Projections: when you think you know, and usually don't. Posted by John on December 21, 1999 at 17:30:23:
After I wrote that piece—an article, really—on men behaving
psychopathically when they are crazy in love with a woman, I had what we
call "a projection" on all of you students and browsers out there. In
the awareness game, a "projection" is when you think you know where the
other person is at . . . . . and, usually, you DON'T.
The idea here is different than the way the word "projection" is usually
used in psychology. But I'm using that term here anyway, because it is
the best word for what we are talking about. A projection is when you
project your own belief about the situation onto another person and
mistakenly think that that is what they think or believe. A projection
is when you put your own movie onto another person, and *believe it.
Projections are a function of the thinking mind (along with judgments,
cherished beliefs, opinions, theories, etc.).
So I put my own movie out on all of you, and what I projected was that a
lot of you would reject it, put it down, and not approve of it. (If you
look closely, those are the "stakes" of the Rebel, the Doormat, and the
Believer, my principal personality types on the wheel.
So, you see how that works. What we project on others is a function of
our personality types.
The denoument started coming one voice after another from all of you out
there. That's called "feedback." And congratulations to you all for
it, because without it, this class on projections could not be here
today for all of us to contemplate. Brent really liked the piece. I
said, "Yeah, but he's a Rebel, like me." Then Sally stuck up for me.
(Again, "Yeah, another Rebel who can handle outrageous art like that.")
And Suz was in my corner. I felt relieved at that. But I was still
being a *little neurotic about the whole thing, so I called up Perk and
asked him to look it over. Oh, boy I was nervous (Believer) at that
point, and needing some reassurance that I could be approved of. And,
as always, Perk (my truest friend in this regard), always lays it on the
line, the way he sees it—a little amazed that I could be *that
outrageous (Rebel) and play that free and loose with the technical
psychotherapeutic terminology, as laid out in DSM-IV, about "the
Sociopath (originally Psychopath)." It wasn't that he disagreed with me
*that strongly about the piece. But it needed to be sharpened up,
broadened, and disciplined (Judge) for him to be comfortable with it as
a piece of professional writing about psychotherapy.
Jeff liked the piece (another Artist/Rebel). I'll have to go back and
look at Musfaad's last posting again. Maybe that was his comment on
that whole MSP episode. At any rate, he seems to be at peace, so I
guess I didn't rub him the wrong way either. Did I rub anybody the
wrong way with that piece? Maybe not. And we *all aren't flagrant
Rebels around here! Maybe it was . . . . . okay.
And what about that projection I had? I believed I *knew that I had
offended people right and left. That must be obvious and apparent to
all of you. I thought it was too daring, too outrageous. I thought I
might have driven all of you away by "going too far." And so I lived
through that uncomfortable episode in my life, living with my
projections, being upset about it, and being uptight. And it wasn't
really necessary!
I wonder if you students can catch on that this is a rather typical kind
of thing in ordinary human life. We all have projections, much more
often than we might suppose. We all think we know where other people
are coming from, when we really don't. We do this with the people who
are closest to us, as well as with strangers. We project our own movie
onto them (the movie of our principle personality types), and then we
imagine that this is who they really are.
It was when I heard the posting from Lydia that I *really "got the
message." Hi, Lydia. Lydia has a voice that commands a lot of respect
with me. That is because she really does the homework, and it shows.
>Your apology raises an interesting issue.
That's the true self talking, as we refer to that in the awareness game.
The true self is being interested.
>You say in your classes that it is possible to act as only one personality type at a time.
Yes, in the present moment. Two or more personality types may be
activated during an intense scene, let's say, and be involved in the
scenario that goes down over a period of five minutes, or twenty
minutes, operating in tandem with each other. But, in terms of the
finite, recognizeable behaviorisms of each of those types (such as are
cataloged in the Personality and Essence Wheel), these are each
manifested in a present moment, one behaviorism at a time. Only
mindfulness can spot this when it is happening.
Your underlying point is pertinent! Therapists have a saying that a
person will manipulate for as many things at the same time as possible.
Another way of saying this is: Behavior serves as many ego desires at
the same time as it can. Having a (hypothetical) Judge, Believer, Kind
Helper operating in tandem in a given scene where a person is in
conflict with another, is an example of that. However, they each make
their contributions to the situation one at a time, even if those
contributions are only seconds apart.
>However, I find that both main personality types (I still maintain there are two) are at play at all times, and this generates our internal conflicts.
I can definitely see how you can be looking at it that way! The
different types in our make-up do conflict with each other! And we are
unaware of it, of course, unless we learn how to see this and wake up
and actually do see it.
I remember a model housewife I saw in therapy many years ago, who wanted
desperately to save her marriage, and thought she was crazy because of
her patterns of behavior. Most of the time she cooked delicious meals,
tended a garden, was a wonderful homemaker and Mom, and completely happy
at it. And every couple of months, she "had to" get in the car and
leave her family, drive to Phoenix and go around alone to bars and
places she shouldn't have gone (never doing anything serious, however).
Her husband was deeply hurt by this, and said he could no longer handle
it. She had no way to explain her behavior, or seem to be able to stop
the urges for it, and so she came into counseling. Of course, the happy
ending was that she learned she was both a Healer/Kind Helper and a
Rebel/Artist. She took up painting and looked for other artistic
outlets here in Tucson, actually got her businessman husband interested
in some of that. There was a renaissance of their loving relationship,
she felt fulfilled in being who she is, and I got to write "Successful
completion of treatment" in her file.
Some of the time, two of a person's types *are stronger than all the
rest of their types. And the battle between these two types *will
characterize the story of their life. Although most people seem to have
one chief personality type that most often rules the direction of their
sleeping life (usually with two subordinate principle types backing that
up) . . . I have known some people, like the housewife I mentioned, who
have "two chief personality types," that is, two main types of
apparently equal strength that, together, in their struggle with each
other, work out the direction of that person's life.
This may be the case with you, Lydia. It sounds to me that that's the
way you are seeing it. (And as I said the other day, don't go by the
model of the awareness game. That's only "a map." Go by your own
direct experiences. That's the *real "territory" that we are seeking to
see around here.
>What I saw in your MSP posting and the apology is the conflict between an artist/rebel's need for free self-expression and student/believer's need for approval.
Three stars for you. That's true! Don't forget, however, that those
two postings of mine didn't happen simultaneously, but in tandem, over a
period of some days.
> - when you were writing you thought you could have both.
Ha! Right again.
>Then, that lady didn't like it, and other people were silent, so, the student/believer became really anxious, and apologized
Yep. Except . . . in tandem, it was the Believer that got anxious, and
the Doormat that apologized.
>(although probably, the artist was resentful, because nobody understood - and this can spoil the day).
A fair assumption, alright. I don't remember that, because the anxiety
of my Believer seemed to hold sway with me during those days, and seemed
to make my artist's sensitivity to being rejected seem pale by
comparison. But your speculation here is *warranted, and shows an
uncommon sensitivity to who I really am as a human person. Good for
you! Learning to have that kind of sensitivity to the other person is
an important part of what the awareness game is all about. And this
informed awareness is distinct from the "projecting" that we talked
about earlier. (Yet, even so, is not to be *believed . . . only known
about as one goes on observing mindfully.)
>If everybody liked your MSP related posting (including that lady) would you have apologized?
Probably yes, if I was being heavily under the sway of my Doormat at the
time anyway, and I hadn't really caught on yet that the work I did on
that article was really, okay, after all. That is . . . unless I woke
up and realized in high relief what was happening with me, and was able
to understand it, and able to take action on the spot to transform my
ego and personality into true self and essence in being. — After your
posting here, which woke me up thoroughly on all this, probably no.
>Is the value of what you say or do directly proportional to the number of people who like it or agree with you?
To my Rebel and my Believer, yes. To my essence and true self, no.
>I did not find your posting offensive, but, no matter what you write, it may 'rub somebody the wrong way' as you like to put it.
Yes, perfectly true. Whatever we do can rub people, especially those of
other personality types, the wrong way. I'm glad to hear you didn't
find the posting offensive. That makes it just about unanimous, after
all, among people who are regularly around here. But the Lady in New
York (Hello, if you are here!) is another question. Like the old lady
in the store that day, she was not prepared to hear what I had to say
that time like you students are. It was obviously and apparently too
much for her to hear, even as a hypothetical description of the guy she
loves, after all. I used her e-mail to make my points with the class,
and, from what she said, she obviously was rubbed the wrong way by that,
even though she had given me permission. To you, gentle Lady, I *do
give my apology.
As far as the old lady from the supermarket is concerned . . . if you
hadn't seen the display of arrogance before and when she informed you
that she was in a hurry, would your reaction have been different?
Yes! I was reacting to that arrogance with outrageous spitefulness of
my own. It was a "knee-jerk reaction" of ego and personality on my
part—a Rebel out-of-control that was *in control of my mind and my body
at that time.
>Here, once again, I see the same conflict - an artist/rebel who is allergic to such displays of self-importance and a student/believer who wants to be considered 'a gentleman', regardless of personal cost.
Absolutely right. If it was just a matter of moving ahead of me because
she was in a hurry, I'd normally have put my coat down across the mud
puddle for her right away. Maybe I'd even have flirted with her (in my
mood at that time, if you remember). She was a foxy old lady, for her
age.
>Since I have the same two types most pronounced, all this sounded so familiar.
Good for you. Keep trusting your own awakened perceptions and you can't
go wrong in this study. The work you have been putting in on this
definitely shows!
>I think (based on my doing the homework so far) the only way to avoid the manipulation from another person is to let the other person know that you are aware of it. There are many ways to do it, and what is best at the moment depends on the nature of the situation and participants.
Yes, I agree. This is a point that Michael is grappling with. I don't
say we should lie down and be walked over when other people treat us
badly. Yet we need to appraise our own state in the situation, and the
other person's state, as well, in deciding what action to take as a
mindful warrior in the present.
In the supermarket, I could have said: "Dear Lady, my experience so far
has been being whacked in the back by your cane in the aisle, and being
whacked by the sound of your voice telling your associates what to do.
And I haven't gotten over that yet. I'm finding it very hard now to be
the gentleman I usually am in this circumstance." — I could have said
any of a million things that would have been better than: "You're not
going to get away with that this time." {Heh-heh}
>However, if we always managed to do what is best, this 'classroom talk' would be a complete waste of time.
Yeah, I look at it that way. The "ordinary human condition" being the
way it is, though, trainings like this will have some usefulness in the
world for some years to come. I'm hoping the 21st Century will be
better and better. And of course—not without loving you all very much—
I'm looking forward, as coach, to the time when this class is no longer
useful to any of you.
>But as long as we check our motives carefully, and make sure they are OK, we can say we are doing well.
Yes, that's it. That's as "ego-free" as our lives can be.
>As for the long silence on my part, it has nothing to do with your postings - I've been extremely busy lately. Also, as Jeff said, sometimes it means students are doing their homework.
Well, that's projections for you! It's amazing how often we really
don't know where other people are at. Checking it out is one thing we
can do. Not believing our own projections so easily all the time is
another. That takes awareness, and objective self-study. I'm still a
student in these things, too.
>Be well.
Aha! A little note of Healer/Kind Helper music here. :-)
I wonder what your experience has been to this, Lydia—having me not
respond to your excellent posting for such a long time. Perhaps you
didn't even notice it. And, if you did, can you rest easy now with
seeing how well it fits in with the lesson plan at this point in time?
It seems *perfect to me, as coach, to get this important subject of
projections handled right at this very time, before we move on into the
second semester of the First Grade in Classroom Talk. I hope you
students will remember this lesson when we are there. It applies to the
impressions that each of you have of the other students in this class.
You still don't know each other. Projections continue to get in the
way. But in the process of learning to understand your own self, you
will come to understand the selves of all humanity, as well.
Next: Suz's revelations to me about my own guilt . . . and about her
own — as we get a little deeper into the subject of human emotional
feelings.
And then . . . . . (ta-dah!) . . . . . Winter Break.
Continue with Winter 1999/2000 Classroom Talk or
Post a new discussion in the current Classroom Talk
Archived February 13, 2000