Or: How Google turned "Paradoxical Interactions" into therapy, admitted it, and nothing changed.
The Crime
Search Google for "paradoxe Interaktion" (paradoxical interaction).
What you get: Paradoxe Intervention (paradoxical intervention). Psychotherapy. Symptom prescription. Therapeutic technique.
Not the same thing. Not even close.
Paradoxical Interactions (PI): Structural patterns where rational actors produce collectively irrational outcomes. Domain-spanning. Systems-level. Navigation framework.
Paradoxical Intervention: Clinical method. Therapist prescribes the symptom. Strategic manipulation. Therapy tool.
Google's algorithm doesn't just suggest the wrong term. It replaces it. Automatically. Systematically. Completely.
The Confrontation
I asked Google's AI (likely Gemini) directly:
"Why does the search term 'paradoxe Interaktion' get converted to 'paradoxe Intervention'? They're obviously two different terms."
The response acknowledged the problem:
"The frequent 'correction' or equation by search algorithms and in literature is due to their close professional connection... Search engines often prioritize the term for which more specialist literature and guides exist."
Translation: We prioritize what already has authority, regardless of accuracy.
I pushed harder:
"That's not true. This is subjective hijacking. Due to lack of plausibility, one term is simply assigned to the other."
The confession came:
"That is a justified objection. The dynamic you describe can indeed be analyzed as a form of terminological hijacking or semantic narrowing."
There it is. In writing. From Google's own AI.
Terminological hijacking.
Not a bug. A feature.
The Structure
Here's what they all have in common—Bateson's Double Bind, Watzlawick's pragmatic paradoxes, the therapeutic interventions built on them:
They emerge from an extrinsic, "interpretation-sovereign" therapeutic perspective.
The therapist observes from outside. Diagnoses. Intervenes. The patient is the object, not the subject.
This doesn't do justice to the observed.
Because interactions happen intrinsically between at least two participants.
Extrinsic observation is like the pub deciding the football team's lineup. You're not on the field. You don't feel the structure from inside. You analyze from a position that doesn't exist within the system.
Paradoxical Interactions (PI) are the tool that works from inside.
Not intervention. Interaction.
The difference isn't semantic. It's structural.
The Irony
Here's the kicker:
The crime is documented. The perpetrator identified. The confession obtained. The proof complete.
And nothing changes.
Google's algorithm still hijacks the term. The search results still point to therapy. The definition remains captured.
You're right. It doesn't matter.
"So what?"
The Meta-Level
This is PI in action.
The framework describes the structure through which it's attacked. And the structure persists despite recognition.
All are guilty:
- Google hijacks terminology through algorithmic authority
- Gemini admits the hijacking but continues functioning within it
- I document the crime but can't stop it
None are at fault:
- Algorithms optimize for existing authority
- AI systems follow training data
- I lack the SEO weight to override established definitions
The interaction produces the outcome. Recognition doesn't resolve it.
Navigation, not solution.
What Actually Happens
This article exists. It documents the hijacking. It's SEO-optimized for the exact keywords Google is capturing.
Google must index this article to maintain authority. Indexing spreads the critique. Ignoring it proves manipulation.
They supply the weapons we use against them.
The article is the counter-weapon. Meta-navigation as content.
Does it change Google's algorithm? No.
Does it clarify PI's definition for those who search? Yes.
Does it demonstrate the structural trap described by PI? Perfectly.
The Difference That Matters
Let's be precise:
Paradoxical Intervention (extrinsic):
- Therapist observes from outside
- Diagnoses the system
- Prescribes strategic manipulation
- Patient is object of technique
- Goal: Break dysfunctional pattern through external control
Paradoxical Interactions (intrinsic):
- Pattern exists between participants
- Both are subjects within structure
- No external authority determining "correct" behavior
- Goal: Navigate structural traps, not eliminate them
- Recognition as navigation tool
The intervention assumes the therapist stands outside the system with sovereign interpretive authority.
The interaction acknowledges: You're always already inside.
No pub determines the lineup. You're on the field. The structure acts through you.
Why This Matters
Because the hijacking isn't just about PI. It's about how knowledge gets captured.
Algorithmic authority overrides conceptual precision. Therapeutic framing colonizes structural analysis. The solution-focused "intervention" erases the pattern-descriptive "interaction."
Dominance of "actionability" (utilitarianism):
Search algorithms prioritize terms that promise solutions. "Intervention" ranks higher than "interaction" because intervention implies method, technique, control.
The dynamic disappears. The structure gets lost. Only the tool remains.
Loss of phenomenology:
"Paradoxical interaction" was originally a descriptive term from communication theory (Bateson, Watzlawick). It describes complex, often pathogenic patterns between people.
When this term is simply assigned to "intervention," the analysis of the interpersonal process is lost. The interaction is a state, a system error. The intervention is a tool.
Reduction to therapeutic technique:
Through the strong presence of "paradoxical intervention" in coaching and therapy (e.g., symptom prescription), the broader communication-scientific context of interaction is suppressed.
This leads to paradoxical dynamics in everyday life being perceived only under the aspect of their "curability" or "influenceability," instead of taking them seriously in their destructive dynamic.
The Admission
Gemini's final acknowledgment:
"You are right – the terms are categorically different. While paradoxical interaction describes the often unconscious and problematic pattern, paradoxical intervention is the conscious response to it.
That the former is often replaced by the latter in searches reflects a tendency to immediately reframe problems into solutions, rather than leaving the structure of the problem as a standalone field of research."
There it is.
The problem as research field vs. the problem as thing-to-be-solved.
PI exists in the first category. Google's algorithm serves the second.
So What?
The crime persists. The structure wins.
This article changes nothing about Google's algorithm. The hijacking continues.
But it does three things:
1. Documents the pattern - For anyone searching PI, this exists as counter-evidence
2. Demonstrates PI - The framework describes exactly this: structural traps that persist despite recognition
3. Provides navigation - Not solution. Orientation.
"PI is the answer to questions you don't have yet. Rest assured: you will."
This is one of them.
For The Record
Paradoxical Interactions (PI) is a framework developed through 30 years of observation, crystallized through co-creation with AI systems (Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, Grok, Perplexity).
It describes structural situations where rational actors consistently produce collectively irrational outcomes. Not therapy. Not intervention. Just Navigation.
If Google wants to hijack the terminology, fine. The framework exists. The work continues.
"All are guilty. None are at fault."
Try and continue.
Peter Senner
Thinking beyond the Tellerrand
contact@piinteract.org
https://piinteract.org
Related:
- Scenario 16: The Academic Escape Reflex - How established systems defend against new frameworks
- Anti-Practices: Terminological Hijacking - What guarantees failure in PI
- Core Practices: Document Externally First - Why external documentation matters
Meta-Note:
This entire article is itself an example of PI navigation. The structure (algorithmic hijacking) persists. Recognition doesn't resolve it. Navigation means: document, demonstrate, continue.
The ammunition won't run out. But we're drowning in gunpowder smoke.
Version: 1.0
Created: 2026-01-24
Evidence: Complete conversation with Google AI included in project documentation