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

The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law- Part II: Dr. John Lamont

By
+ JMJ This is the second article from Dr. Lamont from his lecture given in May 2014. P^3 Source Part A: Society of St. Hugh of Cluny Source Part B: Society of St. Hugh of Cluny 8 May2014 The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law- Part II By John Lamont To understand how the Jesuit conception of obedience departed from earlier conceptions, it is helpful to compare it with the teaching of St. Thomas on obedience. The fundamental difference between the two is that St. Thomas considers the proper object of obedience to be the precept of the superior (2a2ae q. 104 a. 2 co., ad 3). Obedience that seeks to forestall the expressed will of the superior does not bear on what the superior wants or thinks in general, but only on what the superior intends to command. St. Ignatius’s lowest degree of obedience, which he does not consider to be virtuous, is thus what St. Thomas considers to be the only form of obedience. St. Thomas holds that St. Ignatius’s alleged higher forms of o...
Post a Comment
Read more

Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin - July 6, 1988

By
There has been some discussion (read lots) about the term 'Conciliar Church'. I have posted this letter written by the Superior General and District Superiors of the SSPX after the 1988 Consecrations. Of particular interest is that the 'Conciliar Church' being referred to as a system. My paraphrase would be that the SSPX regards the 'conciliar Church' as an error within the Church. Source Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops
Post a Comment
Read more

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

By
+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3
Post a Comment
Read more

Rome and the SSPX - Version 2026 Part 6b: Principles and Rules for Surviving this Crisis of the Catholic Church (Principle 1)

By
 + JMJ Principle 1: Realize that something is amiss in the Catholic Church The world in which I had my Traditional Awakening, is one in which practically anything pre-Conciliar such as liturgy, doctrinc, and even dogmas are either suppressed, ignored or re-framed to be acceptable to the ‘world’. What is more, the people adhering to these pre-conciliar teachings and liturgy are persecuted by other members of the Catholic Church. The things that non-Trads say about Trads can be quite extreme. For example, accusations against Traditionalists include that they are: A revival of the Jansenists (link) , Schismatics, Heretics, Uncharitable, Lefebrists Radicals Integrists When one group of Catholics is persecuted by the others for simply wanting to live as Catholics before them did for generations … well something is wrong. Further, we need to realize that when what was previously condemned is now promoted and what was previously promoted as the trut...
Post a Comment
Read more

How is the SSPX prepared to accept the Second Vatican Council??? - Reblogged and Updated.

By
+ JMJ The Archbishop remained steadfast. In the 1980s, in his correspondence with then-Cardinal Ratzinger, Archbishop Lefebvre stated his position that the criterion for interpreting Vatican II in light of Tradition comprises three elements: 1) He and the SSPX would accept anything in Vatican II that is clearly consistent with Tradition; 2) Any ambiguous texts of Vatican II must be interpreted strictly according to Tradition; according to the consistent teaching of the Church throughout the centuries. 3) Anything in the Council that cannot be interpreted according to Tradition should be revised. The Archbishop laid this out explicitly in his letters to Cardinal Ratzinger in 1982 and 1985. CF News: Rome-SSPX: Background to the Doctrinal Discussions CF News: The April 15 Deadline A few years ago Tony La Rosa (aka ecclesia militans a Toronto based 'resistor') had a difficult time accepting this approach to the council. He held that it must be completely tossed as...
Post a Comment
Read more