Cambio: Formacion y solucion de los problemas humanos

by Paul Watzlawick, John H. Weakland, Richard Fisch

Hay situaciones individuales o colectivas en la vida moderna que conducen a las personas a callejones sin salida en cuanto a posibilidades de cambio. Los autores han analizado el fenómeno y lo han enmarcado dentro de una trama conceptual ilustrada con ejemplos tomados de diversos sectores de la vida que abre nuevas sendas para una mejor comprensión de cómo los individuos se enredan entre las mallas de sus mutuos problemas y cómo pueden ayudarse a salir de estos laberintos humanos.
En la obra se describen dos teorías útiles para esclarecer aspectos fundamentales acerca del cambio: la teoría de los grupos y la teoría del sentido lógico e ilógico de los cambios. ¿Quién, siguiendo un sentido lógico, no ha tenido la experiencia frustrante de ver que las cosas iban de mal en peor? Y por el contrario, todos hemos experimentado, en algún momento, cómo surgía un cambio ilógico y sorprendente en una situación bloqueada. Todo cambio global precisa de otros cambios menores: es el efecto de la bola de nieve que con pequeños cambios conduce a cambios importantes.

Los autores, de la Escuela de Palo Alto, dedican buena parte del libro a la solución de los problemas: a partir de aspectos puntuales, como puede ser un miedo o una incomunicación, centran al individuo en la totalidad de la vida.

Genres: Psychology, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Self Help, Science, Counselling, Management

226 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1974

About the author

Was an Austrian-American psychologist and philosopher. A theoretician in communication theory and radical constructivism, he has commented in the fields of family therapy and general psychotherapy. He was one of the most influential figures at the Mental Research Institute and lived and worked in Palo Alto, California, until his death at the age of 85

Reviews

[Olivier Goetgeluck · Rating 5 out of 5]

A solution may itself be the problem.

Change is not only possible, but already seething within the problem situation.

Common-sense solutions are the most self-defeating and sometimes even the most destructive ones.

Two questions:
How does this undesirable situation persist?
What is required to change it?

Two types of change:
One that occurs within a given system which itself remains unchanged (first-order change); and one whose occurence changes the system itself (second-order change).

Change in connection with problem formation and problem resolution => second-order change.

Any aspect of reality derives its substance or concreteness from the existence of its opposite:

"Under Heaven all can see beauty only as beauty because there is ugliness. All can know good as good only because there is evil."
- Lao Tzu


One of the most common fallacies about change is the conclusion that if something is bad, its opposite must of necessity be good.

One cannot obtain full visual perception of one's own body, because the eyes, as the perceiving organs, are themselves part of the totality to be perceived, or, as a Zen master put it, "Life is a sword that wounds, but cannot wound itself; like an eye that sees, but cannot see itself." For the same reason, it is extremely difficult to arrive at a more than superficial understanding of one's own culture; one has to leave it and then be prepared for a shock when looking at it from the outside (from the vantage point of another culture), as all anthropologists and many Peace Corps volunteers know.

More and more people begin to "see" that more needs to be done. "More of the same" is their recipe for change, and this "solution" is the problem.

Three ways of mishandling a problem:
1. Action is necessary, but not taken.
2. Action is taken where it should not be.
3. Action is taken at the wrong level.

If a terrible simplificateur is someone who sees no problem where there is one, his philosophical antipode is the utopian who sees a solution where there is none.

It is the premise that things should be a certain way which is the problem and which requires change, and not the way things are. Without the utopian premise, the actuality of the situation might be quite bearable.

The behavioral effects of paradox: e.g. "Be spontaneous!"
=> the demand for behavior which by its very nature can only be spontaneous but cannot be spontaneous as a result of having been requested.

"I want you to study." <=> "I want you to want to study."

The myth that in order to solve a problem one first has to understand its why is so deeply embedded in scientific thinking that any attempt to deal with the problem only in terms of its present structure and consequences is considered the height of superficiality.

What becomes questionable is the question itself.

Very few behavioral or social changes are accompanied by insight into the vicisitudes of their genesis.

In deliberate intervention into human problems the most pragmatic approach is not the question WHY? but WHAT?, that is, what is being done here and now that serves to perpetuate the problem, and what can be done here and now to effect a change?

The causal significance of the past is only a fascinating but inaccurate myth. In this case, the only question is the pragmatic one:

//How can desirable change of present behavior be most efficiently produced?\\

The past has influence over thre present only by way of a person's present interpretation of past experience.

It is precisely this unquestioned illusion that one HAS to make a choice between a and not-a, that there is no other way out of the dilemma and blind us to the solution which is available at all times, but which contradicts common sense. The formula of second-order change is "not a but also not not-a."

Not to choose is also a choice.

To reframe means to change the conceptual and/or emotional setting or viewpoint in relation to which a situation is experienced and to place it in another frame which fits the "facts" of the same concrete situation equally well or even better, and thereby changes its entire meaning.

What turns out to be changed as a result of reframing is the meaning attributed to the situation, and therefore its consequences, but not its concrete facts.

"It is not the things themselves which trouble us, but the opinions we that we have about these things." - Epictetus

The simplistic but widespread assumption that there is an objective reality somewhere "out there," and that sane people are more aware of it than crazy ones.

Real IS what a sufficiently large number of people have agreed to CALL real - except that this fact is usually forgotten; the agreed-upon definition is reified (made into a "thing") and is eventually experienced as that objective reality "out there" which apparently only a madman can fail to see.

Successful reframing needs to take into account the views, expectations, reasons, premises - in short, the conceptual framework - of those whose problems are to be changed. "Take what the patient is bringing to you."

Reframing presupposes that the therapist learn the PATIENT's language, and this can be done much more quickly and economically than the other way around. (psychotherapy)

~ similar to the philosophy and technique of judo: the opponent's thrust is not opposed by a counterthrust of at least the same force, but rather accepted and amplified by yieldin to and going with it.

Reframing does not DRAW THE ATTENTION to anything - does not produce insight - but TEACHES A DIFFERENT GAME, thereby making the old obsolete. The other "now sees something different and can no longer naïvely go on playing."

Spot wrong answers vs. Spot wrong questions

Four-step procedure to approach a problem:
1. Clear definition of the problem
2. Investigation of solutions attempted so far
3. Clear definition of the concrete change to be achieved/the goal
4. Formulation and implementation of a plan to produce change

In order to be solved, a problem first of all has to be a problem.

Insomniac:
by forcing himself to sleep, he his placing himself in a "Be spontaneous!" paradox, and we suggested that his symptom therefore is best approached in a equally paradoxical way, namely forcing himself to stay awake.
=> prescribe the symptom: make him actively DO it; choose to do it, rather than FIGHT IT.

Insomniac
1. Clear definition of the problem: can't sleep
2. Investigation of solutions attempted so far: try hard to fall asleep
3. Clear definition of the concrete change to be achieved/the goal: fall asleep
4. Formulation and implementation of a plan to produce change: try hard to stay awake (Paradoxical Intention)

Start with terminology! One potential source of failure is inability to present the intervention in a "language" which makes sense to out client and which therefore makes him willing to accept and carry out the instruction.


Grown-ups treated as kids
1. Clear definition of the problem: parents tread adult kids as kids
2. Investigation of solutions attempted so far: by trying to gain a MINIMUM of dependence they get more and more ("more of the same" impasse)
3. Clear definition of the concrete change to be achieved/the goal: parents tell kids to take care of themselves
4. Formulation and implementation of a plan to produce change: try to gain a MAXIMUM of dependence on the parents help in the house and financially (paying the grocery bills, restaurant visits,...)

Making the Overt Covert

Advertising Instead of Concealing
Fear of Public Speaking
1. Clear definition of the problem: his tension will become obvious and he will be overwhelmed by it in front of the audience
2. Investigation of solutions attempted so far: tries to "pull himself together", to appear relaxed
3. Clear definition of the concrete change to be achieved/the goal: be able to speak publicly
4. Formulation and implementation of a plan to produce change: instead of trying to CONCEAL his symptom, ADVERTISE it
=> start your speech with the statement to the audience that you are extremely nervous and that your anxiety will probably overwhelm you

Advertisement is the technique of choice when concealment is the attempted solution.


The Great Effects of Small Causes


Therapeutic intervention must be applied to the "solution."

The simplest way of dealing with people is to tell them they are handsome.

"Why should you change?"
"Why should you possibly change?"

"Go slow!" is the paradoxical intervention of choice when praise and optimisim are thought to facilitate more progress.

"I don't like to waste my time on losers."

Perfectionism/Procrastination
=> Problem is: can't start it
Solutions tried: try to start a masterpiece
Solution: Produce something mediocre

Another way: set a time limit.

The Devil's Pact
A maneuver which allows the therapist to deal with the dilemma by side-stepping it altogether and paradoxically meeting the business of risk head-on.

Change can be implemented effectively by focusing on minimal, concrete goals, going slowly, and proceeding step by step, rather than strongly promoting vast and vague targets with whose desirability nobody would take issue, but whose attainability is a different question altogether.

[Tim · Rating 5 out of 5]

Life has its difficulties--aches and pains, disagreements and disputes, disappointments and discomforts. So whether or not our lives are satisfying is often a matter of whether we manage life's difficulties constructively--or whether we mismanage these difficulties and make them worse.

This is the starting-point of the little book by psychologists Paul Watzlawick, John H. Weakland, and Richard Fisch. The book basically divides into three parts: (1) Describing ways life's difficulties are sometimes mismanaged, thus turning them into full-blown *problems* (chapters 3-6). (2) Describing ways that people can give up the dysfunctional "solutions" they've been practicing, and trade them for different, healthy management of life's difficulties (chapters 7-9). (3) Real-life examples of steps (1) and (2) in action, taken from clinical practice (chapter 10).

The authors have done a masterful job: their examples illustrate their methods, and their methods illuminate the examples. The authors often offer suggestions seem appear counter-intuitive; for instance, while psychologists are often portrayed as seeking the "root causes" of patients' psychological problems in earlier traumatic events, Watzlawick et al actually advise *against* asking such "why"-questions in certain cases:

"It often happens that we...become aware of the important *facts*," they write, quoting philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, "only if we *suppress* the question 'Why?'" (page 84).

This "Don't Ask Why"-principle comes to the fore in several clinical cases described in Chapter 10. Here's one such case: Strange as it may seem, the authors observe,

"...quite a few people seem to enter therapy not for the purpose of resolving a problem and being themselves changed in the process, but [instead] behave as if they wanted to *defeat* the expert and presumably 'prove'...that their problem *cannot* be solved" (page 132).

Patients/Clients like this will often ask for advice, then immediately *reject* the advice, pointing to obstacles that "prevent" them from acting on the (good) advice. (Psychiatrist Eric Berne has famously called this the "Why Don't You...?/Yes, but..." Game.) In response, the authors advise against "the time-honored exercise in futility of asking *why* some people should play the game of...'Help me, but I won't let you'..." Rather, the therapist needs to simply "*accept* the fact that there *are* such people, [and] concentrate [instead] on *what* they are doing...and *what* can be done about it" (page 138).

I only have one small complaint about this book. In the first two chapters, the authors introduce their "Theoretical Perspective" by drawing on some rather advanced subjects in mathematics: Group Theory (a domain of Abstract Algebra) and Bertrand Russell's Theory of Logical Types (a construct of Modern Set Theory). Most readers' eyes may glaze over at this early point in the book.

Since I was a math major in college, though, I found that the authors really didn't need the actual mathematical examples. So I might offer a bit of advice to readers who don't want to be distracted by the authors' (mercifully brief) foray into advanced math:

1) Whenever the authors talk about "groups" or "group theory," just think of "re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic" or when a client "trades one addiction for another." In other words: the pieces and faces might change, but not the basic "game"

2) Whenever the authors talk about the "theory of types" or "meta-levels," just think of the client's need to "take a step back" or "take a broader perspective on their problem (and the failed solutions they have attempted)."

Aside from that minor quibble, I found this to be an insightful and thought-provoking book about a deeply important Life-topic.

[Thomas Vercruysen · Rating 4 out of 5]

An insightful, sometimes funny though a little dated read.

The authors suggest using paradoxes to bring about change in your life, especially when you’re stuck in an unwanted pattern or vicious cycle. (They call it 'a game without end')

To ground this tactic, they make use of mathematical type theory. Though interesting, I think this adds needless complexity. Just an explanation of the difference between object-level and meta-level would have been enough, in my modest opinion.
The gist is, that by introducing a practical paradox on object-level, the changee is forced to transcend his situation and look at it from a meta perspective, thus allowing change.

The most valuable lesson I got from reading this book is that sometimes ‘the solution is the problem’. And in that case you’re best to prescribe the problem as the solution.
A personal example. I dread criticism. Therefore I avoid social initiative (my ‘solution’). And by doing so, my fear only increases and I become even more avoidant. So the move would be to take social initiative, thus possibly subjecting myself to critisism.
Doing so can make me realize that 1) I’m not always being criticized and 2) criticism isn’t the end of the world.

There is this one funny example in the book of a man suffering from an extreme case of agoraphobia (fear of big spaces). He has it so bad he’s even unable to leave the house, see his friends or go to work. And to make it worse: no treatment seems to work.
So one day he decides he's had enough. He is going to end his life… by going out in the open fields. The fear will certainly cause a heart attack and he’ll be free.
Instead, he finds himself strangely relieved from the preexisting fear.

So, overal a good read. I had many aha!-moments. And it’s also good to appreciate that Watzlawick has more to offer than just his famous maxims of communication.

[Sara · Rating 5 out of 5]

While entrenched in applications and theories of psychology primarily, this book is applicable to any situation or problem that any person experiences and wishes to change. The straightforward title indicates what you're going to get--a very honest exploration of change, how people go about it, how they fail along the way, and what must be done to reframe their problems and alter their thinking in order to achieve the desired change. It takes a lot of real-life examples (though many are outdated due to the fact this book was originally written in the 70s) from history, along with case studies and anecdotes to illustrate the points about how human behavior typically hinders change, and the unique and often unusual methods that can be taken to achieve change in order to eliminate a particular problem or resolve a situation. It has practical advice and made me consider the way I approach and handle problems in my everyday life in my work, my interpersonal relationships, and with my own self. It's an inspiring read, albeit it dense in places (it's really meant as a textbook). Totally worth the read.

[Blixen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Un po' datato.

[Sebastian H · Rating 5 out of 5]

Un manual esencial para el terapeuta abocado a la clínica del cambio.

Nada de Psicoanálisis (ni clásico, ni lacaniano, ni cualquier otra escuela más actual) por aquí, sino que se trata de una obra llena de herramientas claras para llevar la terapia por determinados derroteros, aquellos que promocionan el cambio a corto o mediano plazo, con objetivos claramente delineados que proporcionan a los pacientes una hoja de ruta con destino a la vista. Supongo que esto último es lo que principalmente me atrae de este tipo de terapias, y por las que intento transitar mi vida profesional como Psicólogo: los objetivos claros son mensurables y ciertos, con énfasis en el presente para un mejor futuro, en lugar de intentar construir un esqueleto completo a través de fósiles trabajosamente escarbados.

Ciertamente considero que se trata de una obra de cabecera a la que continuaré consultando, para una mejor construcción y desarrollo de mi actividad profesional.

[Cecilia Ruiu · Rating 5 out of 5]

Incredibile. Tutto ciò che un libro di self help vorrebbe ma non riesce ad essere. Attuale, denso, accattivante. Perfetto equilibrio fra teoria ed esempi pratici davvero vari. Concetti logici basilari usati per presentare in modo illuminante principi esistenziali ben più complessi. Riesce a dare una definizione di problema non banale, ma valida in qualunque contesto. Aggiunge un’analisi approfondita delle vie per affrontare “il problema” e ottenere un cambiamento, senza risultare mai ridondante o scontato. Consiglio a chiunque

[Stevie Rooster Scribe · Rating 4 out of 5]

My brain hurts, but it's a good thing.

[Andrej · Rating 5 out of 5]

Focus on "what" not "why"

[Domenico · Rating 5 out of 5]

In questo famoso saggio Watzlawick, John H. Weakland e Richard Fish riprendono le idee esposte in “Pragmatica della comunicazione” e le utilizzano per costruire un modello teorico mirante a descrivere la soluzione dei problemi umani. Watzlawick in particolar modo attinge a piene mani a due branche della matematica per enucleare il suo metodo: alla teoria dei gruppi esposta nell’Ottocento dal geniale matematico Évariste Galois e alla teoria dei tipi logici di Bertrand Russell. La teoria dei gruppi descrive magistralmente l’impasse in cui si trova un essere umano imbrigliato in un sistema relazionale disfunzionale. Ogni sforzo attuato dall’uomo per sfuggire a una situazione simile non fa che rimescolare gli elementi, ma di fatto mantiene invariata la relazione fra essi. La teoria dei gruppi descrive le proprietà invarianti di cui gode un gruppo di elementi. Questo è quello che Watzlawick chiama cambiamento di tipo 1, perché l’attivazione di determinate regole non fa altro che rimescolare gli elementi preservando l’invarianza dei rapporti. Questo perché, secondo Watzlawick, nei rapporti umani “plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose”. Cosa farebbe un uomo per cambiare una determinata situazione? Individuato un problema (presunto) egli si attiverebbe costantemente per risolverlo, sostenendo un atteggiamento contrario alle “forze” sprigionate dal problema stesso. Un uomo è convinto di essere braccato dalla propria moglie che ama imporsi. Egli cerca quindi di preservare il suo spazio vitale chiudendosi in sé stesso. D’altro canto la moglie lamenta il fatto che suo marito non esprime liberamente i sentimenti e sembra essere sfuggente. Quanto più l’uomo cercherà di preservare il suo spazio, tanto più la moglie si lamenterà della chiusura del suo uomo e cercherà di attuare la sua personale soluzione: quella di stargli addosso sempre di più. In realtà esistono problemi che andrebbero risolti, altri che sono frutto di una visione distorta (basti pensare alle mete utopiche) e altri che non hanno alcuna soluzione e sono connaturati a certe logiche prettamente umane. Quest’ultima categoria è la più interessante e include per esempio il problema del gap generazionale. E’ naturale che ci siano delle differenze generazionali ed è scorretto da parte dei genitori cercare di colmarle. Per ogni genitore le nuove generazioni vivono seguendo delle logiche perverse, sono più irresponsabili e quanto meno il loro mondo è incommensurabile con il proprio. La visione distorta del genitore cerca di ridurre questa differenza. E’ risaputo come il problema sia dovuto alla differenza generazionale e alla consueta amnesia che affligge molti ragazzi e ragazze ormai “cresciuti”. Cambiano le visioni del mondo e ci si dimentica come si era prima.
Il cambiamento di tipo 1 è fittizio e inutile; è come sperare di dare una maggiore accelerazione all’auto senza cambiare marcia. E’ necessario un “cambio di marcia” o cambiamento 2 e per fare ciò Watzlawick attinge a piene mani alla teoria dei tipi logici di Russell e Whitehead. E’ necessario distinguere tra un elemento dell’insieme e la totalità degli elementi. La totalità degli elementi non è un elemento dell’insieme stesso. E’ la confusione tra elemento e insieme a generare paradossi e fraintendimenti. Esiste in pratica una gerarchia dei tipi logici che stabilisce una netta distinzione tra un elemento, un insieme, un insieme di insieme e così via fino all’infinito. In un determinato sistema è necessaria una metaregola esterna che scardini il sistema stesso. Se in molti problemi umani è controproducente andare semplicemente nella direzione opposta di essi, una soluzione, suggeriscono gli autori, può essere quella di “somministrare il sintomo”. In che modo si può obbligare una persona a cambiare un dato comportamento? E’ sufficiente prescrivergli un comportamento opposto (quello cioè considerato corretto)? Fosse stata quella la soluzione, tutti i problemi sarebbero stati risolti già da un pezzo. Per essere duraturi, certi cambiamenti devono essere spontanei, ed è noto come la spontaneità di un atteggiamento non possa essere indotta da una semplice prescrizione. E’ opportuno quindi utilizzare delle particolari prescrizioni paradossali, legate doppiamente: tali prescrizioni del terapeuta riescono in qualche maniera ad ottenere l’effetto voluto sia che il paziente risponda positivamente, sia che rimanga restio al cambiamento. Solitamente queste prescrizioni appaiono talmente insensate che i pazienti si sentono disorientati. Molte volte la prescrizione può apparire controproducente e sembra andare persino nella direzione del problema stesso piuttosto che contro di esso. E’ qui che Watzlawick propone la “prescrizione del sintomo”: ordinare al paziente la prosecuzione dei suoi atteggiamenti disfunzionali permette di inquadrare il problema in una luce totalmente diversa. Ora il paziente si trova costretto a eseguire spontaneamente un atteggiamento disfunzionale. Prima, però , ho ribadito come un atteggiamento spontaneo non possa essere indotto attraverso una prescrizione: sarebbe paradossale. Questa ristrutturazione del problema mette il paziente in condizioni di ripensare il suo problema. La prescrizione esorta il paziente a riprodurre i suoi sintomi a comando e magari in alcune ore della giornata; questa nuova realtà lo porta irrimediabilmente ad avvertire l’assurdità della stessa e ad abbandonare il suo atteggiamento scorretto. Il principio del “similia similibus curantur” (il simile va curato con il simile) è un’altra chicca teorica di questo libro stupendo. Sostanzialmente è un libro complesso che va letto attentamente.

[Julie Bouchonville · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bien pensé, intelligent, concis : une approche claire et brillante du changement et de son rôle dans la thérapie systémique une fois conceptualisé. Un must pour quiconque travaille avec de la thérapie brève.

[Inés del Castillo · Rating 4 out of 5]

no me apetece hacer una reseña seria porque he tenido que hager un trabajo para el máster sobre él. Me ha gustado bastante, tiene cosillas aplicables a día de hoy y no me esperaba que rechazara tanto la idea de buscar el origen de las conductas problema (y esa es la parte que más me ha gustado del libro, abajo el puto psicoanálisis coño)

aunque lo habría disfrurado más si no hubiera tenido que hacer una speedrun de lectura para llegar a la fecha de entrega del trabajo ajajajajaja

[Raquel · Rating 2 out of 5]

los hot takes que tiene son un poco sentido común y la mayoría de ejemplos que plantea son verdaderamente aterradores

[Sequoia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Another pretty brief book related (but not restricted) to psychotherapy. It talks about how to "change", or more like, problem solving by "change". More theoretical ( I particularly enjoyed the introduction through the lens of Galois' group theory and the Logical Types -- different "levels" of a problem: a content level vs a meta-content level), with examples of real cases helped by adopting a "paradox" strategy. It's at times pretty fun to read.

One point taken is that sometimes the initiation of a problem/conflict is not so important -- regardless of whoever really "initiated" the conflict, the constant back-and-forth interaction between involving parties, given some parameters, will sustain the same problem. Every party will insist the other party change first, while no change will come. The system is "trapped" in a "game without end". Here maybe we need to look for a second-order change/solution . We have to step outside of the current system, redefine the question, etc.

Another point is that sometimes the attempted solution becomes the problem. Here you can try to prescribe the original problem as the solution. For example, someone might really fear public speech and will try to tell oneself "calm down" before a speech. But such attempts most likely make the person even more anxious. Instead, the authors prescribe, just tell your audience that you're too nervous and you surely will blunder. Somehow this will help, even if you don't really actually speak it out to the audience.

I also like the fact that the authors made it clear that this is not some "solve-all" magic solution. Out of the 90+ cases they tried, some 40% reached the goal set at the beginning of the therapy, another 30% reached the goal partially, while the rest failed. They also stressed that asking too much about "why", as in the traditional psychoanalysis, may help you reach some deep realization (a big "may") of the origin of your problem but still not solve it. So they ask more about "what" -- what is the problem? What sustains the problem? What needs to be done to change it? Etc.

[Irena Spivak · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book discusses the questions of persistence and change the actions of humans, the book explain how created problems and conflicts in human life and how to prevent them in advance. Shows how often the solutions that we provide to problems become problems themselves, and how to make real changes.
Many persons and organizations begin with changes. And changes do not succeed - the book can assist in understanding what causes this.
Book describes how to change your way of thinking. In a remarkably pervasive way, peppered with wonderful illustrating anecdotes, the authors present a theory of human thinking and acting that has wide applications. It is also a beautifully simple theory (which is not saying it is simplistic!). For anyone interested in how organizations, groups, couples, and individuals create, maintain, and hopefully solve problems this is really good book.
The authors start with an esoteric theory of groups, classes, games without end, etc., and then move into application through several interesting clinical examples. In short, the basic idea is that there are two approaches to change; the simplistic, commonsense approach, which often blows up in our faces or a "second-order" type of change where the assumptions around the problem are questioned. The most serious difficulties we run into in life require second-order change, yet we often chase our tails trying to solve them with "commonsense" solutions that go nowhere. This book is a primer for approaching problems in new ways.

[Arianna Zehner · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an academically-written approach to disentangling all of the ways we define a problem, create problems, and try to solve them. There are a few parallels between this book and his other book, The Situation is Hopeless but not Serious: the Pursuit of Unhappiness, which I also enjoyed for its humor .

My favorite Key takeaways:

-Denial that a problem exists ultimately leads to not applying a solution where there should be one.

-Opposite: The utopian mentality of how everything “should be,” compared to how everything really is, leads to believing things are problems were there might not truly be a problem.
———————
-Identify First and Second Order Change.

-Apply the right kind of solution to the right kind of problem.

-Mislabeling or misidentification of a problem will ultimately lead to applying a solution where one isn’t necessary, or the wrong type of solution.

[Fiana · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found this book to have some interesting concepts and perspectives. It seemed like too much of it dwelled in the theoretical, however. I've typed up the excerpts I could most relate too, mostly because they closely parallel long-term dynamics in my family in which we never recognized or were able to move beyond the "first-order change".

I think the book is correct and unique in its assertion that sometimes things can only be effectively changed via getting out of the expected reactions or solutions and into the realm of second-order change. However, I was skeptical at some of the examples actually working effectively in real life, and I felt that more concrete real- world examples should have been given. For instance, the last scenario below, on page 121, very much describes a frequent dynamic in my family, regarding both me and my sister, for our entire lives growing up. I'm just not sold that the "give a dime" approach would have done anything except upset my mom, and potentially my sister and I, more. But I wish we could have tried it, or found an alternative that worked in our family.

Basically, like the concept and would like to see applications of it expanded and attempted and what results come of it.



p.54-55:
"Common to all aspects of the utopia syndrome is the fact that the premises on which the syndrome is based are considered to be more real than reality. What we mean by this is that the individual, when trying to order his world in accordance with his premise and seeing his attempt fail, will typically not examine the premise for any absurd or unrealistic elements of its own, but will, as we have seen, blame outside factors (e.g., society) or his own ineptitude. The idea that the fault might lie with the premises is unbearable, for the premises are the truth, are reality. Thus, the Maoists argue, if after more than half a century the Soviet brand of Marxism has not managed to create the ideal, classless society, it is because the pure doctrine has fallen into impure hands, and not because there might be something inherently wrong with Marxism.
.. That this mistake is far from trivial becomes clearer when we examine it in the potentially fatal context of existential despair.
... In this form of existential despair the search for meaning in life is central and all-pervasive, so much so that the seeker may question everything under the sun, except his quest itself, that is, the unquestioned assumption that there is a meaning and that he has to discover it in order to survive. "

p.64:
"She [the mother] wants her child to comply with what she demands of him, not because she demands it, but spontaneously, of his own will. For instance, instead of the simple demand, "I want you to study", she demands, "I want you to want to study. " This requires that the child not only do the right things, but do the right thing for the right reason which a) makes it punishable to do the right thing for the wrong reason, and b) requires that he perform a weird piece of mental acrobatics by making himself want what he does not want and, by implication, also want what is being done to him...
A similar situation, frequently encountered in martial conflicts, is created by the spouse who wishes certain behaviors from the other, "but only if she/he really wants to- if I have to tell her/him, it's no good. "

p. 84:
"We find that in deliberate intervention into human problems the most pragmatic approach is not the question why? but what?; that is, what is being done here and now that serves to perpetuate the problem, and what can be done here and now to effect a change?
....In psychotherapy it is the myth of knowing this why as precondition for change which defeats its own purpose. The search for causes- by therapist, patient, or both- can lead only to more of the same searching if the insight gained thereby is not yet "deep" enough to bring about change through insight. "

p.101:
A somewhat similar form of reframing can be used with the frequent conflict generated by the nagging wife and the passive-aggressively withdrawing husband. Her behavior can be re-labeled as one which, on the other hand, is fully understandable in view of his punitive silence, but which, on the other hand, has the disadvantage of making him look very good to any outsider.
...It is the very inanity of this redefinition of her behavior which will motivate her to stop "building him up" in the eyes of others at her expense; but the moment she does less of the same, he is likely to withdraw less, and nothing ultimately convinces like success. "

p. 121:
"..a daughter may behave in a very disrespectful, aggressive way towards her mother, and the mother then reacts to it in a way that merely escalates their mutual hostility. Quite understandably, she expects the father to assert his authority and to help her in correcting the daughter's behavior, but finds to her dismay that he is much too "lenient" when she complains about the daughter. Rightly or wrongly she may then be left with the impression that father and daughter are in covert coalition against her, that is, that the father secretly enjoys and encourages the girl's behavior- an unprovable accusation that he would be likely to reject angrily if she were to make it."
They go on to suggest that the father give his daughter 10 cents with no explanation when she acts out toward the mother, as a confusion technique with the daughter, and making the mother feel he's finally doing something. Now that the "game" is overt, they can't keep playing it blindly.

A good prescription for something a person wants to conceal, such as stage fright or some other insecurity, is to advertise it outright. (p. 124-25)

[Claire Pfeifer · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book had some very interesting and thought provoking ideas. I found merit and agree with many of the key themes of the book. However, the writing was cyclical and boastful in nature, i.e. introducing concepts and information into the text that was merely there for the purpose of showing how much information the author knew, rather than explaining a key point of the book. There were so many instances where this style of writing, on top of the already dense nature of the material, made it hard to stay focused while reading.

[Corey Morris · Rating 3 out of 5]

Overall the speech here is a bit convoluted and could be "dumbed" down a bit while still teaching the theory of Change but the mathematical lens does satisfy the heavy logical side of me. Most of the time the application towards fixing a solution is backwards despite the "obvious" way to fix it. I was taught that, once again, making sure to look outside the box for solutions is key. Example, To the insomniac, instead of focusing on trying to sleep, focus on trying to stay awake!

[Verac · Rating 5 out of 5]

Probably one of my favorite books in grad school. Excellent examples and novel approaches to situations that might occur in systems. Written clearly and with humor. First chapter is the driest, so hang in there.

[Alex Giurgea · Rating 5 out of 5]

O carte despre mecanismele schimbarii terapeutice. Detaliaza foarte bine logica terapiilor scurte, prescriptii pentru situatii comune si modalitatile in care putem influenta schimbarea celor pe care vrem sa ii ajutam.

[Jef Sneider · Rating 5 out of 5]

It changed my perception of the world. it might change yours.

[Beth · Rating 2 out of 5]

I am a bit perplexed by the many good reviews. This book was not helpful. I am hopeful that someone in the class for which I was assigned this book will enlighten me.

[Alberto Guadagnino · Rating 3 out of 5]

3 Stelle... Forse perché non l'ho capito nel profondo

[Isobelle Keith · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book distinguishes between two different types of change: first order change is change that occurs within a given system which itself remains unchanged. Second order change is when the system itself is changed. For example, if you're having a nightmare you can do things in your dream - run, hide, scream - but no change from any of these behaviours will end the dream. This is first order change.The only way out involves a change from dreaming to waking. This change in state is second order change.

Confusion between the two types of change can happen very easily and the main argument of the book is that often our "solutions" to difficult problems become the problem.

Second order change is an everyday phenomenon: people do find new solutions and nature finds new adaptations

Applying the opposite of a problem is often the solution for simple and logical diificulties. For example if you are cold you might put the heating on or find a warm jumper. If you are still cold, more of the same will eventually achieve the desired outcome , for example turning the heating up higher.

In other cases, applying a "solution" that is the opposite of the problem will either greatly contribute to the problem which it is supposed to solve or it will become the problem. For example prohibition applied to the problem of alcoholism led to even more of a public health problem through a clandestine industry, widespread smuggling, corruption and warfare.

There are three ways of mishandling change:

1. Denying the problem is a problem and taking no action. Action is necessary but is not taken. For example open family secrets.

2. Attempting to change a difficulty that cannot be changed. Action is taken when it should not be. For example utopian quests for happiness or self actualisation in the face of the realities of the inevitable difficulties and discomfort of life.

3. Action is taken at the wrong level. Either by attempting first order change in a situation which can only be changed by second order change , or attempting second order change when first order change would be more appropriate.

example4 year old tantrum school child.

Key principles of second order change
1. Second order change is applied to what in the first order change perpsective appears to be the solution.

2. Second order change usually appears weird, unexpected and uncommonsensical. There is a puzzling, paradoxical element in the process of change.
3. Applying second order change to the "solution" means it is dealt with in the here and now.
4. The use of second order change techniques lifts the solution out of the paradoxical trap created by the attempted "solution."

The most pragmatoc approach when intervening in human problems is not the question 'why' but 'what', what is being done here and now to perpetuate the problem and what can be done to effect change. For example for the insomniac, rather than searching for insight into the origin of their condition , many can be helped rapidly by a seemingly absurd instruction such as to lie in bed and not close their eyes until they are fast asleep. This second order change is applied to the first order change "solution" and stop the individual from willing themself to fall asleep which creates the mental activity that prevents sleep.

[Yana Hasson · Rating 3 out of 5]

First part very tries to bring group theory to human systems.
Pretty theoretical (maybe unnecessary so?) although I found it fun to come across the definition of groups in this unexpected place.
I am pretty familiar with the mathematical foundation and a novice when it comes to human psychology. I think I failed to grasp the added value of the mathematical model in this context beyond the fact that one should be careful to distinguish the nature of different changes, so that one can properly reason about whether changes are taking place in the same framework the patient has been stuck in or a different one (which can help him change his perspective and possibly attain a desired change).

I enjoyed more the examples of interventions and their effects. In particular that when people are stuck in negative feedback cycles (pessimism adressed by optimism and attempts to cheer the person up to which the response is more pessimism etc...) counterintuitive solutions such as going in the same direction, i.e. providing a pessimistic feedback as well, can provide the desired effect, forcing the person out of her original position as a reaction.
Several pretty convincing examples are given to illustrate that situation.

Some parts have not aged well, in particular, I believe that a therapist suggesting to address tensions at work by advising their patient to mention sexual arousal from tense interactions would likely result in a harassment lawsuit.

Overall, I found it interesting to compare the mindset of brief therapy to that of psychoanalysis.
One of the most questionable assumptions of psychoanalysis for me is that identifying the deeply entrenched causes of the symptoms is crucial to help the patient.
On the contrary, brief therapy focuses on the situation starting from now and is mainly interested in providing effective solutions for the distress of the patient. Focusing on short term effects seems to me a reasonable and productive bias (similar to temporal discount in reinforcement learning, getting better now is better than getting better in the future).
However, the author acknowledges some of the proposed interventions could be attacked as 'manipulative'. And indeed, getting a teenager to believe that getting good would anger the principal (with no basis for this suggestion) in order to make him study for revenge would definitely fall into the field of manipulation for me, and beyond my comfort zone (because I believe that respect for each person's subjective experience involves not feeding them false facts).

[Gioia · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book got me quite excited but was rather difficult to read, so I created a way to explain its contents simply, connecting to four dimensions of transformative change to the human dimensions of DOING, FEELING, BEING and THINIKING.

According to Paul Watzlawick, transformative change follows four principles:

- Our ‘solutions’ are often part of our problems and need to be transformed. Thus, transformation is often applied to what at first sight appears to be a solution, because our first ‘solution’ was actually a part of our problem. This aspect of transformation involves ACTING, and is what I call the BODY of change.

- While change always appears to be based on common sense, transformation usually appears weird, unexpected, and against common sense; there is a puzzling, paradoxical element in the process of transformation. This aspect of transformation involves FEELING, and is what I call the HEART of change.

- Transforming means dealing with a situation here and now. Transformation techniques focus on effects and not on their (presumed) causes. Transformation starts from the question what can I do? and not why am I in this situation? This aspect of transformation is based on our ability of BEING in the moment, and is what I call the SPIRIT of change.

- The use of transformation techniques lifts a problematic situation out of the paradoxes and traps created by our attempted solutions and places it in a completely different frame. This aspect of transformation is based on THINKING, and is what I call the MIND of change.

A longer summary with visual explanations (made by myself) can be seen at: https://gicaminada.wordpress.com/2022.... Hope you find it useful, and do contact me if you have any questions or feedback!

[Zahwil Dossa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Paradoxes are at the heart of this book.

Of the sort, “Be Spontaneous!”.

Yet, the harder you try, the less spontaneous you are.

The more you admonish yourself to sleep, the more awake you feel.

I found myself thinking of tennis. The more I try not to double fault, the greater the chance I miss my second serve.

Problems are compounded when you seek to attain your goal in non-risky ways, and your attitude then becomes overly cautious.

The way out of the double-bind is to bring about second-order change.

First order change is continuing along the same path, intensifying one’s efforts.

Yet, the more things change the more they stay the same.

It’s like being in a nightmare where you can run and hide or stay and fight. There’s seemingly no solution…except to wake up.

Waking up is second-order change: a discontinuity or logical jump.

The solution is to invert or turn something on its head. Find a solution that is ‘meta’ to the game you find yourself trapped in.

If you’re parenting a teenager, you might be stuck in a pattern of discipline and defiance. The solution might be to stop enforcing your rules. If you do, you break the pattern. The teenager, finding nothing to push against, must find a different move.

The authors are not recommending becoming a pushover. They suggest a passive-aggressive approach they call “benevolent sabotage”. Overt leniency is mixed with covert sabotage.

If you’re afraid of public speaking, cease concealing your anxiety, and out yourself to your audience at the start. Tell them you’re scared and that you might have a nervous breakdown.

If you not only yield to your fear but consciously try to realize it, you bring back control. If your fear manifests, it’s because you willed it; you’re back in control. And if it doesn’t, you see that it couldn’t hurt you even with free rein to do its worst.

Back to tennis. The solution to my double-fault problem is not to fight the thought that I will miss my second serve. It might actually be to try to miss it on purpose.

As my tennis example shows, you can apply “second-order” thinking to many different problems. After reading the book, you’ll find your mind going in different directions, the sure tell that a book was well worth the read.

[Tamara M · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was a required reading for one of my courses. When you read the title you might think it is one of those self-help books that will give you a perfect recipe on how to change ... However, that is not the case, at all. The author of this book have used mathematical theories - the Theory of Groups and the Theory of Logical Types to build the framework on their theory of change. Using these mathematical theories, they come to conclusion that there are two different types of change: one that occurs within a system which itself remains unchanged - first-order change; and one whose occurrence changes the system itself - second-order change. The question to ponder on while and after reading this book is - what kind of change are we hoping to witness in ourselves and/or in others? Change that is superficial, and where it seems like we are tending the wound with an ointment where surgery is needed or that deeper, surgical, systemic change where things are never the same again. Another question which we are challenged to think through is what ways and methods are we using in our pursuit of change? Are we stuck in a cycle of using the same strategy, hoping for a different result? What would it take to change our approach even if it seems completely ridiculous and counter-intuitive?

Those any many other philosophical questions are addressed in this book supported by dozens of examples from authors' therapy practice and experiences. Strongly recommended read.

[Frances Piper · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un classico, ricco ancor'oggi di spunti interessanti su cui riflettere. Gli autori, con un approccio che attinge alla matematica e alle teorie dei gruppi e dei tipi logici, propongono come procedere verso la risoluzione dei problemi. Serve il cambiamento, sempre. Ma un cambiamento che, definito di tipo 2, sia più foriero di risultati duraturi. Sarà un "change" che deve saper attingere all'esterno del gruppo/del sistema, non un semplice rimescolamento di condizioni dei membri interni. E ciò si potrà ottenere con soluzioni/azioni creative, a volte paradossali (vicine al sintomo stesso), un vero salto qualitativo, fondato su nuove premesse, che il bravo terapeuta saprà consigliare. Nella convinzione che prima di tutto si debba individuare una meta non utopica che consenta di cercare l'attuabile e non l'irraggiungibile. Non semplice... ma a tratti incoraggiante.