Skip to main content

An aspect of heated religious discussions: Psychological Projection

Image
By
+
JMJ

In some heated discussions with ntCatholics (non-Traditional Catholics), my wife and I noticed that our interlocutors would accuse us of a particular action or fault. A fault that, upon later reflection, we relaised they were themselves guilty.

This behaviour has a name: Psychological Projection.

Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia article:
Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is habitually intolerant may constantly accuse other people of being intolerant. It incorporates blame shifting.
As noted, in my experience, in the heat of the moment, we don't usually realise that a person is 'projecting' a behaviour on us.  Everytime that I've realised that this was happening it was after the discussion ... or after a series of discussions.


This is similar to a behaviour that I've noted in people diagnosed with Schizophrenia. Nothing is their fault, everyone else is to blame. 

So now that you know that 'projection' is a thing, how do you deal with it?

An excellent question. 

Here's my thoughts:
  1. Stay calm during arguments and try to stay 'above' the drama.
    1.  In some cases there will be anger, lashing out .  Look at the bigger picture.  This should be easier if you've had a number of discussions with the person.  
  2. Point out the facts to the individual.
    1. This may or may not work.  If the person has a strong belief (see cognitive dissonance) they are going to go to great lengths to protect their perception of reality.
  3. Watch for patterns in the discussion.
    1.  This is where it is helpful to have a series of discussions.  In cases where we successfully realized that 'projection' was at play, the discussions were over a period of weeks or even months. 
  4. Watch for wild accusations violent 'thrown' at you like verbal darts. 
    1. The goal seems to be to put you off balance.  Take a breath and ask the following question: I don't understand, what prompted that question / accusation.
    2. You'll probably need to probe a number of times to get to the real reasons (5 why's might help and here's another article Root Cause Analysis 5 Whys).  Although, to avoid a defensive reaction, I suggest rephrasing the question without the word "WHY".



Just some thoughts!

P^3

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Rome,the SSPX and this time of Crisis - Updated

By
+ JMJ Obviously there's lots of events right now. First we have the April 1st - I almost thought it was April Fools - meeting between Pope Francis and Bishop Fellay.  Nothing really news worthy as this is a natural progression as Rome appears to be considering fulfilling Archbishop Lefebvre's wish to 'accept us as we are'. Second we have the April 8th publication of what will be a verbose exhortation of the Synod of the Family. I'm willing to bet that the Pope will give with one hand (unilateral regularization of SSPX) and take with the other (ambiguous document that opens the flood gates of sin further). Much to pray for. P^3
30 comments
Read more

A Reply to Martin Blackshaw’s FLAWED Remnant article titled: FLAWED: SSPX Advice on Abortion-tainted Vaccines

By
 + JMJ    An article has appeared in the Remnant (link to article) and I am afraid that there are a number of flaws in it that need to be addressed. The author, Martin Blackshaw, believes that both the Church and the SSPX are misapplying the principle of Moral Theology called 'Cooperation In Evil'.  Unfortunately, Mr. Blackshaw rests most of his arguments on citing authors that support his position, without considering the possibility that they are wrong. This highlights a key factor in this crisis: ignorance of the faith and its application . I don't am not singling out Mr. Blackshaw for this criticism, I have observed that it applies to laity and religious, superior and subject a like.  No one seems immune in this enduring crisis, myself included.  I further believe that this ignorance is why so many Catholics, both traditional and non, rely on their gut feeling or "Catholic conscience" for charting their way through this crisis of the faith.  While...
25 comments
Read more

Rorate-Caeli URGENT: Pope tells Italian Bishops he plans to abolish the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum

By
 + JMJ  Now THIS is probably the most important news item in the last two years - yes I place this above the pandemic. I'm only surprised by how long it took for this to surface during this pontificate. I hope and pray that it is false or that if it comes to pass that somehow some good will arise out of the ashes of Summorum Pontificum. P^3  Courtesy of Rorate-Caeli URGENT: Pope tells Italian Bishops he plans to abolish the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum (Updated) Update (May 26): Rorate's additional sources in Rome have confirmed this Wednesday that Francis has indeed a text on Summorum Pontificum lined up, which has been developed for months, but what is not known at this point is if the text is just about a more limited take on the Summorum application questionnaire (first revealed by us in the spring of 2020) or about an overhaul of Summorum Pontificum in general: drafts could be dealing with both matters. It is also not impossible for a text to come ou...
9 comments
Read more

If Pope Francis is bad - what about Pope St. John Paul II et al?

By
+ JMJ So here we are on the apparent cusp of yet another post conciliar Papal canonization. This time we have Pope's John-Paul I and Paul VI canonizations to 'look forward' to. This follows, obviously, on the heels of Pope St. John Paul II's canonization? So the first question that I usually encounter is: How is it possible, keeping in mind the doctrine on infallibility of canonizations (note doctrine not dogma), that Pope St. John Paul II is a Saint? First, what does it mean???  According to the doctrine of dogmatic facts - it is the universal opinion of Theologians that canonizations are infallible.  It means that they enjoy the beatific vision.  ... that's it.  That is the doctrine and it is at the level of universal opinion of theologians.  It is called a 'dogmatic fact'. That they made mistakes is obvious.  That the miracles seem to not be very miraculous is also a bit of an issue. Here's something to consider: The rush that surrou...
16 comments
Read more

The Vatican and SSPX – An Organizational Culture Perspective

By
Introduction The recent and continuing interactions between the Vatican and the SSPX have been a great opportunity for prayer and reflection.  The basis for the disagreement is theological and not liturgical. As noted by Dr. Lamont (2012), the SSPX theological position on the four key controversial aspects of the Second Vatican Council are base on prior theological work that resulted from relevant magisterial pronouncements.  So it is difficult to understand the apparent rejection of the theological position of the SSPX.
17 comments
Read more