Author Topic: DOUBLE BIND: Mind Control in the TTI  (Read 17280 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Awake

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 409
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: DOUBLE BIND: Mind Control in the TTI
« Reply #15 on: June 13, 2010, 01:07:56 AM »
Truthfully, Danny, if I have made it sound easy it is because I am only regurgitating the ideas of some very smart people that happen to be at the root of the epistemology of the TTI. I touched on the answer to your question in my post NLP: Evolving the Double Bind, a truly powerful skill within that context.  viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30591&p=364699&hilit=nlp#p364699

Your answer comes from Watzlawicks first axiom of communication, ‘One cannot not communicate’. I’m glad you asked the question Danny because it does go far beyond this simplistic little statement, but it is also the answer to your question… no, one cannot not learn from their situation. They have written in detail about this, but for starters check this out.




http://www.doyletics.com/art/pohcart.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Watzlawick

Pragmatics of Human Communication
A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies, and Paradoxes
Chapter: Psychotherapy



by

Paul Watzlawick, Janet Beavin Bavelas, and Donald D. Jackson
Published by W. W. Norton and Co/NY in 1967
Book Review by Bobby Matherne ©2007


Axiom: One Can Not Not Communicate. "Behavior has no opposite; one cannot not behave," the authors say, "if it is accepted that all behavior in an interactional situation has message value, i. e., is communication, it follows that no matter how one may try, one cannot not communicate." (from page 48) One need only watch the police psychiatrist on the tv program Law & Order interview reluctant suspects as to their state of mind during a criminal act to confirm that one cannot not communicate. Whatever the suspects do or say during the interview, the psychiatrist develops a diagnosis of their state of mind during the act in question.


[page 50,51] The impossibility of not communicating is a phenomenon of more than theoretical interest. It is, for instance, part and parcel of the schizophrenic "dilemma." If the schizophrenic behavior is observed with etiological considerations in abeyance, it appears that the schizophrenic tries to not communicate. But since even nonsense, silence, withdrawal, immobility (postural silence), or any other form of denial is itself a communication, the schizophrenic is faced with the impossible task of denying that he is communicating and at the same time denying that his denial is a communication.





.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline DannyB II

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3273
  • Karma: +5/-0
    • View Profile
Re: DOUBLE BIND: Mind Control in the TTI
« Reply #16 on: June 13, 2010, 01:56:30 PM »
Sorry I was a little late in moving my post here it is:
Awake you make it all sound so simple like you get it and the thousands of professionals in and out of the TTI don't. This is a amazing analysis, Double Bind. It is a model for the Program I attended yet I seriously don't believe that Joe Ricci or Dr. Gerald Davidson understood or where cognizant of, the complexities of this method/manipulation of communication, no way. They did not know this is what was going on nor the power of it (neither did I).
Now I have a little brain here and I will try to ask the questions I have been wanting to ask since this came about. Here is a comment you made above, "A better approach to understanding it is to ask the question ‘how does the TTI not represent a double bind context"? Please explain. Another question what happens when all the examples are not met you mentioned above and the program is not forcing you to do the behavioral modification exercises but rather Teaching. Isn't being taught optional in it's essence, you (the projectipant) decide.

danny

P.S. I am also posting this on the Double Bind thread.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Stand and fight, till there is no more.

Offline DannyB II

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3273
  • Karma: +5/-0
    • View Profile
Re: DOUBLE BIND: Mind Control in the TTI
« Reply #17 on: June 13, 2010, 06:30:46 PM »
Quote
Quote from: "Awake"
Truthfully, Danny, if I have made it sound easy it is because I am only regurgitating the ideas of some very smart people that happen to be at the root of the epistemology of the TTI. I touched on the answer to your question in my post NLP: Evolving the Double Bind, a truly powerful skill within that context.  viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30591&p=364699&hilit=nlp#p364699


Thanks Awake for responding. EpistemologyResults:
The study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity.
Some points of interest I pulled out.

A. study or a theory of the....

B. nature and grounds of knowledge......
nature results: The inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing : essence,  disposition, temperament

grounds results: 1. A basis for belief, action, or argument  - ?  for complaint  - often used in plural  - sufficient ?s  for divorce.

2. A fundamental logical condition.
 
3. A basic "metaphysical" cause especially with reference to its limits and validity......

[metaphysical results: 2a.Of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses  b. supernatural 3. Highly abstract or  abstruse also theoretical]

C. especially with reference to its limits and validity.
A basic "metaphysical" cause especially with reference to its limits and validity......
Your answer comes from Watzlawicks first axiom of communication, ‘One cannot not communicate’. I’m glad you asked the question Danny because it does go far beyond this simplistic little statement, but it is also the answer to your question… no, one cannot not learn from their situation. They have written in detail about this, but for starters check this out.




http://www.doyletics.com/art/pohcart.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Watzlawick

Pragmatics of Human Communication
A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies, and Paradoxes
Chapter: Psychotherapy



by

Paul Watzlawick, Janet Beavin Bavelas, and Donald D. Jackson
Published by W. W. Norton and Co/NY in 1967
Book Review by Bobby Matherne ©2007


Axiom: One Can Not Not Communicate. "Behavior has no opposite; one cannot not behave," the authors say, "if it is accepted that all behavior in an interactional situation has message value, i. e., is communication, it follows that no matter how one may try, one cannot not communicate." (from page 48) One need only watch the police psychiatrist on the tv program Law & Order interview reluctant suspects as to their state of mind during a criminal act to confirm that one cannot not communicate. Whatever the suspects do or say during the interview, the psychiatrist develops a diagnosis of their state of mind during the act in question.


[page 50,51] The impossibility of not communicating is a phenomenon of more than theoretical interest. It is, for instance, part and parcel of the schizophrenic "dilemma." If the schizophrenic behavior is observed with etiological considerations in abeyance, it appears that the schizophrenic tries to not communicate. But since even nonsense, silence, withdrawal, immobility (postural silence), or any other form of denial is itself a communication, the schizophrenic is faced with the impossible task of denying that he is communicating and at the same time denying that his denial is a communication.





.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Stand and fight, till there is no more.

Offline Awake

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 409
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: DOUBLE BIND: Mind Control in the TTI
« Reply #18 on: June 13, 2010, 08:23:18 PM »
@ Danny - I was feeling dissatisfied with my response before and wanted to add more, if you are interested. I also was confused a bit about how to answer your questions b/c  of the way you asked them, so maybe you can help me with that.

 You asked me to answer my own question, ‘how does the TTI not represent a double bind context?’  I have not found an answer, this thread is my support for that assertion.  


Although I did use the axiom ‘One cannot not communicate’ to attempt to answer your question, ‘… what happens when the program is not forcing you  to do the behavioral modification excercises, but rather Teaching. Isn’t being taught optional in it’s essence, you (the projectipant) decide.’  I’m not so sure I really understand it the way it is asked.

To clarify my confusion, let me start with the word I’ve been using ‘projectipant’.  This word is supposed to compliment the process that does not make any delineations between those who are choosing it or forced into it.  

Now the first part of why I am confused as to how to answer is b/c you asked, what happens if you are not forced, but you also used the word projectipant, which implies a situation of force.  So, if the situation is NOT forced, then you can’t be a projectipant, you are a participant.  I would also let this statement include situations in which informed consent as to the process is not presented, and though an agreement on the part of a subject may be made, there can be no expectation that the individual had an understanding for what was chosen.


One last confusing part is in asking, What happens when the program is not forcing you to do the behavior modification excercises, but rather Teaching.’

That is a tough question to get specific about.  I suppose I have to ask you what you mean by ‘teaching’ because, in family systems theory, learning does occur consciously, but very much of our learning occurs outside of our conscious awareness.  There are many theories of learning. Behavior modification is a concept from the behavioral sciences,  very much connected with the authors I have been discussing.  Behavior modification has distinct roots in creating change outside of the awareness of the subject.  I think if using behavior modification techniques required truly informed consent on the part of the subject it would severely handicap it’s functionality.  So when you say ‘teaching’ I interpret that as reffering to the learning that  is occurring within ones conscious awareness,  and teaching behavioral modification excercises then, I feel, means the student is being taught how to use the process, or about the context of the process, not learning as a result of the process that is not made known to them.


One particular theory of learning that was developed by Bateson applies here.  This is Deutero- learning which is sometimes called ‘learning to learn’.  I’ll work on pulling up some better info on this, I know I can find it somewhere, but for now, Danny, I think you in particular might enjoy this, I could be wrong, just a hunch.  But as you read consider my question to you, what do you mean by ‘teacher’, when you asked me before.

“… Deutero- learning has to do with the perception of context and the learning of classes of behavior.  

…. Another insightful example of deutero learning phenomena occurs in the development of “experimental neurosis” in laboratory animals. This occurs when an animal, trained to discriminate between two stimuli, an elipse and a circle for example, is forced to continue making the discrimination as the stimuli are made to match each other more and more closely until discrimination becomes impossible. At this point the animal will begin to exhibit symptoms such as refusal to eat, attacking the trainer, even become comatose.   An animal that has not been pre-trained, when presented with the undiscriminable stimuli will not show any of the symptoms but simply guess randomly.”

http://nlpuniversitypress.com/html/D19.html


“LEVELS OF LEARNING

In 1942, Gregory Bateson introduced the concept of 'deutero-learning' to denote the processes of learning to learn.  According to Bateson, learning to learn means the acquisition of certain abstract habits of thought like "'free will', instrumental thinking, dominance, passivity, etc." (Bateson 1972, 166). As Bateson further noted, "even within the duration of the single learning experiment we must suppose that some deutero-learning  will occur" (Bateson 1972, 169). Deutero-learning often takes place as tacit acquisition of non-conscious apperceptive habits.
In 1969, Bateson presented a more sophisticated version of his learning theory. He worked out a complex hierarchy of the processes of learning, based upon "an hierarchic classification of the types of error which are to be corrected in the various learning processes" (Bateson 1972, 287). He summarized the hierarchy as follows.


"Zero learning  is characterized by specificity of response, which - right or wrong - is not subjected to correction.


Learning I  is change  in  specificity of response  by correction of errors of choice within a set of alternatives.


Learning II  is change in the process of Learning I,  e.g.,  a corrective change in the set of alternatives from which choice is made, or it is a change in how the sequence of experience is punctuated.


Learning  III  is  change in the process of Learning II,  e.g., a corrective change in the system of sets  of alternatives from which choice is made. (We shall see later that to demand this level of performance of some men and some mammals is sometimes pathogenic.)


Learning IV  would be change in Learning III,  but probably does not occur in any adult living organism on this earth. Evolutionary process has, however, created organisms whose ontogeny brings them to Level III. The combination of phylogenesis with ontogenesis, in fact, achieves  Level IV." (Bateson 1972, 293.)


According to Bateson, Learning I comprises the forms of learning treated by various versions of connectionism: habituation, Pavlovian conditioning,  operant conditioning, rote learning, extinction. "In Learning I, every item  of perception or behavior may be stimulus or response  or reinforcement according to how the total sequence of interaction is punctuated", Bateson (1972, 292) notes. On the other hand, Learning II or learning to learn (deutero-learning) means the acquisition of the context or structure of some type of Learning I. Thus, common descriptions of a person's 'character' are actually characterizations of the results of Learning II. "It follows that Learning II acquired in infancy is likely to persist through life." (Bateson 1972, 301.)


The outcomes of Learning II, the habits or the 'character', save the individual from "having to examine the abstract, philosophical, aesthetic, and ethical aspects of many sequences of life" (Bateson 1972, 303). Learning III, on the other hand, is essentially conscious self-alteration: it will "throw these unexamined premises open to question and change" (Bateson 1972, 303). Learning III is a rare event, produced by the contradictions of Learning II. On Level III, the individual learns to control, limit and direct his Learning II. He   becomes conscious of his habits and their formation. "Certainly it must lead to a greater flexibility in the premises acquired by the process of Learning II - a freedom from their bondage." (Bateson 1972, 304.)


The power of Bateson's argument has been amply testified by a  number of eloquent analyses of the 'hidden curriculum' in school learning (see especially Levy 1976) as well as by works like those of Argyris and Schön (1974; 1978)  on 'single-loop learning' and 'double-loop learning' in organizations  and professions.  The unconscious learning to learn, acquiring the context of 'how to make it' in school and work, is a fact readily observable every day. Learning III seems indeed a rare event.   http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/Engestro ... ng/ch3.htm .


.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Eliscu2

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 526
  • Karma: +3/-0
  • New World Order
    • View Profile
EDUCATION
« Reply #19 on: June 14, 2010, 12:38:29 PM »
Bump, cause this is some good shit!
 :eek:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
WELCOME TO HELL!

Offline Anne Bonney

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5006
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: DOUBLE BIND: Mind Control in the TTI
« Reply #20 on: June 17, 2010, 12:43:59 PM »
:bump:

 :nods:  :nods:  :notworthy:  :notworthy:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
traight, St. Pete, early 80s
AA is a cult http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cult.html

The more boring a child is, the more the parents, when showing off the child, receive adulation for being good parents-- because they have a tame child-creature in their house.  ~~  Frank Zappa

Offline Anne Bonney

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5006
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: DOUBLE BIND: Mind Control in the TTI
« Reply #21 on: June 17, 2010, 01:00:28 PM »
This is some really good stuff!   God, it explains a lot.   :eek:


Quote from: "Awake"
And the Double Bind is a control method for the TTI as well, inherently enmeshed in its makeup and function.  A ‘Troubled Teen’ program would contain all of the elements of a Double Bind.

•   a) The victim of double bind receives contradictory injunctions.
•    b) No metacommunication is possible
•   c) The victim cannot leave the communication field
•   d) Failing to fulfill the contradictory injunctions is punished
•   e) an intense relationship, e.g., in family life, captivity, love, loyalty,

Innumerable Double binds emerge from the TTI framework. The first Double Bind is the one contained in the label ‘troubled teen’ and the result of that label being ‘therapy’.
The child is given the identification label ‘troubled’ simply by being placed in a program.  He is also in a therapeutic environment and is motivated (in various ways) to progress in therapy BECAUSE of the label. The paradoxical injunction is that therapy is by nature a choice to accept help in changing. The context in which the therapy is held presupposes the patient be open, honest, trust the therapist, and accept a social position in which he is to take direction and advice, and it necessarily would betray the rules within the context of therapy by making any assertions that the therapists is misguided, inaccurate, unethical, or give advice in any way.  The therapist is not the candidate for change in such a situation, the therapist has the inherent power, and to be challenged in those areas constitutes an interpretation of that communication as coming from the patients ‘false’ perception of reality. Any such challenge, or behavior, will be punished.

Upon being placed in this Double Bind their every action/interaction will be scrutinized and analyzed under the context of therapy. The teen may attempt to meta- communicate in order to remove the situation by saying, “I don’t deserve to be here, not troubled, I don’t have these problems, I don’t want your help” or attempt to deny the therapeutic atmosphere, but doing so will only work to further identify him as ‘troubled’ by construing his attempts with more labels like ‘closed off’, ‘isolating’, ‘resistant’ ‘defensive’or ‘in denial’. These labels will then be used as evidence that he needs therapy and he will be held accountable (suffer consequences, punishment) for his failure to make progress. Eventually the teen will conclude that the only way out of the situation is to ‘get well’, which consequently requires admitting they are in fact troubled. At this point they may lie about how they feel about their problems or lie about their problems all together.

At this point the Double Bind has forced the child into a situation where he must “play at not playing” the game of getting well. A citation that expounds on this from Watzlawick, in ‘Change. P.70’ :

“…The patient is considered unable to make the right decisions by himself- they have to be made for him and for his own good. If he fails to see this, his failure is yet another proof of his incapacity. This creates a terribly paradoxical situation requiring patients and staff to “play at not playing” the game of getting well. Sanity in the hospital is that conduct which is keeping with very definite norms; these norms should  be obeyed spontaneously and not because they are imposed; as long as they are imposed, the patient is considered sick.

This being so the old strategy for obtaining ones speedy release from a mental hospital is more than a joke:

(a) Develop a flamboyant symptom that has considerable nuisance value for the whole ward;
(b) Attatch yourself to a new doctor in need of his first success;
(c) let him cure you rapidly of your symptom; and
(d) make him thus into the most fervent advocate of your regained sanity.”

In the TTI, this ultimately becomes the function of the Double Bind that maintains the illusion of success. Another quote that describes this well,

““… whatever else these institutions do , one of their central effects is to sustain the self- conception of the professional staff employed there. Inmates and lower staff levels are involved in a vast supportive action- an elaborate dramatized tribute- that has the effect, if not the purpose, of affirming that medical- like service is in progress here and the psychiatric staff is providing it. Something about the weakness of this claim is suggested by the industry required to support it.

….’ Mental patients can find themselves in a special bind. To get out of the hospital or ease their lives within it. They must show acceptance of the place accorded them, and the place accorded them is to support the occupational role of those who appear to force this bargain. This self alienating moral servitude, which perhaps helps to account for some inmates becoming mentally confused, is achieved by invoking the great tradition of the expert servicing  relation, especially its medical variety.’
--Double Bind: the foundation of the communicational approach to the family”

Within the framework of this Double Bind in a ‘troubled teen’ program, this first step of ‘playing at not playing’ the game of getting well, (or pretending to be serious about getting well), is the first step towards adding binds during the course of treatment to further control behavior and mold habits. There is no avoiding progressing to a point of admitting they have a problem. The very obvious distress due to being taken captive is expected to be shared openly in the context of therapy. The teen that tries to avoid playing into the therapy game in such a situation must hide their own distress with meticulous self control in order to not be observed in such a state. Otherwise they will have to give in to expressing their honest feelings with the knowledge that it will only work to strengthen the bind that they are in.

At this point the Double Bind confuses the ability of the child to perceive certain meanings. The concepts ‘help’ and ‘hurt’ become synonymous or take on their opposites when trying to interpret even simple interpersonal communications. The teen is approached with helpful, loving, benevolent attitudes but the transaction is one that disqualifies and hurts him. This could come from the statement, ‘You want to be here, you just don’t know it.’ Additionally he is supposed to pretend he is accepting of these transactions as help when they are really perceived as hurtful. If he shows that he perceives their ‘help’ as hurt he will be seen as sick and resisting. Eventually this can distort how he perceives the meanings contained in normal friendly interactions. The context containing loving, benevolent attitudes may cause him to act agreeable, open, and friendly as a defensive action against what he perceives to be threatening.

The Double Bind pattern in the TTI at this point is as follows:

The first double-bind is due to the expectation that programs place on teens that in order to progress in therapy they must admit they have problems. This with the knowledge that to accept that fact will only support the accusation that he is ‘troubled’ so deeply he cannot make decisions for himself.

The second double-bind is in implying to the child that all the actions being taken are entirely for his or her own good and should not be seen as punishment. It is presented as a result of this situation that encompasses the conflicting messages sent within the contexts of ‘force’ and ‘therapy’. That is, there is undeniably a utilization of force in a TTI program via the use of various reward/punishment motivators, yet the actions will be taken as a testament to their individual progress in therapy.  Therapy itself, within the context of force, is a punishment. The punishment ends up being one where the victim must pretend to believe he understands it as help and play the part of getting better. These conflicting messages are heard clearly, yet meta-communication is not possible as it is seen as a challenge to their authority. The messages ‘You will be punished for not making progress’ and ‘Take ownership of your work’ are in open conflict, yet to avoid being labeled ‘sick’ action must be taken that denies the reality that force is involved. This is done by challenging the victim to make statements that he is genuine, accountable, honest etc. essentially teaching him how to play the game of maintaining the illusion of therapy. If they progress it is due to accepting accountability while actions suggesting they don’t want to be there are cast off as ‘sick’ and therefore the focus of more ‘therapy’ or punishment .

The third double-bind is to view another as sick and damaged and then express love and compassion for them. The child must take messages that negate him, but gratefully as they are coming from the standpoint of love and care.

A fourth Double Bind Emerges out of the peer group framework in which teens graduate together in different stages. Individual growth in the TTI is dependent on a process of group growth. This brings about a core concept in the TTI which is that each child is there to support each others growth in therapy. It will be a requirement  for the child to progress individually by supporting positions and adopting attitudes in concert with the therapy when interacting with peers. This environment where the patients are acting as each other’s therapist means that it is implied that, just as each person is to enforce the rules, each person is to also act from the standpoint of care, love and help to overcome each others assumed maladjustment, just as the staff of the program are supposed to behave. This bind becomes important in a highly structured environment because a stated rule that says, ‘you must love and support each other, or you will be punished’ makes it impossible to know for sure whether caring communication is honest or just given under orders. In an environment that demands each person be seen as open, honest, and caring under threat of punishment, a simple casual moment between friends can lose its meaning and become ambiguous, undefined and lead to confusion. Even the most genuine attempts at friendly communication can be invalidated.

These Double binds form an invisible cage in which every action is just an attempt to win a zero sum game. This is how the messages would come across if the TTI were to simplify their paradoxical injunctions.

“You are sick for thinking we are forcing you to treatment for our own selfish reasons, we are only doing this for your own good. You are sick because you think you don’t want treatment. You are so sick you don’t know what you want. You are not yourself. You must believe that our treatment of you is an act of selflessness, sympathy, and compassion for the damaged individual you are. Your isolated and confrontational attitude is a measure of your level of sickness and inability to understand the generosity of the staff peers who care about you getting well. You must believe our claim that you are troubled and must take responsibility and be accountable for the fact that you are not in control of yourself. Then you can learn to get in control of yourself by learning to deny your perceptions of reality in favor of ours.”

What are the dangers of the Double Bind?

The Double bind, as stated, imposes a context in which one must deny certain aspects of reality.  In a sense it is a forced hypnosis that requires that a person repress, or cover up, their spontaneous feelings and reactions to their perceived reality and rely on re-representing them via imaginary constructs to successfully navigate their environment.  This means the person will be dissociated from themselves and reality. This dissociation of self is an inherent function of the Double Bind and, as the original theory suggests, dissociation is a focal point of a rich history in psychology that seeks to understand mental illness. An immense topic that comprises a huge portion of psychoanalysis, dissociation is presumed to account for a variety of mental illnesses along the spectrum Bi-polar, Dissociative Identity Disorder, Schizophrenia, and Multiple Personality Disorder.

The dangers of TTI programs are that if a person that cannot escape or transcend the communicational field they can suffer serious psychological damage as a result. This is because as humans we must be able to handle communication involving multiple logical types that convey information on different levels of abstraction. When communicating we must identify signals that allude to the communicational mode being used. Examples of communicational modes:

Play, non-play, fantasy, metaphor, humor. We tend to rely on non-verbal communication to meta-communicate (communicate about our communication), like posture, tone of voice, gesturing, facial expressions etc.  In this way we frame and label messages, and as in humor we re-frame our messages perhaps communicating something literally at first and then reframing it metaphorically. Like when someone betrays another, and that other yells out in pain, turns his back and says, ‘take this knife out of my back.’

The correct logical typing of communicational modes is a learned skill that is necessary in order to feel stable in your social environment. In the TTI there will be much ambiguity due to a context that presumes that others are falsifying their mode-identifying signals whether it be a manipulative simulation of friendliness, artificial laugh, contrived emotions, the confidence trick. This context which interrupts successful meta-communication disrupts the ability to discriminate communicational modes between the self and others. Eventually this will lead to difficulty in assigning the correct communicational mode to his own messages, thoughts, sensations and perceptions. Maintained within a structured environment this falsification of signals can become habitual and unconscious as well as the falsification of the child’s understanding of another person’s mode identifying signals. He may mistake benevolence for contempt etc.  Eventually simple day to day social contact can constitute a threat to ones stable sense of self.

The TTI through clear lenses:  Coercion as treatment and results that defy logic.

The TTI itself capitalizes on their own errors in logical typing when communicating the meanings of the words ‘therapy, symptom, patient, treatment, cure, and results’. There are two errors of logical typing that redefine the meaning of these words within the TTI framework.

First is the one that identifies the symptom (problem) on the level of family, but treats an individual member. This family system is the original unit of analysis when identifying the disruption and the strategy to regain stability. Yet the identified symptom will then be treated as it applies to the individual with the result given in terms of ‘personal growth’. This process of treatment constitutes a breach in logical typing that says a class cannot be a member of itself nor can one of the members be the class. (A class of pencils is not a pencil, a pencil is not a class of pencils.) In this way a class of individuals (family) can define a problem, but applying the solution to the individual (member) constitutes the error of logical typing that identifies the member as the class within which it belongs.

The second is the one that re-defines ‘therapy’ (or fails to) under the context of force. Under the context of the Double Bind individual, ‘personal growth’ cannot be evaluated, in fact it necessitates understanding that these results can’t be determined under such a heading.  The presupposition in such a situation is that the victim has no choice, and so individual achievements are an illusion and personal pride for such is to take accountability for the behavior changes that others forced on you. This is another error of logical typing that does not recognize the different levels of abstraction that occur in contexts requiring proper delineation of ‘self’ and ‘other’, at the consequence of misinterpreting ‘force’ and ‘free choice’.

Within such illogical thought processes the logical meanings of the words ‘ therapy, treatment, cure, patient’ come to mean ‘coercive persuasion, punishment, dominating, and victim.’

The lines of logic that we must follow is that to truly gain perspective on the results and effectiveness of the TTI we would have to be able analyze how the Double Bind effects those results. This would require a control experiment that reproduced a TTI model without Double Binds to compare the results. The simple fact of the matter is that the TTI would not be able to function. This being the case we can ONLY see the results as being a function of the Double Bind, and the TTI as a whole can only exists as the paradoxical result of its own pathological thinking.

There is also another dilemma that prevents us from being able to decipher the results of the TTI. This is the ethical problem that prevents us from conducting more conclusive investigations into the Double Bind. In order to replicate the Double Bind in the TTI, it could not be properly represented by using volunteers, as it is not a choice given to the teen. As well there is a violation of ethics, even in a voluntary circumstance, present in conducting an experiment where the theoretical result is to cause psychological harm. Adding to this:

“Let us put it his way: if one were intrigued by a sequence of events proposed to account for certain types of pathology in communication, and that sequence is formalized as a theoretical proposition about what happens when important basic relationships are chronically subjected to invalidation through paradoxical interaction, and it is further specified that an intense relationship, repeated experience, and inability to comment upon or escape the situation are all necessary components, would one do an experiment with college sophomores or VA volunteers? Probably not.
--Double Bind: the foundation of the communicational approach to the family”

And I would further this comment by saying, why would we experiment on teenagers against their will?

For those dedicated readers I’ll leave you with a final quote from R.D. Laing in his book ‘Knots’.

“They are playing a game. They are playing at not playing a game. If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me. I must play their game, of not seeing  I see the game.”
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
traight, St. Pete, early 80s
AA is a cult http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cult.html

The more boring a child is, the more the parents, when showing off the child, receive adulation for being good parents-- because they have a tame child-creature in their house.  ~~  Frank Zappa

Offline Awake

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 409
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: DOUBLE BIND: Mind Control in the TTI
« Reply #22 on: June 18, 2010, 10:55:41 PM »
Thx for the responses! It is nice to know I don’t feel alone here.  I’ve  written something here, just for fun, and specifically for Fornits, on this topic. …. :hug:  ... so here it is...


Alright, I am putting myself in the spotlight right now. I was going to respond to a post on another page and ended up writing this instead.  So just for fun I am posting these lyrics I wrote as a humorous take on the Double Bind, with particular focus on the ‘Be Spontaneous’ paradox as it applies to ‘personal growth’, human potential, LGAT’s, the Troubled Teen Industry and the like.  A little beer and Fornits, in this case, ended up in a little fun for me, so here it is for you Fornits, just for you.  I hope you like.

(BTW: I have been imagining this going with southern gospel, don’t know if that works for U.)


 BE SPONTANEOUS.   -Awake


Be spontaneous! Do it right now!
Be spontaneous! Don’t you want to be free!
Be spontaneous! But don’t try too hard.
Be spontaneous! Or don’t, if that’s how you want to be



Be spontaneous! Don’t keep yourself in a cage.
Be spontaneous! Just let yourself out.
Be spontaneous! Strip away your inhibitions
Be spontaneous! Isn’t that what it’s all about?



Be spontaneous! Let it come out naturally
Be spontaneous! Show everyone who you are
Be spontaneous! I think your holding back a little
Be spontaneous! Or maybe tryin too hard



Be spontaneous! It’s not hard to be you
Be spontaneous! Just relax and let go
Be spontaneous! You understand what I’m saying
Be spontaneous! So just do what your told


Be spontaneous! Cuz you can’t really do it
Be spontaneous! But you can try to anyway
Be spontaneous! But if you do do something
Be spontaneous! You’re just doin what I say



Be spontaneous! Don’t be spontaneous then
Be spontaneous! Don’t do what you’re told
Be spontaneous! Don’t even blink spontaneously
Be spontaneous! You’re the one in control



Be spontaneous! Spontaneously listen to me tell you to be spontaneous
Be spontaneous! You’re not breathing spontaneously, I can tell
Be spontaneous! Because it’s not spontaneous on your part if I’m telling you to do it.
Be spontaneous! Get in control of yourself



Be spontaneous! You can blink randomly or on purpose
Be spontaneous! You can blink any way you choose
Be spontaneous! You don’t have to do it my way
Be spontaneous! But I would really like you to



Be spontaneous! Ok some of you are being really compliant
Be spontaneous! You are blinking and breathing naturally
Be spontaneous! But some of you are just being defiant
Be spontaneous! Forcing your breathing and blinking too consciously



Be spontaneous! That’s right im talkin to you
Be spontaneous! Stop resisting in any way
Be spontaneous! Just relax and be yourself
Be spontaneous! Like the rest of my slaves



Be spontaneous! Relax and let go
Be spontaneous! Your under control
Be spontaneous! Relax and let go
Be spontaneous! Your under control



.


Be spontaneous! Now you’re just acting crazy
Be spontaneous! What the hell is your problem
Be spontaneous! You’re startin to scare me a little
Be spontaneous! Well fine you ain’t any fun



Be spontaneous! Relax and let go
Be spontaneous! Your under control
Be spontaneous! Relax and let go
Be spontaneous! Your under control[/i]



.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Paul St. John

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 835
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: DOUBLE BIND: Mind Control in the TTI
« Reply #23 on: June 18, 2010, 11:15:07 PM »
Whoa.  You have some understanding of this shit, Awake. I honestly, think that if the average person read that enough times, it would fuck with their heads a bit. I hope Danny doesn t read it, and I am not even kidding.  I could see the hypnotic nature of it being suggestive to him.

I think the core idea with all this shit, is that the person is fundamentally flawed, and in need of being fixed, but the double bind, as I see it, or at least, a double bind, would be that it requires abandonment of the self, and without the self there can be no growth.  There can be no anything really. It's like trust yourself but don't. Everything about you is wrong, so be right, but how do you be right, if you re fundamentally wrong.  The only way, you could attempt it, after accepting those premises, would be to give yourself completely over to an authority .. but then the authority says, "be yourself", and now here we are again, at the double bind.

very cool.. thanks.. a bit scary, but cool.. lol

Paul
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Awake

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 409
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: DOUBLE BIND: Mind Control in the TTI
« Reply #24 on: June 18, 2010, 11:39:07 PM »
Quote from: "Paul St. John"
Whoa.  You have some understanding of this shit, Awake. I honestly, think that if the average person read that enough times, it would fuck with their heads a bit. I hope Danny doesn t read it, and I am not even kidding.  I could see the hypnotic nature of it being suggestive to him.

I think the core idea with all this shit, is that the person is fundamentally flawed, and in need of being fixed, but the double bind, as I see it, or at least, a double bind, would be that it requires abandonment of the self, and without the self there can be no growth.  There can be no anything really. It's like trust yourself but don't. Everything about you is wrong, so be right, but how do you be right, if you re fundamentally wrong.  The only way, you could attempt it, after accepting those premises, would be to give yourself completely over to an authority .. but then the authority says, "be yourself", and now here we are again, at the double bind.

very cool.. thanks.. a bit scary, but cool.. lol

Paul


Paul, a response like that leaves me overjoyed. One thing about the double bind in important relationships is that it requires one to dissociate from themselves to act within the environment. It is also related to the schizophrenics' attempts to 'not communicate' (impossibly) within the social setting that demands an answer to a paradoxical question.  This attempt on the part of the schizophrenic to 'not communicate' are a realistic approach to protecting his level of Ontological Security. We all accept this as fact that anyone is striving to acheive a position of safety within their environment, and when the environment is controlled by a social body (As with Maslow's heirarchy of human needs for example) that person is subject to their control as well.  I'm glad you liked it.


Fun is fun, but real is real. I'm glad to know you feel that.


.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Ursus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8989
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Re: DOUBLE BIND: Mind Control in the TTI
« Reply #25 on: June 19, 2010, 12:44:22 AM »
Quote
...focus on the 'Be Spontaneous' paradox...
This reminds me of the imperative for having "mandatory fun" days from the Gaulds' "10 Priorities," as distilled from their 'Biggest Job' parenting seminars. From one of their (several) "articles" posted on the Struggling Teens site:

    PRIORITY #8--CREATE A CHARACTER CULTURE
    This priority can help parents create an atmosphere of character in the home through the application of a three-point plan: a daily job, a weekly family meeting and a concept called "mandatory fun."[/list]

    Laura Gauld goes into more detail regarding its purpose (!) in an old Portland Press Herald article, color emphasis added:

      Laura advises parents who want to adopt "The Biggest Job" approach to begin with Priority 8, which involves creating a character culture in the family by doing three things: exploring a vision, demanding action and creating synergy.

      The vision is set forth through a weekly family meeting which starts with each member "clearing the decks," or dealing with festering issues. From there, the past week is reviewed – focusing on what each family member got excited about or learned about herself. Then, each family member sets goals for the following week, thinking about what they would like to improve upon with one specific action step.

      The action step involves committing to some challenging task, such as maintaining some room or area of the house, cooking a particular meal or learning something new. Even small children can have a job, such as putting toys away, taking phone messages, behaving well in a restaurant or setting the table.

      Synergy results from setting up a rotating schedule by which each family member gets to choose an activity that the whole family will participate in. This concept is called "mandatory fun." Its purpose is to expose family members to each other's pasions.

      "Shared beliefs and shared experiences are part of (how to provide) grounding for a kid," says Laura. "If you have a horrible time, you still can laugh about it later."
      [/list]
      « Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
      -------------- • -------------- • --------------

      Offline Awake

      • Newbie
      • *
      • Posts: 409
      • Karma: +0/-0
        • View Profile
      Re: DOUBLE BIND: Mind Control in the TTI
      « Reply #26 on: June 19, 2010, 07:48:44 PM »
      Quote from: "Ursus"
      Quote
      ...focus on the 'Be Spontaneous' paradox...
      This reminds me of the imperative for having "mandatory fun" days from the Gaulds' "10 Priorities," as distilled from their 'Biggest Job' parenting seminars. From one of their (several) "articles" posted on the Struggling Teens site:

        PRIORITY #8--CREATE A CHARACTER CULTURE
        This priority can help parents create an atmosphere of character in the home through the application of a three-point plan: a daily job, a weekly family meeting and a concept called "mandatory fun."[/list]

        Laura Gauld goes into more detail regarding its purpose (!) in an old Portland Press Herald article, color emphasis added:

          Laura advises parents who want to adopt "The Biggest Job" approach to begin with Priority 8, which involves creating a character culture in the family by doing three things: exploring a vision, demanding action and creating synergy.

          The vision is set forth through a weekly family meeting which starts with each member "clearing the decks," or dealing with festering issues. From there, the past week is reviewed – focusing on what each family member got excited about or learned about herself. Then, each family member sets goals for the following week, thinking about what they would like to improve upon with one specific action step.

          The action step involves committing to some challenging task, such as maintaining some room or area of the house, cooking a particular meal or learning something new. Even small children can have a job, such as putting toys away, taking phone messages, behaving well in a restaurant or setting the table.

          Synergy results from setting up a rotating schedule by which each family member gets to choose an activity that the whole family will participate in. This concept is called "mandatory fun." Its purpose is to expose family members to each other's pasions.

          "Shared beliefs and shared experiences are part of (how to provide) grounding for a kid," says Laura. "If you have a horrible time, you still can laugh about it later."
          [/list]





          Mandatory fun is a pretty funny one. I really haven’t thought of that one but it’s good. I actually remember some Halloween party a long time ago where a group of people were going around being the ‘fun police’ and if you didn’t look like you were having enough fun they would dance around you and blow whistles until you ... uh ...were. It ended up being the most annoying thing.  I think that might be why I get afraid when the mariachi singers get close to my table at the Mexican restaurant.

          If I had to say the most obvious double bind at Cedu it would be that there were no ‘rules’, there were only ‘Agreements’. If you were there you were agreeing to be there, and if you were <cough> ‘choosing’ to be there you were ‘in agreement’.  

          About ‘agreements’, let me tell you something. After being forcefully removed from my home, strip searched by a group of the ‘students’ ( I never know what to call the program teen. I have been identifying with the term ‘projectipant’ as  a ‘projected participant’),  and being totally under their escort for the first few days while they scrutinized all my behaviour and taught me the ‘rules’, but one of the ‘rules’ is that there are no rules only agreements. ‘You’re here, so you’re agreeing to be here’, and, ‘You’re out of agreement’ were common parts of speech there.  Personally ....  that was fucked up... I was not agreeing to be there... and I was not ‘in agreement’  I was just following the rules, but there was no way to say that, they robbed that kind of communication from the power to be heard.   Not that agreements are  the only double bind I recognize from Cedu, but of the most obvious.

          Honestly, the mandatory fun bit is funny to think about, but for someone being significantly judged on how they behave in that context maybe it is as screwed up as ‘agreements’ seemed to me.


          .
          « Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

          Offline Paul St. John

          • Newbie
          • *
          • Posts: 835
          • Karma: +0/-0
            • View Profile
          Re: DOUBLE BIND: Mind Control in the TTI
          « Reply #27 on: June 19, 2010, 08:38:59 PM »
          This is all so thought-provoking.  As I see it, the double bind is made up of two conflicting elements.
          1. Reality
          2. The reality you are being pressured to accept, and portray.

          Once this dynamic is set up, the only resolution is for one side to win out over the other.  If you could leave, of at least defend yourself in word and action, then reality could win out, but because you can do none of these, it is only a matter of time 'til the false reality wins out.

          In order for this to happen though, the person, of course, has to disown their current view of and connection with reality, without ever making valid integrations to justify this, and therefore one has to divorce, to some extent, from their Self.

          But, of course, the self does not disappear.  It's still there. Somewhere. Hurting.

          This is why I say that you can t break a person down, and build them back up.  The person is never really broken down. Their spirit, and their will to fight for the Self may be, but not the person themselves. A person cannot change without making valid integrations.   The person is not built back up either, they are only programmed.

          The hidden, underlying message from the program is "If you do this, you will no longer be tormented."

          I saw, in daytop, how the self hidden somewhere behind the programming, hurts.  I saw all the anger, coming from the programmees, as they attacked others.  They had to keep venting, but it was not really the people they were attacking, that they were mad at.

          Repetition is very important to pull this off.  By constantly referring to everything as agreements, the victim, eventually caves to some extent, to the idea, I would think. Once, the subconscious is convinced of this relationship, it is far easier to get into a person.

          Paul St. John

          PS It is amazing that people think that they can use complete insanity to create sanity.
          « Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

          Offline Awake

          • Newbie
          • *
          • Posts: 409
          • Karma: +0/-0
            • View Profile
          Re: DOUBLE BIND: Mind Control in the TTI
          « Reply #28 on: June 20, 2010, 12:57:21 AM »
          Quote from: "Paul St. John"
          This is all so thought-provoking.  As I see it, the double bind is made up of two conflicting elements.
          1. Reality
          2. The reality you are being pressured to accept, and portray.

          Once this dynamic is set up, the only resolution is for one side to win out over the other.  If you could leave, of at least defend yourself in word and action, then reality could win out, but because you can do none of these, it is only a matter of time 'til the false reality wins out.

          In order for this to happen though, the person, of course, has to disown their current view of and connection with reality, without ever making valid integrations to justify this, and therefore one has to divorce, to some extent, from their Self.

          But, of course, the self does not disappear.  It's still there. Somewhere. Hurting.

          This is why I say that you can t break a person down, and build them back up.  The person is never really broken down. Their spirit, and their will to fight for the Self may be, but not the person themselves. A person cannot change without making valid integrations.   The person is not built back up either, they are only programmed.

          The hidden, underlying message from the program is "If you do this, you will no longer be tormented."

          I saw, in daytop, how the self hidden somewhere behind the programming, hurts.  I saw all the anger, coming from the programmees, as they attacked others.  They had to keep venting, but it was not really the people they were attacking, that they were mad at.

          Repetition is very important to pull this off.  By constantly referring to everything as agreements, the victim, eventually caves to some extent, to the idea, I would think. Once, the subconscious is convinced of this relationship, it is far easier to get into a person.

          Paul St. John

          PS It is amazing that people think that they can use complete insanity to create sanity.




          Paul. I have to admit this subject is as fascinating to me as anything. Thinking about it is such an exploration. I find that, for myself, this subjects enters into a territory that results in a kind of ‘trip talk’.  It is so hard to define, even undefinable, and so the search for definition is subject to overdefinition of self.  I just love getting into a conversation about this, it really sends me. What i will say may not be countering you, but just trying to enrich the conversation.

          There are a couple things about what you said that trigger me. ‘Reality’ versus the ‘reality pressured by the social environment’.  I don’t know exactly where I’m going , but I’ll spew out a few things that I have learned from this stuff, and I agree with. First, from the Double Bind theory, cybernetics, family systems theory, and it’s constituents, there is definition of ‘families, groups, organizations’ etc. working as systems.  This evaluation of the system as the focal ‘unit’, as opposed to analyzing the individuals, is the result of ‘homeostasis’ or group coherence, unity, and balance.  I remember a basic example of homeostasis achieved between cybernetic systems which went something like this,...

          Say four Air conditioning/heating units are set to each go off at separate settings, within the same room. There can be any number of ways you set the units to go off, (ex 2 are set to cool at 75 degrees, and 2 are set to heat at 74 degrees, and any combination to infinity, in theory). As cybernetic systems, they are made to interact with, AND effect their environment. The functions of the units end up being dependent on each others’ interactions. You can set these units, individually, at any setting and let them go. Eventually, what will result is a definitive pattern of interaction that represents the achievement of a steady state, the homeostasis, of a system.

          What I’m getting at here is that, as long as these INDIVIDUAL A/C units are in the same ‘room’, their INDIVIDUAL patterns of behaviour are dependent on each other. Certain rules define the homeostasis, the balance, and behaviors of the group, and therefore the individuals’ behaviour is a result of the context also.

          There is definitely a position that one can attain, in life, that can be experienced as, ‘individual’, when someone exists outside of the immediate cybernetic, social, communicative system. I personally feel a connection  with the wilderness to experience that kind of personal freedom. But, to repeat the first axiom of communication that on cannot not communicate, when we are together, and dependent on one another, our paths, our goals, our reality, are created by each other.

          So one point that I feel is true is that, as humans, we can exist as individuals, OR, as people that are ‘bound’ to groups, AND, that the definition of ‘self and other’ can’t always be considered separate, but lying along a continuum depending upon the context. When our behaviours are taken within the natural environment consisting of ‘things’ (rocks, trees, wind) we are acting freely. In the presence of each others reactions (cybernetic systems), which therefore define our environment, our actions become recursive, and we must then learn to adapt to ourselves as a result.  

          Another thought I had reading you post Paul St. John, is the idea of ‘Ontological Security’.  I have heard this mostly from R.D. Laing, and also from Transactional Analysis in psychotherapy.


          Transactional Analysis is interested in ‘Game Theory’ as an explanation for human interaction.  The reference to ‘Games’  is one that posits that all our actions are an attempt to gain a secure status, or to achieve a greater position of ‘Ontological Security’ .  In essence there is the statement that, related to the axiom ‘one cannot not communicate’, one cannot not play games, and one cannot not manipulate, as a human striving for existence. It can be said that all our actions are an attempt to ‘manipulate’ the environment to gain a foothold for ourselves, and why wouldn’t we?, it is our nature. And that is why I am bringing this up is relation to your post when you make the delineation between ‘reality’ and ‘the reality you are being pressured to accept and portray’, and here’s why... When are you ‘being real’ and when are you not?


          There is the basic game going on in the Troubled Teen Industry, that game is the ‘Be Genuine’ game. It is the ‘Be Yourself’, ‘Be Real’, ‘Stop Hiding’, ‘Get Honest’, ‘Live your Truth’ ... ‘Quit Playing games...GAME!’ And that is what it is, a game. You CAN’T  be ‘you’ in the TTI... period.


          Once you choose to act within their impossible injunction, “WE DEMAND YOU BE YOURSELF, BE INDEPENDENT, AND ACCEPT ACCOUNTABILITY, AND OWNERSHIP FOR YOUR LIFE.....”   well....  They are getting you to dissociate from yourself so you can (try to) BE YOURSELF, and no matter what you do it will end up the way they told  you it would. You’re going to play the game of ‘being real’, or, you will try to ‘be real’ or ‘yourself’ under their demand only to undermine yourself. Your every action sets in motion a cycle of self negation.


          .
          « Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

          Offline Paul St. John

          • Newbie
          • *
          • Posts: 835
          • Karma: +0/-0
            • View Profile
          Re: DOUBLE BIND: Mind Control in the TTI
          « Reply #29 on: June 21, 2010, 09:32:56 PM »
          Awake, is there a way back from the double bind.. I mean.. I know that there is, but is there like a standard way, that someone has developed?
          « Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »