[From Rick Marken (931123.1330)]
Bruce Nevin (Tue 931123 10:58:10 EST)--
Here's a little story by a woman named Pamela L. Travers.
...
Annie only
imagines that she ought to please her mother, she only imagines that very
much undesired consequences will follow if she fails to please her.
I completely disagree with your analysis of the story about Annie, et al.
I don't think imagination need enter the picture at all. And your
attribution of Annie's problem to Mrs. Corrie misses the mark completely:
Mrs. Corrie discredits Annie's actions, then her thinking, and then her
feelings in swift succession. No matter what Annie does, or thinks, or
feels, she is wrong.
Annie's actions, thoughts or feelings can be "wrong" only if they are
controlled perceptions that do not match their reference specifications,
which are set by Annie herself. When controlled perceptions (of actions,
thoughts or feelings) are not at their reference level, they feel "wrong".
Annie alone determines what constitutes the "right" (and, implicitly,
the "wrong") states of the perceptions of her actions, thoughts or
feelings -- not Mrs. Corrie. Mrs. Corrie is Annie's problem only if she
is a disturbance to perceptions that Annie controls. Annie's problems
are not the result of "imagining consequences"; they are the result of
Annie controlling her own perceptions. Any conflict in Annie is a result
of how Annie has learned to perceive and how she has learned to control
those perceptions. Annie's conflict is created by Annie -- NOT by
Mrs. Corrie. Mrs. Corrie has no control over what Annie controls. Perhaps
Annie should go see Ed Ford.
I try to
explain that it was to demonstrate to Rick Marken that more controlled
perceptions are involved in communication between intimates than are
involved in anonymous communication, and that the perceptions that the
intimates have of their relationship matter a great deal to them. "Any
fool could see that!" she says. Among other things that she says.
Well, this particular fool (me) can see absolutely no relevance of your
little demo to my question about the number of variables a person is
controlling in any particular situation. In fact, I don't think it is
feasible to try to determine how many variables a person is controlling
at any time. Heck, it's hard enough to determine SOME of the variables
that a person is controlling at any time-- let alone ALL of them.
I have not carried out this experiment, and probably will not.
A wise choice. It is irrelevant and immaterial (as ol' Perry used
to say).
Four variations of a double bind and an example of countering it
(paraquoted from Paul Watzlawick, _How real is real?_ 18f):
Each one of these "variations" claims that something outside of the
individual is responsible for the individual's problem:
A significant other punishes one ... [so]... One learns to distrust
one's perceptions.
A significant other expects one to have feelings different from those
actually experienced... [so] ... One eventually feels guilty
A significant other gives injunctions that both demand and prohibit
certain actions...[so]... One can obey only by disobeying
somebody demands of another person
behavior that by its very nature must be spontaneous but now cannot be
because it has been demanded...[so]...`There is no way in which the
spontaneous fulfillment of a need can be elicited from another
person without creating this kind of self-defeating paradox.
It is difficult for me to imagine anything less helpful coming from
the mouth of a therapist.
It may be that there is less here than meets the eye
An excellent guess.
Looks like your cup is full of Paul Watzlawick, Solomon Asch, Gregory
Bateson, Don Jackson, and Jay Haley (to say nothing of Harris, et al).
Don't worry, the tea never gets cold and it keeps getting better; I'll
keep it steeping. If you prefer, when you want some, Bill P. can pour.
Best
Rick