ) is a communication-theoretical idea to the development of schizophrenic disorders. The theory was developed by a group led by anthropologist and communication researcher Gregory Bateson . They identified (in contrast to the previously valid intrapsychic hypotheses) relationship structures that can lead to forms of behavior that are referred to as schizophrenia. For this they coined the expression double bind . However, this connection to schizophrenia could not be empirically confirmed.

The double bond theory describes the crippling, because double bond of a person to paradoxical messages or signals (so-called double messages ) and their effects. The signals can relate to the content of the spoken words or can be tone of voice, gestures and actions.

description

In this model, the term bond is to be understood in the sense of establishing a coupling within a behavioristic stimulus-response pattern (message = stimulus; behavior, perception or certain somatic reactions = reaction). At the same time, existing social ties between people should also be taken into account in the overall assessment. These messages or signals are directed at a person concerned with contradicting requests for reactions or actions on different levels of communication ( content or factual level or factual statement, relationship level or relationship statement, appeal level or appeal or I-statement).

The resolution of such a double bond situation is made even more difficult if the messages also address the addressee on an unconscious level or (should) provoke reactions that are not or only partially subject to conscious control. The addressee experiences such a double bond as untenable, indissoluble, difficult to understand and existentially threatening because:

  1. a choice in the sense of the paradoxical pseudo alternatives is actually not possible for him,
  2. he cannot / must not recognize the paradox inherent in the linguistically correct message (e.g. supported by a ban on metacommunication ),
  3. but because of a relationship of dependency he feels compelled to comply with the request and
  4. he cannot leave the situation.

The compulsive character and the “illusion of alternatives” in a double bond create a “ lose / lose situation” for him . Bateson saw the recurring influence of such communication patterns on children within their families as a major triggering factor for the later development of schizophrenia .

Building on Bateson's work, his student, the psychotherapist Paul Watzlawick , formulated a “theory of human communication”. He showed that the communicative anomalies contained in double bonds are indeed a widespread risk in people's everyday communication . Watzlawick pointed out that a clinical picture of schizophrenia cannot be attributed mono-causally to communication patterns based on the double bond pattern: “Double bond does not cause schizophrenia. All that can be said is that where the double bond becomes the predominant relationship structure ... the behavior of these persons corresponds to the diagnostic criteria of the clinical picture of schizophrenia. Only in this sense can the double bond be called causative and pathogenic. "

Ingredients of a double bond constellation

The paradox as a necessary ingredient

Necessary ingredients

The necessary ingredients of a double bond situation are:

1. Communication

- Two or more people communicating with each other
- Repeated communication experiences (to establish or learn a stimulus-response pattern )

2. A primary negative commandment that

- is reinforced by penalties or signals (sanctions), while compliance with the commandment is essential for survival and
- conflicts with the secondary commandment on an abstract level.

3. A secondary commandment that

- is reinforced by penalties or signals (sanctions), while compliance with the commandment is essential for survival and
- conflicts with the primary negative commandment on an abstract level.

4. A tertiary commandment that

- forbids the victim to attempt metacommunication about the relationship or criticism and metacommunication and
- makes it seem impossible for the victim to leave the scene or to escape from it.

Ultimately, the entire set of ingredients is no longer required if the victim has sufficiently internalized the stimulus-response pattern (i.e. is sufficiently conditioned), the response patterns thus more or less eluded conscious control and conscious self-reflection or even in the course of one have increasingly generalized classical conditioning and the victim gradually loses the possibility of self-control in this regard.

The most important difference between a contradicting and a paradoxical rule of action is that in the case of the former one can consciously perceive and choose the alternatives, but with the choice of one option one loses the other and thus consciously accepts the loss. This result can be most unpleasant, but it remains a logical choice. The paradoxical rule of action, on the other hand, makes the choice itself impossible (because of the impossibility of fulfillment).

Exemplary representation

Expressed message (possibly also implicitly or non-verbally): " Wash my fur, but don't get me wet "

1. Primary negative bid:

- Don't get me wet
- If you make me wet, you will not meet my expectations or you will be sanctioned.

2. Secondary commandment:

- Wash my fur
- If you ignore my call to action, you will not meet my expectations or you will be sanctioned.

3. Tertiary commandment:

- The sender of the communication message forbids criticism of him / her, prevents an attempt at understanding or an agreement or thwarted metacommunication.
- In an existing relationship of dependency, leaving the situation seems almost impossible from the point of view of those affected (e.g. custody or duty of care relationships or dependent employees who are bound by instructions in bullying situations).

Formal representation

  • The person must adhere to command or prohibition X.
  • The person must obey the command or prohibition Y.
  • Y contradicts X.
  • The person cannot ignore X or Y.
  • Any comment regarding the absurdity of the situation is strictly forbidden.
  • Leaving the situation is or appears impossible.

Dependencies as a framework

The classic examples of a double bond constellation relate to a situation in which the person concerned (victim) is in a dependent position, in which adjustment is required and in which legitimate interests and basic needs are directed towards dominant caregivers, but in the negative case not adequately satisfied are answered , if necessary with sham alternatives (colloquially sometimes called a dilemma ) and it is not possible to leave the situation.

In particular, children and toddlers have their parents or legal guardians as caregivers, who generally take appropriate care in this phase of life for the satisfaction of the basic needs of levels 1 to 3 or 4 of Maslow's hierarchy of needs (basic physical needs, security, social relationship and social recognition) , while in the professional context of dependent employees it is more the basic needs of levels 2 to 5 (security, ..., self-realization), whose recognition is refused in the negative case (e.g. bullying ).

Due to the dominant position of the higher level, this largely determines the framework conditions to which the dependent person must adapt. The double bond theory (initially) considers two levels: a dominant parent and the dependent child. A third superordinate level (see: transaction analysis ), such as social norms, ideals, ideal images or goals to which the dominant sender of the double bond message may feel obliged, is initially not taken into account in this consideration. Such a superordinate third (in part idealized) level, on the other hand, can be seen in the Stanford Prison Experiment and also in the Milgram Experiment (see Chapter: Manipulation and dominance of authority). In the Milgram experiment, the higher level is represented - from the teacher's point of view - by the experimenter or by the given science (ideal imaging = the good cause). In the Stanford Prison Experiment, the overriding dominant level is represented by the experiment definition and also by science.

The pressure to adapt, which emanates from the respective dominant level, largely determines behavior, experience and learning to the extent that the framework conditions allow (see: Skinner box ).

Unfulfillability as an extended criterion

Unattainability means the necessary impossibility of being able to meet the demands or expectations of the sender of the message (so that a double-bond-like situation is maintained).

Language analogy

The development of a child's personality is an expression of the adaptation to the environmental situation in which the child finds itself. Learning the mother tongue is a form of adaptation to the social environment and can be clearly used as an analogy for the adaptation problem with double bonds. If a child who is supposed to learn a mother tongue is confronted with hundreds of different caregivers who all speak a different language, then a linguistic adaptation of his neural system to the environment is no longer possible. At the same time, the child has the impression that it is vital to understand these caregivers linguistically. This incompatibility of impossible adaptation and absolutely necessary adaptation prevents the emergence of an intact and stable personality.

Thought experiment

The problem of impossible adaptation can be illustrated through a thought experiment . You imagine you have to defuse a time bomb. The bomb's timer indicates that there are 30 seconds remaining before it detonates. The only way to defuse the bomb is to cut either the blue or red wire. You are now in a classic double bond situation: you are desperately looking for criteria that could give an indication of which wire is the right one. The highly complex electronic circuit overwhelms your own cognitive abilities. But you have to understand the logic of the electronic circuit in order to identify the harmless wire.

This well-known cliché act may be banal, but it nonetheless clearly and understandably shows the psychological situation. The mental state of the hero who was able to cope with such a situation should also be known from movies, even though it only lasted a few seconds. So one can roughly imagine the state of the neural system of a child who has to endure such situations every day for several years. Outwardly, these childhood situations may seem inconspicuous, but from the child's perspective they are experienced just as the hero experiences the bombing, and they are permanent.

Situation paradox

The paradoxical situation arises not only from the logical contradiction on the content level, but from the incompatibility of “ I have to do something ” with “ I have no information ”. Adaptation requires rules of the game that must be known and applicable. If the rules of the game become increasingly complex, the subject is also increasingly challenged mentally. A certain consistency of the rules of the game is necessary for this. An adjustment is not possible if the rules of the game are changed again and again and even contradict each other. If there are rules of the game, but cannot be identified as such by the subject, this is synonymous with a chaotic situation. An unpredictable situation that cannot be mentally simulated usually causes fear when comparable situations have proven to be dangerous.

It doesn't matter whether the rules of the game are really paradoxical or just pseudo- paradoxical . The child assumes that the requirements set by the person in authority can in principle be met. This is because the child believes in authority and has accepted it as a moral standard.

A claim may be logically possible, but physically impossible. Maybe it is physically possible, but biologically impossible. Perhaps it is biologically possible, but impossible for humans, or possible for humans, but not for humans in childhood.

So there is a wide range of potential contradictions that don't really contradict each other on the logic level . The only decisive factor is whether the child cannot fulfill it, i.e. the subjective excessive demands in the child's consciousness . A task may overwhelm the child, but as long as the child does not have to solve this task, the child can look at the complex situation with relaxed curiosity, i.e. free from conflict, and learn from it.

Variants of the double bond

Paradoxical call to action

The variant of the paradoxical request to act has already been explained above in a general and exemplary representation and corresponds to the classic example that a person receives contradicting requests to action (appeal) on different levels of interaction, whereby a part of the message may have been transmitted on a preconscious or unconscious level .

Concealed conflicting interests

An example that pathogenic (disease-causing) effects can also emanate from conflicting interests that exist within a group is given by John H. Weakland in his article Double-Bind Hypothesis and Dreier-Relationship . Such a negative effect has conflicting interests; in particular if the conflict is presented as non-existent on a conscious level, denied, or an attempt is made not to let it become apparent.

An example is given of a team of doctors who found themselves in a covert conflict over the treatment strategy for a patient. An example is given from the family context in which the parents of a child are in conflict with each other, but do not want to let this conflict become apparent to the child (possibly ostensibly for their benefit). In such a case, the child experiences that existing harmony is represented on a conscious level, but on an unconscious level it may perceive a disharmony and not be able to reconcile these opposing perceptions.

Paradoxical transmission of information

A paradoxical transfer of information is colloquially referred to as hypocrisy . Contradicting information content is transmitted at different levels of communication. The share of information communicated on the conscious level does not coincide with the objective facts. If the recipient of the message and the communication signals is not aware of the true facts, but consciously or unconsciously perceives the portion transmitted on the preconscious or unconscious level (possibly through body language), a cognitive dissonance arises in the recipient, which may be due to the lack of further correct factual information cannot be resolved. In the event that the recipient of the message has not perceived the message conveyed on the unconscious level, on the other hand, there is more error and deception about the true facts.

Transaction levels

Manipulation and dominance of authority

People who were frequently exposed to double bonds in their childhood usually have an unstable personality and can be influenced to an unusually high degree by suggestions and hypnosis . Especially towards authoritarianism people, such people behave very submissive , provided they have recognized their superiority.

Persons injured by double bonds can perform extremely cruel acts on command, even if the commands fundamentally contradict their ethical and moral convictions. The fear for one's own ego is very great due to the unstable personality and weak self-esteem . In addition, their moral principles can be questioned relatively easily by persons in authority. This could be shown by the groundbreaking Milgram experiment .

Ethical behavior often corresponds to an adjustment to an expectation in the social environment and not to the deeper inner conviction. This could be demonstrated impressively in the Stanford prison experiment .

Pressure to adapt and self-image

Identity task

What makes double bonds so dangerous is the high pressure to conform that the person in authority exerts on the “victim” . Adaptation is the integration of an object into a cognitive scheme .

In so-called normal dependency relationships, an authority figure can issue commands that influence the behavior of the victim; in double-bond relationship patterns, the influence also includes the type of self-perception the victim has of himself.

This brainwashing method was often used in Maoist China during the Cultural Revolution for political re-education : the victim was not only expected to adapt to the prevailing ideology through his or her thoughts and actions, but also to believe that this transformation was voluntary and dignified which, of course, did not correspond at all to the victim's experiences. Forced internment and humiliation rituals were the rule.

The victim is not only broken, but is also not allowed to see himself as a victim, and certainly not allowed to see the perpetrator as a perpetrator. The person in authority also determines how the victim must experience it. It determines the image that the victim has to make of her.

Example: "Mom didn't punish you because mom is angry, but because you were angry. Mummy hits you because she means well with you. "

A person exposed to such a situation has to walk through the narrow gap of an enormous intolerance of deviation and cannot afford to maintain his original identity . The fear of punishment, torture or withdrawal of love creates the willingness to give up the existing identity. This constant process of giving up identity, which takes place over and over again, prevents the emergence of an intact personality or it causes the deconstruction of an already existing personality.

Adaptation as a form of truth

If the statement of a reference person (the sender) collides with the behavior patterns and values ​​of the recipient, i.e. causes a cognitive dissonance , the recipient has two options:

  1. Either he accepts the statement and revises his behavior, or
  2. he rejects the statement and does not revise his behavior.

For example, the father criticizes his son. The son now has two options:

  1. Either he thinks his father is "good" and he deserves the criticism, or
  2. he believes his father is "bad" and that the criticism is wrong.

The moment the son gives up projecting the enemy image on his father, he also denies part of his own personality. However, in order to maintain the integrity of one's own personality, an enemy image is imperative.

To accept the criticism as deserved would mean to question the validity of one's own behavioral patterns:

  1. When his self-confidence is unstable, he says: "My behavior was wrong, consequently I was rightly criticized by my father."
  2. If his self-confidence is stable, he says: "My behavior was right, but my father criticizes me, consequently his behavior is wrong."

Whose behavior is interpreted as false, is ultimately a question of self-confidence and a question of the power gap in the structure of relationships and not a question of authority of criticism, so the veracity of the content aspect (information, data, facts).

However, if the son has a trusting relationship with his father, then acceptance of the father's criticism does not damage his personality. Its criticism is then not interpreted negatively, i.e. it does not induce an enemy image projection.

An enemy image projection is therefore not available for two reasons:

  1. Either the son has a trusting relationship with his father, or
  2. the son has made the experience that projecting an enemy image is punishable and therefore dangerous.

Situation complexity and self-image

A typical statement made by victims of double bond relationship patterns is, "I can never please my parents."

If different attempts to adapt to the environment, for example in childhood, are regularly frustrated by negative feedback , the result is that the child feels overwhelmed. In terms of neurobiology, psychological overload corresponds to overloading the neuronal system.

This overload of the neural system on the organic brain level manifests itself as fear on the level of consciousness , the level of subjective experience .

In contrast to concrete fear, fear here is the form of a negative self-image in the subjective interpretation of a subject or object that is consciously perceived in the environment .

  • The fear is getting smaller
    • either when the self-esteem of the experiencer increases,
    • or when the complexity of the situation with which the experiencer is confronted decreases.
  • The experiencer feels less overwhelmed,
    • either if the situation is less demanding,
    • or when the experiencer's ability to deal with such a situation has improved.

The ability of the neural system to deal with complex situations manifests itself on the level of consciousness, i.e. the level of subjective experience, in the form of a feeling of courage and strength.

Self-confidence arises as a result of positive experiences, which are understood as a consequence of one's own correct action. The loss of self-confidence results from negative experiences, which are understood as a consequence of one's own wrong actions.

The breakdown of self-esteem manifests itself in obsessive-compulsive disorder , panic attacks or other symptoms of overwork and stress . Furthermore, a pronounced loss of communicative orientation as a symptom largely corresponds to the clinical picture of so-called schizophrenia .

Subjectivity as a yardstick

Neural sub-programs

To the extent that the child's actions are frustrated by negative feedback , existing neural patterns prove to be inadequate adaptation strategies and dissolve or are downgraded in priority.

The course of action and thinking in a person's everyday life manifest themselves on the level of their consciousness, i.e. on the level of subjective experience, in the form of general trends. The execution of these trends requires the use of neural sub- programs that are unconsciously accessed and applied by the human biocomputer . Neural sub-programs are made learning experience units from the past, which can be called up at any time in the present as problem-solving units.

Neural sub-programs can also be produced by the biocomputer as a result of a consciously or unconsciously made mental simulation of possible future events. There is constant interaction between existing neural sub-programs on the unconscious thought level. The manifestation of this interaction present at the level of consciousness is also called a dream .

To the extent that these sub-programs are available, it becomes easy for the neural system to solve problems. However, if the sub- programs are not available, they have to be generated by the biocomputer in real time , which places enormous demands on the neural system. From a neurological perspective, self-confidence is the certainty of being able to rely on one's neural sub-programs. With the help of the neural subprograms one acts unconsciously in " autopilot mode " . To the extent that negative experiences have frustrated sub-programs and thus “put them on hold ”, the demands on the overall neural system also increase .

Cognitive overload

It can be observed that communication in social systems proceeds in a similar way to the self-reproduction of living organisms: Similar to the way that these only absorb substances from the environment that are relevant for their self-reproduction, communication systems in their environment only perceive what is related to their “topic fits ”, which is“ compatible ” with the meaning of the previous communication . For the observer interacting with his environment, “sense” is a mechanism for reducing complexity : In the infinitely complex environment, only a small part is filtered out according to certain criteria; the boundary of a social system thus marks a difference in complexity from outside to inside.

On the level of subjective experience, the improvised generation of sub-programs manifests itself in real time in such a way that the conscious thinking of the subject concerned is flooded with information. In order to contain this cognitive overload or overload, the person concerned is forced to reduce the speed of his actions. This is a symptom that can often be observed in so-called " schizophrenics ".

They also tell of a perception of innumerable, sometimes irrelevant information. Phenomena and processes that seem unimportant to the mentally healthy are now perceived as very important. They are, because the subprograms that were assigned to those processes made them seem unimportant. Something just seems to be unimportant when it can be processed unconsciously or hardly consciously by the neural sub-programs. The collapse of the sub-programs makes the unimportant appear important, and the important must be dealt with with the help of conscious thinking.

Neural work performance

The solution of certain cognitive tasks is only possible for so-called " schizophrenics " with significantly greater neuronal work than for mentally healthy people. This neural work is perceived subjectively as effort or effort.

For example, if a person has to stack logs, they seem to get heavier with increasing physical exhaustion, although their weight, from a physical point of view, of course remains the same.

When the neural system has been weakened by the frustration of the neural subroutines, cognitive tasks seem to become more and more complex for the subject, although their complexity, from the perspective of an observer, has not increased at all.

Destructive feedback loop

Psychological conflict situations, such as with the double bond, are increasingly experienced by the victim as threatening, although they have not become more threatening from the point of view of an observer.

This creates a destructive feedback loop : Psychological violence causes psychological weakening; a mental weakening makes the mental violence appear more potent; the psychological violence that appears to be more potent causes a more potent weakening of the neural system; the more potent weakening of the neural system reduces the cognitive potential of the subject; the weakening of the cognitive potential of the neural system ultimately corresponds to a psychological weakening of the subject.

Phenomenological attitude

The primacy of the phenomenal : the human experience as it presents itself to be recognized as the only immediately given reality and taken seriously. The absolute yardstick for the psychological damage is therefore the subjective experience of the subject.

  • Do not absolutize views and attitudes towards life, but keep checking them in the specific area of ​​experience of everyday life.
  • Do not lose yourself in speculative and hasty interpretations, but let yourself be guided by the world of experience that can be experienced in the here and now.
  • Respect the autonomy of the other's experience and the way in which he names his experiences.
  • Accepting that the way the world shows itself to us is always related to our habit of perception, our expectations and our intentions towards life.
  • Avoiding the mental separation of subject and object, of observer and observed.

Basics, thought experiment and examples

Basic experiment: Immediately or simultaneously given positive and negative stimuli

Ivan Petrovich Pavlov conducted hundreds of basic experiments on conditioning theory, not just what he became famous for. In an experimental series, he gave a test animal a positive stimulus and a short time later a negative stimulus, which resulted in an avoidance reaction at a separate time. When the time intervals between the controversial stimuli were shortened so much that they no longer discriminated d. H. could no longer be processed separately, this put the test animal under stress in such a way that it fell asleep or became unconscious.

Robert Ader at the University of Rochester School of Medicine investigated whether it was possible to condition an animal to avoid a food it normally prefers. He gave the preferred food and shortly thereafter administered a substance that causes nausea and nausea and was thus able to ensure that the preferred food was ultimately avoided. He later discovered that these animals had higher mortality rates if they continued to receive the food they had been negatively conditioned against.

Thought Experiment: The Pavlovian Paradox

Notes: 1) A thought experiment is an experiment that does not have to be carried out in real life, but in which the conclusions can be derived by applying known laws. 2) Understanding the thought experiment: Pavlov's paradox requires knowledge of the theory of conditioning and, in particular, of how a Skinner box works .

A: floor slab A, B: floor slab B, H: dog, zw: dog kennel, S1: current surge from k, S2: current surge from e, k: alpha animal k (circle), e: alpha animal e (ellipse)

Experimental set-up

A dog H, two electrifiable floor panels A and B, large pictures of different ellipses e and a circle k, a dog pen zw that encloses floor panels A and B, the experimenter Exp, who triggers the current surges S1 and S2.

The necessary conditions for a double bond situation are:

  1. Two or more subjects communicating with each other:
    e and k with H or H perceives e and k and their signals.
  2. Repeated communication experiences (establishment of a stimulus-response pattern):
    1. Repeated power surges S1, S2 on the relationship level and
    2. repeated perception of k and e at the content level by H during conditioning
  3. A primary negative bid: k communicates:
    A is forbidden zone
  4. A secondary commandment, that
    1. conflicts with the first on an abstract level: e communicates: B is forbidden zone ,
    2. and how the first is reinforced by punishments or signals threatening survival: punishment by S1 and S2
  5. A tertiary commandment that forbids the victim
    1. to flee the scene: dog kennel zw,
    2. or about the relationship to metacommunicate : The feedback from H is ignored by e and k.
      Feedback from H in combat mode : defense or defense barking, baring teeth.
      Feedback from H in escape mode: fear barking
  • After all, once the victim has learned to perceive his universe in double bond patterns, the full set of ingredients is no longer required: conditioning of H is maintained even without S1 and S2.

procedure

The dog is shown alternately the image of a clearly recognizable ellipse or a circle. A few seconds before electricity flows through plate A, the dog sees a circle, before electricity flows through base plate B, the dog is shown an ellipse. Over time , the dog will associate the two shapes with the corresponding base plate and can thus avoid the live plate in good time. See: contiguity

The dog cannot avoid both of the floor plates at the same time, so the dog has to choose between floor plate A or B. Now the experimenter gradually shows the dog ellipses, which are increasingly difficult to distinguish from a circle, until the dog can no longer distinguish between the two images. The dog is now showing severe behavioral disorders and either becomes very aggressive or shows great fear.

Note: The experiment is similar to the learned helplessness experiment .

interpretation

A classic double bond paradox arises : the dog's neural system is forced to choose one of the two plates. First of all, the dog's cognitive capacity is sufficient to meet the requirement. As the two forms of ellipse and circle come closer together, the cognitive capacity is overburdened, i.e. the dog's neural system is overloaded. The dog experiences this overload as a threat.

From the dog's point of view, this threat is associated with the image of the circle or the almost circle. The dog now shows aggressive ( fight mode ) or fearful behavior ( escape mode ) towards the picture . Which mode is used is determined by previous experience and heredity , including the breed of dog.

"Dog thoughts"

The experimenter is invisible to the dog. The dog experiences the elliptical and circular images on the one hand, and the unpleasant electrical surges on the other. By associating the images with the electric shocks, these electric shocks seem to be distributed by the geometric shapes. The forms are thereby personified. They appear to the dog as forms of reference. In the dog's consciousness there is now the alpha animal “circle” and the alpha animal “ellipse”.

The dog thinks: “Alpha animal k (circle) wants me to be on plate B, otherwise he'll punish me. Alpha-Tier e (ellipse) wants me to be on plate A, otherwise he'll punish me. "

As a result of the learning process, neural patterns have emerged that allow the dog to comply with the will of both alpha animals. The will of the alpha animals k and e is different (panel A and B, respectively), but the alpha animals never appear at the same time, so there is no contradiction for the dog. If the dog can no longer distinguish the two alpha animals from one another, since an ellipse equals a circle, the dog no longer knows which alpha animal wants something from him. Both alpha animals now seem to be present at the same time. Since he does not want to receive a power surge, he has to do something without knowing what. He wants to adapt but doesn't know what is expected of him. He begins to guess: his neural system projects an imagined form of interpretation into the present reference form.

The probability of a current surge is 50% when e is equal to k. As long as the dog still believes it is able to identify the reference form, its neural processes are hyperactive. Only when he has recognized the utter futility of his endeavors does he give up the desire to adapt to the alpha animals. He will then continue to receive electrical surges, but his neural system is protected from collapse.

The neural patterns that originally formed as a result of conditioning begin to dissolve: the association is dissociated . And so the alpha animals lose their power over him.

Examples

Prohibition of authentic sensations

Example 1:

“How can you be unhappy? Didn't we give you everything you want? How can you be so ungrateful that you say you are unhappy after all that we have done for you, after all the sacrifices that have been made for you? "
Decoded this means: “You are not allowed to feel unhappy because we don't want it to; if you want to feel unhappy, feel guilty about it too. "
The son's endeavor to meet the expectations of his authoritarian parents has made him unhappy. The parents are now unreasonable and unwilling to take responsibility for it. They blame the son for this by interpreting his unhappiness as a rebellion out of ingratitude and not as a psychological decline: "He is only unhappy because he wants to annoy us!"
The son can only suppress his unhappiness in the sense of an adjustment to his parents if he denies his life experiences and thus part of his personality. Pressure to conform and the dominance of authority are therefore very high.

Be weak

Example 2:

Mother: I'm not angry that you talk like that. I know you don't really mean it.
Daughter: But I mean it.
Mother: Well, dear, I know you don't mean it. You cannot help yourself.
Daughter: I can help myself.
Mother: No, dear, I know you can't because you're sick. If I forgot for a moment that you were sick, then I would be very angry with you.
Decoded is the message from the mother's unconscious:
"If you don't accept that you are weak, helpless and insignificant, then I get angry",
or:
"I only accept your statements on the condition that you acknowledge that you are sick".
The daughter has the choice between the pseudo alternatives either not to be taken seriously or to be declared sick, whereby the paradox also consists in the fact that these communication structures are indeed disease-causing.
In this situation it is very difficult for the daughter to act meta-communicatively . The mother's communicative behavior hurts the daughter's feelings, but she cannot say what is actually so hurtful about the mother's statements. On the content level, their statements appear harmless, but in the context of the relationship level, they only develop their destructive effect.
If the daughter were to intervene meta-communicatively: “Mother, why do you never take me seriously and humiliate me?”, The mother would refer to the harmless content aspect of communication and thus reject the criticism as unjustified: “Don't get cheeky, you're crazy. "Or" You imagine that. "The mother's hostility is inconspicuous because it is coded in terms of content, but contextually very effective in a destructive sense.

Soup trap

Example 3:

Let us assume that a woman asks her husband: “This soup is based on a completely new recipe - do you like it?” If he likes it, he can easily say “yes” and she will be happy. But if he doesn't like it, and he doesn't care about disappointing it, he can easily say no. The situation is problematic when he thinks the soup is awful but doesn't want to offend his wife. On the so-called content level, that is, as far as the quality of the soup is concerned, his answer should be "no". On the relationship level he would have to say “yes” because he doesn't want to hurt her. So what is he saying? "Tastes interesting" in the hope that his wife will understand correctly. Or he says: "Tastes very good, but you don't need to cook again". (Watzlawick, Paul: Instructions on how to be unhappy )

Instruction disguised as a question

Example 4:

Mother asks her son: Can you just go to the supermarket and buy some butter?
Son: No, I'm playing!
Mother (angry): Then don't do it, but it's great that you're always so helpful!
The mother subliminally indicates that she is dissatisfied with the way her son is acting. The "open" question was actually an instruction or a request. The son now has no way of acting without emotional conflicts: If he does not go shopping, he offends his mother and confirms her accusation that he is not helpful; if he goes to buy butter, he will be in conflict with himself as he acts against his previous answer. Had the mother instructed her son directly or asked to go shopping, the conflict would not have arisen. The question was asked by her assuming that the son would answer in the affirmative. Had she been aware of this, she might have made her wish more direct.

Psychotic attack

An example from practice:

A mother comes to see her mentally ill son in the mental hospital to see him. She enters the room, her son walks up to her and wants to hug her in greeting. The mother backs away a little, whereupon the son ceases to hug her. Then she looks at him with a reproachful look and says: “What is it, don't you like me anymore?” The young man then suffers a psychotic attack and is immobilized with psychotropic drugs.
Interpretation of the practical example: The subtle retreat of the mother when the son tries to hug the mother was correctly interpreted by his unconscious as a rejection. Backing away means something like: “Don't hug me!” The son complies with this non-verbal wish and refrains from hugging his mother. So the son corresponds to his mother's wish; he adapts to her will.
A logical feedback in a healthy interpersonal interaction would now be that he is rewarded for it, for example with a small gesture from the mother. But he is verbally punished for this with a charge. “What a bad boy you are, you don't want to hug your mother!” So ​​the son is punished by his mother for doing her will. The son's primarily correct interpretation of the mother's retreat is now called into question. The son's primary behavior has been found to be an unsuitable behavioral strategy.
If the son had ignored his mother's backing away and still hugged her, she would have reproached him for this too. She might have thrown him a reproachful look in the sense of: "What would your father say if he saw that you were hugging his wife!" See also: Oedipus complex .
So there is absolutely no way out of the situation for the young man. Whatever he does, he gets negative feedback. Satisfying his mother, who appears to be overwhelming to him, seems extremely important to him. In his childhood he had the painful experience of how dangerous powerful caregivers can be who are not satisfied with his behavior.
His unconscious seems to be saying: “I'm going to go insane in this situation!” This conflict in the unconscious discharges, so to speak, through the psychotic attack, which is nothing more than a desperate attempt to break out of the hopeless situation with all his might . The will to break out is there, but the way to do it is completely unknown. The result is a seemingly pointless release of psychic energy.

Epistemological foundations

The double bond theory, which comes from social psychology, was largely developed by Gregory Bateson , Paul Watzlawick and their colleagues at the University of Palo Alto.

In the science scene of that time, Bateson found it difficult to make the difference between "cause and effect" and "difference and ideas", as he called the level itself, understandable. The research area of ​​science until well into the 20th century was characterized by measurements of physical natural forces. Mental powers and states of consciousness that cannot be directly measured physically have only been little researched as a result of their inaccessibility for scientific measurement methodology. Neuro-bioelectrical activity could be measured unspecifically, but not the mental-mental consciousness phenomena that correlated with them. The understanding that a communicative difference that makes a difference in context is a powerless unit of information (an idea or a bit) that works within a pattern only became known to the general public during the transition from the industrial to the information age.

Communication only appears to be directly related to the environment. In fact, it only refers to the inner mapping of the environment perceived by it according to its own laws, i.e. ultimately to itself. This self-referentiality, also known as self-referentiality or autoreferentiality, is typical for all communication.

Central operations of social systems are not actions that are carried out on the physical-material level, but communication that takes place on the spiritual-informational level. This communication is carried out through language, writing, facial expressions and gestures on multiple communication channels. Communication takes place between observer and observed on the subjective level of experience. Communication is not primarily the result of physical interaction between biological entities, but rather the manifestation of multiple networked, neural and social systems that is consciously perceived as an observer and observed on the subjective level.

The own self is not a system, but a point of identification within networked communication. Human society manifests itself through networked neural and social communication in the mind of the observer. This self-referential definition deliberately distinguishes itself from the deductive methods of classical, objectivistic science. The social system is viewed as a self-describing system that contains its own descriptions.

Society does not consist of unauthorized biological entities, but is a complex, networked, self-observing, self-referring observation system. In the beginning there is no uniform perspective, but the difference between the observer and the observed. The basic unit of this perspective is the operation of observation, which takes place as communication.

Observation is always an internal system operation, i.e. a construct within a system. The observation ( projection ) is always linked to selected observation perspectives ( selective perception ). This selection process is itself an expression of system-internal neural and social processes. So observation cannot see what does not manifest itself in the field of observation. Only a second order observer can observe this blind spot . At the level of second-order observation one arrives at a multi-layered networked world ( group dynamics , internet ) as an observer of consciously recognizing identification points in the physical space-time continuum.

In this sense, there are neither things nor events in the environment : everything that can be observed is the own contribution (= construction) of the observer, the operating system. This therefore also applies to the knowledge of a difference between reality and construction. Knowledge thus leads back to distinctions , which in turn lead back to distinctions, etc.

Treatment approaches

With treatment approaches rather than treatment approaches are meant for the treatment of schizophrenia in this paragraph, but rather treatment approaches for the resolution of a double bond communication structure and the associated stress disorder .

Against the pathogenic effect of double bonds, Watzlawick introduced the therapeutic double bond in the form of positive symptom prescription as a paradoxical intervention in psychological treatment practice according to the principle "similia similibus curantur" (Latin for "same heals same") .

This treatment approach "paradosso e controparadosso" was further developed by the Italian psychotherapist Selvini Palazzoli as part of a systemic model of family therapy and used in particular to treat anorexic young women and their families.

According to Watzlawick, the preliminary, meaningless and detached from the actual intentions to act (i.e., manipulation-free) character (of a communication) is the structural and necessary prerequisite for human communication.

Double bond theory in connection with the development of schizophrenia

Forms of communication

In extreme cases, when the communication is often characterized by such double messages, this can lead to severe psychological disorders in the addressee . The theory of the double bond takes place in the schizophrenia research as well as the communication theory an important role and is increasingly used for the analysis and description of pathological communication in the individual area in psychotherapy and in the social sphere in the social psychology and the pedagogy used.

Schizophrenia research, which is oriented towards communication theory, works with the hypothesis that long-lasting communication experiences based on the pattern of double bonds lead to communication structures in the victim that are almost identical to the clinical criteria of schizophrenia: The victim loses more and more often and ultimately, when he breaks out into psychosis , completely the opportunity to experience and apply socially binding forms of communication in meaningful contexts.

Family situation

According to Bateson's hypothesis, the family situation of the schizophrenic exhibits the following general characteristics:

  1. A child whose mother gets scared and withdraws as soon as the child reacts to the mother like a loving mother. That is, the very existence of the child has a special meaning for the mother, which arouses fear and hostility in her as soon as there is a risk of coming into intimate contact with the child.
  2. A mother who cannot accept her feelings of fear and hostility towards the child and therefore denies it by showing loving behavior to induce the child to see her as the loving mother and to withdraw, if the child doesn't. “Loving behavior” does not necessarily imply affection; for example, it can be part of an effort to do the right thing, instill "goodness", etc.
  3. The absence of someone in the family, e.g. B. a strong and insightful father who can interfere in the relationship between mother and child and support the child in the face of contradictions.

genetics

Regarding genetics, Bateson writes: “There must of course also be genetic components in the aetiology of transcontextual syndromes . For example, genetic components could determine the ability to learn or the potential to acquire this ability to become trans-contextual. Conversely, the genome could produce skills to withstand trans-contextual pathways, or the potentiality to achieve them. "

trans-contextual means: going beyond the normal conceptual frame of reference, almost like a philosophy of life,

Controversial umbrella term

There is no single schizophrenia. There is only a variety of mental disorders that Eugen Bleuler summarized as the group of schizophrenias at the beginning of the last century. They are so different in their appearance and their course that there is always a discussion as to whether all disorders summarized under this umbrella term also belong in one group. This is not an antipsychiatric discovery . There is agreement that these disorders do not treat the disease, but disease states. Because the diseases from the schizophrenic group present such a mixed picture, a uniform treatment is not possible.

Criticism of the double bond theory

  • With regard to the theory of the development of schizophrenia, it has not been empirically proven that double bonds actually occur more frequently in families with people suffering from schizophrenia. Even if this were the case, it would be unclear whether the psychotic symptoms were a consequence or trigger of the communication problems. The general doctrine of psychiatry is based on a multifactorial genesis of schizophrenia. Genetic factors and environmental influences work together, the latter also include family influences. Evidence that double bonds play a greater role in the development of schizophrenia is still lacking. This explanatory approach therefore plays a minor role in the academic training of psychologists and medical professionals.
  • In this presentation, the double bond theory is caught up in a functional perspective in which the sender of the message has an effect on the recipient of the message.
  • There is largely no representation or systemic consideration of the framework conditions that induce the sender of a double bond message to communicate in such a way. (There is now a work on this: * Systemic Psychotherapy: Ways out of the dilemma - Understanding and solving double binds (2005) ISBN 3-9809936-1-2 )

Films on the subject

  • Family life . Feature film, Great Britain 1971. Director: Ken Loach , screenplay: David Mercer . The film develops the communication-theoretical theory of antipsychiatry around Ronald D. Laing , the double bond theory. Starring Sandy Ratcliff as the schizophrenic Janice. In 1972 the film received the FIPRESCI Prize in Berlin .
  • Psycho by Alfred Hitchcock : The young Norman Bates, played by Anthony Perkins, is emotionally torn between his imaginary mother, whose orders are supposed to keep him from dating young women, and his affection for a young woman, the guest his motel is. He resolves the conflict by murdering the young woman.
  • 2001: A Space Odyssey by Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick : The writer Arthur C. Clarke came up with one of the dramatic episodes of 2001, in which the point is that there isno reasonfor an artificial intelligence to be less vulnerable to double bonds being as a biological intelligence . The HAL computerwas instructed by the scientific management to cooperate uncompromisingly with the team. At the same time, he was bound by instructions from the military authorities to conceal the real purpose of the mission from the crew until they arrived on Jupiter. Confused, HAL tries to hint at one of the astronauts about his conflict. Shortly afterwards, HAL simulates a disturbance in the communication system in order to distract from the conversation. After the fake communication disruption was discovered, two of the astronauts are considering turning off HAL. When HAL hears about this, he sees the mission at risk, which contradicts his programming to absolutely protect the mission. HAL evades the double bond by starting to kill the crew - the only way to still be able to live up to orders and not lose control of the mission.

See also

literature

  • Christiane Sautter, Alexander Sautter: Ways out of the dilemma - understanding and resolving double binds. Publishing house for systemic concepts, 2005, ISBN 3-9809936-1-2 (systemic psychotherapy).
  • Fritz B. Simon: My psychosis, my bike and I - for self-organization of madness. Carl-Auer Verlag, 2004, ISBN 3-89670-461-3 .
  • Karen Kaplan-Solms, Mark Solms : Neuro-Psychoanalysis. An introduction with case studies. 3. Edition. Klett-Cotta, 2003, ISBN 3-608-95989-0 (Neuro-Psychoanalysis).
  • Wolfgang Zysk: Body Language - A New View. Dissertation. University of Duisburg-Essen, 2004 (communication theory).
  • Reinhard Barrabas: Core areas of psychology. An introduction to film examples. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2013, ISBN 978-3-8252-3850-6 . For the above Film Family Life (R Ken Loach, GB 1971) see pp. 134-136.

The following are also relevant in various areas:

Paul Watzlawick, Janet H. Beavin, Don D. Jackson: Human communication: forms, disorders, paradoxes. 12th, unchanged. Edition. Huber, Bern [a. a.] 2011, pp. 231–241.

Web links

Double bond

schizophrenia

Others

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Arnold, Eysenck, Meili: Lexicon of Psychology . Double-bind-hypothesis, p. 390, Bechtermünz Verlag, 1996, ISBN 3-86047-508-8 .
  2. ↑ Gerhard Stumm (Ed.): Personal Lexicon of Psychotherapy. Springer, 2006, ISBN 3-211-83818-X .
  3. ↑ a b M. Pinquart: Social conditions of mental disorders. In: HU Wittchen, J. Hoyer (Ed.): Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy. (2nd ed.). Springer, Heidelberg 2011, ISBN 978-3-642-13017-5 .
  4. ↑ a b K. Hahlweg: Schizophrenia. In: S. Schneider, J. Margraf (Ed.): Textbook of behavior therapy. Volume 2: Disorders in Adulthood - Special Indications - Glossary . Springer, Heidelberg 2006, ISBN 3-540-79542-1 .
  5. ↑ a b E.-R. Rey: Schizophrenia. In: H. Reinecker (Ed.): Textbook of clinical psychology and psychotherapy. Models of mental disorders (4th ed.). Hogrefe, Göttingen 2003, ISBN 3-8017-1712-7 .
  6. ↑ Friedemann Schulz von Thun : Talking to one another . Rowohlt Verlag (rororo), ISBN 3-499-17489-8
  7. ↑ Watzlawick et al. 1969, quoted from: Reiner HE Bastine, Klinische Psychologie , Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, Vol. 1, 3rd edition, 1998.
  8. ↑ John H. Weakland: Double-bind hypothesis and three-way relationship .
  9. ↑ Jim Robbins: A Symphony in the Brains . Grove Press, New York, ISBN 0-8021-3819-5 , Chapter 2, p. 35.
  10. ↑ Jim Robbins: A Symphony in the Brains . Grove Press, New York, ISBN 0-8021-3819-5 , Chapter 3, p. 58.