パブロフ：このロシアの科学者は、実に世の中に種々の事に影響を与えた人で、
1930-1960に隆盛を誇った経験主義に即した行動主義心理学の礎を作った人です。
その実、心臓・神経系・消化系の生理学の先駆的研究者でノーベル賞を１９０４年に
受賞、消化腺に関する研究業績でノーベル生理学・医学賞なんて事は知れわたって
おりません。パブロフ自身は心理学にはあまり興味がなかったようです。
しかし、「パブロフの犬」って言葉だけが先行して知れわたって、その本質を見抜けない

スキナー(Skinner)は行動分析学の創始者

パブロフは行動主義心理学　この二人が（当然次元が違うが）禅問答をしたら面白い
でしょうね。　平成１３年９月　現在考案中。。。。現在も将来も未稿

先ずパブロフの行った実験を紹介してみましょう。パブロフは、動物実験を通して
「相反する二つのメッセージが同時に与えられると、人はノイローゼになる」という事象
を示唆する為に、飼い犬（名前は誰も知らないが・・・パブロフのお犬様）に実験を
行いました。概略は次の通りです。　ベル-餌-よだれ　ベル-餌-よだれ　ベル--よだれ
なら罪は軽いと思いますが、これは残酷です。

スクリーンに正円形（１：１）を投射し犬に餌を与えます。
与えるたびに、犬に正円を見せます。これを一定期間繰り返すとによって、
犬は正円形を見ると餌を貰えると思い、唾液を分泌するようになったのです。
条件反射の成立

次に、縦経２：横経１の楕円形を投射し、餌を与えません。これも一定期間
繰り返す事によって、犬は縦２：横１の楕円形を見ても餌を貰えないものと思い、
唾液を分泌しません。条件反射の成立---さあ犬は正円形と楕円形を区別しました。

その後、３対２、４対３という具合に、徐々に楕円を少しずつ正円に近づけて
同様に実験を行います。犬は次第に落ち着きを失ってきます。
しかしまだ区別できるので、楕円では唾液を分泌しません。

楕円形が９対８になった時、犬ははじめて唾液を分泌しはじめました。そして
最後に、正円と９対８の楕円を交互に投射したたところ、・・・・・・・・
犬は興奮し、身悶えし、吠え回った。・・・・・ということです。　ああ犬の悲劇
extreme excitement, struggling and howling

正円は「餌を与える」メッセージ。２対１の楕円は「餌を与えない」というメッセージ。
中間の楕円は、これら２つの相反するメッセージを同時に含んだ《ダブルバインド状況》
なのです。
Ｇ・ベイトソンの【精神の生態学】のダブルバインド（２重拘束）の命令は
「私の言うことに、従ってはいけません！」という私からの命令です。
私の命令を受け入れて【私に従う】ならば、結果従う事が許可されず、
実際に従わなければ、従った事になってしまう。この問題は、我々人間の
生活の中でも、結構に厄介な問題をひきおこします。

母から子へのコミュニケーションにおいて、二つの水準で矛盾したメッセージが発せられ、
子が困惑するという二重拘束状況。
ベイトソンは　これが分裂病を発生させると主張しています。

＊ベイトソン・・・・アメリカの人類学者。
精神病の原因にコミュニケーション理論から接近したほか、
ニューサイエンスにも大きな影響を与えたことで知られています。

嘘つきのパラドックスという命題も、ご存じでしょうか。
「私が今ここに言っていること（現在進行形）は嘘である」
という命題は、これ「真か偽か」と問われたときに、
言った内容が正しければ、命題は偽になり、言っていることが嘘であれば、
命題が真になるというパラドックスであります。

ダブルバインドや嘘つきのパラドックス・・世の中。身の回りに
結構あるんじゃないでしょうか。

母親が子に言う「ゆっくりと良く噛んでそして早く食べなさい。」なんて
動作の軸と時間の軸なんて子供の頭で理解できないんですよ

ああ　それで
パブロフさんとスキナーさんとの禅問答にベイトソンさんが
加わって・・・　ええと　何をするんでしたっけ？

精神の破壊によって自分に起った問題をクリアーする。
そんな行動だけは避けたいものでした。

実はその限りなく沸く思い葛藤の中に、勇猛果敢に分け入る心こそ、
清涼を行じている自分だ。と気が付く事こそ、自己禅問答の答え
と同時にパラドックスの答えにもなるんじゃないかな。って
回答者はあなた自身、そして採点し評価するもあなた自身なのです。
自己問答でした。 　文献　詳細は　下コピペして読んでください。

The Double Bind:
The Intimate Tie Between Behavior and Communication
by Patrice Guillaume
↓コピペ
http://www.well.com/user/bbear/double_bind.html

や↓コピペ
http://www.noogenesis.com/malama/punishment.html


More Dog Troubles
Ivan Pavlov (1849-1936) also had dog troubles of his own, as described by one group of researchers working in his lab:

"In a famous experiment by Shenger-Krestovnika, published in 1921, a dog was trained to salivate to a circle but not to an ellipse.
The ellipse was then made progressively more like a circle. When the ratio of the axes of the ellipse was reduced to 9:8, the dog could discriminate it from a circle only with great difficulty. It showed some signs of success on this problem for about three weeks, but then its behavior was disrupted.
It was unable to respond correctly not only on this difficult task, but also when presented with obvious ellipses and circles that had given it no trouble in the earlier part of the experiment.
What is more, instead of coming to stand quietly in the apparatus of the past, the animal now showed extreme excitement, struggling and howling" (Gray, 1979).
This work was brought to my attention by a University professor/psychotherapist, who also informed me that this dog eventually had to be put to sleep! It never was able to recover from the "experimental neurosis," induced by Pavlov.
This result is even more amazing because the conditioning did not involve punishment! The dog was merely trained to perform a discrimination.
When it couldn't do it, it went crazy! Later, he and his coworkers discovered lots of other ways to create neurotic dogs. These results were so remarkable, that at the age of eighty, Pavlov launched himself into an entirely new career in a different field, to understand psychopathology.
He soon was visiting psychiatric wards several times a week, discussing the various cases with the psychiatrists!

What is even more insidious, is that our entire educational system, as it exists today, is based on this type of learning! Children daily are asked by teachers to make discriminations that they cannot make, and when they make a mistake, they are punished! (The process is often referred to as "operant conditioning" or instrumental learning.) The result is that we have become a society of "low risk perfectionists." By the 5th grade, most children will no longer risk answering a teacher's question unless they are absolutely, positively sure that they have the correct answer! I remember I became this way, because I literally trembled with fear when I was called upon to answer, and I never volunteered! The worst was when the teacher started asking questions going around the room in alphabetical order.

Because my name is Yen, I was usually called last, and as a consequence, I spent most of the class period dreading my turn! Talk about cruel and usual punishment! (Incidentally, this is why TV games shows are so exciting. We get a lot of vicarious excitement when the contestant takes a 'risk' answering a question.)
But really, the children should be the ones asking the questions, not the teacher! And they need to be free to ask as many as they like! Needless to say, during my school days, I didn't ask very many because I didn't want to look 'stupid' or be called "dumb."

There is more to this story. Like Pavlov's dogs, Gregory Bateson (1956) observed that a schizophrenic adult became that way because as a child, he could not discriminate whether his mother loves him or not! His theory of schizophrenia meshes in well with the ideas of Alice Miller.
When kids ask their parents "Why am I being spanked," the parent invariably responds "For Your Own Good," which is the title of one of her books. It is a contradiction of terms and concepts! You don't say to a child "I love you," and then give the child a whack! It is entirely inconsistent! Any young kid can tell you that! Read an anecdote by Astrid Lindgren (1978) to get a feeling from the child' point of view.
What Bateson observed was that the child who grows up to be a schizophrenic is forever receiving two conflicting messages that put him into a double bind.

The mother says to her child "I love you," but when the child comes to hug, the mother pushes the child away, or stiffens in response to the hug.
She really doesn't love the child, but society says she should. So she pretends to love her child. But then the child senses the other message, and pulls away, and the mother then condemns the child with, "How come you don't love me?" This cycle of responses is related to the biblical law "Thou shalt honor thy father and mother, " and if you don't, well then you have to pretend, and the internal conflict makes you go crazy. It's damned if you do, damned if you don't.

But we also need to back up one step and ask the question: "Why do so many mothers (parents) feel less than loving to their own children?" We read and hear about so much abuse, neglect, and violence in our society.
What are its root causes? "Double bind messages are one reason. Spanking is another.
But one more is the lack of attachment that many parents feel for their own children, promoted by our materialistic society. For more on this, see my essay on the loss of attachment and the rise of materialism.