It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Psychological Projection

page: 5
15
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

At least thats my experience - that society is more easily changed if I change myself first. "Im starting with the man in the mirror"


Yes, I am aware of the mirror argument, I have made it myself long ago in your thread on the Law of Attraction.

I am not actually worried about changing society, or not changing it. That comment relates more to the method by which one is often made aware of their own projections and denials. Some outside source bringing it to your attention somehow.

From your OP,


Humor has great value in any attempt to work with projection, because humor presents a forgiving posture and thereby removes the threatening nature of any inquiry into the truth.


Being human, I assume I AM in denial at least about some things, perhaps about many things. And, I am also assuming that if I were truly and deeply in denial, that I would not be able to readily ascertain that. (Emphasis mine)

From your own OP;


Psychological Projection is the unconscious act of denial of a person's own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, such as to the weather, the government, a tool, or to other people. Thus, it involves imagining or projecting that others have the same feelings or motives, rather than what they really think. Projection is considered one of the most profound and subtle of human psychological processes, and extremely difficult to work with, because by its nature it is hidden.


So, bearing in mind that, that you would be in denial, and projecting, and that all of this would be unconscious, and that some of the suggestions, (using humor to make it less threatening for the person in denial to see what they are denying) seem to assume an outside "objective" person(s) pointing out denial, how would an individual be able to see their own denial if there were no outside source to use humor or some other method to show it to them?

Not to change others, leave them out of this, but for the individual, if you are a member of a group, and the entire group is in denial, how could you possibly ever tell? Could you?




posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 


You seem to have a fairly good grasp of the projection denial issue.

Would you mind taking a look at my question and letting me know if you have any ideas or techniques one could use to see projection/denial in their self? Or if that is what the "founded/unfounded" statement was, could you elaborate a little?

Thanks



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Howdy, Illusionsaregrander. Thank you for the kind words.


Would you mind taking a look at my question and letting me know if you have any ideas or techniques one could use to see projection/denial in their self?

It is a tough problem, no doubt about it. There are some approaches, though.

From your own post-before-last, you bolded the unconscious aspect of the definition. There are a lot of our beliefs for which there was a conscious process which led to the conclusion. That lowers the chances of projection being the explanation, or limits the possible role for projection in the overall set of beliefs in question.

Example I am not an alcoholic. That is what every alcoholic in denial says. How do I know, then?

I drink moderately, when I drink alone, it's always with food, otherwise always with friends, blah blah blah. I have impersonally valid reasons for my statement, and my conclusion is not based on a cherry-picked record. I haven't left out some drunk driving conviction, for instance. There are no "lost weekends." The idea "now would be a good time to have a drink" can always be traced to a conscious awareness of the situation being one where ordinary people in my society routinely have a drink.

Basically, then, I am confident I am not in denial, because I am confident that many people would reach the same conclusion on the same factual record. Reality checks (one big role for your "outside source") are always welcome. None of my friends cautions me about my drinking, I score low in those little "Do you have a drinking problem?" quizzes, etc.

---

Awareness of projection and denial as candidate explanations goes a long way to launching a management approach. Even in your hypothetical of being a member of a group that is collectively in denial, you would still know that denial is a possibility. An "outside source" has already told you about denial, and has told you that denial is a general problem. Heads up.

You can take it from there, at least in principle, without further outside help. If you have a hypothesis about projection or denial, then you can investigate it.

On that point, I should state my bias. I like Jung on these things much more than I like Freud. Jung has a much more positive and optimistic outlook than Freud, so maybe I am in denial about how hopeless the situation is. But I don't think so.

(The source of my belief is obviously conscious. I have read books by and about these folks. Both have a big following, so an appreciation of the merits of Jung over Freud is not peculiarly personal to me. I am not saying the controversy between them is settled, just that my view is not pathological in origin.)

In Jung, projection is not (to borrow the phrase quoted in the OP) "the fundamental mechanism by which we keep ourselves uninformed about ourselves." The Jungian self wants the ego to become informed about the whole self. There is no Freudian war of a divided self against itself, where keeping the ego misinformed is a goal of the other combatants, or of the ego itself to bear up under the others' assaults.

Projection might be a costly way of making unconscious contents conscious, but nevertheless, for Jung it is an opportunity for the conscious part of the self to expand. Bottom line, then, the self-directed investigation of the hypothesis is not doomed from the outset. It can even be rewarding, not only in the practical sense of correcting erroneous judgments, but also for learning about ourselves.


Or if that is what the "founded/unfounded" statement was, could you elaborate a little?

Yes, that fits in at the "impersonally valid" basis of the conclusion being examined.

If all I could say about my drinking was that I didn't have any personal problem with it, and as for those two drunk driving convictions, well, obviously a corrupt judiciary was at work, then it would be fair to say that my view would be poorly founded.

And what of the poor traveling salesman who was twice rousted for drunk driving in a notorious speed-trap town where the local sheriff and judge split the take from falsely convicting out-of-state motorists? Then there should be some evidence of that speed-trap thing. We're not looking for enough to convict the local-law-for-life, but just for some foundation for the charge. If so, then cool. If it is only "obvious," then a problem with alcohol ought to be suspected.

Hope that helps to clarify things.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 


Thank you very much. You obviously have a very good grasp of the topic, and I appreciate your explanation and your examples. They were very helpful.




posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


I´ll go with what eight bits said too.

We have an entire human civilization in denial in a way because nobody knows their origins and yet we live life as if everything were just fine


I agree that there are instances in which it seems unlikely that some will ever end his/her/their denial, but one big reason for this seems to be that many dont even know what Denial is, dont even know of the existence of such a concept.



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Funny poster.
It misses one though analyst. "The glass contains exactly 4 ounces of fluid dihydrous oxygen with the silicon glass container that could gold approximately........"



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by illusioned2
 


I think that's despicable what your neighbor says to you.


My husband has a problem now because of a back surgery that was not done in time. Now he has a dead leg and he trips and falls all the time. In keeping with the subject of this thread, I project positive words to him because I know how upset he gets about his leg. I build him up all the time, and I can tell it makes him feel better.

I even let him think he's right 99 % of the time, because I know he loves being right.


I'm sorry your neighbor is such an ass. Try not to let it get to you. It's his problem, not yours. He certainly is projecting what an ass he is.



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Analyst. "The glass contains exactly 4 ounces of fluid dihydrous oxygen with the silicon glass container that could gold approximately........"







That was a good one.



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Oftentimes when someone insults or attacks another, it tells us more about the attacker than about the person being attacked.


Sometimes when a psychologist writes a prognosis about a person as schizophrenia, it is the doctor that has projected schizophrenia rather than the patient.


But there is also positive Projection, where someone idolizes you, makes you seem bigger and better than you are in reality.


Judeo-Christianity idolizes Jesus Christ as some extraordinary being. I don't see anywhere now or then if anybody asked Jesus if he wanted to be treated anything but ordinary. Nobody has shown proof that Jesus is not being abused still today for being made out to somebody he either is not or never wanted to be. This is not positive.



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by dzonatas
 


Idolizing things is indeed making more of something that it is and thats not really positive.



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


True. But, and this is a big but, if they don't harm anyone in doing so what buisness is it of ours to judge? Some of course has done greatly negative things in the name of their idolation it's true, but also some have done greatly positive things. And in the end we are all human.



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
True. But, and this is a big but, if they don't harm anyone in doing so what buisness is it of ours to judge? Some of course has done greatly negative things in the name of their idolation it's true, but also some have done greatly positive things. And in the end we are all human.


Referring to the post above, I dont think Christianities problems come from Idolizing Jesus (as the previous poster says) but from Demonising non-Christians. So Idolization is not always a problem.

But sometimes it is - take Hitler for example.

[edit on 10-2-2010 by Skyfloating]



posted on Feb, 25 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Interesting point. Perhaps it is simply that many dont know what denial is. I do wonder sometimes though if those that do understand the concept still get caught up in it because they mistake "knowledge of," for "freedom from."

After all, denial and projection are such common psychological protections for the ego, I would say we would all have to assume we are in denial, and projecting something. Thats part of the mirror analogy at its core. You dont see it "out there" if it isnt already in you, whether you acknowledge it or not.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join