Protection against projective identification - resources?

The really cool thing is that we don't have to use the example of Peter and Tom since we are hypothesizing about projective identification amongst the real (virtual) people here. When these analogies are constructed it is often hard to figure out who is who, and what exactly has been done. We should dispense with an unnecessary level of abstraction. That is the scientific way. What if we drop all pretense and just go ahead and name names? We might learn a lot more.

Which of the following virtual real life adaptations of your analogy seems true to you and why?

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

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

I have some issues with both 1 and 2, but I would like to hear what others think first.

Also, thank you so much for finding a link to such an interesting resource. I will probably read the whole thing. I have already looked at the ethics section. Perhaps we should all work on some kind of informed consent before we proceed further.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The only thing you are doing is projecting. PI is not an intentional occurrence. It is only the result of natural social mechanisms, i.e. judging a book by its cover, etc.. The person projecting just tends to act as if their projection is true.

Look, you can make up whatever comforts you, but I have already told you exactly what I mean. If you choose not to accept that then your perceptions do not mirror reality. Plain and simple.

The bolded bit is an outright lie. Anyone is free to see for themselves that this is your first response to these examples.

Really? You are seriously that confused and literal-minded? That example was not analogous to our particular exchange, only to my point.

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​

Asking for help is verbal. Do you really think that, say, doing this over the phone or by email has any less effect. Is the other person somehow less likely to comply? Why? The request for help need not be anything that person would normally resist doing. The dependent person simply exploits their good nature with an artificial request to establish a sense of control.

Again you resort to a strictly clinical usage when we are talking about real life examples.

Really? So you honestly think someone would comment on the weight of a person they have not recently seen? That would be a huge non sequitur. And you really think the words would have any less of an impact if not said in person? Apparently you are not familiar with cyberbullying and libel, which demonstrates that words over the internet can have a huge impact.

You arguments are preposterous.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The basic reason for experiencing PI is that you take the other person's behavior at face value. This is usually a fair indicator that you see yourself as an honest person, as only manipulative people tend to question all motives. If some behaves a certain way, you assume it to be genuine behavior, not an artifice of what they believe about you due to projection.

Practicing self-mindfulness and avoiding making assumptions of motive may help.

But no, there is no necessity for any desire or need on the part of those experiencing PI.

Really? Still so literal-minded.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are also free to believe whatever you want to.

The bolded part is the truth. Anyone who has read the thread can see that you have been making the same assertion over and over, and I, as patiently as I can, have been answering you. These examples you just gave are your first attempt, in response to my rebuttals, to cite some sort of specific reference for your personal pet theory of verbal projective identification. On scientific grounds you have failed, and simultaneously failed to notice your failure.

Perhaps you are the one who is confused and you just don't realize it. I am not being literal minded. I am literally responding to the examples you are giving. If you don't like it, provide better examples.

We are talking about real life examples that supposedly fit a clinical definition. You keep trying to dissect the visual aspect away and only talk about the verbal, so you can make your case. That is very unscientific.

Wow, this is a very twisted argument. I am beginning to believe that you are not simply trying to be a pain, but, instead I am beginning to see that you just don't understand what I am very clearly saying to you. The point is, once again, that for projective identification, as it is defined, to occur at all, the two parties must be able to see each other. The fact that a weight comment made via the internet with no visual contact is a huge non sequitur is why there is no projective identification possibly occurring here! There is a lot of standard projection only. And I have become very familiar with cyber bullying since I have been a victim of it.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You are dodging the question

Which of the following virtual real life adaptations of this analogy seems true to you and why?

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

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

You are dodging the question. Why not answer it instead?

You don't have to pick 1 or 2. But if you don't, please at least provide a concrete description of the projective identification that you claim is happening here, using actual examples from the thread. Otherwise I submit that you have failed to make any case that any projective identification has occurred on this thread. Thank you.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I am not dodging anything, as this is the FIRST time you have asked ME this at all. Go look. You asked Wynn, not me. Again, demonstrably faulty accusations. That is a clear indication of projection.

Now that you have actually bothered to ask me... neither is in the least bit accurate.

In my first post to this thread I said:

Futilitist seems to supply a good example of projective identification.

While he may not intend to come across as troublesome, his paranoia about being seen as such does seem to have a negative impact on his posts. He gets defensive and accusative at the drop of a hat where detailing evidence for his arguments (if there is any) would serve him better. ​

Since then you have only further verified this, just as your above unfounded accusation demonstrates. You have consistently projected that people are out to "get that Futilitist guy", and not only toward me. You have projected this on the mods and completely innocuous replies as well. So indiscriminately that it could only be projection. And if you insist, I can quote each instance (in case you do not remember your own words).

It is this paranoia which is highly relevant to the first example I presented:

An example of projective identification is that of the paranoid schizophrenic who develops the delusion that he is being persecuted by the police; fearing the police, he begins to act furtively and anxiously around police officers, thereby raising the suspicions of police officers, who then begin to look for some grounds on which to arrest him. -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projective_identification#In_action​

It appears you have been behaving congruent with your projection. You have gotten overly defensive and neglected making the case for many of your arguments, which naturally elicits criticism, which in turn affirms your projection of being persecuted.

Case closed.

 

Case closed

Good.

Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Except that you, Syne, are very good at bringing the worst out of people.
You usually use the aggressive communication style, and few people can keep up with that style with their critical thinking abilities still intact.

It's hard to say who started it all, who did what to whom first. But I think that you, too, contribute to the communication progressively becoming worse and worse.

 

Given the nature of the issue, and the nature of the relationships between the posters involved, I don't think it is possible to talk about this openly.

If either 1 or 2 is the case, it is not likely that either Futilist or Syne would admit to having that need for respect.
Simply because this is probably such a delicate, personal issue that it cannot be openly addressed in this forum environment.

I'm not going to try to push anyone into admitting anything.

 

Sounds like a personal problem.

 

No, it is not.

Please don't equate me with Syne. I don't believe that you actually think that we have a case of mutual bad behavior going on. I have done nothing to warrant the way that Syne has treated me from the very beginning. That is self evident.

I have never claimed that Syne was exhibiting 1 or 2. In fact, my point is that no one has done anything wrong except for the fact that Syne seems to be nothing more than a troll. I may have also suggested that he might have an authoritarian personality, as well.

I want to respect your judgement. You started this thread. Why? So far it is has been mostly about me.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I suppose you think any bad reaction you receive has nothing to do with your own actions? Including the mods and many respected posters here.

 

No, Syne. I am talking about you only. You are a troll.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Then how do you explain all the other reactions to you? Are they all trolls? Is everyone out to get you?

 

Many here hate you as well. How do you explain that?

You appear to be baiting me. I don't want to talk to you.

What was the original topic again?

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think it's the idea that a particular behavior warrants a particular reply that needs to be looked into.

I imagine that projection and projective identification don't work at all, or work quite differently when the interaction is between two people from different cultures or two different religions or otherwise very different mentalities.

One element of PI is the idea that behavior B1 warrants reply R1. As long as all the parties involved have the same idea about what warrants what, PI works.
With people from different cultures, different religions etc., the process seems to break down at least sometimes, as has been my personal experience and casual observation.

I certainly didn't intend it to be about you. I have an interest in the topic as such.

Anyway, I think it would really help, as far as the OP is concerned, to just focus abstractly on it, without bringing in in vivo personal examples. Personal examples are alright, as long as they are used simply as illustrations or examples of what is discussed. But an immediate accompanying meta-analysis tends to devolve into useless ad homs.

 

Never got any response to the only useful answers to your question in this entire thread:

 

If you know of a way for me to avoid having this ongoing conflict with Syne by using a different approach, I am all ears. But sarcasm is not the only way I have attempted to answer Syne's inane posts. I have actually spent several hours of my life answering him earnestly, only to be completely ignored on the logic.

One thing that has not been mentioned is that projective identification usually occurs in situations where the two parties know each other intimately.

But it has come out that way, solely because of the actions of Syne. I have made many mature efforts to get the thread back on topic after his childish outbursts. And I also have an interest in the general topic.

I agree that projective identification is a good topic in and of itself. We should be able to discuss it without getting personal.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Syne -

As for your reference to Buddhism: I saw your post when you posted it. We will probably disagree on a lot of what has to do with Buddhism. I rarely get involved in debates on Buddhism, on principle so. Which is the main reason why I didn't reply to your post there.

Actually, as far as I understand Buddhism, there is precisely this idea that a need or a desire on our own part makes us experience PI.
In some Buddhist understandings, perception is a matter of desire: we perceive according to our desires; so if we change our desires, our perceptions will change too (which will further influence our reasoning for what we do and what we eventually actually do).

 

Sure, or when there is otherwise a lot of intellectual, emotional or practical investment.
For example, relationships between teachers and students at school are on principle not intimate, but they involve a lot of intellectual, emotional and practical investment, which tends to make students susceptible/vulnerable to the teacher's projections.
Or when after a car collision, the drivers involved try to sort out whose fault it is and who has to pay for the damage.


Earlier, I referred to the "Psychology of cyberspace;" there's a chapter on the "online disinhibition effect." It seems this disinhibition effect can make people more vulnerable to PI online.

Direct confrontation rarely works.