Paradoxical communication: he said yes, he wanted to say no, and it was all over

One of the mysteries of human communication is how did we get to ignore each other.

At first glance, the structure of language allows us to understand ourselves clearly and precisely. However, what is meant is not always said, and there are times when the call is given paradoxical communication.

Paradoxical communication and the incongruous message

Watzlawick's team and their patient study schizophrenics they came up with the logic of misunderstanding. They differentiated two communication levels: digital level and analog level. The digital level refers to "what is said" and the content of the message, while the analog level refers to "what is meant" or the intention behind the scenes. 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, as people like consistency, so if a child says "I want an ice cream", we easily understand what to buy. This fact is explained in that the words do not have a double meaning in themselves, but we are the ones who produce it

. Therefore, in the same way that both 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.

Some examples

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

This is called paradoxical communication and regardless of the option chosen, it has no happy ending. In the previous case, if the daughter decides not to go, she will feel upset because she has been told that she should do what she wants and she did not want to stay. But she wouldn't feel good if she had dated either, as it was not clear that her mother was okay with her being. 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. Those are the two characteristic repercussions of the paradox: confusion and discomfort.

Example of congruent communication

-You want something, son?

-I want ice cream.

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

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

-Analog level (intention): she wants ice cream.

Incongruous communication example: paradox

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

-You yourself, Andrea, you will see ...

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

• Analog level (intention): Andrea must do what her mother wants.

Snowball effect on communication

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

Juan: What do you want now? I've been working all day and it comes to me that the living room is dirty? You don't want me to order it, do you? That I come with cleaning the room at 10 o'clock at night has noses ...

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

An obstacle in couple relationships

Precisely the paradox is one of the causes why when there are problems in the couple, it refers to the lack of communication. It is a symptom that reflects that the two members are not reporting their intentions clearly enough when talking to the other.

Likewise, it is also the starting point that opens the way to ruptures, since paradoxical communication is not a one-off event, but rather creeps into conversations.

Example 1 of paradoxical communication in courtship

-Hey, are you doing something on Friday?

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

-Ah okay…

-Did you want something?

-Not.

-What will you do?

-I will go to the movies with Juan.

-OK, very good.

-Well, very good. Don't be mad, huh?

-No, no, if I don't get angry.

-Well, bye.

-But hey…

-Tell me.

-Are you angry?

-For? All good.

-If you want I can tell them to leave it for another day.

-No, leave it.

-Safe?

-I had.

-Well, then don't say.

-Ah… Okay, huh. Come on, bye.

Example 2 of paradoxical communication in courtship

-Tomorrow at the end I can not stay.

-Uy, uy… Well, I get angry! And a lot! Hahaha

-Don't be angry... We don't meet anymore, huh pretty?

-Be careful that maybe the one who doesn't want to be left is me ...

-Well, then we won't meet, there is no problem.

-There isn't, none.

-There you.

Beyond what is pronounced is what is said

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

But if paradoxical communication can explain why do couples end, also explains why they do not get to be formed. Normally, being in a relationship you get to know the other person and you can draw on mutually shared knowledge to fill the void of the paradox. That is how Knowing how the other usually relates, you can understand what intention he has. However, this does not happen in the first approaches. When you start to get to know someone, the person is in the middle of a learning process; learning how the other relates and how it fits with one's own way of relating.

The role of expectations

To this fact are added other typical characteristics of the first approaches that promote paradoxes. One of them are The expectationsIf it will be that special person with whom you share your own path. The anticipation of the results implies changes in the current way of communicating with the other, as well as it can cause both people to have different intentions. Now, if it seems that communicating the intentions should not have problems, fear and frustration appear to put a stone in the way.

Saying what is expected of the other person implies facing that may not match the expectations of others. Fear and frustration at the possibility that the other person does not want the same thing that we do favors us to keep our intentions secret. In addition, a last factor is vulnerability, since making intentions explicit is to reveal said secret and with it, feel vulnerable.

In this way, expectations, fear, frustration and the feeling of vulnerability lead to the appearance of paradoxes. These factors combine in courtship, where you remain in tension in a duality of approach-avoidance. That is to say, in the "fooling around" the intentions of the other person are constantly tested to see if they agree with their own. As we communicate, we let our desires glimpse and put those of the other to the test, thus playing the well-known game of approaching and avoiding each other.

Learn to deal with the paradoxes of communication

Due to the aforementioned, in the first steps in the formation of a couple, one's intentions are hidden to a greater degree, favoring the appearance of paradoxes. Considering that there is still no knowledge of the other, the presence of paradoxes can be part of the learning of the interactional pattern.

This is how the paradox can be understood as proper to the way of relating to the other, becoming a common feature when communicating with him. 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 approximation and avoidance to the another and for which, regardless of whether it is done, we will not feel good, since we do not know if the other option was best.

This is how a little 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.

Bibliographic references:

• Cenoz, J. and Valencia J. F. (1996). Pragmatic competence: linguistic and psychosocial elements. Bilbao: University of the Basque Country Publishing Service.
• Holtgraves, M. (2008). Language as Social Action. Social Psychology and Language. USA: Psychology Press.
• Watzlawick, P., Bavelas, B. and Jackson, D. (2008). Human communication Theory. New York: Herder.