General Interest > Thought Reform
DOUBLE BIND: Mind Control in the TTI
Paul St. John:
by Paul St. John » Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:26 am
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?
I am just wondering if there is a standard protocol, so to speak, that has shown results..
Cause if not, that might be something worth thinking about..
Paul
Paul St. John
phpBB Frequent poster
Posts: 535
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 10:01 am
DannyB II:
--- Quote from: "Paul St. John" ---
--- Quote from: "DannyB II" ---
--- Quote --- "Paul St. John" . 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.
--- End quote ---
Paul, when are you going to totally let go and be yourself, all by yourself.
Ishould let go of my inhibitions, and fondle other men in sweat tents. Only kidding Danny. I respond as I do, because I don t know where the fuck you get off saying that I am not being me.. What do you know about me?
No strings, no attachments, no dependencies on anyone or anything.
Where are my strings? Where are my attachments? Where are my dependencies? Or do you mean.. like I was to just do whatever wanted in the moment without thought.. cause then I d probably be like - danny, shut up dude, you are not worth talking to.
Danny did read it and it was suggestive
I figurred that.. I didn t want ya to start bugging out.. I was looking out for you.
but I missed the kidding part.
That's what I said.. I am not even kidding.. Did you just notice this? Or have you been holding it in all this time?
Paul as I have told Sharon I left the playground a long time ago, I am free.
I don t know what you are talking about Danny.. I don t know what that means.. I do know that you told me in another post, that at this point in your life, you consider freedom to be a pipe dream, so why not cut the shit?
Hope to see you in your natural state.
You can t beat me, Danny. You can try, but you won t, and if you anger me enough, I will beat you.. That s not a threat.. I m just letting ya know..
and again, no offence, man. I m really not looking for problems with ya, and I wish ya all the best.
Paul
danny
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
"Paul St. John" . 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.
My only response,
Paul, when are you going to totally let go and be yourself, all by yourself. No strings, no attachments, no dependencies on anyone or anything.
Danny did read it and it was suggestive but I missed the kidding part.
Paul as I have told Sharon I left the playground a long time ago, I am free.
Hope to see you in your natural state.
danny
Awake:
--- Quote from: "Paul St. John" ---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?
--- End quote ---
Yknow Paul, my perspective on it, I really think the answer is bringing the Double Bind into the light. The process of being broken down, dissociated, and isolated from others is the nature of the double bind, it’s like a taught understanding of yourself that you aren’t like anyone else, and so attempting to identify with others is something to fear as it will always disconfirm your experience. Once the double bind is recognized openly it really has no power, perhaps for conscious contemplation, but if everyone sees it ‘meta-communication’ is possible, and that is enough to stop the ingredients of the double bind from being ‘emergent’.
Personally I think you would really like reading some of the works done by that group I listed in the first post. Off the top of my head is, no question, Pragmatics of Human Communication, then Change, and the Language of Change. I really liked reading this stuff, fun, intriguing, introspective, so I don’t think you will find it boring.
A quick related note here, and to one of their core concepts, particularly noted in ‘Change’ is the idea of ‘First Order and Second Order Change’ It’s related to Games Theory and their representation of it in Systems Theory Cybernetics and Family Therapy. You could relate First and Second Order Change to hierarchal levels of systems, and making changes within OR between them. For this idea they use the concept of a ‘Zero Sum Game’ or zero order change to describe the variety of choices one can make and still not transcend the ‘system’ or position one is currently in. “Resistance is Futile”, as the Borg say (StarTrek ref. Here, so what). But Second Order change IS about making a change that transcends the system.
The double bind is a term directly related to this idea of first order change and the zero sum game. I still feel silenced by the double bind, still under the scrutiny of the label ‘troubled teen’ and therefore ‘failed patient’. There have been some great strides made, that we can empower ourselves to call ourselves ‘survivors’ is a great start, but that definition is lacking without the Double Bind.
Personally I am acting on my right to assert my own diagnosis of myself in that circumstance, that I was a Projectipant of the Cedu program, or a ‘Projected Participant’, rather that the current term for a program teen, which is simply, ‘teen’. They may have devised their statistics upon the view point that I was participating, that it was of my free will, but that was simply a projection on their part, a denial of reality that the situation was coercive. It may have appeared that my ‘self confidence’ had improved, and I’ll bet you my parents thought so, but in truth my outward behaviour only represented that as a result of fear. In truth, my ‘self’ was crushed.
So how bout you Paul St. John, were you a Projectipant in your program?
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30627&start=0
Projectipant
Psychological projection or projection bias (including Freudian Projection) is the unconscious act of denial of a person's own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, such as to the weather, the government, a tool, or to other people. Thus, it involves imagining or projecting that others have those feelings.
The action of projecting or throwing or propelling something.
Projectipant- One who is viewed as a patient, and participant in therapy, as a result of projection from the therapeutic environment which has control over him……
.
Paul St. John:
Awake, I actually have to take issue with term "projectipant".
I suppose for the purposes of a science of groups, the term, and definition could be of use, where it is the group or system that is being analyzed, studied, etc.
However, for general, wide-scope understanding, I can t accept it, personally. If nothing else, I know that I was not a projectipant.
Because I did not participate, nor was I actually a patient. Now, it could be said that I was viewed as such by counselors, etc.
.. but why should their view be included in the definition, when it is in fact false?
In a studies of systems, perhaps, the term could suffice, but overall.. no..
That's just my opinion, anyway...
Paul
Awake:
--- Quote from: "Paul St. John" ---Awake, I actually have to take issue with term "projectipant".
I suppose for the purposes of a science of groups, the term, and definition could be of use, where it is the group or system that is being analyzed, studied, etc.
However, for general, wide-scope understanding, I can t accept it, personally. If nothing else, I know that I was not a projectipant.
Because I did not participate, nor was I actually a patient. Now, it could be said that I was viewed as such by counselors, etc.
.. but why should their view be included in the definition, when it is in fact false?
In a studies of systems, perhaps, the term could suffice, but overall.. no..
That's just my opinion, anyway...
Paul
--- End quote ---
"For the purposes of science groups, the term and definition could be of use."
That is exactly my point. It is a term that is unidentified within the TTI model, I want them to hold themselves accountable for their own thinking. I, personally, have a negative opinion concerning methodology that employs the double bind, but the first step in arguing whether it is right or wrong consists of making it known. In the TTI the terms ‘patients’, ‘subjects’, or the most accepted term ‘teens’, are extremely vague descriptions when you consider outcome studies.
So, it is my assertion that they are not really being honest in their delivery. They are operating under a context that can’t not be associated to the double bind, and so they really can’t make any real assertions that their ‘subjects’ were ever willing participants. We can neither make clear assertions as to whether their ‘teens’ were NOT willing participants, due to the context that demands that they ‘choose’ it.
The truth is the context robs the TTI’s results from making any REAL assertions about the ‘patient’, ‘teen’, ‘subject’. But if the term is ‘projectipant’ then that truly fits the context, a double bind, and we can make sense of their results with that, appropriate, identification of the subject.
.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version