projection - moved from scaling thread

[Corrie van Wijk]

"The only criteria that really matters:

Accepting me as I am. This is because only once a person has realised emotionally as well as intellectually that every single thing they see in other people is their own "stuff", then do they really understand projection. And as projection is the core, the key to understanding this work, no point teaching it until then!

Steven"

What you are really saying is that people need to share your world view, Steve. And as you continually don't seem able to acknowledge your own projection on this, what is true for you that you need to take such an elitist point of view?

For me, accepting who you are means to take into account that you are not able to separate your world view from those of others. That is a clean point of view from me.

[Steve Saunders]

What I'm saying is what I'm saying not what you are interpreting. I perceive that your reply judges me; precisely my point. I have my world view; You have yours, whether I agree with it or not. So its my projection that you judge me; whether you do or not.

Clean exists to ask clean questions because we cannot know the other person's reality; we make inferences but they only tell the inferencer about themselves.

The only way to learn this stuff is to DO it. Talking and analysing is going nowhere IMO. I cannot teach you or anyone; I provide the environment where people make their own learnings. What I find is that those ready to learn different things are present at the right time - somehow magically, who knows how it works?

And whereabouts in your body or head or outside could your sense of elitism be?

Would you teach this work to a psychopath? Would you teach it to anyone, or at some point are there criteria the "teacher" applies in this work? David had criteria; he told me who he did not want at future workshops.

And whereabouts is your sense of "projection"?

Corrie, I accept your behaviour as it is. If you expect me to agree with what you say then your expectation might be unrealised. Thank you for your comments. As I'm also not your facilitator I will not ask you to accept your projections are about you.

[Corrie van Wijk]

Steve: "What I'm saying is what I'm saying not what you are interpreting. I perceive that your reply judges me; precisely my point. I have my world view; You have yours, whether I agree with it or not. So its my projection that you judge me; whether you do or not."

Yes I do judge you: my interpretation is that you do not seem able to separate your worldview from those of others. And that is serious, because if you cannot distinguish between a you and a me, you don''t have a clean attitude.

Steve: "David had criteria; he told me who he did not want at future workshops."

Which criteria?

Steve: "Corrie, I accept your behaviour as it is."

No you don't.

[Steve Saunders]

QUOTE: [Corrie: Yes I do judge you: my interpretation is that you do not seem able to separate your worldview from those of others. And that is serious, because if you cannot distinguish between a you and a me, you don''t have a clean attitude.

Steve: "David had criteria; he told me who he did not want at future workshops."
Corrie: Which criteria?

Steve: "Corrie, I accept your behaviour as it is."
Corrie: No you don't. ]

He did not tell me his criteria, but he definitely showed behaviours that inferred criteria of appropriate delegates for workshops - like saying who could NOT attend in future. Anyone "borderline" for example (see standard psychiatric definitions for "borderline").

Corrie, I am able to distinguish that I have a different world view from others. That I significantly fail to understand other people's world views is perhaps a big enough clue for me? And of course mine is the RIGHT one! ;-)

My interest is in precisely how other people do think/feel/react/be - we are so wonderfully different. In fact the content is becoming ever-more interesting to me - yes, the story!

I do not wish you to be any way other than you are as you are; thus I do accept you by my definition of accepting someone else as they are - including your disagreement - it's fine by me!

love Steven

[Corrie van Wijk]

Thank you for your eloquent explanation in the Feedback section of how an emergent process works: indeed I was very much frustrated by being moved around all the time, which confused me and took me out of the flow of processing our notes from the emergent gathering. I try to finish on my own computer, but it's different if nobody reads it.

Steve: "That I significantly fail to understand other people's world views is perhaps a big enough clue for me? And of course mine is the RIGHT one! ;-)"

I call this the WIKI-syndrom: What I Know Is. For most people this is just an unability to take a second position and to realize that there is a lot of knowledge they don't know about, so they cannot even imagine anything else.
In your case, as I found out, it's different: it seems to me that you are a little beyond knowledge. I guess once you travelled into the marvels of quantummechanics and cosmology, this worldly knowledge isn't that important any more.

I learned that your worldview is essential for you, so I decided to accept that. David would have said, also to you: "Thank you for being who you are, you're just right!"

[Feralchild]

Although most,if not all assessments of others probably involve some degree of projection,I don't consider projection to be the only factor involved.
Quite a large proportion of the general population(including many self-proclaimed therapists)have pathologically immature thought processes,and exhibit an abnormal degree of projection in their assessments of others.
I suspect that this is due to an inability to move beyond the egocentric stage of development.
It seems to me that what the person is doing in such cases is attempting to understand others by projecting their own qualities onto them in an attempt to pattern match,but since their thinking is too immature to understand others,the end result is often a displacement of their own qualities which they refuse to accept onto the other person.
When encountering a high degree of projected material,I consider it useful to make an assessment of the maturity of the persons processing.

[phil]

One of the main effects and purposes of Clean Language is to give the facilitator (A) a way to minimise the amount of his/her (inevitable) projection that gets transmitted to the client (B).

I think another is that it also holds a mirror up to A, saying: 'See how much of what you think about this person is really your stuff!' and as such provides for A a wonderful education in terms of self-knowledge (for those that want it).

After a while of using CL, the faith in our self-delusion that we know what's best for other people can dwindle to much more manageable levels, to the extent where A's mind has now become trained to respond internally with skepticism to its own projections about B with a quick '... or probably not'.

[Feralchild]

I think another advantage of the clean approach is that it tends to be avoided by the pathologically immature,who seem to require to be in a directive,one-up position,possibly because is what they regard as proper behaviour for adults.

[Corrie van Wijk]

"I don't consider projection to be the only factor involved ... have pathologically immature thought processes, and exhibit an abnormal degree of projection in their assessments of others ... due to an inability to move beyond the egocentric stage of development."

If 'projection' is not the only factor involved, the other being 'pathologically immature thought processes', the latter being the result of 'an inability to move beyond the egocentric stage of development', which leads to 'an abnormal degree of projection in their assessment of others'; how can projection be a separate factor if it would be the result of the other factor? How do you know if anybody's assessment of anybody else's 'stage of development', be it labelled 'immature' or 'egocentric' or otherwise, wouldn't be a projection of the assessor?

"the pathologically immature, who seem to require to be in a directive, one-up position, possibly because is what they regard as proper behaviour for adults.": what is the relationship between 'immature' and the need 'to be in a directive one-up position' and why would 'immature' people, more than others, regard that as 'proper behaviour for adults'?

Adding this kind of context to this thread associates the given labels to the previous discussion between Steve and me a long time ago, to which I object.

As I wrote earlier: "I call this the WIKI-syndrom: What I Know Is. For most people this is just an unability to take a second position and to realize that there is a lot of knowledge they don't know about, so they cannot even imagine anything else." This is the boundary of the psychescape.

" ... your worldview is essential for you, so I decided to accept that." This is the boundary of the pronoun.

Only if the pronoun senses another world beyond theirs, they can begin to explore that.

Any assessment according to any model is more likely to inhibit that instead of encouraging it: the latter can be done by scaling out.

In the case of a projection by A (the client here and now) they sit on a horizon and keep withdrawing, rejecting every feedback; they never quite get to accept anybody else's point of view.

I tried this myself last week when I was developing a problem-solving model. As an example I took a situation I need to deal with right now. I explored the psychescape spatially, but that made me avoid the problem by disappearing beyond the horizon. I asked Steve for feedback and he suggested to work with the pronoun.

So I differentiatied between the problem, the owner of it and the solution:
1. I am (part of) the problem and I am (part of) the solution
2. I am (part of) the problem, but I am not (part of) the solution
3. I am not (a part of) the problem, but I am part of the solution
4. I am not (a part of) the problem, and I am not a part of the solution.

I found out that even if I wasn't part of the problem (hence my withdrawal), I still felt responsible for providing a solution.

So then the problem gets redefined: even if I am not a part of the problem, nor responsible for its solution, would I be interested in providing a solution? (cq on loan from J&P)

Even if I would be, I concluded that any intervention, even a clean one, would make things worse. Not intervening within a social context however, is also communication.

So now the problem is defined as being 'how to deal with a situation in which somebody projects their problem on me, and anything I would do would make it worse, also not doing anything."

[Steve Saunders]

Phil: "... or probably not"
... agreeing ... and ...

In my reality, what I am being shown by others still tells me about me, and being an ostrich only hides my eyes from what I would otherwise see.

When it comes to the so-called "mentally disabled" folk, I now rejoice with nonlexics for example, as these folk are so less conditioned than the lexics, as a typical rule, autists are far more perceptive energetically and in other ways than 'normal' people, it is the strange rules of the sociopathic normal social world that confuses them, they live in truth. Maybe missing layers of the social matrix. as it is.

I have not met a human being who does not have at least some arrested personal development, including myself. These variations make us unique and the characters we play in the world. If I had the sword of Alexander and the Gordion knot of therapy, I would chop the knot.

[Corrie van Wijk]

"it is the strange rules of the sociopathic normal social world that confuses them": this is as much an assessment as any other; the problem/goal (B) here could be defined as 'understanding the [...] rules of the [...] social world'. Interacting with that world teaches anyone by trial and error. You get hurt or rewarded. You withdraw or approach. What do you know now?

[Steve Saunders]

I agree Corrie. Happy to! Then deconstruct and know all is perfect ... even the labelling of others by those who think they know better ...

S

[Feralchild]

Personally,I think it's helpful to make a distinction between purely abstract processing and social cognition.
The factor that possibly causes the most problems in social problems in social cognition is that,in addition to the "higher" reasoning centres,the emotive aspects of the amygdala also become involved.
Since this tends to contaminate the perceptions with personal stuff and often a fair degree of pathological processing,I regard it as useful to try to distance perception from emotional processing when making an assessment.A variation of the movie theater technique,to try and seperate the two to some degree,can often be useful.

[Corrie van Wijk]

Hi non Russian ...,

"the emotive aspects of the amygdala also become involved.
Since this tends to contaminate the perceptions with personal stuff and often a fair degree of pathological processing, I regard it as useful to try to distance perception from emotional processing when making an assessment."

What kind of assessment do you make to distinguish between their "'higher' reasoning centres" and their "emotive aspects of the amygdala"?

How would 'perceptions get contaminated by personal stuff'?

How would 'a fair degree of pathological processing get contaminated by the emotive aspects of the amygdala'?

How would 'personal stuff' or 'pathological processing' be 'contaminating'?

How do you measure 'contamination'?

Once you made an assessment of degree of contamination, what happens next?

Even if there were some objective truth, how relevant is it within interpersonal relationships?

I need to deal with people's perceptiions, however different they may be from anybody else's.

The criterion is how they manage to deal with their life in relationship to their environment.

If I can make them understand my point of view, also emotionally, we're likely to get along better.

[Feralchild]

Hello again,to my mind,a major factor causing stress,fear and hatred in people is the way social cognition operates.
A part of the function of the amygdala is threat assessment,unfortunately,it functions on a level of "will it bite me",which is usually counterproductive in assessing the modern world.
To illustrate the point,a large proportion of the the information transmitted through the media conforms to the way our social perceptions operate-a focus on various threats,actual and potential.
Whilst lessening the impact of this bias is extremely difficult,I think it is useful to be mindful of this.One reason that short periods of isolation can be beneficial is that the higher functions are disengaged from
the more primitive,and less rational ones.
Whilst my comments earlier were not directed at anyone here,them being regarded as a personal attack does serve to illustrate the point.
That's all for now,things to do,disengaging.

[Corrie van Wijk]

"A part of the function of the amygdala is threat assessment, unfortunately, it functions on a level of "will it bite me", which is usually counterproductive in assessing the modern world.": perhaps 'will it bit me' will not be literally be the case in a modern world, practically it often is. Words can wound, and public opinion is very judging, the consequences can be severe in terms of reputation and self-esteem.

"One reason that short periods of isolation can be beneficial is that the higher functions are disengaged from the more primitive, and less rational ones.": And when ["an inability to move beyond the egocentric stage of development"], ["their thinking is too immature to understand others"], ["the maturity of the persons processing"], ["pathologically immature,who seem to require to be in a directive, one-up position"], ["to contaminate the perceptions with personal stuff and often a fair degree of pathological processing"] and ["the higher functions are disengaged from the more primitive, and less rational ones."], how would isolation from ['immature', 'pathological', 'primitive' and 'less rational'] be beneficial to ['higher functions']?

"Whilst my comments earlier were not directed at anyone here, them being regarded as a personal attack does serve to illustrate the point.": I wrote: "Adding this kind of context to this thread associates the given labels to the previous discussion between Steve and me a long time ago, to which I object." Even if your comments were not meant to be directed at anyone, your putting them in this context does have the effect of labelling the discussion with the judgments quoted above. My feedback on that was meant to make your understand that. For you to throw it back at me as if I were to regard it as a personal attack, which you use to illustrate your point, could just as much be perceived as a 'will it bite me' reaction, which you judge as being immature etc.

Within a clean context, 'contamination' refers to the facilitator's unability to refrain from assumptions about his or her client. It seems to me that your 'higher functions' get in the way of that kind of clean attitude.

[Steve Saunders]

in the military world view, the level 5 (out of 7) functions are defined:

situation awareness
threat assessment
decision-making
actions

at this relatively high behavioural level, it is the world view of a person or group that expects to be operating in an unsafe environment. It therefore is a good reflection for all people who were raised with some degree of painful conditioning - i.e. most people, but not Lamas ... but it does not have to be true, and once unlearned, hostile experiences do not necessarily have to happen.

My own view of models like spiral dynamics is that they reflect contracting consciousness, not growth, that they are seen back-to-front from a cleaner perspective that understands dissociation and David's worldview.

Many autists are highly psychic and intuitively gifted. They do not buy the lies of social conditioning. Socially disabled from the perspective of the socially-controlled, yes, but not disabled in terms of pure awareness, not disabled in the ways created by growing up into the social matrix. Not blind.

Steven

[Corrie van Wijk]

Steve: "spiral dynamics ... reflect contracting consciousness": in the context of the previous discussion, this is a judgment.

I do not agree with you: I usually become more aware what is happening when under threat.

[Steve Saunders]

ah I think I'm being mis-interpreted here Corrie - awareness of environment and threat is not the same as consciousness outside of the socially-accepted matrix, like spirits entities, ghosts, demons, my mind in your mind, yours in mine, and other aspects considered "mad", "manic", "psychotic" but often totally sane, just not conventional reality-sane.

and yes it is a judgement about SD. No problem with judging things Corrie. I used to believe SD myself, and then realised the errors in my perception, maybe in the future I'll see it differently again, but the last few years consistently I perceive the price of shifting memes is leaving old structures and making new ones - and this fits david's models perfectly.

and under threat we do become very aware of the environment and less "in the mind", agreeing, but not more conscious. And is there a threat unless we manifest it?

[Corrie van Wijk]

"under threat we do become very aware of the environment and less "in the mind", agreeing, but not more conscious": a signal from the environment may trigger a 'threat' reaction by a short-cut to the amygdala. Simultaneously, but a fraction slower, a second signal reaches the 'higher functions' (as Feralchild refers to it), which may cause us to become aware of it. So we pay attention to it, assessing if it is a real threat or a false alarm. So both things happen as a result of the trigger: we are alerted and a fraction later become more aware of the environment.

You may be right that at that moment we are less 'in the mind', because the emotional reaction is stronger and faster than the cognitive one. With a flight reaction this is likely to spiral negatively; however, my reaction is usually to become very calm (freeze), so I can think better before I act (fight), so that would be more conscious.

Your "consciousness [...] like spirits, entities, ghosts, demons, my mind in your mind, yours in mine, and other aspects considered 'mad', 'manic', 'psychotic'" would have to be assessed from somebody's (non-)verbal behaviour and I don't have a model for that.

"And is there a threat unless we manifest it?": yes there may a threat without us being aware of it: my not being aware of some aspect of reality or not having a concept of it or of somebody else's perception may be dangerous.

[vernpeace]

hi, aint got a clue yet as to what this is all about however its all very entertaining and ive come up with a wonderful dancing metaphor about two left feet from it not sure where it came from but it made me chuckle thanks!

peace&love...vern

[Steve Saunders]

Hello Vern,

I had no idea you had trained with someone in clean language - who did you train with, and when?

Steven

[vernpeace]

"who did you train with, and when?"


Hi Steven,

You now here This!

peace&love vern

p.s .funny stuff!

[Feralchild]

The point concerning isolation-the human brain is basically a standard mammalian thing with a few bits added to do abstract reasoning etc.,unfortunately,social behaviour is mainly determined by the "lower",instinctive mammalian parts of the brain.Avoiding social situations(and social thinking)for a while allows abstract reasoning to be freed from the conceptualised instinctive behaviours.

[vernpeace]

"the human brain is basically a standard mammalian thing with a few bits added"

hi Feralchild, interesting the bits that are added on, like arms and legs etc very useful - keeps us sane along with our integrity(honor) - a man without principles is no man at all, only animal - woman too I've noticed!

peace&love...vern

[Corrie van Wijk]

And when "abstract reasoning freed from the conceptualised instinctive behaviours", then what happens?.

[Feralchild]

Hi Vern,I'd probably be most perturbed to lose them,but I'm not sure that's quite the point of arms and legs,unless you happen to be an evolving fish in need of some land time
Hi Corrie,clearer thinking, generally.

[Steve Saunders]

amusing chat but losing the plot somewhat ...

[Corrie van Wijk]

And when [clearer thinking, generally], what happens to [the emotive aspects of the amygdala]?

And when [this tends to contaminate the perceptions with personal stuff], then what happens?

Since we are talking about projection, hence interpersonal relationship, wouldn't 'personal stuff' be the only relevant criterion in interacting with others?

Emotions are excellent guides to knowing who to avoid or to approach. If somebody else's behaviour triggers emotions, you are reminded of some experience from which you learned: you project the former situation on the present one until further notice.

[Feralchild]

And when [clearer thinking, generally], what happens to [the emotive aspects of the amygdala]?

And when [this tends to contaminate the perceptions with personal stuff], then what happens?

Since we are talking about projection, hence interpersonal relationship, wouldn't 'personal stuff' be the only relevant criterion in interacting with others?
It would depend on the nature of the stuff,and the interaction.
Emotions are excellent guides to knowing who to avoid or to approach. What are your reasons for saying this?
If somebody else's behaviour triggers emotions, you are reminded of some experience from which you learned: you project the former situation on the present one until further notice.

Sometimes.

[Feralchild]

And when "abstract reasoning freed from the conceptualised instinctive behaviours", then what happens?.

Though not everyone works this way,when there is less in the way of emotive abreactions maintaining a problem by attempting to defend it,it then becomes easier to elicit the structure of the problem state and do something useful about it.

[Steve Saunders]

Is it ever possible not to engage in a Freudian defence mechanism when approaching problems circuitously? Intellectualising is just another way of avoiding undesirable emotions, is it not? The problem contains the solution, including the emotions.

I prefer to "pronoun-scale" the emotion, thus addressing and releasing it, and then the problem is normally resolved. And, if there is a remaining problem then "issue busting" will readily do the job required in terms of clarity, insight and being at-one with it.

Steven

[phil]

... you project the former situation on the present one until further notice.

I think that statement comes across as more definitive than is true in real life. Awareness of one's own patterns and some level of understanding of interactions between people can mitigate the effect of 'projection', to use that metaphor.

Other people have 'personal stuff' too - sometimes that stuff emerges as behaviour that triggers emotions in other parties or in society as a whole. If A does something that B has emotions about and B then communicates those emotions to A, how is that projection? B is describing their experience - the sense of being projected upon rests with A - more of their 'personal stuff'? Would it be reasonable for a murderer to claim the judge is 'projecting' his personal stuff when he condemns him to life in prison?

One common responsibility-shucking technique (perhaps particularly among those familiar with the world of popular psychology?) is for A to claim that B is just projecting their 'personal stuff' on to A, when B gives feedback to A about A's behaviour. The implication by A is that the feedback can be ignored by A as being entirely B's 'personal stuff'. Convenient.

If we have had experiences where we have learned, then we must have been able to have new experiences to learn from - and must still be able to do so.

[Steve Saunders]

Maybe that statement about 'projecting-on' is varyingly true depending upon the complex system of each individual. I've been working with Tania a fair bit, and in her developmental model this 'projecting' behaviour is more overtly typical of people stuck into psychopathy - in terms of not having developed empathy. In my model, it is the energetic layer on which rules/boundaries then go and on which then we layer myth/story/metaphor, and more sophisticated layers on that ...

IMO it depends on the nature of the feedback ... a lot of "you ... you ... you ..." would normally feel to me to be highly projected, whereas "in your presence I feel ..." is more informative - IMO.

It is convenient, but also I feel true, that my opinion of anyone else is my projection of them, and vice versa. It's not a cop-out, just a "you sort out your stuff and i'll sort out mine" attitude. Even when my opinion is shared by many others, it is just a common opinion. Who knows what goes on inside another person's mind?

[Feralchild]

I think it would be useful to make a distinction between personal experience and personality.
Whilst some research I've read suggests that autists may do social cognition by working solely from autobiographical memory,the same would not necessarily be true of neurotypicals.
As far as pathological projection goes,there seems to be a high degree of correlation with developmental disorders,which would accord with the Milton model's(which largely consists of immature thought processes) "people" which is a global extrapolation of the persons own content.

[phil]

It is convenient, but also I feel true, that my opinion of anyone else is my projection of them, and vice versa.

I suppose opinion and projection are close to being synonyms here?

Also some multiple options here for vice versas here - I found them quite enlightening to consider, especially the one's that on first glance 'obviously' don't work... Can you think of relationships in your life where any or all of these hold true?

my opinion of them is my projection of them
their opinion of me is my projection of them
my opinion of them is their projection of me
their opinion of me is their projection of me
their opinion of them is their projection of them
my opinion of me is my projection of me
my opinion of them is their projection of them
their opinion of me is my projection of me
my opinion of me is my projection of them
their opinion of them is their projection of me

there are others; my brain is cooked enough just reading those...

It's not a cop-out, just a "you sort out your stuff and i'll sort out mine" attitude. Even when my opinion is shared by many others, it is just a common opinion. Who knows what goes on inside another person's mind?

I think 'that's you projecting on to me' can be used as a cop-out or a defence if that's the intention of the person responding to feedback/challenge.

For me, so much depends on the 'how' of an interaction. It can be done in an isolating way ('your stuff is your stuff, mine is mine, you deal with yours, I'll deal with mine (if I feel like it... oh, and by the way [communicated in my voice tone] how dare you challenge my stuff?!'), which is not much of a step up from simple, unaware projection ('it's all about your stuff, I am perfect').

Or it can be a more empathic, possibly even negotiated process ('I recognise and accept my stuff and I can recognise some of your stuff. Let's deal: if you can accept what is your stuff, I can accept it too, however if you can't accept that, I can't accept your projection of me').

[Feralchild]

Is it ever possible not to engage in a Freudian defence mechanism when approaching problems circuitously? Intellectualising is just another way of avoiding undesirable emotions, is it not? The problem contains the solution, including the emotions.

I prefer to "pronoun-scale" the emotion, thus addressing and releasing it, and then the problem is normally resolved. And, if there is a remaining problem then "issue busting" will readily do the job required in terms of clarity, insight and being at-one with it.

Steven

How exactly would pronoun-scaling and issue-busting be done?

[Steve Saunders]

Issue busting you can see on my website in a reduced format but essentially as it is. Pronoun Scaling is one of my processes that I teach.

Steven

[Steve Saunders]

Clarifying Phil, my opinion, my judgements, me feelings about, are all PARTS of my projection of another person. and vice versa, their opinions, judgements etc are PART of their projection ... IMO.

Agreeing it is always in the 'how', but all the same, I am personally not interested in feedback on me from others because my model means its ALWAYS polluted - better for me to notice what the world around shows. Thus my philosophy that each person works on their own stuff. For me, this is clean, else we would be doing group work where people comment on each other, etc, which we pointedly do not.

Steven