Paradoxical Communication: 6 Keys To Understanding It

Why do we sometimes say yes when in reality we are thinking no in our head? Why do we prefer to be silent and say nothing when we know very well what we want? What mechanism is behind these situations? Paradoxical communication is responsible for this.

We are immersed in a large number of relationships on a daily basis. This is why the basis and, at the same time,  the objective of human communication is to achieve understanding. Is it that hard?

Yes but no and quite the opposite

The relationship we maintain with others is determined, to a large extent, by how we communicate. Innuendo, guesses, lies or ambiguities are not at all friendly with communicative clarity.

More concretely,  paradoxical communication is a contradiction which arises from a correct deduction made from congruent premises. Although this may sound like a real puzzle, you’ll understand it better with this example of a conversation between a mother and her daughter:

– Honey, help me set the table.

– Mom, I’m not going to stay with you to eat. I’d rather go to the movies with a friend, okay?

– Well, as you want …

While the mother certainly wants her daughter to stay for dinner, her words leave the decision-making power in her daughter’s hands. The mother thinks one thing, says the opposite, and her daughter must assume that she wants her to stay. She will therefore doubt between giving in to her mother’s hidden request or following the content of the sentence. Whatever she does, it will take its toll on her mother and change their relationship. Here is an example of paradoxical communication.

In order for the mother’s response to be congruent with what she wants, she should say:

– No. I’d rather you stay here, eat with us, and go to the movies with your friend another day.

Just like this example, many situations occur in our daily life. We are barely aware of it. It is obvious that it is not only the content of the message that we want to convey that matters: the intention behind it is just as essential.

The paradox is characterized by ambiguity

“Explain to me so that I calm down” but “no matter what you say to me, nothing will succeed in calming me”. One thing and its opposite.

Paradoxical communication is based on the diversity of the ways in which we can interpret the same message. We doubt the other person’s intentions and choose to interpret what they are telling us  in the way that suits us the most or that we think matches what they mean.

The fact is that this explanation that we construct does not have to coincide with the one that the other wants to convey to us. Or if. This is where the uncertainty, confusion and misunderstanding lies.

The more concrete we are in what we want to convey, the less space we will leave to ambiguity:  we will therefore have a better quality of communication with others.

The logic of Watzlawich’s misunderstanding

Paul Watzlawick was an Austrian theorist and psychologist who became a reference in the field of psychotherapy. His research has tried to explain why it is sometimes so difficult to achieve meta-communication and why the opposite is so easy: not understanding each other. Here are  5 axioms of human communication to know:

• It is impossible not to communicate:  communication occurs continuously because, at the very least, we send the message that we do not want to communicate.

• All communication has a content level (what) and a relationship level (how).
• The nature of a relationship depends on the gradation that participants make between communicational sequences:  the communication process is a feedback system,  generated by a sender and a receiver.
• Human communication involves two modalities:  a digital level and an analog level. We will explore these two points further below.
• Communicational exchanges can be symmetrical as well as complementary: it depends on the equality or not in the relationship.

Human communication involves two modalities

For Watzlawick, there are two types of language to express the same content:  the analog level and the digital level.

• Digital level: what we say. This refers to the content of the message, which is understandable, straightforward and does not need to be translated. When we say “I need more tenderness”, “I feel very happy”, “I want you to esteem me more”. Here there is no need for interpretations. The signifier and the signified coincide.
• Analog level: what we really want to say. The intention or the substance behind these words. It implies a greater level of inference.

In the previous example, the mother would transmit to her daughter, using these two types of language:

• Digital level: “you decide between staying to eat or going to the cinema”.
• Analogue level: “you stay here because you have to do what your mother tells you to do”.

The double link theory

Just as these two levels can coincide, they can also contradict each other. Language and words do not have a double meaning in themselves: we are the ones who attribute them to them.

Authors like Bateson, Jackson, Haley and Weakland have continued to delve into this phenomenon and have spoken of the existence of a double link: the paradox that turns into a contradiction. They studied this type of phenomenon in patients suffering from schizophrenia.

With the results of their research, they tried to explain how the family context and communication influence the appearance and maintenance of this type of pathology. They defined the double bond as an unhealthy relationship that has the following properties and characteristics:

• It occurs when a very intense or very emotionally strong situation takes place.

• There is a paradoxical communication:  two contradictory messages are sent at the same time. In the majority of cases, one verbally and the other non-verbally. It is the result of a degree of incongruence between the two previous levels (analog and digital).
• There is a power relationship between whoever sends the message and whoever receives it. The person sending the message prevents the other from deciphering it and talking about the contradiction. Moreover, he leaves him no room to act. Whatever she does, she’s trapped.

Bateson illustrated the double bond with a very revealing example. He was using the case of a family in which the older brother constantly laughs at the younger one, who is otherwise a very shy boy.

The mockery reaches such a level that the little one starts screaming in frustration and helplessness because of the contempt he feels. The consequence is that the big brother stops bothering him and the parents punish the little one for yelling.

In this situation,  the child receives two completely contradictory messages. On the one hand, he must express his feelings to be accepted (and not be the object of mockery). On the other hand, he must not do it in order to be accepted as well (if he shows them, the consequences are not good for him). So what should he do?

The authors concluded that  the double bond is a dysfunctional and imbalanced form of communication, which confuses and confuses people. The subject does not know what to hold on to and this can lead to a series of troubles and difficulties in the relationship with others and with oneself.

As we can see,  we are surrounded by paradoxical communication and double bonds. For example, when we see a message that says “don’t read this”, when someone tells us “be more spontaneous” or “don’t be so obedient”. All this implies contradictory answers in relation to what is announced.

Paradoxical communication as a source of conflict in the couple

When problems arise in a romantic relationship, we normally look for error in the lack of mutual communication. Just like in the family context,  we send mixed messages to our spouse about how we feel or what we want.

• Woman:  “I have had an exhausting day. Check out the condition of the show with the kids who played there! ”
• Husband (thinking):  “And what do you want? I have also just arrived home and I am also tired. You don’t want me to tidy up the living room either, do you? “
• Husband (speaking):  “You’re going to put it away, right?”

The way in which the husband talks to his wife is revealing. He knows that his wife indirectly asks him to tidy up the living room and  his answer is totally out of context, even rude.

The best thing would be for him to ask her:  “Do you want me to put it away? I help you ? What do you need ?”. But he decides, because of his ingrained beliefs and assumptions, that his wife’s intention is not to tidy up.

This reflects the fact that both  do not convey their intentions clearly enough. On the other hand, paradoxical communication is usually not something ad hoc: rather it has a snowball effect. It normally hangs out from conversation to conversation and can even become chronic in a relationship.

In joint consultations carried out by the therapist, one can observe how a couple expresses aggressive criticism  while disguising their hostility with language that seems affectionate, or vice versa. 

Identifying the paradox sometimes helps to read the other, to know what they are thinking, even if they remain silent. However, on other occasions the understanding is not so simple; the consequences can be very harmful for the relationship and lead to serious conflicts. We insist that in order to be able to communicate properly,  the first thing to do is to understand ourselves.

Our thoughts

If you feel like you’re having a hard time communicating effectively, here are some tips to help you improve.