Double bind

Not to be confused with double-blind.

A double bind is an emotionally distressing dilemmain communication in which an individual (or group) re-ceives two or more conicting messages, and one mes-sage negates the other. This creates a situation in whicha successful response to one message results in a failedresponse to the other (and vice versa), so that the personwill automatically be wrong regardless of response. Thedouble bind occurs when the person cannot confront theinherent dilemma, and therefore can neither resolve it noropt out of the situation.Double bind theory was rst described by Gregory Bate-son and his colleagues in the 1950s.[1]

Double binds are often utilized as a form of control with-out open coercionthe use of confusion makes themboth dicult to respond to as well as to resist.[2]

A double bind generally includes dierent levels of ab-straction in the order of messages and these messages caneither be stated explicitly or implicitly within the contextof the situation, or they can be conveyed by tone of voiceor body language. Further complications arise when fre-quent double binds are part of an ongoing relationship towhich the person or group is committed.[3][4]

Double bind theory is more clearly understood in the con-text of complex systems and cybernetics because humancommunication and the mind itself function in an inter-active manner similar to ecosystems. Complex systemstheory helps us to understand the interdependence of thedierent parts of a message and provides an ordering inwhat looks like chaos.

1 ExplanationThe double bind is often misunderstood to be a simplecontradictory situation, where the subject is trapped bytwo conicting demands. While its true that the core ofthe double bind is two conicting demands, the dier-ence lies in how they are imposed upon the subject, whatthe subjects understanding of the situation is, and who(or what) imposes these demands upon the subject. Un-like the usual no-win situation, the subject has dicultyin dening the exact nature of the paradoxical situationin which he or she is caught. The contradiction may beunexpressed in its immediate context and therefore invis-ible to external observers, only becoming evident when aprior communication is considered. Typically, a demand

is imposed upon the subject by someone who they respect(such as a parent, teacher or doctor) but the demand itselfis inherently impossible to fulll because some broadercontext forbids it. For example, this situation arises whena person in a position of authority imposes two contra-dictory conditions but there exists an unspoken rule thatone must never question authority.Gregory Bateson and his colleagues dened the doublebind as follows[3] (paraphrased):

1. The situation involves two or more people, one ofwhom (for the purpose of the denition), is desig-nated as the subject. The others are people whoare considered the subjects superiors: gures of au-thority (such as parents), whom the subject respects.

2. Repeated experience: the double bind is a recurrenttheme in the experience of the subject, and as such,cannot be resolved as a single traumatic experience.

3. A primary injunction" is imposed on the subject bythe others in one of two forms:

(a) Do X, or I will punish you"; (b) Do not do X, or I will punish you. (or both a and b)

The punishment may include the withdrawing oflove, the expression of hate and anger, or abandon-ment resulting from the authority gures expressionof helplessness.

4. A secondary injunction is imposed on the subject,conictingwith the rst at a higher andmore abstractlevel. For example: You must do X, but only doit because you want to. It is unnecessary for thisinjunction to be expressed verbally.

5. If necessary, a tertiary injunction is imposedon the subject to prevent them from escaping thedilemma. See phrase examples below for clarica-tion.

6. Finally, Bateson states that the complete list of theprevious requirements may be unnecessary, in theevent that the subject is already viewing their worldin double bind patterns. Bateson goes on to give thegeneral characteristics of such a relationship:

(a) When the subject is involved in an intense rela-tionship; that is, a relationship in which he feels

1

2 5 PHRASE EXAMPLES

it is vitally important that he discriminate accu-rately what sort of message is being communi-cated so that he may respond appropriately;

(b) And, the subject is caught in a situation in whichthe other person in the relationship is expressingtwo orders of message and one of these deniesthe other;

(c) And, the subject is unable to comment on themessages being expressed to correct his discrim-ination of what order of message to respondto: i.e., he cannot make a metacommunicativestatement.

Thus, the essence of a double bind is two conicting de-mands, each on a dierent logical level, neither of whichcan be ignored or escaped. This leaves the subject tornboth ways, so that whichever demand they try to meet, theother demand cannot be met. I must do it, but I can't doit is a typical description of the double-bind experience.For a double bind to be eective, the subject must beunable to confront or resolve the conict between the de-mand placed by the primary injunction and that of thesecondary injunction. In this sense, the double bind dif-ferentiates itself from a simple contradiction to a moreinexpressible internal conict, where the subject reallywants to meet the demands of the primary injunction, butfails each time through an inability to address the situa-tions incompatibility with the demands of the secondaryinjunction. Thus, subjects may express feelings of ex-treme anxiety in such a situation, as they attempt to fullthe demands of the primary injunction albeit with obvi-ous contradictions in their actions.

2 History

The term double bind was rst used by the anthropologistGregory Bateson and his colleagues (including Don D.Jackson, Jay Haley and John H. Weakland) in the mid-1950s in their discussions on complexity of communi-cation in relation to schizophrenia. Bateson made clearthat such complexities are common in normal circum-stances, especially in play, humor, poetry, ritual andction (see Logical Types below). Their ndings indi-cated that the tangles in communication often diagnosedas schizophrenia are not necessarily the result of an or-ganic brain dysfunction. Instead, they found that destruc-tive double binds were a frequent pattern of communica-tion among families of patients, and they proposed thatgrowing up amidst perpetual double binds could lead tolearned patterns of confusion in thinking and communi-cation.

3 Complexity in communicationHuman communication is complex (see Albert Mehra-bian) and context is an essential part of it. Communi-cation consists of the words said, tone of voice, and bodylanguage. It also includes how these relate to what hasbeen said in the past; what is not said, but is implied; howthese are modied by other nonverbal cues, such as theenvironment in which it is said, and so forth. For exam-ple, if someone says I love you, one takes into accountwho is saying it, their tone of voice and body language,and the context in which it is said. It may be a declara-tion of passion or a serene rearmation, insincere and/ormanipulative, an implied demand for a response, a joke,its public or private context may aect its meaning, andso forth.Conicts in communication are common and often weask What do you mean?" or seek clarication in otherways. This is called meta-communication: communica-tion about the communication. Sometimes, asking forclarication is impossible. Communication diculties inordinary life often occur when meta-communication andfeedback systems are lacking or inadequate or there isn'tenough time for clarication.Double binds can be extremely stressful and become de-structive when one is trapped in a dilemma and punishedfor nding a way out. But making the eort to nd theway out of the trap can lead to emotional growth.[bodylanguage and double-bind see ([5])]

4 ExamplesThe classic example given of a negative double bind is of amother telling her child that she loves him or her, while atthe same time turning away in disgust.[6] (The words aresocially acceptable; the body language is in conict withit). The child doesn't know how to respond to the conictbetween the words and the body language and, becausethe child is dependent on the mother for basic needs, heor she is in a quandary. Small children have dicultyarticulating contradictions verbally and can neither ignorethem nor leave the relationship.Another example is when one is commanded to be spon-taneous. The very command contradicts spontaneity,but it only becomes a double bind when one can neitherignore the command nor comment on the contradiction.Often, the contradiction in communication isn't apparentto bystanders unfamiliar with previous communications.

5 Phrase examples Mother telling her child: You must love me.

The primary injunction here is the command

3itself: you must"; the secondary injunction isthe unspoken reality that love is spontaneous,that for the child to love the mother genuinely,it can only be of his or her own accord.

Grown-up-in-authority to child: Speak whenyou're spoken to and Don't talk back!"

These phrases have such time-honoured statusthat the contradiction between them is rarelyperceived: If the child speaks when spoken tothen he cannot avoid answering back. If hedoes not answer back then he fails to speakwhen spoken to. Whatever the child does heis always in the wrong.

Child-abuser to child: You should have escapedfromme earlier, now its too latebecause now, no-body will believe that you didn't want what I havedone, while at the same time blocking all of thechilds attempts to escape.

Child-abusers often start the double-bind re-lationship by "grooming" the child, giving lit-tle concessions, or gifts or privileges to them,thus the primary injunction is: You shouldlike what you are getting from me!"

When the child begins to go along (i.e. be-gins to like what she or he is receiving fromthe person), then the interaction goes to thenext level and small victimization occurs, withthe secondary injunction being: I am punish-ing you! (for whatever reason the child-abuseris coming up with (e.g. because you werebad/naughty/messy, or because you deserveit, or because you made me do it, etc )).

If child shows any resistance (or tries to escape)from the abuser, then the words: You shouldhave escaped from me earlier (...)" serve as thethird level or tertiary injunction.

Then the loop starts to feed on itself, allowingfor ever worse victimization to occur.

Mother to son: Leave your sister alone!", while theson knows his sister will approach and antagonizehim to get him into trouble.

The primary injunction is the command, whichhe will be punished for breaking. The sec-ondary injunction is the knowledge that hissister will get into conict with him, but hismother will not know the dierence and willdefault to punishing him. He may be under the

impression that if he argues with his mother, hemay be punished. One possibility for the sonto escape this double bind is to realize that hissister only antagonizes him to make him feelanxious (if indeed it is the reason behind hissisters behavior).

If he were not bothered about punishment, hissister might not bother him. He could alsoleave the situation entirely, avoiding both themother and the sister. The sister can't claimto be bothered by a non-present brother, andthe mother can't punish (nor scapegoat) a non-present son. There are other solutions that arerealised through creative application of logicand reasoning.

6 Positive double binds

Bateson also described positive double binds, both in re-lation to Zen Buddhism with its path of spiritual growth,and the use of therapeutic double binds by psychiatriststo confront their patients with the contradictions in theirlife in such a way that would help them heal. One of Bate-sons consultants, Milton H. Erickson (5 volumes, editedby Rossi) eloquently demonstrated the productive possi-bilities of double binds through his own life, showing thetechnique in a brighter light.

7 Theory of logical types

Cybernetics contains Russell and Whiteheads Theory ofLogical Types: there is a logical discontinuity betweenset and element, and in some cases the set cannot be anelement of itself. These types must not be muddled andmust be kept separate. For example the name of a classcannot also be a member of the class. A message ismade up of words and the context that modies it. Thecontext is of a higher logical type than the words. Forexample, the word cat cannot scratch you. The real an-imal and the word cat are of two dierent logical types.[7]Another examplethis one of purely nonverbal commu-nication among animals is: two puppies are playing andthey growl at each other and nip each other gently. Therst level of the message could be described as, I amthreatening you; I will bite you A higher level of themessage is, this is play ghting; I won't hurt you. (Seechapters: A Theory of Play and Fantasy and Towards aTheory of Schizophrenia--subsection The Base in Commu-nications Theory, both in Steps to an Ecology of Mind).

4 10 IN EVOLUTION

8 ScienceOne of the causes of double binds is the loss of feedbacksystems. Gregory Bateson and Lawrence S. Bale describedouble binds that have arisen in science that have causeddecades-long delays of progress in science because sci-ence (who is this 'science' fellow?) had dened somethingas outside of its scope (or not science)--see Bateson inhis Introduction to Steps to an Ecology of Mind (1972,2000), pp. xv-xxvi; and Bale in his article, Gregory Bate-son, Cybernetics and the Social/Behavioral Sciences (esp.pp. 18) on the paradigm of classical science vs. that ofsystems theory/cybernetics. (See also Batesons descrip-tion in his Forward of how the double bind hypothesisfell into place).

9 SchizophreniaThe Double Bind Theory was rst articulated in relation-ship to schizophrenia, but Bateson and his colleagues hy-pothesized that schizophrenic thinking was not necessar-ily an inborn mental disorder but a learned confusion inthinking. It is helpful to remember the context in whichthese ideas were developed. Bateson and his colleagueswere working in the Veterans Administration Hospital(19491962) with World War II veterans. As soldiersthey'd been able to function well in combat, but the ef-fects of life-threatening stress had aected them. At thattime, 18 years before Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder wasocially recognized, the veterans had been saddled withthe catch-all diagnosis of schizophrenia. Bateson didn'tchallenge the diagnosis but he did maintain that the seem-ing nonsense the patients said at times did make sensewithin context, and he gives numerous examples in sec-tion III of Steps to an Ecology of Mind, Pathology in Re-lationship. For example, a patient misses an appoint-ment, and when Bateson nds him later the patient says'the judge disapproves; Bateson responds, You need adefense lawyer see following (pp. 1956) Bateson alsosurmised that people habitually caught in double bindsin childhood would have greater problemsthat in thecase of the schizophrenic, the double bind is presentedcontinually and habitually within the family context frominfancy on. By the time the child is old enough to haveidentied the double bind situation, it has already been in-ternalized, and the child is unable to confront it. The solu-tion then is to create an escape from the conicting logicaldemands of the double bind, in the world of the delusionalsystem (see in Towards a Theory of Schizophrenia Il-lustrations from Clinical Data).One solution to a double bind is to place the problem in alarger context, a state Bateson identied as Learning III,a step up from Learning II (which requires only learnedresponses to reward/consequence situations). In LearningIII, the double bind is contextualized and understood asan impossible no-win scenario so that ways around it can

be found.Batesons double bind theory was never followed up byresearch into whether family systems imposing system-atic double binds might be a cause of schizophrenia. Thiscomplex theory has been only partly tested, and there aregaps in the current psychological and experimental evi-dence required to establish causation. The current under-standing of schizophrenia takes into account a complexinteraction of genetic, neurological as well as emotionalstressors, including family interaction and it has been ar-gued that if the double bind theory overturns ndingssuggesting a genetic basis for schizophrenia then morecomprehensive psychological and experimental studiesare needed, with dierent family types and across var-ious family contexts.[8]

10 In evolutionAfter many years of research into schizophrenia, Bate-son continued to explore problems of communication andlearning, rst with dolphins, and then with the more ab-stract processes of evolution. Bateson emphasised thatany communicative system characterized by dierentlogical levels might be subject to double bind problems.Especially including the communication of characteris-tics from one generation to another (genetics and evolu-tion)."...evolution always followed the pathways of viability.As Lewis Carroll has pointed out, the theory [of natu-ral selection] explains quite satisfactorily why there areno bread-and-butter-ies today.[9]

Bateson used the ctional Bread and Butter Fly (fromThrough the Looking Glass, andWhat Alice Found There)to illustrate the double bind in terms of natural selection.The gnat points out that the insect would be doomed if hefound his food (which would dissolve his own head), andstarve if he did not. Alice suggests that this must happenquite often, to which the gnat replies it always happens.The pressures that drive evolution therefore represent agenuine double bind. And there is truly no escape: Italways happens. No species can escape natural selection,including our own.Bateson suggested that all evolution is driven by the dou-ble bind, whenever circumstances change: If any envi-ronment becomes toxic to any species, that species willdie out unless it transforms into another species, in whichcase, the species becomes extinct anyway.Most signicant here is Batesons exploration of whathe later came to call 'the pattern that connects[10]thatproblems of communication which span more than onelevel (e.g., the relationship between the individual andthe family) should also be expected to be found spanningother pairs of levels in the hierarchy (e.g. the relationshipbetween the genotype and the phenotype):

5We are very far, then, from being able to pose specicquestions for the geneticist; but I believe that the widerimplications of what I have been sayingmodify somewhatthe philosophy of genetics. Our approach to the problemsof schizophrenia by way of a theory of levels or logicaltypes has disclosed rst that the problems of adaptationand learning and their pathologies must be considered interms of a hierarchic system in which stochastic changeoccurs at the boundary points between the segments ofthe hierarchy. We have considered three such regionsof stochastic changethe level of genetic mutation, thelevel of learning, and the level of change in family or-ganization. We have disclosed the possibility of a rela-tionship of these levels which orthodox genetics woulddeny, and we have disclosed that at least in human soci-eties the evolutionary system consists not merely in theselective survival of those persons who happen to selectappropriate environments but also in the modication offamily environment in a direction which might enhancethe phenotypic and genotypic characteristics of the indi-vidual members. [11]

11 Usage in Zen BuddhismAccording to philosopher and theologian Alan Watts, thedouble bind has long been used in Zen Buddhism as atherapeutic tool. The Zen Master purposefully imposesthe double bind upon his students (through various skil-ful means, called upaya), hoping that they achieve en-lightenment (satori). One of the most prominent tech-niques used by Zen Masters (especially those of theRinzai school) is called the koan, in which the mastergives his or her students a question, and instructs themto pour all their mental energies into nding the answerto it. As an example of a koan, a student can be asked topresent to the master their genuine self, Show me whoyou really are. According toWatts, the student will even-tually realize there is nothing they can do, yet also noth-ing they cannot do, to present their actual self; thus, theytruly learn the Buddhist concept of anatman (non-self)via reductio ad absurdum.

Zen koan: Be genuine or Who are you?"

Argued byWatts to be the underlying theme ofall Zen koans, the idea here is to present yourtrue self to the roshi (master). The more thestudents try, the phonier they are, and even theact of not trying is just another version of try-ing.

12 Girards mimetic double bindRen Girard, in his literary theory of mimetic desire,[12]proposes what he calls a model-obstacle, a role model

who demonstrates an object of desire and yet, in pos-sessing that object, becomes a rival who obstructs fulll-ment of the desire.[13] According to Girard, the internalmediation of this mimetic dynamic operates along thesame lines as what Gregory Bateson called the doublebind.[14] Girard found in Sigmund Freuds psychoana-lytic theory, a precursor to mimetic desire.[15] The in-dividual who 'adjusts has managed to relegate the twocontradictory injunctions of the double bindto imitateand not to imitateto two dierent domains of applica-tion. This is, he divides reality in such a way as to neu-tralize the double bind.[16] While critical of Freuds doc-trine of the unconscious mind, Girard sees the ancientGreek tragedy, Oedipus the King, and key elements ofFreuds Oedipus complex, patricidal and incestuous de-sire, to serve as prototypes for his own analysis of themimetic double bind.[16]

Far from being restricted to a limited num-ber of pathological cases, as American theo-reticians suggest, the double binda contra-dictory double imperative, or rather a wholenetwork of contradictory imperativesis anextremely common phenomenon. In fact, it isso common that it might be said to form thebasis of all human relationships.

Bateson is undoubtedly correct in believingthat the eects of the double bind on the childare particularly devastating. All the grown-upvoices around him, beginning with those of thefather and mother (voices which, in our so-ciety at least, speak for the culture with theforce of established authority) exclaim in a va-riety of accents, Imitate us! Imitate me!I bear the secret of life, of true being! Themore attentive the child is to these seductivewords, and the more earnestly he responds tothe suggestions emanating from all sides, themore devastating will be the eventual conicts.The child possesses no perspective that will al-low him to see things as they are. He has no ba-sis for reasoned judgements, no means of fore-seeing the metamorphosis of his model into arival. This models opposition reverberates inhis mind like a terrible condemnation; he canonly regard it as an act of excommunication.The future orientation of his desiresthat is,the choice of his future modelswill be sig-nicantly aected by the dichotomies of hischildhood. In fact, these models will determinethe shape of his personality.

If desire is allowed its own bent, itsmimetic nature will almost always lead it intoa double bind. The unchanneled mimetic im-pulse hurls itself blindly against the obstacleof a conicting desire. It invites its own re-bus and these rebus will in turn strengthenthe mimetic inclination. We have, then, a self-

6 15 NOTES

perpetuating process, constantly increasing insimplicity and fervor. Whenever the discipleborrows from his model what he believes tobe the true object, he tries to possess thattruth by desiring precisely what this model de-sires. Whenever he sees himself closest tothe supreme goal, he comes into violent con-ict with a rival. By a mental shortcut thatis both eminently logical and self-defeating,he convinces himself that the violence itself isthe most distinctive attribute of this supremegoal! Ever afterward, violence will invariablyawaken desire...

Ren Girard, Violence and the SacredFrom Mimetic Desire to the MonstrousDouble, pp.156157

13 Neuro-linguistic programmingThe eld of neuro-linguistic programming also makes useof the expression double bind. Grinder and Bandler(both of whom had personal contact with Bateson) as-serted that a message could be constructed with multiplemessages, whereby the recipient of the message is giventhe impression of choicealthough both options have thesame outcome at a higher level of intention. This is calleda double bind in NLP terminology,[17] and has appli-cations in both sales and therapy. In therapy, the prac-titioner may seek to challenge destructive double bindsthat limit the client in some way and may also constructdouble binds in which both options have therapeutic con-sequences. In a sales context, the speaker may give the re-spondent the illusion of choice between two possibilities.For example, a salesperson might ask: Would you like topay cash or by credit card?", with both outcomes presup-posing that the person will make the purchase; whereasthe third option (that of not buying) is intentionally ex-cluded from the spoken choices.Note that in the NLP context, the use of the phrase dou-ble bind does not carry the primary denition of twoconicting messages; it is about creating a false sense ofchoice which ultimately binds to the intended outcome.In the cash or credit card?" example, this is not a Bate-son double bind since there is no contradiction, althoughit still is an NLP double bind. Similarly if a salesmanwere selling a book about the evils of commerce, it couldperhaps be a Bateson double bind if the buyer happenedto believe that commerce was evil, yet felt compelled orobliged to buy the book.

14 See also

Ambiguity

Buridans bridge Catch-22 (logic) Cognitive dissonance Dialectic Doublethink Evaporating Cloud Expressed emotion False dilemma Four sides model Loaded question Master suppression techniques Mutually exclusive events No-win situation Procrastination Psychological manipulation Ronald David Laing Self and others Self-reference Zenos Paradoxes Zugzwang

15 Notes[1] Bateson, G., Jackson, D. D., Haley, J. & Weakland, J.

(1956), Towards a Theory of Schizophrenia. in BehavioralScience, Vol 1, 251264

[2] Bateson, G. (1972). Double bind, 1969. Steps to an ecol-ogy of the mind: A revolutionary approach to mans un-derstanding of himself, 271-278. Chicago: University ofChicago Press

[3] Bateson, G., Jackson, D. D., Haley, J. & Weakland, J.,1956, Toward a theory of schizophrenia. (in: 'BehavioralScience', vol.1, 251264)

[4] Bateson, Gregory (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind:Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution,and Epistemology. University Of Chicago Press.

[5] Zysk, Wolfgang (2004), Krpersprache Eine neueSicht, Doctoral Dissertation 2004, University Duisburg-Essen (Germany).

[6] Koopmans, Mathijs. Schizophrenia and the Family: Dou-ble Bind Theory Revisited 1997.

[7] Bateson (1972) Steps to an Ecology of Mind.

7[8] Koopmans, Mathijs (1997). Schizophrenia and the Fam-ily: Double Bind Theory Revisited.

[9] Bateson, Gregory (April 1967). Cybernetic Explana-tion. American Behavioral Scientist 10 (8): 2932.

[10] Bateson, Gregory (1979). Mind and Nature. ISBN 1-57273-434-5.

[11] Bateson, Gregory (1960). A.M.A. Archives of GeneralPsychiatry 2: 477491. Missing or empty |title= (help)

[12] IntroductionRen Girard. 5 November 2010. Thehypothesis. Version franaise L'hypothse.

[13] Girard, Ren (1965). Deceit, Desire, and the Novel: Selfand Other in Literary Structure. Deceit, Desire, and theNovel. p. 101. LCCN 65028582.

[14] Fleming, C. (2004). Ren Girard: Violence and Mimesis.Key Contemporary Thinkers. p. 20. ISBN 978-0-7456-2947-6. LCCN ocm56438393.

[15] Meloni, Maurizio (2002). A Triangle of Thoughts: Gi-rard, Freud, Lacan. Journal Of European Psychoanaly-sis. Winter-Spring (14).

[16] Girard, Ren; Gregory, Patrick (2005). Violence and theSacred. Continuum Impacts. pp. 187188, 156157.ISBN 978-0-8264-7718-7. LCCN 77004539.

[17] Bandler, R., Grinder, J. (1981) Reframing: Neuro-Linguistic Programming and the Transformation ofMeaning Real People Press. ISBN 0-911226-25-7

16 References Watts, Alan (1999). The Way of Zen. Vintage.ISBN 0-375-70510-4.

Bateson, Gregory. (1972, 1999) Steps to an Ecologyof Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychia-try, Evolution, and Epistemology.Part III: Form andPathology in Relationship. University of ChicagoPress, 1999, originally published, San Francisco:Chandler Pub. Co., 1972.

Gibney, Paul (May 2006) The Double BindTheory: Still Crazy-Making After All TheseYears. in Psychotherapy in Australia. Vol.12. No. 3. http://www.psychotherapy.com.au/TheDoubleBindTheory.pdf

Koopmans, Matthijs (1998) Schizophrenia and theFamily II: Paradox and Absurdity in Human Com-munication Reconsidered. http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/1998/KoopmansPaper.htm

Zysk, Wolfgang (2004), Krpersprache Eineneue Sicht, Doctoral Dissertation 2004, UniversityDuisburg-Essen (Germany).

17 External links http://www.mri.org/dondjackson/brp.htm http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/treatments/famsys/dblebnd.htm

http://www.laingsociety.org/cetera/pguillaume.htm

Reference in Encyclopedia of NLP Double-bind loop feeding on itself, an illustration bychart (and a poem)

8 18 TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES

18 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses18.1 Text

Double bind Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind?oldid=668960294 Contributors: Fuzzie, Mkoval, Scott, Evercat, Fraise,Furrykef, Robbot, Romanm, Jacob1207, Christopherlin, Andycjp, Beland, Ot, Robin klein, Now3d, Jiy, FT2, Calion, Bender235, Ir-ritant, Cedders, Kwamikagami, Liberatus, Gingko, Mdd, DannyMuse, Jhertel, Wtmitchell, Melaen, Mattbrundage, Brookie, Dtobias,Madmardigan53, Apokrif, Tabletop, Kbdank71, Rjwilmsi, Quiddity, Lemuel Gulliver, Whosasking, Rsrikanth05, Ritchy, Zwobot, Ale-ichem, Aaron Schulz, Action potential, Degreezero, ThirteenthGreg, CLW, SmackBot, Cosmetor, Supercriminal, Psiphiorg, Bluebot,Colonies Chris, Emurphy42, Jjoensuu, DRahier, Poppi12, Kittybrewster, CamXV, Tsop, Takima~enwiki, Bn, Meco, RichardF, Log-gerisms, B7T, Iridescent, Igni, Jsmaye, Penbat, Gregbard, Jasperdoomen, Jonathan Tweet, A876, Dynaow, NHBaritone, Letranova, Cop-perKettle, RichardVeryard, AgentPeppermint, Nick Number, Itistoday, Albany NY, Magioladitis, Lenschulwitz, Cailil, JaGa, Smartings,Hbent, Aguynamededdy, Vi2, AstroHurricane001, Maurice Carbonaro, Mahewa, Mufka, Alexanderabbit, Jmrowland, Mark v1.0, AllGlo-ryToTheHypnotoad, Aron.Foster, Michael Frind, SieBot, Jruderman, DancingPhilosopher, RobinHood70, Admiral Norton, Kai-Hendrik,Jamespkeim, Alexbot, DumZiBoT, Brennanyoung, Addbot, Reidlophile, Margaret9mary, Zorrobot, Mro, Uruandimi, Yobot, Gongshow,AnomieBOT, Citation bot, ArthurBot, LilHelpa, Ed8r, Omnipaedista, Mark Schierbecker, FrescoBot, Machine Elf 1735, Louperibot,Metalola, Tstinson, Seren-dipper, Evanh2008, , Jacobisq, Tablethree, ClueBot NG, PoqVaUSA, Frietjes, Helpful Pixie Bot,Curb Chain, Mrt3366, Hair, Schrauwers, Someone not using his real name, WikiEnthusiastNumberTwenty-Two, JaconaFrere, Monkbot,Jrogy18, Prasangika37 and Anonymous: 121

18.2 Images File:Question_book-new.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/99/Question_book-new.svg License: Cc-by-sa-3.0

Contributors:Created from scratch in Adobe Illustrator. Based on Image:Question book.png created by User:Equazcion Original artist:Tkgd2007

18.3 Content license Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0

ExplanationHistoryComplexity in communicationExamplesPhrase examplesPositive double binds Theory of logical types Science Schizophrenia In evolution Usage in Zen BuddhismGirards mimetic double bind Neuro-linguistic programmingSee alsoNotesReferencesExternal linksText and image sources, contributors, and licensesTextImagesContent license