General Interest > Thought Reform
DOUBLE BIND: Mind Control in the TTI
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
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.
.
DannyB II:
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.
DannyB II:
--- 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
--- End quote ---
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.
.
--- End quote ---
Awake:
@ 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 .
.
Eliscu2:
Bump, cause this is some good shit!
:eek:
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version