Protection against projective identification - resources?

What are you trying to say? Non-verbal cues are a big part of how projective identification works. I am suggesting that it is doubtful whether you could really make a scientific case for projective identification to be transmitted from one person to an entire website without any physical contact! I thought we were just having some fun with this topic, getting to know one another, sniffing each other's butts. You aren't really being serious are you?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Are there any clinical psychologists in da' house?

And mimetics is very important in development and that part is emphasized. And I never said that mimetic theory was mentioned at all.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"A big part" is not the entirety, and it is a false dilemma that any verbal PI would necessitate the ridiculous extreme of it communicating to "an entire website".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Some quality posts by Syne:

You are the one who keeps implying that I am manipulating you and others with projective identification. Cite me a source that documents an incident of projective identification that occurs between two people who are not in the same room with each other, let alone across the internet. Affect is important because visual emotional cues are how PI is transmitted between two people. Facial expressions are very important since they transmit an emotional state. Can you see my face? Am I smiling? Am I angry?

What is verbal PI? Did you just make that one up?

There is no legitimate case of PI happening here.:bugeye:

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Do you think that I am powerfully controlling you "from within like a glove puppet". Do I get SAG residuals? You sound paranoid.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think that the communication style (whether it is assertive or non-assertive (ie. aggressive, passive, passive-aggressive) plays a role too, and that is evident in online communication.

I'd say that the aggressive communication style is a prime example of trying to induce projective identification in others.
Speaking in a tone of omniscience ("This is so, that is so") and especially you-statements, typical for the aggressive communication style, are projective identification verbalized.

"You are an idiot," "You are wrong" etc.- if someone tells you such things, don't you feel pressured to think that you are an idiot, or wrong etc.?

 

No. Not online. I feel pressure to respond in kind. Simple mirroring. Feels like being baited, but it is hard to resist sometimes. Especially with Syne's posts for some reason.

IMHO, none of this is an example of projective identification, since we would need to be in the same room for that to occur. It is, however, a good example of mimetic desire. We each desire to be seen as smarter than the other.

In any case this thread is not about whether or not I am a problem. It is about the general topic of projective identification and how to protect one's self, and I have learned a lot. Thanks for posting this thread.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Some people certainly do.

You're not the only one.


Calling people names may not be what is typically considered projective identification, because the one doing the name-calling may not actually be projecting their own unadmitted bad qualities onto/into others, but the effect can be the same.
Projecting negative - or positive - traits onto/into others is an effective manipulation strategy, which is why some people use it, even as they are not actually projecting their own traits onto/into others.

- - -

False accusations are a staple of wartime propaganda, expert says

By Jennifer McNulty

Wartime propaganda is a critical element of military strategy and political success, and it warrants scrutiny by a vigilant public, according to persuasion expert Anthony Pratkanis.

False accusations are a common element of wartime propaganda, from Adolf Hitler to Osama bin Laden, said Pratkanis, professor of social psychology at UCSC and coauthor of a new study that underscores the disturbing effectiveness of what is called "the projection tactic"--falsely accusing someone else of the misdeed you are committing.

Adolf Hitler used projection in the late 1930s and early 1940s when he wrongly accused the Jews of a plot to brutally dominate Europe and then the world. In the 1950s, Senator Joseph McCarthy often accused his opponents of lying during his investigation of alleged communist activities in the United States. And Osama bin Laden, the prime suspect in the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, D.C., has accused the United States of terrorism.

"When it comes to false accusations and blaming others for your own negative behavior, Hitler and McCarthy were masters," said Pratkanis, whose research was inspired by numerous historical examples of projection. "Bin Laden's accusations may be widely discredited within the United States, but they appear to be resonating with his supporters."

"Projection works--that is what is so disturbing about it," said Pratkanis. "Making false accusations works in our everyday lives just as well as it does during times of war."

In four separate experiments designed to test the effectiveness of the projection tactic, the results were the same: The person making the accusation was exonerated from blame and the target was seen as the culprit. The findings held up even after suspicions were raised about the accuser's motives, after evidence showed that the accuser was guilty of the misdeed, and when the accusation was timed to occur after the misdeeds came to light.

"Projection turns out to be a very powerful tool for exonerating the accuser," said Pratkanis, who coauthored the paper with Derek Rucker, now a graduate student at Ohio State University. "It was effective even on the people who didn't think it would work on them--the people who thought it would boomerang and bring more suspicion to the accuser."

The projection tactic involves accusing another of the same negative traits, characteristics, and behaviors that one possesses with the goal of deflecting blame away from one's own misdeeds.

For example, Joseph McCarthy called the publisher Henry Luce a liar even as McCarthy proceeded to tell lies about Luce. Both McCarthy and Hitler used projection to increase the blame on the "target" of projection and to exonerate themselves, said Pratkanis.

"Children use projection all the time when they do things like try to blame a sibling for starting a fight or sneaking a cookie," said Pratkanis. "Unfortunately, the consequences can be severe when projection is used on the global stage. Projection is an incredibly effective influence tactic. People need to know how effective it is in order to make themselves less susceptible."

Projection is a common feature of political campaigns, with candidates invariably accusing opponents of negative campaigning even as they sling the mud themselves, noted Pratkanis. Another chilling example of the effectiveness of projection is the case of Gary Dotson, who spent six years in prison after he was accused and convicted of raping a young girl. Six years after being sentenced, the accuser retracted her story, telling authorities she had made up the rape charge to cover up a sexual experience with her boyfriend. Dotson asked that his conviction be overturned, but the original judge would not reverse the decision. Ultimately, the governor of Illinois refused a pardon but commuted Dotson's sentence to six years served.

"Both the judge and the governor continued to believe the original story," said Pratkanis. "They found the false allegation more believable than the truth." Four years after the recantation (12 years after the projection) Dotson's name was cleared by DNA evidence.

The best defense against projection is a strong social norm against "bearing false witness," said Pratkanis. Beyond that, individuals need to first recognize that they are vulnerable to projection as a tactic in order to discipline themselves to examine the motivation of the source of information and investigate the consistency of the story, he advised.

"You can ask yourself, 'Why is this person telling me this? What do they have to gain? What is the evidence for this statement? What are the arguments for the other side?'" suggested Pratkanis. "If there aren't definitive answers, it's probably best to withhold judgment."




http://www1.ucsc.edu/currents/terrorist_crisis/propaganda.html

(emphases mine)

 

Good insights. And now we are talking about projection leading to scapegoating and Groupthink.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You seriously need to distinguish between what I imply and what you only infer. I never implied that anyone is being manipulated here, as I have even said that the mechanism behind PI is the exact same as anyone reacting as expected to a particular behavior. The person projecting inadvertently modifies their behavior to suit their projection, and thus acts in a way that would naturally be expected to draw the sorts of reactions that fit the behavior, whether projected or not. The person projecting does not have some mystical control, affective or otherwise.

Projective identification is a clinical term, so it is no surprise that descriptions of it neglect the mechanism in everyday life it exploits (that people can be expected to react to any given behavior in certain, somewhat predictable ways). The mechanism exploited definitely includes verbal interactions, so PI cannot be precluded from doing so as well. If you project that someone is forgetful, you can inadvertently neglect to emphasize the importance of information in such a way that they do seem to be forgetful, unable to later recall what seemed like inconsequential data. This can easily be 100% verbal, and is in no way dependent on proximity.

Or can you explain how that example is any less PI than others?

You are erecting straw men. This is not a clinical environment.

 

Yet still nothing about mimetic theory.

 

Asked and answered. See posts #61, #63, #64, #65, #66, #67, and #68.

You are making up your own version of projective identification which is not supported by the literature. Can you cite a source to substantiate your pet theory of "verbal projective identification"? When I do a Google search for verbal projective identification, I only see references to non-verbal and pre-verbal communication.

Thus, as I said before, there is no example of projective identification happening anywhere on this thread. However, I think I do see evidence of mimetic rivalry.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

There is no accounting for people being incapable of thinking for themselves. You cannot deny the normal social mechanism exploited by projective identification.

 

I never did. I just said it didn't happen here. And I am right.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Examples of projective identification being done verbally:

Projective identification is a departure from Freudian views as it assumes an interpersonal rather than intrapersonal model. For example, the dependent person subtly asks for help, even though they do not need it, and the recipient complies and so is drawn into the control of the 'dependent' person. -http://changingminds.org/disciplines/psychoanalysis/concepts/projective_identification.htm


"Projective Identification" becomes a two-person process. Let's use the above scenario, but this time let's have John and Mark interact. Let's say that John meets Mark, greets him, and then comments to him "You look like you've put on weight." Mark, quite understandably, may feel hurt, and/or angry, and/or embarrassed by this comment. The cause of Mark's uncomfortable feelings, however, should be scrutinized closely, because it is at this moment that we must decide if this pair are accurately perceiving reality or if they have entered into a shared delusional state. If Mark has indeed gained weight recently, his uncomfortable feelings in the wake of John's comments may simply reflect his own feelings about the state of his own body. If Mark has not gained weight recently, we might say that he has become identified with John's projection of uncomfortable feelings about body image. Thus, Mark comes away from the interaction feeling hurt, angry, and embarrassed, when he in fact has nothing to feel hurt, angry, or embarrassed about. -http://www.drs-oleary.com/page.cfm?pgId=69​

You can make all the bare assertions you like, but that changes nothing.

 

You are the one making bare assertions. You keep asserting that I am causing projective identification to take place here. This is false. There is no projective identification taking place on this thread. I stand by that statement. I have supported my assertion with references that clearly falsify your stupid claim.

You are mixing up projection and projective identification. There is projection taking place on the thread. You are doing it in your post above! There is no projective identification taking place on this thread.

The original topic is projective identification. You are off topic.

And you keep making this personal. This is a thread to discuss the original topic, not to accuse me of things. Please stop this. I will ignore you from here on. Perhaps that is the only thing I can do.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Again, you infer more than I ever said. I never said you were intentionally causing projective identification, only that you were projecting. Natural social mechanisms do the rest. The only refute to this you have given is a host of references of PI in a strictly clinical setting. Your attentional bias ignores the verbal examples I have given you. These are all I need to make my point, and you have completely neglected to address them.

Again, quit making unfounded accusations. I just posted two references on PI. You cannot get any more on-topic than that. You did not need to get all defense just because I used you as a handy example for Wynn.

 

You most certainly did accuse me of causing projective identification.

And once again, I am not a "handy" example of anything, since there is no projective identification taking place on this thread. Everyone projects. You certainly do. We would need to be in some kind of physical proximity for actual projective identification to occur. Your pet theory of verbal projective identification via the internet is just silly. It is simply unsupportable and totally unscientific.

This is just an endless loop. Please stop trying to cover your error with further errors.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Try to read more closely. "Supplying a good example" is not equivalent to "causing".

Yet you still fail to address the examples I have given you of just that.

 

Baloney. If you feel that I am doing it to you, then I am "causing" it in you. It is equivalent. There is no practical difference. Try to write better and understand more.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

OK. Let me answer that for you. Again.

First off, when have I ever asked you for help? Let me make this clear: I do not want your help.

And secondly, the rest of your link is just a description of projective identification. Not "projective identification being done verbally"! There are no examples in that link, or the one below, that show your pet theory of "projective identification being done verbally". All projective identification has a verbal element. But it also has a physical element that is clearly missing here. We are not in physical proximity. In order for projective identification to occur, we would need to be able to see each other so that we can judge each other's emotional states, mostly unconsciously, mimetically. This is very important. I can't see you. You can't see me. Without the visual element, there simply cannot be projective identification taking place, according to the accepted definition and clinical usage of the word.

In the above example, John and Mark are in the same room. If they were meeting in an internet discussion forum, and John commented about Mark's weight gain, why would Mark take him seriously at all? Mark knows that John can't see him. Thus, no projective identification.

Please provide a link to prove that projective identification can take place without any visual contact, via the internet. When you find that, we can talk again.

Do you think other's have noticed your recent weight gain?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

This will probably sound insensitive, but perhaps your Asperger's prevents you to experience projective identification in this online environment. (Myself, I often experience PI in communication with some posters here.)

Or you may in fact - whether due to Asperger's or some other reason - be pretty much immune to PI.


The reason why online communication is not specified in some psychological studies is that those studies may have been done before the period of intense online communication, or haven't included online communication.

But there are many studies on online communication.
For example, one available online: http://users.rider.edu/~suler/psycyber/psycyber.html


I've been trying to figure out what the basic principle may be for experiencing PI at all. And it seems that the key factor is that a person has a need or a strong desire that they hope will be met by the other person; and when it isn't met, they may experienece PI.

To illustrate:
Peter has the need to be respected by Tom. One day, Tom has a bad day and rants, taking out his anger on Peter. In this, he calls him "Idiot" and "Loser." Peter feels hurt, offended, and self-doubt is strong in him - he thinks of himself as an idiot and loser. Peter has introjected what Tom projected. But if Peter would not have that need to be respected, that introjection would probably not occur, and he'd probably see Tom merely as being angry and throwing out words and accusations in anger.