Paradoxical communication and affective relationships: he said "yes", he meant "no" and it all ended.

One of the great mysteries of communication between people.

One of the mysteries of human communication is how we come to disengage.

At first glance, the structure of language allows us to understand each other clearly and precisely. However, we do not always say what we want to say, and there are times when we experience what we call paradoxical communication.

Paradoxical communication and the incongruent message

Watzlawick's team and their study with schizophrenic patients came up with the logic of the disengagement. They differentiated two communicative levels: the digital level and the analogical level. The digital level refers to "what is said" and the content of the message itself, while the analog level refers to "what is meant" or the underlying intention. Therefore, it is not only the content of the message that matters, but the intention behind it.

In general, this would not be a problem, because people like consistency, so if a child says "I want ice cream", we easily understand what to buy him. This fact is explained by the fact that words do not in themselves have a double meaning, but we are the ones who produce it.. Therefore, just as the two levels can coincide, they can also contradict each other. Sometimes, there are situations in which we ask for a change in the relationship with the interlocutor and we try with our communication an approach-avoidance.

Here are some examples

Let's take the case of a girl who insists on going out at night, to which her mother replies "you'll see for yourself". In this message the mother's will is totally concealed; she does not inform her of her intention and her daughter must infer that she does not want her to go. This is how her authority in the relationship is put to the test and the indecision arises between yielding to the intention or sticking to the content; between staying or leaving. What your daughter does implies a change in the relationship with her mother, a modification towards approach or avoidance.

This effect is called paradoxical communication and regardless of the option chosen, it does not have a happy ending. In the previous case, if the daughter decides not to go, she will feel uneasy because she has been told to do whatever she wants and she did not want to stay. But neither would she feel good if she had gone, since it was not clear that her mother was okay with her going. Neither option is a confirmation of what to do, so whatever is done, there will always be the feeling of not doing the right thing.. These are the two characteristic repercussions of paradox: confusion and discomfort.

Example of congruent communication

-Do you want something, son?

-I want some ice cream.

-Okay, I'll buy you an ice cream on the way home.

-Digital level (content): wants an ice cream.

-Analog level (intention): he wants an ice cream.

Example of incongruent communication: Paradox

-Let me go out for a while tonight, come on....

-You yourself, Andrea, you'll see....

• Digital level (content): let Andrea do what she wants.

• Analogical level (intention): Andrea should do what her mother wants.

Snowball effect in communication

Carmen (message): John, I'm terrible and the child has put the room lost.

Jim: What does he want now? I've been working all day and he comes to me and tells me that the room is dirty? You don't want me to tidy it up, do you? That you come to me and tell me to clean the living room at 10 o'clock at night, that's a real Pain in the ass!

Juan (upon arrival): Carmen, you clean the living room!

An obstacle in couple relationships

Paradox is precisely one of the causes for which when there are problems in the couple, lack of communication is mentioned.. It is a symptom that reflects that both partners are not informing clearly enough their intentions when talking to each other.

Likewise, it is also the starting point that paves the way for breakups, since paradoxical communication is not a one-time occurrence, but creeps into conversations.

Example 1 of paradoxical communication in courtship

-Hey, are you doing anything on Friday?

-Yes, I'm going for a walk with Carlos and Fran.

-Oh, okay...

-Did you want something?

-No.

-What are you doing?

-I'm going to the movies with Juan.

-Okay, fine. -Okay.

-Well, very well. -Don't get angry, eh?

-No, not if I'm not angry. -No, no, not if I'm not angry.

-So, bye. -Bye.

-But listen...

-Tell me.

-Are you angry?

-Because? -All right.

-I'll tell them to take a rain check. -No, leave it.

-No, leave it.

-Are you sure?

-Yes, you go.

-Okay, then don't say. -Ah...

-Ah... -Okay, eh. Come on, bye.

Example 2 of paradoxical communication in courtship

-I can't make it tomorrow.

-Whoops, whoops... Well, I'm angry! And very angry! hahahahahah!

-Don't get angry... We won't meet again, eh, beautiful?

-Be careful, maybe I'm the one who doesn't want to meet up anymore...

-Then we won't meet again, there's no problem.

-No problem, no problem at all.

-It's up to you.

Beyond what is pronounced is what is said.

The paradox is characterized by ambiguityIt is characterized by ambiguity, doubt in the intentions of the other person. It leaves a gap in the dialogue between people that will grow and advance parallel to the communication in a snowball process. As long as we don't understand something, we look for an explanation, and that explanation may be incorrect and we may build part of our relationship with the person on it.. A message such as "I'm terrible and the room is dirty" can be understood as an intention to comfort or a request for cleaning, to which our response would be very different.

But if paradoxical communication can explain why couples break up, it also explains why they fail to form. Normally, being in a couple you know the other person and can draw on mutually shared knowledge to fill the paradoxical gap. This is how by knowing how the other person usually relates, you can understand what the other person's intention is. However, this does not happen in the first few approaches. When you start to get to know someone, you are in the middle of a learning process; learning how the other relates to you and how it fits in with your own way of relating.

The role of expectations

In addition to this fact, there are other typical characteristics of the first approaches that lead to paradoxes. One of them is expectationsThe first one is the expectation of whether it will be that special person with whom one will share one's own path. The anticipation of the outcome implies changes in the current way of communicating with the other, as well as it may cause both people to have different intentions. However, if it seems that by communicating intentions there should be no problems, fear and frustration appear to put a stumbling block in the way.

Saying what is expected of the other person implies facing the fact that it may not coincide with the other person's expectations. Fear and frustration at the possibility that the other person may not want the same thing that we want makes us keep our intentions a secret.. In addition, a final factor is vulnerability, since to make our intentions explicit is to reveal this secret and thus to feel vulnerable.

In this way, expectations, fear, frustration and the feeling of vulnerability lead to the appearance of paradoxes. These factors come together in courtship, where one remains in tension in a duality of approach-avoidance. In other words, in "flirting" we constantly test the other person's intentions to see if they match our own. As we communicate, we let our desires be glimpsed and test the other person's desires, thus playing the well-known game of approach and avoidance.

Learning to deal with the paradoxes of communication

As mentioned above, in the first steps in the formation of a couple, one's own intentions are hidden to a greater degree, favoring the appearance of paradoxes. Since one does not yet have a knowledge of the other, the presence of paradoxes can be part of the learning of the interactional pattern..

This is how paradoxes can be understood as part of the way of relating with the other, becoming a common feature when communicating with him/her. If we still do not know anything about the other person, we can conclude that this way of communicating is characteristic of our type of relationship. Functioning from paradoxes implies a consecutive sequence of requests that are both approaching and avoiding the other and for which, regardless of what is done, we will not feel good, since we do not know if the other option was better.

That is how a small game creates a paradox that hinders communication and makes both of us start walking without knowing where we are going or which path to choose.

Bibliographical references:

• Cenoz, J. and Valencia J. F. (1996). La competencia pragmática: elementos lingüísticos y psicosociales. Bilbao: Servicio Editorial Universidad del País Vasco.
• Holtgraves, M. (2008). Language as Social Action. Social Psychology and Language. USA: Psychology Press.
• Watzlawick, P., Bavelas, B. and Jackson, D. (2008). Theory of human communication. New York: Herder.