For illustration, let's start with some example statements: - Cats usually have six paws. - 1 + 2 = 7 - This statement is a lie. - Tom feels sick. He has eaten chicken soup. The chicken soup is what made him sick. - Don't think of a pink elephant! And then further: - Be spontaneous! - Wife: You didn't buy the newspaper like I asked you because you just to wanted to oppose me! Husband: I'm sorry, I forgot to buy the newspaper. Wife: You didn't "forget", you did it on purpose! Husband: I forgot, really. Wife: So now you're saying that I lie?! First you don't buy the newspaper and then you accuse me of lying! - We must love God, and we must love God freely. - You're a bitch. I am just being honest and speaking the truth when I tell you this. - Man: Women are just plain stupid. Woman: Really? How do you know that? Man: Prove to me that you are not stupid. Woman: ? Man: Right, you can't, which is proof that you are stupid. - Person A: I feel we're not really getting along. Person B: Do you feel that we are not getting along, or do you think that we are not getting along? - How DARE you question such an obvious point?! - Mother comes to visit son. At first, the son just stands there. Mother: Well, won't you hug your own mother? (goes toward him with open arms) The son hugs her. Mother: Oh, you're such a baby, let go of me! (pushes him away) How do such statements make you feel? I think most of us felt less or more uncomfortable or irritated reading such statements that contain logical fallacies, of all kinds. And I think most of us also have made the experience that when uncomfortable or irritated that way, one is more prone to make mistakes, or to say and do things one later regrets. Such discomfort, however, can become severe as well. As Bateson suggested, a child being exposed to double binds a lot can even become schizophrenic. Here are some questions for this thread: 1. How come there is -at least sometimes- a connection between logical fallacies and psychological distress (accompanied with physical distress)? What underlies this connection? 2. How could this connection be broken without impairing the person's functionality? How could one witness even grossly conflicting messages, but not become psychologically swayed by that conflict? [Edited by Mod: Stryder] Fixed the URL for Bateson, I'm hoping that it was Gregory Bateson the OP was refering to.