Talk:Double bind

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


Contents

[edit] Levels of learning?

The last paragraph in "Explanation" needs work. I don't think Bateson's levels of learning are accurately represented or explained. (Bateson implied that the highest level of learning in living creatures was evolution itself). Also there was an implication that the only way to solve a double bind situation was to shift to a new level of learning, when in fact any change of context in which the messages are exchanged (or a cessation of those messages) has the potential to resolve the bind, with or without any insight on the part of the victim. I changed the wording to imply that other solutions may be viable. Brennanyoung (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request to remove cleanup tag

Hi all, after reading the link in the See Also section that quotes Bateson directly I've cleaned up the explanations and the phrase examples to conform with the definition. I've also added the Zen section. I feel that this article is now a more accurate and comprehensive explanation of the double bind and so I'd like to remove the cleanup tag, any objections or support for this motion? Itistoday 18:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm impatient, I will remove it for now, if there's any opposition against this please reply here. Itistoday 18:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


is the victim's prohibition from calling attention to the contradictory nature of the messages a fundamental part of the double bind? (it's not currently in the article, maybe it should be). --Johnjosephbachir

I've not heard that one. If its accurate and sourced maybe cite a source and add it?

Yes, I believe that's an essential characteristic. (See the quote under 'Laing', below). However, we need to qualify 'prohibition'. It doesn't necessarily mean that the victim is merely forbidden to expose the contradiction, but may (in most cases?) even be unable to recognise that the contradiction exists. Brennan Young 20th February 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 16:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Feminism

The concept of the double bind is quite important in feminism. Some discussion of that would be excellent. - Liz Henry

I'd welcome this. Go for it Liz! Brennan Young 20th Feb 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brennanyoung (talk • contribs) 15:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HAL in 2001

Don't really have time to add this now, but I believe the issue with HAL in the movie (and especially novel) "2001: A Space Odyssey" is considered to be a double bind: The programmed dictum of "always process information accurately" combined with the specific order to "keep this [true purpose of the mission] a secret from your fellow crew members" creates a schizophrenic situation. (From which the only solution HAL could come up with was to murder the crew.) -- Etcetera 12:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laing

Much of R D Laing's work (esp "Self and Others" and "The Divided Self") also details the double bind and schizophrenia, would be good to reference him in this article. --Whitespace 20:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree. Laing formulated it like this:

Rule A: Don't.
Rule A1: Rule A doesn't exist.
Rule A2: Do not discuss the existence or non-existence of Rules A, A1 or A2.

Brennan Young 16:34, 20 February 2008 (GMT+1)

[edit] Criticism section

I've added a criticism section, which needs to be expanded. ---=-C-=- 13:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

To suggest that the double bind theory is an attempt to proffer an anti-biological is an absolute misrepresentation of Gregory Bateson's philosophy. Throughout his career, Bateson was largely concerned with transcending nature-culture dichotomies and oppositions (1979), so he would not cast his views in terms of a biologist/anti-biologist dichotomy. Such dichotomies are rather a reflection of a persistent tendency to antagonise the two in scientific debate, which is why some theorists may interpret the double-bind theory as an attempt to proffer an anti-biological explanation of schizophrenia.

Bateson, G 1979. Steps Toward an Ecology of mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Can you source some recent publications along those lines so we can represent the counter-argument? --Comaze 16:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to back Comaze in this one because just skimming over the link he provides it seems clear that the double bind was originally introduced as a means of explaining schizophrenia as occurring from something other than biological causes. Itistoday 02:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

—I think to say 'if it is to overturn genetics based accounts' is a bit disingenious. DB was the common explanation, it is more that genetics has overturned it, because there is strong evidence to support the genetic case, but none to support the DB case, as regards schizophrenia. That's not to say DB isn't interesting, but as a causal factor for schizophrenia it's not only wide of the mark but morally dubious - it places the blame for schizophrenia on parents. As if they haven't got enough to contend with already, they now get the blame for causing a condition which is largely hereditary (with some environmental factors such as cannabis having an effect).— —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.159.11 (talk) 14:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The double bind fits the communicative aspects of schizophrenia rather well, and double binds are also effective in therapy, so it's by no means disproved or useless. Yes, the 'jury is still out' about the exact balance between genetic and social factors in the cause of schizophrenia. Most likely, it's a mixture of both, so I wouldn't throw out the Double Bind theory right away, even if you find it upsetting that it 'blames the parents'. Some parents really do screw up their kids, and screwed up kids often grow up into screwed-up adults, then become screwed-up parents that screw up their own kids. Madness is then seen to run in families. So something which closely resembles a hereditary pattern could still be entirely social, without hard genetic evidence, which we lack. My understanding is that dysfunctional parents are themselves victims, so I don't see how the double bind theory necessarily blames them. On the contrary, it is a strong argument for family therapy, rather than individual therapy, which of course is where Haley and Watzlawick went with the idea, with great success, I might add.

The more immoral thing would be to reject scientific evidence for fear of making parents feel bad. Where's your data for a 'largely hereditary' cause? I understood there was only evidence to support 'partly hereditary'. brennanyoung 20 February 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 15:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment from a Russian batesonian

What is written in the main "Explanation" shows poor understanding and misses the point of the matter. Contradictory demands in itself do not constitute double bind. If you are driving the car with your parents on a backseat and your mother's yelling "Turn left or I don't love you!" while your father's shouting "Turn right or I kill you!" this is NOT a double bind. This is simple explicit single-level contradiction.

Double bind in turn implies different levels of Russell's hierarchy of Logical Types. Double bind is something like this: suppose there is a Context-1, which imposes some demand on your, that is supported by the threat of punishment. Then there is a bigger Context-2 which is a meta-context or context for Context-1. Context-2, having higher Logical Type then Context-1 CAN NOT make any direct demands on you for this is exactly what Russell's principle prohibits (class can't be it's own member). But Context-2 has the power to CLASSIFY demands of the Context-1 as wrong.

So then you either fail to fulfill demand of the Context-1 and punished for that at the Level-1, or you manage to fulfill demand of the Context-1 and then punished for that at the Level-2 exactly for your success at the Level-1. In other words your either lose, or you win and punished for that you had won the WRONG GAME.

This is the core of the double bind. In a field of psychiatry it is additionally aggravated by the 1) prohibition to comment on the whole business; 2) prohibition to escape. In other words, double bind is a multi-level Russellian paradox played in a context of the extreme victimization. Then (according to Bateson) it can become schizophrenogenic.

Double bind is a TRICKY BIND. There is nothing specially tricky in the open conflict. Quite the opposite, bringing conflict into open often relieves schizophrenia.

The most familiar example of the double bind outside of psychiatry is an ex post facto law enforcement.

Dimitry, Moscow, cat4chat[doggy]yandex[dotty]ru

I have made changes to this article and would like your input on whether or not the explanation is better. Itistoday 19:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm writing new expanded comment that I hope will be ready within a days. Just to start — you write: "Double Bind is a communicative situation where a person receives different or contradictory messages". This statement is meaningless. We receive "different" (say, visual, audial and kinestetic) messages all the time, and receiving contradictory messages (as I already said) does not neccesarilly make a double bind. Correct statement is: "Double Bind is a communicative situation where a person is chronically confused about the LOGICAL TYPES of messages he receives." (And BTW he is equally confused about the logical types of messages he TRANSMITS.)

Dimitry, Moscow

Actually I didn't write that, my changes were mainly to the Explanation, Zen Buddhism, and Phrase examples sections, what do you think of those? I agree with you that the introductory definition needs improvement, but I think that using the word "Logical Types" is confusing and should be explained. Looking forward to your response. Itistoday 23:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


I agree that Bateson's presentation of the double bind involves a mixture of logical types. And playing with logical types is discussed explicitly in the early works of the NLP founders. So the section on Persuasion Technique fails to do justice either to the concept of double bind or to the principles of NLP. The cash-or-credit-card example is trivial and doesn't even satisfy the criteria stated earlier in the article. Meanwhile, in my opinion there is no decent article on Logical Types in Wikipedia - Type theory is too technical and Neurological levels doesn't really say anything useful. --RichardVeryard 14:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


I strongly agree we need a section (or Wikipedia article) on logical types (and indeed something about levels of learning, see [1]). We also need to rescue this whole article from those who seek to keep it solely within the realms of psychiatry/schizophrenia. Also I'd like to see it mentioned that Bateson got his clue about the theory from studying the language of schizophrenic patients, and noticing that they systematically mixed-up logical levels. Questions asked in one context would be answered as if in another context, and so on. Then, at the other end, we have the development from Learning III to evolution and such. All is relevant. Double Bind patterns must necessarily operate on logical levels that psychiatry ignores. There are many good examples of logical typing in Bateson's writing, for example (from "Mind and Nature"):

"Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius" is on a higher logical level than "That molecule will be the first to go".

Brennanyoung (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beating one's wife

"if one had never abused one's wife, the answer "no" would be incorrect, as one could not have stopped performing an action one has never performed.)"

It seems to me that "yes" is the answer which would be incorrect; see Mu. --Acepectif 13:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schizophrenia/MPD

This sounds like what I've read as a possible root to Multiple Personality Disorder, or Dissociative Disorder, Not to be confused with Schizophrenia. However, I do not know if this argument actually was used against schizophrenia, or not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.84.24.126 (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] NLP

I recently rewrote the section called "Persuasion uses" to Neuro-linguistic programming. It was giving a one-sided view of its application in NLP. Wasn't this just imported into NLP from Erickson/Bateson? ----Action potential t c 06:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not Watzlawick

Until today, both this article and the Gregory Bateson article included the incorrect claim that Paul Watzlawick was one of the founders of the Double Bind theory. He was not one of the authors of the original paper, and he didn't join the research team until 1960, so I have removed his name and inserted the name of John H. Weakland (about whom I know practically nothing, but he surely deserves a Wikipedia entry on the strength of his co-authorship of this important paper). --RichardVeryard 16:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution, dammit....

Context of (edited) discussion - the inclusion/relevance (or not) of the evolutionary double bind in the main article. Has been added and removed twice already.

Also, I would suggest you would do better with an example from nature rather than fiction. Evercat (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, as Bateson pointed out, mind and nature are one, and all our conscious understanding is fictional. Heheh.
But I can understand there's a need for a stronger metaphor taken from biology before you 'get it'. Have you considered the Rhinoceros horn? It evolved as a 'defensive weapon' (possibly also used in courtship also). But the Rhino is now almost extinct because some humans think that its horn - the very thing which is supposed to give it an evolutionary advantage - is imagined to be a supernaturally powerful aphrodisiac. On one level, the horn protects the species, helping to prevent it from becoming extinct, and on another, more abstract level, the horn threatens the species with extinction. Even if a Rhino kills a hunter with his horn, he has merely 'won the wrong game'. We are talking about two different logical types of 'survival'. The horn therefore has a contradictory role in Rhino survival (and evolution). This is a classic double bind, and no species can escape the double bind of natural selection. To quote Lewis Carroll: "It always happens".
Lewis Carroll's bread-and-butter fly was the example that Bateson himself chose to illustrate the evolutionary double bind. He has also discussed the use of metaphor at great length, especially as a means to illuminate 'difficult' scientific matters. So.. what's wrong with fictional illustrations?
OK Here's how it works; If the bread-and-butter fly (which lives on weak tea with cream) does not get its food, it dies. However, if it gets its food, it also dies, because its head is made of a sugar lump, which would be dissolved by the tea. It's a lose-lose situation, with two contradictory injunctions, one on a more abstract level than the other, and both threatening the survival of the individual. That fits Bateson's specifications for a double bind perfectly. I'd appreciate if you made some effort to understand how this aspect of 'natural selection' matches the double bind pattern, instead of just dismissing it as 'nonsense'.
I haven't changed the main page this time, just hoping you guys will be able to think outside the communications/psychiatry box for long enough to help me formulate this important aspect of double bind theory adequately enough for it to merit even just a MENTION on the main page at some point.Brennan Young 20, Feb 2008


[edit] Confusion between contradiction, paradox, and double bind

Starting with the first sentence, this article frequently confuses, as has been noted in the discussion on this page, contradictions, paradoxes, and double binds. This article is not up to snuff yet. Jim Keim Jamespkeim (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'm reminded of Bateson's criticisms (in one of the later essays in "Steps...") of those who would study recordings of family groups or therapist/patient dyads and try to 'count' the double binds, which is as ridiculous as trying to count the jokes in a Charlie Chaplin movie. Double bind is, above all, about context. Double binds can not be counted or enumerated, rather we can speak of a double-bind situation - a configuration of contexts where communications reveal the double-bind pattern inherent in those contexts.

The situation described in Catch-22 is, in my opinion, a true double-bind situation: Yossarian wants to get out of the war on medical grounds, so he pretends to be crazy, but he is told that only crazy people would want to be at war, so he is not allowed to be discharged for medical reasons. The word "crazy" is being used on two different logical levels.

I think it's correct to say that double bind situations are a subset of contradictions, but that the contradiction is invisible if only one of the logical levels is considered. e.g. criminals are punished for their crimes, but the criminal himself experiences only a 'tit-for-tat' response to his actions, and is likely to respond in kind. In this way, the justice-system/criminal muddle the class of 'crimes' with the lower-level class of 'actions', (which may explain why crime rates are never reduced by tougher sentencing).

The paradox is that the contradiction exists and does not exist simultaneously, depending on whether you are looking at both logical levels, or just one at a time. Double binds are therefore also a subset of paradoxes, in fact they may be defined as "Contradictions which exist between logical levels, but do not exist on either of those levels individually".

The problem is that every simple contradiction (and indeed every simple statement) can be represent a double bind if the appropriate context is provided, in the simple contradiction: "Eat your fries, but don't eat them", this could actually be a therapeutic double bind or zen koan if the word 'eat' was stressed differently each time (with tone of voice, body language, or whatever). Compare with: "The doctor said you're overweight. Finish your fries so we can take you to the gym." in which the context (an authoritarian ethos) is implied.

Brennanyoung (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reexamining underlying assumptions

I finally (!) checked your entry on double bind theory—and agree it needs more work. I don’t want to start with editing suggestions but to first examine some things needed for improving the article.

Talk page guidelines ask for references—my first reference is G. Bateson’s Introduction in Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Among other things, Bateson cites the excessive use of inductive thinking in the field of the behavioral sciences as leading to missed errors in logic which have delayed development in the field. It would seem that science itself is caught in a double bind—i.e. if it’s not inductive reasoning based on data it’s not considered science; discuss a missed paradigm and your colleagues will scorn your work or ignore it, so that simple errors aren’t corrected for many years. Indeed, the problems Bateson described have never been resolved. A clearer definition of double binds might help clear the way and I hope Wikipedia will do this. The following is long, around 1000 words, but is edited down to a minimum.

Your article says Bateson’s theory is complex; but rather it’s not fully explained—or understood. After all he wasn’t entirely clear because he was (as he described himself) an explorer in a new field. I think you could greatly improve the article if you consider the following issues.

It’s important to remember that in the 1950’s when Bateson, et al, were writing about double bind theory there was no general recognition of child abuse as such (which didn’t fully enter public awareness until the 1980s), otherwise they might have described destructive double binding as a form of psychological abuse. However they did recognize it as part of unhealthy family systems. And, unlike today, they did extensive interviews of both the patient and family member, listening very carefully, assuming that what was said might make sense within the context. And so they picked up on what might make possible something still missing from the DSM—the differentiation between true schizophrenia, and the mental confusion and trauma encountered in child abuse and PTSD. (Note: Jules Henry; Pathways to Madness, was doing similar research around the same time).

Catch-22 and double binds are in essence the same: what makes them seem different is the former is a pop novel description of double binds in military systems in wartime; the latter is a scientific description attempting to account for schizophrenia without an organic brain dysfunction. Both Heller and Bateson use a similar format: repetitive and circular reasoning in order to illustrate how the mind goes around and around, seeking a way out of seemingly impossible dilemmas. And Heller is talking about a large, impersonal system in which discussion of conflicts is nigh on impossible whereas Bateson is referring primarily to double binds imposed by one person on a subordinate within an ongoing relationship.

Bateson notes that double binds are common in life and that there are positive therapeutic double binds possible (in Zen and in psychiatry, etc.) as well as destructive double binds.

Alan Watts is good, but both types of double binds would be easier to understand if you begin with the example used by Bateson of a Zen koan (in Towards a Theory…): “The Zen master… holds a stick over the pupil’s head and says fiercely, ‘If you say this stick is real, I will strike you with it. If you say this stick is not real, I will strike you with it. If you don’t say anything, I will strike you with it…” and the student submits to the conflict in order to learn. “The student might reach up and take the stick…” away from the Master, or break it, or make it into a broom stick to sweep the room—this would resolve the impasse and the relief in finding a way out would be its own reward. Also, the Zen master is relatively open about the contradictions he is presenting, and accepts and approves of the student finding a solution. In contrast, in a destructive double bind relationship, unacceptable contradictory parts are presented covertly or in a way that makes them inaccessible, and the victim who finds any way out of the double bind is punished or put in the wrong.
This example illustrates that there can be multiple conflicting primary injunctions. The issue of different levels of thinking—primary, secondary and tertiary injunctions—is a slightly different matter which, for clarity, should be dealt with in a separate paragraph.

I believe there is sufficient evidence that Bateson was proposing that the behavioral sciences had set itself up a double bind. To give an example of an unresolved problem in behavioral health: D.L. Rosenhan’s article in Science—On Being Sane in Insane Places—published the same year as Steps. It describes a brief test made of the ability of psychiatric hospitals to recognize a sane person—of vital importance, for example, when a whistle-blower is hospitalized on false grounds. In over 35 years this test has never been followed up on with research—and of course acknowledging frequent errors in diagnosis would endanger the whole MH system. One might say that the behavioral health system, caught in its own double bind, has been unable to find its way out of what Bateson called “dormitive hypotheses” and Bessel van der Kolk has called “psychiatric amnesia” (In Traumatic Stress…; 1996) in relation to PTSD). Which is another reason why a better understanding of double bind theory is needed.

Nowadays a pop term sometimes used for destructive double binding is “crazymaking”—referring to abusive relationships involving psychological control.
Another example of double binding is often found in families with alcoholism. The alcoholic considers s/he doesn’t have a drinking problem. If a family member complains about the negative effects of the drinking the alcoholic sees the family member as a problem and as disrupting the relationship. The family member is double binded into being an enabler or being forced to leave the family.
Perhaps you would recommend leaving out personal matters, but the following is an excellent example of double binding from my childhood—my mother’s general take on me was that I ‘couldn’t do anything right’. At the same time she’d expect me to do everything perfectly and would criticize or punish me severely if I didn’t because my failure threatened her image as an effective mother. But if I did manage to do something correctly this would prove her mistaken in her judgment of me, and so she’d become upset, angry and threatening. If I asked her what was wrong she would say, “You know exactly what’s wrong” and go into a violent rage, which made any discussion impossible. (Consider the effect on the development of a toddler's mind in the face of continuous double binds. Needless to say it took me many years to find my way out of them).

There are a number of other issues to address (such as double bind and schizophrenia; are people who consistently use destructive double binds mentally ill or in denial or sociopathic, etc.) but certainly this covers a sufficient number.

I should clarify this is my first time contributing to discussion of an article. Any feedback would be appreciated. Also, my computer skills are limited and I use a computer at the local community college. Margaret9mary (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Apologies for editing variation

Before editing the first time I asked around the local community college for someone with experience with Wikipedia--and found no one. (The head of the virtual campus did help on general matters). So I tried editing and was immediately reverted. Itistoday said I had caused bad wikilinks (this was entirely unintended) but didn't explain how to prevent it for another time. So, until I figure it out or someone explains it to me I will not try to alter existing text. Help! would be greatly appreciated in Farmington, NM.

Before editing again I reexamined my sources carefully. These are:

1. Bateson, G. (1972) Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Ballentine paperback. (Also, Mary Catherine Bateson's Introduction to the new edition clarifies a number of things.)
2. Bale, L.S. (1997?) Gregory Bateson, Cybernetics and the Social/Behavioral Sciences first published in Cybernetics and Human Knowing. This includes an excellent description of the differences between the paradigms of classical science and systems theory, essential for understanding Bateson's work.
3. Gibney, Paul (May 2006) The Double Bind Theory: Still Crazy-Making After All These Years. in Psychotherapy in Australia. Vol. 12 No. 3.
4. The NLP University Press Encyclopedia's entry for double bind at http://www.nlpuniversitypress.com/html/D48.html
5. Koopmans, Mathijs (1997 and 1998) Schizophrenia and the Family (in two parts): Double Bind Theory Revisited and Paradox and Absurdity in Human Communication Reconsidered.

Bateson said, "[T]he vast majority of both metalinguistic and metacommunicative messages remain implicit...(in Steps..A Theory of Play and Fantasy). Most of these messages are determined by the context or were stated or hinted at on previous occasions.
To give and example: In the military one cannot leave without being discharged, and one cannot ignore an order, or question it or disobey it without leaving oneself open to discipline for insubordination. This is a tertiary injunction. There are many secondary injunctions in the military, but I'll leave that for another time.

The following are excerpts from the first page of the nlp university press encyclopedia entry on double bind:
Double binds occur quite frequently in everyday life ... such conflicts are at the root of both creativity and psychosis. The difference is whether or not one is able to identify and transcend the bind in an appropriate way ... many double binds have another degree of complexity in that they involve different levels [of messages] ... double binds are related to what has become known as a Catch-22 ... Double binds often share the quality of circularity (a "circular argument") illustrated by the Catch-22 and lead to a similar sense of confusion and helplessness."

It could be said that double bind theory is part of systems theory--which could be clarified by calling it eco-systems theory.Margaret9mary (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

On the formatting question. Wikilinks are explained in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links). Put simply, you are supposed to put the name of another Wikipedia article into double square brackets. What you put into the double square brackets was nothing like that. --RichardVeryard (talk) 07:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
On the substantive question - what is the nature of Catch-22. If you read it carefully, all the NLP encyclopedia actually says is that Catch-22 has a "quality of circularity" whereas double binds have "another degree of complexity". So your claim that "The double bind is essentially the same as a Catch-22 situation" is not supported by your sources and is incorrect. The article already explains the difference. --RichardVeryard (talk) 07:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a comment on Itistoday's talk page complaining about the statement "The double bind is often misunderstood to be a simple Catch-22 situation...". I am not sure whether the complaint refers to the alleged frequency of misunderstanding or to the assertion that the double bind is not a simple Catch-22 situation. The word "simple" is critical here - this statement is not refuted by any arguments about complex Catch-22 situations. --RichardVeryard (talk) 09:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I do accept that Catch-22 is a rich fictional device, which can possibly be interpreted in many different ways. So perhaps it is possible to analyse Catch-22 in Batesonian terms. There are some hints of this analysis on this Talk page and on Itistoday's talk page; but until this analysis is published in a reputable source, it counts as Original Research and is therefore not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. And since the common (and simple) interpretation of Catch-22 is much less complex than the Double Bind, it should not be used for explaining the nature of Double Bind. --RichardVeryard (talk) 08:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)