Thread: Welcome
View Single Post
Unread July 21st, 2004, 03:01 AM
Stephen Lankton Stephen Lankton is offline
Forum Leader
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 117
Default Re: Welcome

I have to stick to the "Monkey Model" a bit longer - I believe parenting (and not nature) forms or shatters the personality that creates both of this "diseases". And too, older money's communicated just as humans do to trigger expectations and knowledge of their interactions and roles. Both of these elements apply fully to your groups.

Of course, this is a metaphor, to help convey the idea...and help shape one's understanding of what is somewhat more complicate. Both situations involve the same parallels to an exent. MP are picked on by Schiz in your groups / but with the monkey's the most poorly parented monkeys are picked on the the slightly better parented ones. We would tend to think the Schiz were more poorly the analogy does not apply at that point in the human group. Still, you have Schiz with enough adjustment to be out in public (not the ones clinging to the walls of the hospital ward somewhere - those would match the Harlow monkey analogy).

But you have a "better adjusted" (so to speak) of Schiz in your public group. So we have to wonder if there are communication factors at work to signal and establish roles. With humans their is (may be) an additional aspect of attempts to defend against psychological threat that is created due to (at least) the communication.

Consider the Jay Haley formula (1963): All communcication contains these 4 points, 1) I, 2) am communication this, 3) to you, 4) in this context. The schiz will alter more of these more often than others will. This will create a pretty big threat to others and especially if any similar ambiguity in the family of origin of your MPs was associated with threat (and it seem reasonalble that this could be). So, the MP sense a threat they need to stop. They could try stopping it by arguement (which would be hopeless against the Schiz frame of reference), by combative behavior (there's a fight), or by withdrawal (then they are like the wire-mother monkey being further persued to fight). Two out of 3 end in fight and the first one will eventually have to end by turning into one of those other two! So, 3 out of 3 options end up as you observed.

If you are asking what are the actual 'signaling communcations' that takes place and how to best codify the communication styles involved in these interpersonal negotiations, you would do well to see the Harlow tapes and get some ideas (which I'm sure you would), or show me tapes of the real people in question. But I urge you not to dismiss Harlow a joke, if you did I think you might be under-estimating a mammal here or there. It backs up your observation very well and requires just a bit of improvement due to the complexity of the added human sophitication. If you were to publish your accounts, you really will want to site Harlow and add the necessary adjustments you find. It could make a good/great addendum to that famous work.

Last edited by Stephen Lankton; July 22nd, 2004 at 01:50 AM.
Reply With Quote