Speaker A
All right, welcome to the Psychiatry and Psychotherapy podcast. I am your host, Dr. David Puder, and today I'm going to be talking with one of my cohorts on primitive defense mechanisms. One of the great pleasures and joys of my week is
In-depth exploration of primitive defense mechanisms in psychotherapy with expert insights on withdrawal, denial, sexualization, projection, and more.
Key Takeaways
- Primitive defense mechanisms serve as unconscious strategies to manage overwhelming emotions and interpersonal stress.
- Extreme withdrawal involves disengagement from reality without distortion, often as a protective response to trauma or fear.
- Sexualization can function as a defense to transform anxiety and shame into manageable experiences.
- Understanding these defenses aids clinicians in trauma-informed, empathetic, and effective psychotherapy.
- Defense mechanisms like splitting and projective identification have both individual and societal implications.
Summary
- The podcast features Dr. David Puder and a cohort of mental health professionals discussing primitive defense mechanisms based on Nancy McWilliams' psychoanalytic diagnosis.
- Key defenses covered include extreme withdrawal, denial, omnipotent control, sexualization, projective identification, dissociation, acting out, splitting, projection, introjection, idealization, and devaluation.
- Each expert presents on a specific defense mechanism, sharing clinical definitions, developmental origins, and therapeutic implications.
- Extreme withdrawal is described as an unconscious retreat into internal fantasy, often seen in schizoid, avoidant, schizotypal, and paranoid personalities.
- Sexualization is explained as an unconscious defense to manage anxiety, shame, and terror through sexuality.
- Projective identification and splitting are explored with clinical and societal examples, highlighting their use in borderline, narcissistic, and OCPD presentations.
- The podcast emphasizes the adaptive as well as maladaptive aspects of these defenses in clinical practice.
- Discussions include trauma-informed approaches and countertransference considerations when working with these defenses.
- The cohort includes psychiatrists, psychologists, nurse practitioners, and psychotherapists with diverse expertise.
- The session aims to increase psychological mindedness and understanding of complex defense mechanisms in mental health.
Chapters
- 00:00Introduction and Overview of Primitive Defense Mechanisms
- 09:02Extreme Withdrawal and Denial by Dr. Erica L. Reynolds
- 17:02Omnipotent Control and Related Defenses
- 25:07Projection and Introjection in Clinical Practice
- 32:34Sexualization and Erotization as Defense Mechanisms
- 39:42Dissociation and Trauma-Informed Approaches
- 48:02Splitting and Projective Identification
- 54:03Acting Out, Idealization, and Devaluation
- 61:40Summary and Clinical Implications
Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown
Speaker A
leading psychotherapy cohorts. We have been diving into Nancy McWilliams' psychoanalytic diagnosis, and one of the chapters that jumped out to me and I thought would be very helpful to do a deep dive with this cohort is on primitive defenses. We'll be talking
Speaker A
about things like extreme withdrawal, denial, omnipotent control, extreme idealization, devaluation, splitting, somatization, sexualization, projective identification, extreme dissociation, acting out, projection, and introjection.
Speaker A
And we'll be going through definitions, developmental origins, countertransference implications, and this is a great opportunity for me to bring this group of amazing mental health professionals for you guys to meet and see that this is going on. This is happening.
Speaker A
This is starting up again in September. And I, I'm excited to continue teaching in this way. So, we usually do it twice a, you know, once a week for about two hours. We have some special
Speaker A
people come on as well throughout the year and give extra two-hour lectures. And so, people who are in this, I'm going to go through their names so you can hear them once and then you'll hear them again or
Speaker A
see them if you're on YouTube watching this. Dr. Erica L. Reynolds is a talented psychiatrist in North San Diego County who is kind of the mother of the group with 30 years of experience, uh, more experience than me, and comes with
Speaker A
a lot of warmth and empathy for the group members. She will be talking about extreme withdrawal and denial. Ariel Schatz Wilderman is an MA, LCSW who is a psychotherapist, founder of the Wilderman Fund for Maternal Mental Health, and an expert in reproductive
Speaker A
psychiatry. She is someone who has been a great joy of having on the podcast, and I think you'll really enjoy her dive into omnipotent control.
Speaker A
Michelle Zitnik is a psychiatric nurse practitioner in Southern Florida with over 17 years of pediatric nursing experience, and does a great job of somatization, which is something that she shows is high in alexithymia, childhood trauma, uh, insecure attachment, personality styles
Speaker A
like histrionic, narcissistic, or neurotic. And, um, I'm excited for you to hear a little bit of her take on that. Evan Summers up from Canterbury, New Hampshire will deliver a candid, thoughtful presentation on erotization and sexualization, which is a defense
Speaker A
in which unconsciously people try to master things like anxiety, self-esteem, shame, and terror, and with sexuality.
Speaker A
And so, he didn't ask for it, but he will be talking about it. Sheila Coles is an integrative psychotherapist from England, who zooms in once a week from England. She's part of the NHS and private practice, and will be talking
Speaker A
about projective identification with the lens of a master clinician. And I'm really excited for you to hear from her.
Speaker A
Dr. Johan Ortiz-O is a PsyD, MSW, who has a special interest in psychodynamic psychotherapy. He is going to be delivering a very, uh, clinically rich, informed, trauma-informed, uh, approach of extreme dissociation.
Speaker A
And does great contributions throughout the whole thing. Dr. April Staples, a PsyD, is a licensed psychologist and member of the Kumeyaay nation and does thoughtfully clinically grounded work and is a very reflective, highly reflective person. We will be listening to her talk about acting out
Speaker A
or enactment. And she'll jump into other people's stuff as well. Um, Grant Lamond is a new psychiatric nurse practitioner who is an energetic, enthusiastic learner and will be talking about projection and introjection. Also joined with us is Heidi Lynn, a psychiatric
Speaker A
nurse practitioner and co-founder of Halon Mental Health. She has advanced training in EMDR psychotherapy, integrative psychiatry, and delivers outpatient care for children, adolescents, and adults.
Speaker A
She is presenting on splitting, offering warm and reflective, clinically grounded exploration of the all good versus all bad, its use in borderline, narcissistic, and OCPD presentations, and she presents powerful real-world examples of societal and team splitting.
Speaker A
Finally, Danny Martino is a physician assistant with a certificate in psychiatry who will bring a sharp focus on extreme idealization and devaluation.
Speaker A
And he has been a joy to work with this last year. Sadly, one of our other members who you may have remembered from a previous episode, Daniel Smith, will not be joining us. He was unable to make these
Speaker A
recording sessions. But you can go back and you can listen to our prior episode together on his, uh, recent book and his expertise on things like shame and envy and annoyance. So, all right, let's, uh, let's start the
Speaker A
episode and I hope that this gives you an increased level of psychological mindedness. Erica Reynolds, you're going to start us off talking about extreme withdrawal.
Speaker A
Yes, extreme withdrawal is a defense that I don't recall ever learning about until, uh, this month, which starts in infancy as an automatic self-protection retreat from a distressing interpersonal interaction. So, as an infant, maybe I'm cold, I'm hungry. Who knows what an
Speaker A
interpersonal interaction at that level is, but this is the definition. Um, this new state of unconsciousness, the extreme withdrawal, exists largely in a world of internal fantasy for the infant. And now, as of 2001, it's even included in the fight, flight, freeze,
Speaker A
or withdrawal saying. And I, I thought that was very interesting that an old thing has now been included in the fight or flight, and then we got freeze included, and now withdrawal is also in part of that descriptor, uh, sort of for
Speaker A
the proverbial deer in the headlights situation. Uh, it's a flight into fantasy without a distortion or a misunderstanding of reality. It's a rejection of reality, if you will, an escape from it.
Speaker A
And one can remain perceptive and sensitive to reality while electing or choosing to disengage from it. Some settings in which it commonly appears clinically are, uh, an instinctive response to an overwhelming encounter of danger. So, this, as one gets a little
Speaker A
older, this could be a helpful escape, um, from something happening to a young adult or an adult past the infant stage. In the short term, it can help a survivor rebalance after a trauma.
Speaker A
And in the worst case, withdrawal can be prolonged, complex, and a process that really takes over the inner life.
Speaker A
Um, so, that, that is, you know, a highly undesirable state. Um, and you might find this in someone who's appearing perhaps catatonic. That would be on the differential. Somebody very, very ill in the hospital. Uh, some of the more common personalities that
Speaker A
extreme withdrawal is seen in are schizoid. So, we have a deep voluntary preference for isolation and an ambivalence about a desire for relationships. So, usually a lack of desire.
Speaker A
Um, and then there's emotional detachment. Another personality that uses extreme withdrawal is avoidant. So, you can see withdrawal and social inhibition because they're really paralyzed by fear. So, they perceive the social situation as fearful and their defense against it is to really
Speaker A
withdraw, again reject reality, not deny it, but reject it. Uh, schizotypal I may withdraw due to tremendous perceived social anxiety. So, again, we have that fear component in the social construct. And paranoid, which can show withdrawal as a defense mechanism
Speaker A
towards an unjustified suspicion. A literary example of extreme withdrawal is from the 2016 novel called The Vegetarian by Han Kang where the protagonist gives up meat and decides to live like a plant. So, this is an example of a conscious decision to
Speaker A
abandon a malicious act before complete withdrawal from a destructive social environment. So, again, this is, this sounds like an extreme example and that befits the name of the defense.
Speaker A
Wonderful. Great job. Yeah, so it's that, that shut down phase of the figh
Speaker A
A withdrawal, um like you could see someone curling up in a in a ball. Sometimes patients will just kind of end up in their room isolating.
Speaker A
Uh sometimes after after fights, like, you know, there's someone who will withdraw into the garage, shut down.
Speaker A
It's like you talk to them and there's no emotion. They're kind of flat, very flat very kind of distant. Yeah. So, great. Withdrawal.
Speaker A
Okay. And moving on to denial. Uh this way may start as a way for infants to refuse to accept an unpleasant experience. And it becomes an unconsciously motivated inability or unwillingness to acknowledge the existence of a painful emotional,
Speaker A
interpersonal, or physical reality. So, this is a very broad swath of issues here. Um the unstated or unrecognized goal of ignoring the realities is to reduce the anxiety.
Speaker A
And the rejection of reality can lead to distortion. So, we have a little bit of a distortion factor which come can come into play with denial.
Speaker A
Three clinical states where denial is prominent are the mania hypomania. And here the person denies that they are participating in events that could be dangerous or distressing to others. They just don't see it as a risk. Um addiction.
Speaker A
Also denial. We all know this is severity of the substance use or that it is or could be harmful. You know, denial of how bad the substance use is.
Speaker A
And grief. Uh a normal early phase of loss that's seen in the grief process.
Speaker A
So, those are some interesting clinical set settings of it. And for personality disorders that rely very heavily on denial are your borderline, your narcissistic, antisocial, and dependent.
Speaker A
Um this is a interesting example. So, denial as has been uh discussed with our some of our other defenses is that there are some some qualities too that are higher order and mature wrapped into denial. And those can can
Speaker A
towards repression, rationalization, or reaction formation. So, denial is not only a very broad swath of things that it could occur with, but it also has hints at higher level defense. So, it may not be just all bad, as we could say. Uh so, an
Speaker A
example of a strong affection for another, an example of denial may end up as I don't love you, I hate you, um in terms of a reaction formation. Somebody may end up saying that. And a beautiful example in literature again of denial is
Speaker A
in The Great Gatsby, where Nick Carraway tells Jay Gatsby, "You can't repeat the past." And Jay Gatsby says, "Why, of course you can." That's my favorite example of denial.
Speaker A
Wonderful. Yeah, I think the um denial is very It's the the switch from like something distressful to like pushing it down into the unconscious with denial, it's like it's like so rapid that the thing that they're trying to hide from is not even
Speaker A
registered in their brain. So, whereas like repression, it's registered, and then it's pushed down. Denial, it's so instant that it's like they don't even uh see it. It's like there it's almost like a delusional like a delusional quality to it. So, with hypomanic
Speaker A
defenses, for example, a little bit different than maybe bipolar, like how we see it in the DSM, but a hypomanic defense, which various people can have even if they're not bipolar, they deny some bad, negative emotion, and see something as positive.
Speaker A
So, I've had coaches who have hypomanic defenses, and it's like anything bad is like they don't even see it. It's like they only see possibility. They only see that we're moving forward. They only see that no, we're we're progressing. Like
Speaker A
everything is good, you know? And some some some in some ways that's like a it could be adaptive in that way, right? To to deny and to be able to keep moving forward despite, you know, the grimness of of a
Speaker A
situation. So, thank you, Erica. That was great. Good example. Okay, Arya Wilderman, tell me about omnipotent control. Maybe give me just a brief definition.
Speaker A
Sure. So, omnipotent control is a primitive primary defense process that can be described as an unconscious belief or fantasy of having absolute power over others or one's environment.
Speaker A
So, in a maladaptive context, the defense allows one to bypass unpleasant emotional states, distorting or disavowing fear of smallness, weakness, or annihilation into a self-image of the all-powerful and supreme.
Speaker A
Great. So, it's an unconscious belief or fantasy of having absolute power over others or one's environment.
Speaker A
Um So, tell me how the PDM 3 talks about omnipotent control. Sure. Yeah, so in the 2026 PDM 3, omnipotent control is characterized as treating another as an extension of oneself, and insisting that person thinks the thoughts assigned to them instead of
Speaker A
having their own. Yeah, and it seems that this is linked in a lot of transference-focused psychotherapy with other primitive defenses.
Speaker A
Like it's like they're always listed together throughout articles. What are some of those other primitive defenses that it's listed with?
Speaker A
Yeah, what comes up frequently in TFP is the grouping together with devaluation or extreme idealization and devaluation as well as projective identification and splitting is really inherent to omnipotent control.
Speaker A
Yeah, so it seems like all those three are kind of going together and I was thinking about um Nancy McWilliams' chapter on psychopathy um and how does psychopathy have omnipotent control as part of it?
Speaker A
Yeah, yeah. So, psychopathic in the psychopathic realm, um essentially there's this controlling of others around them with a sadism component um for power.
Speaker A
Um it's not really to destroy um but rather to control uh while they still can control.
Speaker A
Um and I also think about, you know, with reference to Nancy, um this element of omnipotent omnipotent control or omnipotence in the psychopathic position is actually part of a conscious process um in the control element as well. So, that also is is
Speaker A
interesting among the psychopathic realm. I think psychopathy, it's so centered around power and control whereas like, you know, someone with a more dependent personality is centered around like, okay, how do I stay connected to this individual?
Speaker A
Uh someone with schizoid, it's like I don't I don't want to be consumed. With someone with OCPD, it's more like, I don't want to be I I want to control every little aspect of my environment like in an orderly way.
Speaker A
Um but psychopathy is all about power. And so, um how might some of these elements of this desire for omnipotence come out practically?
Speaker A
Yeah, there's a lot of manipulation happening among psychopaths. So again, unconscious defense, conscious process.
Speaker A
Some ways that omnipotence will show in psychopaths or in a psychopathic kind of realm is when you see someone rigging the game. People may cheat, they want to set the rules, people will blackmail others, play kangaroo court. There's a lot of
Speaker A
isolating of the victim. People in this range will often try to turn the family against the other.
Speaker A
And even in our position, turn a psychiatrist or a therapist into a controlled substance pill dispenser.
Speaker A
So there's a lot of conscious manipulation that may be motivated by unconscious processes. Right. The quest for power, right?
Speaker A
They'll they'll do anything to get the power. They they want that omnipotent control, they want to control the thoughts of others. You've seen this in kind of awful dyadic relationships between someone who's more of maybe a dependent personality and more of a
Speaker A
psychopathic where they're they're wanting to control all of their thoughts, so they really isolate them.
Speaker A
Great summary. Okay. And then interestingly when I when we're looking at like narcissism a lot more of the trans and focus therapy articles, they talk about omnipotent control in more of a narcissistic person. What is the goal of
Speaker A
control in someone who's more narcissistic? Yeah, I mean the essence is to promote this grandy grandiose inflated sense of self, but it's really an image, not even a sense of self. So it it's this whole fantasy that is about supremacy,
Speaker A
control. We see a lot of those other defenses coming in as well here. So there are a couple of just main main aspects of that to stress.
Speaker A
Control others perception of you, of the narcissist. In more of the depressive personalities, or dependent personalities, the masochistic personality types, it really manifests um as as control.
Speaker A
Very very good targets for someone in the narcissistic realm. Yeah, the the narcissistic person is finding that person with with the depressive.
Speaker A
Yeah, absolutely. It really feeds off of those, you know, traits of the depressive, dependent, or masochistic personality types.
Speaker A
One thing we have to be careful about as as mental professionals is they can turn the psychiatrist into kind of like that ego booster.
Speaker A
Um but then devalue them because maybe they feel some envy of their position or power, or authority as a mental professional. But really they really want like this like someone to co-author their narrative about themself, the way they see themself.
Speaker A
Right? So, as therapists, we might have an omnipotent fantasy that we are capable of rescuing a patient. What would you say?
Speaker A
I would say that a therapist omnipotence is an important one to be aware of.
Speaker A
It also ties back to Kernberg's views on omnipotence, which he relates to the borderline level of functioning patient. So, here there's the self-idealizing patient who, in order to sustain their fantasy of self-generated power, will over-idealize self and object
Speaker A
representation. So, the therapist is essentially an ego booster, but the patient ultimately devalues the therapist to maintain their position of power. So, that'll occur when the therapeutic alliance becomes too much.
Speaker A
Um the patient then will project disavowed parts of self, that vulnerability, that openness onto the therapist. So, as Kernberg puts it, he he states, and to quote, "The projection of that magical omnipotence onto the therapist and the patient's
Speaker A
feeling magically united with or submissive to that omnipotent therapist are other forms which this defensive operation can take." So, what happens through projective identification with the patient, the therapist can start to embody these disavowed emotions or internal states.
Speaker A
So, the dysregulation of self on the behalf of the therapist can shift gradually or abruptly so that the therapist feels the patient's feelings, frustration, annoyance, rage, hate. And these are manifestations of omnipotence and devaluation ego defenses. So, this is an
Speaker A
important one to think about as providers, as therapist, um in this role because it can have severe impacts on the therapist. I mean, even ethical dilemmas.
Speaker A
Um it can even lead to a therapist feeling physically ill and burned out. Yeah, it's really good cuz it kind of um gives this pattern of they can initially very idealize the therapist, but then the closeness becomes too much, then
Speaker A
they have to it's like then they go into the devaluation, but the omnipotent control here is part of that piece, and I like how you weave that all together. By the way, if you're curious about this, Kernberg wrote a article called
Speaker A
Omnipotence in Transference and Countertransference. Great article, we'll link that as well on the website with this.
Speaker A
In this paper that we've just referred to, he has some wonderful descriptions of how this plays out. In the case of narcissistic personality, omnipotence and omnipotent control protect the patient from dreaded separation, dependency, and envy, maintaining the idealized concept of the
Speaker A
pathologic grandiose self. That's so good. Let me Let me reread that. In the case of narcissistic personalities, omnipotence and omnipotent control protect the patient from dreaded separation, dependency, and envy, maintaining the idealized concept of the pathological grandiose self. I
Speaker A
When I hear that, I think about how the grandiose self is kind of like this image of themself that they're trying to portray.
Speaker A
The omnipotence helps them maintain that by separating all the bad out. So, it's like it all kind of is working together, you know, like this like devaluation, idealization. They're idealizing themself, they're devaluing the other.
Speaker A
Um they're maintaining the narcissist grandiose self. And uh and that's where I think this like this other quote here comes into play. Maybe it's worth reading about how omnipotence and devaluation go together.
Speaker A
Yes, so Kernberg on omnipotence and devaluation um states that these two intimately linked defensive operations of omnipotence and devaluation refer to the patient's identification with an over-idealized self and object representation with a primitive form of ego ideal as a
Speaker A
protection against threatening needs and involvement with others. Such self-idealization usually implies magical fantasies of omnipotence, the conviction that he, the patient, will eventually receive all the gratification that he is entitled to, and that he cannot be touched by
Speaker A
frustrations, illness, death, or the passage of time. A corollary of this fantasy is the devaluation of other people. The patient's conviction of his superiority over them, including the therapist.
Speaker A
The projection of that magical omnipotence onto the therapist and the patient's feeling magically united with or submissive to that omnipotent therapist are other forms which this defensive operation can take. And I think that's a beautiful way of phrasing
Speaker A
that relationship. The omnipotence and the devaluation together. Mhm. Yeah, that's great. I was also thinking about um OCPD and how like someone who's like at the borderline level of function with OCPD uh obsessive compulsive personality might have like it it might take a
Speaker A
different flavor than the narcissist. How how might it take a different flavor? Okay, essentially controlling others um enables order.
Speaker A
Um others essentially become an extension of the order that people in this position um will want to take.
Speaker A
Yeah, and how about with schizoid? Sure, in schizoid um a lot of control comes out in fantasies.
Speaker A
Yeah. So, think about like how different personality types, right, manifest defenses in different ways.
Speaker A
Really interesting to think about that because it's all like omnipotence is a portion of like multi- a multiple of these different types of personalities.
Speaker A
But with the psychopath, the power is is for like their own for pow- the power is for power's sake.
Speaker A
Whereas like the schizoid, the power is to not be consumed. The OCPD is for order. For narcissism, it's to protect their image. How might someone in the more paranoid position utilize omnipotent control?
Speaker A
By projecting negative emotions, um Um, in often cases anger. Um, the anger that's projected onto the other is interpreted as the other project putting anger on me, the other being angry at me. Um, that puts me in a
Speaker A
a threatening position. Um, therefore, I don't feel safe. So, the natural tendency in this position would be the defensive tendency would be to control them.
Speaker A
Right. Cuz if you can control the person that's angry at you, Mhm. then you're safe. Even though you're the one that's projecting the anger on the other person.
Speaker A
Yes. Um, okay. You know, there can be some positive ways that we could think about omnipotent control, but maybe maybe not. Like, let's talk about that. Is there anything that you can imagine like a good use of omnipotent control?
Speaker A
I I I mean, I can and like if you take a utopian view, so, like I think of leaders who may use omnipotent control.
Speaker A
Um, in a sense, they're demanding, but they're also creating conditions where when one has all the power, you could have a utopia. Everything could be stable, um, but it could also be hell.
Speaker A
So, depending on the context, you know, omnipotent outcomes of omnipotent control can at least look like a fully like functional, well-oiled machine. Um, but again, it's the motivation of the individual, the omnipotent control defense that's playing out, that can make it more like
Speaker A
hell. Right. So, it's like a leader like Mao Zedong used a lot of control to basically control every facet of a whole country.
Speaker A
Lots of deaths happened. and in his mind this was going to lead to a a utopia of sorts.
Speaker A
So, was it successful to have that much desire to control every little facet? It was successful for himself, right? It wasn't necessarily successful for the most possible people.
Speaker A
Which is where I think like leadership research on like high psychological safety leaders probably don't have a a need for omnipotent control.
Speaker A
Whereas they they aspire to give other people power and control and empower other people, you know?
Speaker A
Right. So, when folks like a a well-oiled machine or stability in a society, again, what is the leader's drive? What is that coming from? Is it really utopia or is it hell? So, it's an interesting position to think about.
Speaker A
Before we move on, let's talk about an actual clinical example. Sure. A clinical example of omnipotence.
Speaker A
One patient that I worked with initially presented as highly educated, a natural-born leader, had this strong moral compass, was respected and well-liked by all according to how he described himself. At the time, I learned he was approaching his 10th year
Speaker A
of working as a department store clerk and claimed that he loved his job. And in this very superficial but humble manner, he shared that he was the best employee because his managers never felt the need to promote him.
Speaker A
Wait, wait, that's confusing to me. Like they never felt the need to promote him?
Speaker A
What does that mean? Exactly. Was that confusing to you? Well, when I realized, you know, what I was working with, and we were we were this was omnipotent control at play, you know, to after 10 years to be the best
Speaker A
employee, um but again, still not a manager. Uh his managers never felt the need to promote me because I was so great. I was so good in my position. I was the best of the best in this position.
Speaker A
It would be foolish to promote me. Um Oh, yeah, yeah. Okay, because like like I'm so like if you're a car salesman, like I'm the best car salesman. I don't need to be the manager of car salesman.
Speaker A
If if I was stopping to be a car salesman, like this Yeah. This would be awful. Okay.
Speaker A
It's the pinnacle. But I'm also thinking like he's trying to control your view of him to really buy into this narrative that he's this great employee. He's great at what he does. Okay, keep going.
Speaker A
Yeah, absolutely. And so this controlling, holier-than-thou, I'm just this wonderful, you know, this narrative. I realized I'm listening to a fantasy story. I'm listening to this narrative um in in his, you know, essentially effort to control the therapeutic alliance, to distort the
Speaker A
narrative, to build up his facade of power. It also showed in how he would um talk about his disappointment in others, other people at work. Again, he really would um highlight his his qualities in the context of work. Um
Speaker A
he would be disappointed in others who just did their basic jobs, never felt the need to rise, never felt the need to go the extra mile in their work.
Speaker A
And he would in conversation brush them off. It was like he felt burdened by them. Um and interestingly, he would say that he never would want to be like them.
Speaker A
Strong devaluation, strong like but it's also kind of bolstering up this narrative that he has about how great he is. Look, everyone else is so poor, I'm this great.
Speaker A
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, so again, this this defense process allowed this ideal self-image um to remain impermeable. I mean, it it was it was really there's such a contradiction because, you know, the use of omnipotent control in this clinical example another way
Speaker A
that this came out when talking about work and about how wonderful he was. You know, when talking about his employees his co-workers, he would tell me that he would never want to be like them, right? But he felt really proud of
Speaker A
himself when he took it upon himself to finish their jobs for them. So, he's actually, you know, doing their jobs just like them. So, again, there's this contradiction, um but nonetheless remained this narrative, this false image, um you know, impermeable to weakness or any
Speaker A
trait that he devalued and disavowed onto the the other. So, in his case it was weakness, smallness, dependency, or inferiority of any kind. So, that was a really intolerable. Those would be like Totally.
Speaker A
Those would be completely intolerable feelings. Yeah. And so, to escape from that, he put those on other people Mhm.
Speaker A
to keep himself idealized. Yeah. And this this happens in therapy and subtle right? Yeah, it's subtle and and and, you know, in in his case, multiple marriages, multiple therapists, what was also subtle but telling is his um initial therapy goal was to have a
Speaker A
sounding board to bounce his ideas off of and figure out his own thoughts. I mean breaking it down, the therapeutic alliance is a relationship between people, not an object, you know?
Speaker A
You become you feel very objectified in this position. You feel like you're being used. You feel like you're being Yeah.
Speaker A
uh like just this pawn in this person's like Absolutely. You know, and it normal Yeah, and it can become the projective identification, like we talked about earlier. So, we have to really watch out for that and realize what we're working
Speaker A
with. Um I I It's intense. It can be intense. Very intense. Thank you so much for sharing, and let's uh let's keep going with the defenses.
Speaker A
Yeah, thanks so much. Okay, let's go on to um Danny. Break down extreme idealization and devaluation.
Speaker A
Uh yeah, sure. So, um with these two because these two defenses are intertwined, I think I I'm just going to touch on what they have in common first and then discuss them separately because they do in fact have
Speaker A
their own functions and and origins um and are used individually, but extreme idealization and extreme devaluation are are commonly considered complementary defenses um and they're more classically observed in in a dyad in the defense of splitting um which Heidi
Speaker A
um is going to cover in this episode. But, um like Erica said, as defenses, they they are com- they can be a component of other um immature defenses that we'll cover. So, extreme idealization and extreme devaluation pop up to some
Speaker A
degree in omnipotent control um which we just uh learned and can be part of projective identification, denial.
Speaker A
Um so there's similarities, we'll start there. So a common feature of both extreme idealization and extreme devaluation is that they're also distorting defenses like uh denial, which Eric has just talked about. Um in this case, the distortion is of the perception of oneself or the
Speaker A
perception of others. Um another commonality between them is that they're both reflective in some way of uh a deficit in object constancy, which for me, I'm coming to understand is like the capacity to maintain a stable um or
Speaker A
a whole or complex mental representation of someone. Um but here, these defenses lend themselves more to like the all perfect versus all rotten kind of perspective.
Speaker A
Um and then they're also similar in that they both stem from disruptions in um probably like core attachments in the first 3 years of life. Um those disruptions being like some degree of neglect or inconsistent or invalidating caregiving. Um so we'll
Speaker A
start with extreme idealization. Simply, it's the primitive act of exaggerating the value of one's positive qualities to the point of perfection.
Speaker A
Um while kind of simultaneously overlooking flaws or negative attributes that exist. Colloquially, I think this is the placing someone on a pedestal kind of mechanism.
Speaker A
Um you know, the best, the greatest, the only one, these kind of hyperbolic but kind of absolute assessments of others.
Speaker A
Nancy McWilliams um summarizes it really nicely by just saying extreme idealization is a primitive need to idealize that is unmodified from infancy.
Speaker A
Um so if we kind of look at that developmentally, idealization emerges um in this period when infants are operating with the fantasy that their caregivers are omnipotent. Um which is just like one advancement beyond the fantasy that Ariel just
Speaker A
presented of omnipotent control. So here the fantasy is that the perfect and omnipotent caregivers allow the infant to entrust them against all kinds of realities or dangers that are outside of our our control.
Speaker A
Um Now, in adulthood extreme idealization is often used to compensate for defects in the sense of self or to defend one's self-esteem or protect that self-esteem.
Speaker A
Um it can also build self-esteem kind of by association with an idealized other person.
Speaker A
And this pops up in say narcissistic personality. So the idealization of another, making another perfect, a narcissistic character uh can achieve like their own feeling of superiority through association or through like affirmations. Um ranking seen in narcissistic people as
Speaker A
another way of idealizing, um assessing others based on wealth or beauty or status um is a process of idealization.
Speaker A
And um to get into devaluation, we'll see like this quality, this maladaptive quality of the defense is ultimately revealed because no human is perfect or all flawed. And so this idealized person fails to prove themselves um perfect. And that's often where
Speaker A
extreme devaluation comes in. Um and extreme deval- devaluation is what it sounds like. It's assigning exaggeratedly negative qualities to others.
Speaker A
Um again, to preserve self-esteem or self-image. Um and maybe a good way of thinking that is like the by making others feel small, a devaluer temporarily feels superior.
Speaker A
Um it's often to played after extreme idealization, but not necessarily. And this too is a defense that develops in some predictable order in development. Um here it's in the separation-individuation process.
Speaker A
Um when a child no longer relies solely on their caregiver for a sense of self, so there's this process of learning to de-idealize or kind of devalue the child and attachment in this process of seeking autonomy. So that's where it comes from, but in
Speaker A
adulthood, the primitive use of devaluation again is a protection of self-esteem. Um avoiding feelings of vulnerability or being feeling inferior.
Speaker A
Um you can avoid that by uh lowering the value of others, temporarily relieving that um feeling and feeling more superior, safe, or in control.
Speaker A
Uh it's also used Extreme devaluation is to manage intense affects. So a way of detracting from like acute, overwhelming, or uncomfortable emotions.
Speaker A
Um you can kind of rapidly shift um from say admiration to contempt. And in that way kind of protect against those feelings of disappointment or hurt or being threatened. So those are the uh the explanations of what the defenses
Speaker A
are. Um I think in in personalities, they come up kind of just classically in narcissistic characters and in kind of borderline organization.
Speaker A
I talked a little bit about narcissistic um already, but for borderline folks, this is um often seen in relationships. So this kind of intense infatuation or kind of love bombing of a new romantic relationship.
Speaker A
Um and these cycles of extreme idealization and devaluation um that that come up um and for borderline folks.
Speaker A
Interestingly, it's also present paranoid personality, antisocial personality um schizoid personalities um which I thought was quite interesting in the sense that in this case the extreme idealization facilitates the sense of connection but where the object is like remains at a
Speaker A
distance where there isn't a risk of interaction and the extreme devaluation in schizoids um comes up in times of like retreat. So, if there's a sense of engulfment it can be avoided um by then suddenly devaluing the the connection or that attachment. Yeah,
Speaker A
I think that's uh I have other examples but I think maybe I'll stop there for the sake of the time.
Speaker A
Excellent. That was very good. Talked about idealization, devaluation. Uh we had Dan and Diamond come.
Speaker A
Talk about devaluation in particular um and I'm I'm curious as you learned about this Danny um has it been helpful as you see patients in med management, assessments?
Speaker A
Yeah. Yeah, um I took some time to just kind of think through like a a typical day um at work and yeah, I think it's been helpful and mostly in in identifying just the dynamic and what's um what's occurring
Speaker A
kind of uh in the visit um in the med management visit. So, with a certain kind of cohort of patient that I see um culturally I get a lot of like uh I trust you're going to give me the
Speaker A
right medicine. I'll say, you know, I'll do whatever you say. Um you know, a lot of thank you, doctor. Again, I'm not even I'm a PA but still like the thank you, doctor. You're the only person um that's able to understand what I'm going
Speaker A
through and will help me. And often these are um comments I hear on the first the first time meeting someone, right? Where so there is this exaggerated and elevation of my value or worth or ability to help that is not you know, based on
Speaker A
any kind of real connection that we have established yet or or information that they have about me. Um and the con trast I also see is when I think there's other things going on here, but like the only medicine that
Speaker A
works for me comments. This is the medicine This is the medicine that saved my life. I can't function without it. This extreme value idealization of a singular treatment elimination of all of the other realities that come into play with with
Speaker A
taking that certain treatment. Um so those are helpful, I think to help frame kind of the the relationship early on and anticipate kind of the relationship.
Speaker A
Yeah, I think um early on a lot of the the classic like how we think about the DSM borderline personality disorder, they will have often idealization initially of the provider in the relationship, whereas more of the narcissistic personality disorder will have a
Speaker A
devaluation early on. Um Erica, what were you thinking? I wanted to just add that the Danny the idealization on the first visit that you notice sometimes on these sort of you you only you know the right medicine for
Speaker A
me. In a small dose that can actually be really helpful in terms of placebo response and the patient believing that they will get better in your hands or with this particular prescription. So if it's just in a a teeny tincture of that,
Speaker A
it can actually be clinically pretty helpful. Right, we have to belief in the treatment where I think it can become more tricky is if the treatment is also long-term psychotherapy and they overvalue medications, but they're really needing the psychotherapy to get to that next
Speaker A
level of not being ill. So, you could be a provider that inevitably needs to change meds almost every time because that's what's needed to continue that kind of idealization.
Speaker A
Whereas like um pointing them towards like actually the process here is is on what's going to help you is is different.
Speaker A
Not all patients want to hear that. Not Some people Some patients like hear that from me and they're they kind of want to they they devalue me in making that recommendation that like hey, long-term treatment is going to
Speaker A
need this, right? Going to need something from you. All right, guys. Before we move on to the next defenses, how about we kind of open it up to hear from the rest of you guys what your thoughts are on these
Speaker A
different things discussed so far. Extreme withdrawal, denial, omnipotent control, idealization devaluation. What are some of the things that are coming up for you? April, I saw you kind of uh make a make some sort of excited expression that you had something to
Speaker A
say. So, you want to say something? Yeah, I think I I think I always have something to say.
Speaker A
Um I was just I was just thinking about when um Erica was talking about withdrawal and just um how it can be adaptive and so all of these defenses, you know, are adaptive in in a healthy range um and
Speaker A
how they become maladaptive when they're inflexible. Um and so when we're engaging in these defenses in an inflexible way where now we have prolonged withdrawal or we have prolonged idealization or we have this prolonged way of using these defenses,
Speaker A
that's when we start to see it move into from an adaptive defense to a maladaptive defense. And so I think it's really helpful, I think just as clinicians to not necessarily see these things as evidence of a maladaptive
Speaker A
defense, you know, every time we see it imagining this is maladaptive but giving time to the patient and then for us to establish relationship with them and to really be able to sense is this an inflexible you know, defense that
Speaker A
they don't appear to have a lot of tools in their toolkit to be able to navigate some of the the difficulties of of living or is this kind of a one-off and this is this kind of where they are
Speaker A
today cuz you know, they they haven't eaten or they maybe didn't get sleep well or maybe they're have some environmental things going on.
Speaker A
So I think just keeping in mind that that there is a an adaptive presentation with all of these defenses that all of us engage in in in healthy ways.
Speaker A
Excellent. Yeah. And and you can think about how you know, having a little bit of idealization would actually allow you to connect with new people quickly, right?
Speaker A
Um and having a little bit of devaluation abilities might be able to protect you from people that you should be protected from, right?
Speaker A
Uh you know, you have hints that this person is not going to be a good person a healthy person to be around. Maybe this person has some psychopathic or sadistic qualities but you haven't completely seen it but you
Speaker A
can devalue them maybe and then that helps protect you, right? So you can see how that that could be helpful in different situations.
Speaker A
Um Grant, I think you were going to I was going to piggyback off of what you said when April was talking. That's kind of the same thought I had was particularly with the um idealization, devaluation how it can be very helpful in a normal
Speaker A
bonding and relationship between either child and parent where you want that child to idealize you and and be able to introject some of the positive things that you're trying to teach them.
Speaker A
Um and then later on as as they progress into adolescence it's okay to have some kind of devaluation there because if you don't, then you have failure to thrive. So, it's not as clinicians these defense mechanisms have kind of
Speaker A
this maybe bad connotation that we we hear in in culture, but really like April said, they're really helpful. They they really have a place in a mental health you know, frame. Our job really is to to assess and kind of play with and kind of
Speaker A
either bring up or bring down these almost like how those of us who are providers kind of treat medicine to a degree with playing with um chemicals to try to balance things out. The defense mechanisms are very similar to that in a
Speaker A
therapeutic way. Um so I I appreciate that point that both of y'all made so well.
Speaker A
The thing I would say is absolutely and I would say also it we have increased reflectiveness if we notice when they're happening right consciously. So, if we feel so shameful that they're happening, then we're going to find ways to repress them
Speaker A
or deny them happening, right? Uh so, if we could be curious about them playful it can actually we can actually have a higher reflectiveness about our own experience.
Speaker A
I was going to throw in I I think remember reading, I think McWilliams wrote it, that in she said in some ways even the very name defense is somewhat unfortunate in the sense that it's something to be defeated and it's a
Speaker A
relic of Freud trying to establish the very field itself to a skeptical public and also she said his fondness for military metaphors, but like everyone's been saying that they're not just defenses, they are necessary to a healthy life.
Speaker A
Yeah, I think um the idea of like some defense, right? This is a defense, military. I actually um in the delusions episode I have a nice military reference, so hopefully not all military references are bad. Have Have you guys
Speaker A
heard the idea of death ground, standing on death ground? Sun Tzu, the Chinese um military writer thousands of years ago wrote about death ground. It was like the he wrote about nine geographical locations and the ninth most severe one is called death
Speaker A
ground. And essentially it's like when your army is surrounded or they're pushed back against water and if they get pushed in the water they'll drown or they're so deep in the enemy territory that they're it's it's completely dangerous, right? So this is
Speaker A
what death ground is. And um one of my thoughts was like psychologically if you're schizophrenic or you know, in a psychotic state you can inevitably put yourself in your own brain into death ground. Like you're perceiving that you are in death ground.
Speaker A
And so this is where you're more likely to actually lash out and get violent cuz you feel like there's no way out, there's no escape. This is the only way for me to move forward, right? And they have found that militaries actually
Speaker A
fight a lot more ferociously on death ground, right? They're much more likely to be courageous, most much more likely to fight through fear because it's so because um they have to.
Speaker A
So that was my military thing, but you could kind of see that as well with the rigidity of these defenses, the um how the defenses when they break down, right, you get into a place of psychosis or dissociation.
Speaker A
So, without defenses, we would be uh more likely to be psychotic, we'd more likely to be dissociating.
Speaker A
And so, the defenses are actually protective against us going into more of a psychotic realm.
Speaker A
Okay, I see some hand hands raised. Ariella? I think that's what makes omnipotent control so fascinating. I think that it really is at a core, um or at the the core level of these other and higher-level defenses, or it's seen
Speaker A
in everything. Splitting, also idealization devaluation. It's it's very difficult, I think, to separate them out, um because they are so part of the same whole.
Speaker A
Um and there was something else I was going to say, but I forgot. I I was I was thinking about with that omnipotent control, like imagine this patient that you described earlier, all of a sudden realizes, sees his life,
Speaker A
sees all of his mistakes all at once, right? Or in that moment, most of us would crumble.
Speaker A
Psychologically, we'd curl up in a ball and shut down and not move forward at all, right? So, sometimes it's it's that sort of um blissful omnipotence or that uh hopefulness that keeps us moving forward, that you know, like that we
Speaker A
kind of end up proving it to be right if we believe it long enough. Like I'm thinking of there was a football quarterback that was like he was third string, fourth string forever, and then he just kept believing in
Speaker A
himself, right? Believing in himself, ended up being one of the greatest football players of all time.
Speaker A
Tom Brady. Tom Brady, that's it. Yeah, yeah. He was like the sixth round or something.
Speaker A
He was He was like so low. I think he was like he he didn't even start in high school, but he just had this like incredible belief in himself, right?
Speaker A
This psychotic level belief. And he just kept he kept obsessively studying the game, right? From that belief.
Speaker A
Well, what's interesting also though is as a provider, if you can together develop a a therapeutic working alliance with people who are really really um with their defenses, who are really have a lot of these defenses up. If you
Speaker A
can really sometimes it's a matter of entering into the projection or or I don't want to say getting them to come back, but essentially that. Um the times when they devalued the most just gives so much to work with.
Speaker A
And in a lot of the cases, um you know, individuals may make that phone call, "Oh, I'm done. I'm never coming back. I'm never coming back." The defenses are so interesting to explore if you can get them to come back for what, you
Speaker A
know, is a so-called closure session that ends up being the entree to some of the best work that can that can happen.
Speaker A
And when it happens, if you can see it and they can get back into the office, it's there's it's like a goldmine.
Speaker A
It's great, yeah. And I would I I would enthusiastically support that sort of approach of expect that some early devaluations are going to to happen and you're going to need to work through them and have be patient through that.
Speaker A
And um they're probably there for good reason, you know, if every previous person uh was very was it was a very painful relationship, then they might imagine that this might be another painful relationship. All right, so Michelle, talk to us about
Speaker A
somatization. All right, somatization um basically it happens when psychological distress presents as physical symptoms. So, I think of it like this, when a person is feeling really stressed or overwhelmed, um they can't quite put those feelings into words, so instead their body reacts
Speaker A
in ways that reflect that emotional turmoil. Um it's commonly seen in early childhood since the ability to recognize and express our emotions is a developmental process.
Speaker A
As we grow, we should start to connect those um the physical feelings with our emotions. Somatization um it's common in people who have alexithymia, which is the term used to describe difficulty identifying uh processing and describing emotions. And that has been linked to a
Speaker A
history of um childhood trauma and even sometimes trauma in adulthood. Um people with insecure attachments tend to have a higher use of somatization as a defense and um it's commonly seen in people with certain personality traits like neuroticism or negativism. Yeah.
Speaker A
Keep going. That's good. Um no, like it might show up in um people with a histrionic personality type cuz they can feel easily overwhelmed by emotions, so they turn those they turn to somatization as a way to cope with those emotions rather than
Speaker A
process them. Or um another example is somebody with narcissistic tendencies might emotionally manage criticism through physical complaints to avoid vulnerability. Some common ways that it shows up uh that you would see on a regular basis is anxiety showing up as palpitations.
Speaker A
People who are nervous, you know, kind of having nausea or butterflies in their stomach, um headaches from stress, fatigue from sadness, but sometimes persistent somatization can present um in more worrisome disorders like IBS, pseudo seizures, fibromyalgia, though it's not
Speaker A
always the cause of them. Um but when there's no clear medical cause, it can kind of worsen the psychological and physiological distress from those presentations.
Speaker A
In some cases it is um culturally appropriate in different cultures, they kind of present with somatization as a way to it's normal. It's considered normal in their culture.
Speaker A
Yeah. Think about like after World War I or World War II, they there was a lot of like um something called shell shock where people had functional movement disorders, right? Where they were moving oddly due to their the trauma, the PTSD.
Speaker A
Um it was only after Vietnam War that we the normal kind of how we see PT- PTSD kind of came about because there was a lot less social stigma on a mental health issue. So, yeah, so keep going. Anything else you want to
Speaker A
mention on somatization? Um just that it is it differs from malingering and factitious disorder because the physiological symptoms are real even though sometimes they want to be associated as a emotional presentation, they people do experience those physiological symptoms.
Speaker A
Yeah, malingering, the patient is flat-out lying about something for some gain, you know, usually monetarily or something. And then factitious disorder, there's some secondary gain like, you know, getting attention or keeping the family together. So, somatization, that's good. It's a good psychological
Speaker A
defense to understand. I think we all can somat- somatize from time to time. So, I think everyone can have a headache when they're stressed or and and you know, some sort of bodily symptoms.
Speaker A
But I think there's some people that it's like the primary way of defending against emotion, right?
Speaker A
Mhm. Evan, let's talk about sexualization. I'm really glad by the way, Evan, that you chose sexualization as your Yes, I would not have chosen it if I knew at the time that this would be put on the podcast.
Speaker A
Um So, um a note on language, um they sort of use three different words for this and they all sort of overlap. They say sometimes sexualization in the literature, they say instinctualization, they say erotization.
Speaker A
Um and I'm not even it's not even clear to me that all analysts use those words in the same way, but using Nancy McWilliams, who's who we're kind of basing this off of, she says erotization is the process of this when
Speaker A
it's not acted out, when you don't actually do anything with this defense, it's only internal.
Speaker A
Um that one seemed a little more clear. But so sexualization is a defense that people use unconsciously to attempt to master or at least temporarily reduce anxiety, to restore self-esteem, to offset shame, or distract from a sense of inner deadness.
Speaker A
Um sometimes it's used to convert even more dramatic feelings like terror or great pain into something positive. I think it's also worth mentioning that sexualization is not equal to sexuality at all.
Speaker A
Um acts of sex, masturbation, sexual expressiveness are not necessarily indicating that there's a defense occurring. It is a defense when it's unconsciously or automatically sort of blocking another emotion or preventing genuine intimacy with another person or even with oneself, I suppose.
Speaker A
Um Also, I think it's important to mention that like any defense, it's not always harmful.
Speaker A
Uh McWilliams used the example of a a woman that may get sexually aroused by having her hair fondled or maybe pulled.
Speaker A
Um and maybe this fetish developed because of something negative, like an abusive parent who used hair pulling.
Speaker A
And the child get pretty much fully unconsciously turn this into a process that it became something pleasurable to defend against the fear and the pain that's associated with the punishment.
Speaker A
Um but potentially for some people, that just turns into a healthy part of a consensual sex life with her partner.
Speaker A
McWilliams did mention gender differences exist, and so of course do exceptions to that difference, but more often she said women will sexualize dependency, more often men will sexualize aggression.
Speaker A
Um really interesting study she mentioned. I couldn't find the study to get the exact numbers, but um she did say that there was a study of people who have masochistic sexual preferences, and specifically like they need physical pain to experience sexual
Speaker A
release. Um a significant number, she said, of people with that I guess fetish, um had undergone invasive and painful medical treatments as children. So again, there was something unconscious transforming their fear and terror into something pleasurable, and that stayed beyond
Speaker A
the actual causal events. Um on a more innocuous note, I thought this was interesting. McWilliams commented on the long association of a quote erotic aura around teachers, which she dated to Socrates.
Speaker A
Um and I will mention that that really was striking to me because it immediately made me remember that I have a few memories of being in like first grade, third grade, just sitting in class, like teachers just teaching,
Speaker A
and just feeling like a tingling sensation all over my body, and it felt really good. And this is pre-pubescent, so I had no idea what it was, but it makes me wonder if that's the kind of thing that she was talking about. It's I had I
Speaker A
remember I had some really good teachers, and maybe that's just what it was. Um my sense is personality style that probably uses this the most is histrionic.
Speaker A
Um can probably function in opposite ways. They may sometimes sexualize things kind of on purpose, but without realizing that it's going on to reduce their anxiety or to try to help with low self-esteem.
Speaker A
Um probably folks in the borderline level of organization of various styles will use this more often than the neurotic level.
Speaker A
Um especially those who are like many people on that level, they will vacillate in relationship between an intense idealization and a devaluation a devaluation. So, I think often in that idealization there's often an erotic or a sexual component.
Speaker A
Um I thought a tricky one was that psychopathic people probably use this defense, and they use it in in cruel ways. I mean, they can sexualize violence, and that can look like rape. I think in some cases that
Speaker A
can look like arson. Um but I also got the sense that psychopathic people might use sex in a very intentional way for control, which I probably not count as this defense.
Speaker A
Um and I threw this in here. I don't know how many people watched Arrested Development. It was the best pop culture example I could come up with. There's a scene that um a man and a woman hook up in a bar, and
Speaker A
they go home, and they have sex. And only later do they realize that she's a lawyer who's actively pursuing a criminal case against the man's family.
Speaker A
So, of course, they both have a great deal of anxiety about that, and they sort of look at each other, and they say, "We can't do this again." And then in their anxiety they just go back to having sex again. And in the
Speaker A
show there's a few rounds of that. So, they're both alleviating their anxiety and their dread through having sex.
Speaker A
Yeah, this is like when sex is not always sex or there's there's like they're defending against some other emotions, right? Sex is allowing the defense against other more vulnerable emotions.
Speaker A
Right. The pairing of sex with things like violence, I think that it's it's like within more psychopathic individuals, like sadistic individuals.
Speaker A
I don't know if that's a defense necessarily. I think it's but that's just personal preference. I would put that more as just ordinary sadism.
Speaker A
Right. Uh is sadism a defense or sadism a Yeah, and especially when you're going into pure sadism, not just like a BDSM kink kind of sadism, but with a psychopathic person, this is this is harmful.
Speaker A
Right. It seems more that that's more like central to their just desire for omnipotent control or just uh enjoyment of hurting other people. But I think for a lot of people, you know, sex is sex is more than sex. It's comfort, it's
Speaker A
it's you know, to deal with the different emotional things that they don't want to feel, you know, that kind of thing is like more of sexualization.
Speaker A
Yeah, anyone else have any thoughts on this before we move on? April, I feel like you have something to say.
Speaker A
So, I I did mine on um acting out. And so, I was thinking about sexualization um because it in in a way it kind of almost appears as a a defense very similar to like acting out. So, you know, maybe you don't have the
Speaker A
ability to symbolize in language how you're feeling. And so, then you engage in sexual activity in order to you know, discharge that energy in some way or take control over that energy.
Speaker A
So, I was trying to think while while Evan was talking and you were talking about trying to understand acting out as a defense and sexualization as a defense and how they might be different and how they might overlap. So those are
Speaker A
some of my thoughts. How how do they Yeah, how are they different in your mind?
Speaker A
I'm not sure yet. To me and part part of this might be because I was so focused on studying acting out. I'm having a hard time flexibly thinking about how sexualization isn't a form of acting out as a defense.
Speaker A
So maybe Evan, I don't know if you are able to kind of help me understand that a little bit better.
Speaker A
Yeah, I'll I'll try. I know that Okay. that Nancy McWilliams began this chapter by pointing out that some analysts specifically do consider sexualization a subset of acting out.
Speaker A
Mhm. there's a couple distinctions that again, it doesn't have to be acted out to be sexualization. It can just be happening internally and there's no actual behavior. And just because of the nature of it, she categorizes differently because there
Speaker A
are just particular extra things to consider around sex and sexuality used defensively. But I just think in general that the defenses don't need to be considered as discrete separate categories. Like there is going to be overlaps and this
Speaker A
is a great example. Yeah, I think I think that's a good point is they're not always discrete even though we studied these, you know, thinking about them in a discrete way, but recognizing there's a lot of overlap here.
Speaker A
Yeah, and in the same way she said and she denotes like levels of character organization or personality styles, we learn about them separately, but she says some people will overlap, some people will be in a gray area near the
Speaker A
boundaries of these categories. Right. So I think I think of sexualization is kind of on that that boundary line of, you know, acting out and sexualization. Yeah, that makes sense.
Speaker A
If I could pop in, there's something else that McWilliams pointed out in this chapter that maybe helps with the distinction is she also talked about in terms of of power. And so, like the ability that we have to
Speaker A
like access our like erotic power. So, if feeling power or not having um like a sense of real power in a dynamic or um then it's like a unconscious or kind of internalized way of um accessing a a form of power we do have.
Speaker A
Erotic power and in that compensating in that way. So, um and in that way it's not necessarily a behavior an acting out behavior, but something more internal.
Speaker A
Yeah, I think I think there's a lot of overlap between defenses actually. Um and so, I'm glad you guys brought brought up that and how they kind of overlap and yeah, there's a kind of like an um a doing something, you know, some of
Speaker A
the defenses are more withdrawal into themself and some are actually like more extroverted in their nature of going out and demonstrating control or power, omnipotence.
Speaker A
Right, going out into the world. Some are going into the mind to demonstrate those things through fantasy. Yeah, I was thinking about like what are the some of the like broader categories to understand the stuff as well, which I
Speaker A
think it's helpful to think of through. Okay, Sheila, let's talk about projective identification. Okay, this is complicated.
Speaker A
Um so, there's a lot going on with projective identification. There's a lot going on that is inside the mind, but also between people.
Speaker A
Um McWilliams talks about it as a a defense that's characteristic in people with a more um borderline level of organization and particularly it with um paranoid personality um dynamics.
Speaker A
One of the thing that that um projective identification concerns are um representations in the mind of the person who's doing the projecting.
Speaker A
And I think I think it's important to think about what what we mean by the representations in the mind. So, kind of the the way that that individual's self is represented in their mind, the way that um another person is represented in
Speaker A
their mind, and the way that the relationship between the people is represented in the mind.
Speaker A
And and it and it and it's important that these representations are not just kind of like images, but they are kind of filmed with emotional resonance as well, which makes it so powerful. It's So, it's about kind of the the complexity of of everything
Speaker A
that's in that person's mind. Um it's complicated because um it's happening at different levels at the same time or it's happening in different ways. So, um this is something that's happening internally in the mind of the person, but it's also
Speaker A
happening between them and someone else and then in the mind of the other person at the same time. So, there's lots of different things going on all at the same time.
Speaker A
McWilliams describes it as um a a fusing of primitive projection and introjection um all all mixed up at the same time. Um, she sees it, um, evident in kind of clinical work. So, this is going on This is something that
Speaker A
is is happening in healthy ways as well as in kind of clinical, um, situations.
Speaker A
So, she sees it as, um, in in a clinical sense, particularly evident where the client, um, lacks reflective function, where they lack self-awareness, where they they there there's a struggle with the separation of thoughts the their their feelings and and someone
Speaker A
else's. So, to try and describe what happens, um, I'll give that a go to describe what what happens in this defense. So, one person is projecting from their mind something that is disturbing, and it might be a disturbing
Speaker A
representation of themselves or or someone else or a relationship, but there is kind of a a disturbing affect that they have.
Speaker A
It's intolerable in their mind, so unconsciously it is put into the mind of another person.
Speaker A
And I think I think that the into is really important. This kind of Melanie Klein, in the beginning of kind of defining projective identification, talks the projection being into, not just onto, another person.
Speaker A
The into is important because of what happens in the mind of the other person, but the projector rids themself of this disturbing affect in in their mind, and because of the way they then behave and interact with the other person, um, the
Speaker A
other person begins to feel that this is their stuff, that this is their disturbing effect, and they behave accordingly. So, it's gone into their mind, and then their behavior um brings it out, and then it goes through that
Speaker A
behavior back into the mind of the person who projected it in the first place.
Speaker A
So, the there's um Ogden describes this as I think this which is a really interesting term for I think it describes it as a relational interpenetration of subjectivities. It's like this is going on between two people at the same time.
Speaker A
Um And also simultaneously between parts of the person who's done the projection within the their own mind at the same time.
Speaker A
Can I say Can I say something about that? I that I that penetrating So, imagine the the person that's projecting into you this kind of like foreign thing. They're penetrating your mind and getting you to kind of like identify with it, right?
Speaker A
So, this primitive these primitive affects, these primitive things that maybe are very foreign for you. Maybe you've never felt these things.
Speaker A
And then they're because they're penetrating you with this stuff through various complex sets of behaviors, they get you to identify with it, and that that feels very foreign to you, and that can feel very distressing to you. And all of a sudden you're
Speaker A
you're playing a role that that you have identified with. They're you have identified with their projection. You're playing this role that you are not used to.
Speaker A
So, that's why it's so distressing for the provider to be a part of this.
Speaker A
Yeah, really distressing in in clinical practice to feel this thing that doesn't feel like you like yourself. So, so kind of a recent example of this for me in practice was with a new client who I met for the first time um after kind of
Speaker A
setting up a couple of sessions that hadn't that hadn't gone ahead, they'd been canceled. So, that So, something had been happening before we actually got to meet. This client arrived late.
Speaker A
They then took a phone call in the in the corridor. Um, and this is this is you know, kind of a a set of offices where there's there's meetings with other therapists going on in in other rooms. So, it's it's a quiet
Speaker A
area. Um, and once into the session and settled into just beginning to get to understand um, what's going on for this person and um, dry trying to get for me to get a picture of the their you know, kind of
Speaker A
their interactions, there there was something really difficult that was about kind of this person deflecting from the the the very gentle introductory type questions to start to understand them. And I started to get inside more and more irritated, hostile,
Speaker A
feeling like I wanted to really be quite punishing of this person, being really careful about what I said, and feeling quite disturbed by the end of it.
Speaker A
After the session, I kind of it was quite um, kind of agitated, needed to spend some time walking around, um, getting some fresh air, looking at the sky, and really reflecting on what was going on that I was taking in this desire to prosecute
Speaker A
this person. What was What was that about? What's in their mind about relation relational um, situations with other people perhaps where they've been abused? Um, and really thinking about what what's it playing into of mine as well. Because
Speaker A
the other part of this is inevitably um when we feel um identified with a projection from someone else, what's coming up is something in some way, in some small part perhaps, of something disavowed of our own getting flicked into this mix. So, I also
Speaker A
reflecting on that and and thought really hard about and keep what I need to talk about in supervision around this um this situation that's come up. So, that that for me is a kind of clinical example of kind of where this could be
Speaker A
really distressing. But like every other defense, this is happening at all levels in different forms and can involve um the kind of very positive emotions as well. So, Maybe maybe we can pause and just kind of point out I can point out a couple
Speaker A
things you did really well there, Sheila. First of all, you noticed it consciously, right? You noticed, "Okay, there's there's a couple things leading me to start to feel this way, right?" He's missed a couple initial appointments, which by the way, if you're out there
Speaker A
and you want to be a good patient, try to make the first appointments on time, try to be there.
Speaker A
You know, um so, he's missed a couple first appointments, he's loud, he's he's interrupting other clinicians even, um and then when he comes in, there's a certain air about him that is uh eliciting, you know? So, there's like it's So,
Speaker A
think about the projective identification. There's multiple things that this person is doing, not just one thing, not just multiple things that's uh now eliciting in Sheila this response. Now, if Sheila had never learned about projective identification, she would be thinking,
Speaker A
"I just don't want to treat this person." But for some people, you are getting into their trauma. You're feeling what it felt like maybe for this person to feel rejected growing up.
Speaker A
And now uh you are feeling and identifying with this kind of internal rejection. This internal rejection of this person, right?
Speaker A
Um like some if this person was viciously rejected by his father, you're feeling like rejecting him like the father because he's projecting that rejection onto you. So, hopefully hopefully this is a little bit more understandable by But if if you as the listener are
Speaker A
struggling with this, this is going to take you a little bit of time to get your mind around, and that's okay. This is one of the more difficult psychological concepts.
Speaker A
And and I think a really a really nice um description of of where it happens in a really positive way is like kind of we walk into a room at a party. So, maybe April and Oreo did last week and just
Speaker A
kind of felt the sense of joy that was going on. Mhm. Yeah. So, we we we take in really positive things from other people as well. And maybe that's a very similar process, but in a in a positive way.
Speaker A
Oh, yeah. Like or like I don't know if you've had this experience when you go to like when you have a new friend that's in love and you're hanging out with them and you just feel that. Like you feel
Speaker A
it's like you almost join that celebration, right? It's so fun. Yeah. It's good. Yeah. Thank you for for uh Thank you for working on this one, Sheila. This is this is a tough one.
Speaker A
Sheila from England, so uh if you're in England and you need to get therapist, Sheila calls right there.
Speaker A
There you go. Um okay. So, let's go through extreme dissociation. Um So, extreme dissociation um it's an unconscious protective strategy to manage overwhelming and intense emotional experiences.
Speaker A
Separating the self from impending obliteration arising from the outer world resulting in a high degree of interpersonal sacrifice.
Speaker A
It's quite a mouthful. Essentially, the core mechanism of this is a compartmentalization of the experience into self states.
Speaker A
It's essentially cutting off awareness that awareness from unbearable pain, terror, horror that can overwhelm the capacity to cope.
Speaker A
And it has a utility in terms of its adaptiveness with survival and tolerance. But it comes at a emotional cost, which is essentially an interpersonal sacrifice. Just to distinguish, you know, I think McWilliams she uses extreme dissociation as an
Speaker A
example, but the the difference is that dissociation is a normal reaction that we can all commonly experience as well. It's a normal reaction to trauma and it exists on a continuum from normal to devastating.
Speaker A
And she cited Dr. Ira Brenner in one of the research contemporary clinical literature that suggests that dissociation is far more prevalent as a psychological defense than what earlier psychoanalytic theory had originally assumed.
Speaker A
And so what Dr. Brenner's work highlighted is that the dissociation itself it exists on a continuum.
Speaker A
And so the research suggested that it's not just to limited to rare psychiatric syndromes, but is more of a widespread adaptive mechanism that can shape personality organization.
Speaker A
Um where uh, extreme dissociation um, is most associated with is, uh, dissociative identity disorder and borderline personality disorder. So, um, in in my clinical work, uh, where I have seen ex- uh, extreme dissociation um, is in uh, dissociative like identity states
Speaker A
where a person suddenly, um, speaks in a different tone of voice, uh, posture, and personality.
Speaker A
And have very uh, actually no memory of uh, of recollection of what just happened in that moment. And it's very distinctive, actually.
Speaker A
Um, some people may experience this gap in the memory. And it feels like they time travel.
Speaker A
They essentially also can feel like coming out of their body, where it feels like an out-of-body experience for them.
Speaker A
So, an example of this is like depersonalization during trauma. Um, a person detaches from their body or sense of self, um, during a traumatic event, it just feels like they're watching themselves from the outside.
Speaker A
It's like I like it's like when a person feels like they weren't really there and that their body wasn't theirs. In in the work that I I I do, um, many people have uh, shared about their histories with
Speaker A
sexual trauma, um, and how dissociation helped them cope with the overwhelming emotional experience. So, the you know, sometimes discussing the traumatic material itself can feel emotionally activating.
Speaker A
And the person can suddenly feel detached or numb or distant or feeling like they're not present in the moment as they're describing the experience.
Speaker A
Um So, overall it it's serving as a protective mechanism that once helped the individual endure um the emotional experiences that felt so intolerable.
Speaker A
And is allowing them to continue to function um while the emotions and the memories still remain compartmentalized.
Speaker A
Very good. Johan thank you so much. Johan Ortiz from California. Appreciate you sharing. I think um I actually just recorded episode on DID.
Speaker A
I don't know if it'll come out before or after this episode with some Harvard experts on it. Um and you covered a lot of the things compartmentalization.
Speaker A
Talk about that quite a bit. Um I I think I once heard and I I I I I have found this to be true clinically that you cannot have PTSD without some dissociation. There will always be dissociation in the midst of the life or
Speaker A
death moment that led that leads to PTSD. And so when you are talking to someone about the trauma, they will inevitably dissociate a little bit in a different way. Different people dissociate in different ways.
Speaker A
Um and so learning how to sit with someone in the midst of that is learning how to be a therapist.
Speaker A
Um Johan, when you have patients who are dissociating, how do you sit with them?
Speaker A
How do you help them? So, when a patient is dissociating, first I have to um be able to identify in the moment. Um I do a quick check-in just to see if they're here with me.
Speaker A
And I do uh essentially I I I try to ground them in the present moment.
Speaker A
Um and depending on what I understand of the individual and their history, um uh I generally tend to um work from a a perspective where I'm bringing them to the here and now and not it's not trying to chip at the
Speaker A
defense or not trying to um you know, explore an area that may be emotionally disturbing for them.
Speaker A
Um my my belief is that when the person is ready to process some emotional traumatic experiences, they will take me there.
Speaker A
Mhm. Uh so, it's it's coming much more Rogerian and much more person-centered. That's good. Yeah. I think that there's there's a gentleness which I hear from you in that of like allowing them the control over what they share or don't
Speaker A
share. Which, you know, dissociation is sometimes the lack of control. The lack of And then there's coming to the here and now. Dissociation is is is the opposite of the here and now.
Speaker A
Um so, it's bringing them back into into the experience. I I I would add sometimes patients uh appreciate different things to bring them out of dissociation. And so, you kind of have to find what helps the particular person.
Speaker A
Uh I had one person that just wanted empathy. Or just wanted me to be with them. They didn't want anything extra beyond that.
Speaker A
That's and that was what was helpful, right? Other people almost like need to get up and walk around or they need to uh you know, different things somatically to to bring them into the here and now. So.
Speaker A
Yeah, anyone uh I'm looking at your faces trying to read if there's any desire to jump in here and add something.
Speaker A
I actually wanted to see if you could talk a little bit about um just how just about the countertransference experience and with a a person who's engaging in a a more dissociated defense. Um I think that's helpful to understand
Speaker A
how a clinician might experience that. That's a really great question and it really just depends from um person to person. One example I could think of about actually was when um a patient was describing one of their experiences,
Speaker A
it felt as if um it it felt as if they weren't having any emotion. They were just just just talking about it.
Speaker A
And I began to feel all sorts of emotions. I I felt angry. I felt sad. I felt rageful. I felt a lot of emotions stirring up internally. And I you know, um I think that's really important because prior to
Speaker A
um describing the experience, I wasn't feeling all that emotional material. So, something is being induced. Something is is is um coming up for me um and recognizing that this material that I'm holding is possibly something that maybe the patient is unaware of or
Speaker A
unconscious to. So, that's maybe just like an example. Um I think there's many different counter transferences that uh clinician can experience.
Speaker A
That's great. And if I could put words to what you just said, it sounds a little bit like projective identification. You're identifying with something that they can't quite identify with.
Speaker A
Um but this is a little bit different, too, because they're in a state of dissociation. And so, it's like sometimes as a provider, it gives you a hint at the disavowed, what from the memory they were unable to express. So, it's like
Speaker A
you're empathically experiencing uh something that they were unable to experience in the memory. Danny, jump in.
Speaker A
So, I wonder if this could be helpful, but uh as you know, I'm not a therapist, but I've worked in as a medical provider in often pain management or assistance to the kind of diagnostic work in um primary care settings. And
Speaker A
something Nancy pointed out in this chapter, as well, is that for like the for the non-dissociating person, um they may see the dissociation in their close other as um presenting as moody, unstable, um being a liar, I think she said,
Speaker A
untrustworthy. And so, in my work, I've kind of I've started including dissociation experiences kind of in that differential when referrals come through for uh mood swings or ADHD. And um in really kind of digging in and and trying to see if if
Speaker A
what is being reported by the patient from what they're hearing from their loved ones or their others in their life is not um kind of the coming the coming back after that amnesiac kind of period and then reacting or or
Speaker A
behaving in a way that presents as a mood swing or or not remembering or being told again and again and I thought that was a good element that she included and was has been really helpful for me.
Speaker A
Really helpful. Yeah, I'm wondering April cuz I know you do a lot of psychological testing too. How do you differentiate dissociation issues from ADHD from you know, other things that could look like dissociation.
Speaker A
Yeah, um, so that's a that's a great question. Um, you know, we do a really thorough clinical interview.
Speaker A
That's that's really the first step going through the full history. Um, anytime, you know, trauma is coming up, we're we're automatically looking at like you said, there's no PTSD without some dissociation.
Speaker A
So, you know, a lot of times during that clinical interview we'll have a traumatic experience get disclosed and it's never been disclosed to, you know, their medical provider or, you know, somebody or the prescriber. Um, and so that's really helpful just
Speaker A
getting a real thorough clinical interview about their experience, how their their close relationships, you know, people around them, how they experience them.
Speaker A
Um, you know, feedback that they get from friends, family, you know, things of that nature, periods of time like, you know, Johan was saying where there's like an absence of memory, you know, that I'm going through the clinical interview and they can't really
Speaker A
give me any information about their experiences. Um, that that's a kind of a key indicator for me of maybe there's dissociation going on.
Speaker A
Um, and then, of course, we go into all of the assessment and screening tools.
Speaker A
Um, you know, so like the DES-2 is a tool that we use to screen out uh dissociative experiences um and really lean on those along with the clinical interview and then reports from, you know, other providers who have seen them
Speaker A
going through those um and trying to put together a picture of uh whether or not this is this is happening. So.
Speaker A
Excellent, yeah. And uh one you know, one of the things we talk about in the DID episode is that for childhood trauma specifically kids who maybe are prone to a little bit more of a dissociative um process and
Speaker A
with a combination of a lot of childhood trauma you know, it's almost like the I identity is fractured in a you know, the the core sense of self, right?
Speaker A
Um and uh and as a provider you're you're holding and you're discovering and you're putting back together the pieces of that, but yeah, so I think that the severity of the trauma, right?
Speaker A
And the repetitiveness of the trauma, the type of the trauma, interpersonal trauma uh increases mag- magnifies the degree of dissociation that someone's going to have or how easily they might dissociate in the future.
Speaker A
Great. Well, thank you so much, Johan. I appreciate any more thoughts Johan kind of floating around your head on dissociation?
Speaker A
I think it's going to come up uh but often times with dissociation it is confused um with repression and splitting um but there is going to be I think the next person is going to talk about splitting can distinguish that
Speaker A
differentiation. Great. Okay, let's go to splitting. I know, that was a good intro. I'm going to talk about splitting and splitting on on a very surface level is a defense that helps people to organize their experiences in a very simple simple and
Speaker A
polarized way. So, um when I was thinking about splitting, I think in a lot of cases like young children learn this as a defense and as a way to organize the world and organize their understanding of um how their maybe how their family
Speaker A
behaves or even how they should react to situations. So, it is a very primitive defense. It allows people to categorize these like contradictory experiences that they might um coming encounter with um in order to reduce their anxiety and um manage their
Speaker A
own internal self-esteem. So, we see this defense a lot is got a lot of notoriety with um borderline personality organization, um narcissistic personality disorder.
Speaker A
And I work with a lot of clients with obsessive-compulsive disorder and I was thinking of um how in in many ways folks that have um obsessive-compulsive personality disorder, they have a lot of this rigid thinking in the way that
Speaker A
their um experiences are are their um the way that their thinking is egosyntonic, you know, the way that my perfectionism allows me to encounter the world, they might um they might have a lot of internal splitting in the way that they approach
Speaker A
things. When it comes to how splitting is shown, um I liked how you said, you know, some defenses come across as very um extroverted.
Speaker A
And, you know, as a psychiatric nurse working on the floor, we often would talk about splitting and when we had um patients come onto the unit and there was a lot of valuing and devaluing, often it came um
Speaker A
came to a head when it came to boundaries or rules on the unit. One, you know, one nurse might allow a behavior, another one would not. And so, you you had this splitting amongst the team. And so, there was often this talk
Speaker A
um among team members of how do we combat that in the way that we care for um the people that come on to our units.
Speaker A
And so, um so, the downsides of splitting is that it can cause a lot of chaos and conflict um both in if if you're working um on a psychiatric unit, but if you are in a relationship um say even with somebody
Speaker A
that has um even traits of OCPD, um perhaps the way that they uh compartmentalize their experiences or engage in the world can be really frustrating to deal with if you were the spouse of somebody that they have a very set way
Speaker A
that they see the world and see things that need to be done. So, um those are some of the big things that I was thinking about when it comes um I'm thinking about how it intertwines with dissociation.
Speaker A
And I think one of the things that Nancy talked about is that splitting often involves a distortion of reality.
Speaker A
And um when I'm thinking about I have um some individuals that have dissociative identity disorder.
Speaker A
And when they are in dissociative um states, it does change the way that they are perceiving, you know, maybe maybe the plan that that we made as a team. We had a team meeting and discussed um the plan
Speaker A
of what what was going to happen and objectives. And when they are in dissociative states, that plan's all bad. That that is out the window. And so a lot of times um we're having to come together to help
Speaker A
integrate and acknowledge these different um different parts in order for that person to have a uh sense of cohesive whole. We're all working together in order to to move things along for your betterment.
Speaker A
Um and so I think that's where I've seen splitting occur with extreme dissociative states.
Speaker A
Um I'd be interested to hear if other people have thoughts on that as well.
Speaker A
When I when I think about splitting and dissociation, like let's say you're idealizing uh a person.
Speaker A
You're you're you're splitting off the bad that you may have the critique, right? And you're dissociating that part out, right? So it's like you're disavowing, you're not allowing the critique.
Speaker A
Um per- someone who's who's who's in a kind of a more distressed, stressed stressed-out state may go from idealizing to devaluing back and forth within an hour.
Speaker A
And um so it could be kind of rapid switching from idealization to devaluation. So they're it's like they're dissociating from the the bad and then they're dissociating from the good and only seeing the bad.
Speaker A
Um so in that way I could see kind of like some dissociation linkage. I thought it was also interesting Nancy brought up how um you know, even in in our society, we see splitting as a way for different groups to um gain
Speaker A
momentum both in people joining along with their ideas um that we've seen it with different authoritarian leaders. So splitting is something that we see in our clinical work, but we also see it in our everyday everyday society. So, I thought that was
Speaker A
worth noticing. I think it takes less energy to see a have like a middle road kind of view on something.
Speaker A
Mhm. It takes more psychological energy to have nuance. It's easier, I think, to just go all bad or all good. And I think we can enjoy going all good on our sports team and all bad on the opposite team, right?
Speaker A
Yep. Political party. Most people who are politically oriented because of the consumption of the media that they consume will agree with most of the viewpoints of that political party. They That's kind of a splitting of sorts.
Speaker A
It's not primitive, necessarily, but when you have a more primitive personality who is at the top of the ticket, so to speak, uh sometimes they will split in the way that they use their words, in the way that they drive a wedge. They
Speaker A
see wedges where there is no wedge. They go all bad on anyone who does not completely idealize them.
Speaker A
Anyone who dissents from any part of their plan is completely shunned. And if you switch with some of these leaders to idealizing them again, they'll go all good on you immediately.
Speaker A
Which is which can be confusing, or they could stay all bad. They could they could carry a chip. They could carry that resentment chip, right? So, Ariel, what are you thinking?
Speaker A
Yeah, sure. And as both of you brought that up, one thing came to mind. First, Heidi, you were talking about the cohesive whole and how splitting occurs in a society.
Speaker A
And then you were just talking about with the sports teams and where that converged for me was actually on a It could be Something that came up was a commercial.
Speaker A
I believe it might have been around the Super Bowl time. And there was, you know, one fan uh who the rival fans and there was a pick your rivalry. Let's just say Eagles versus Giants, which is what we have. So there is a
Speaker A
Giants you know, team of guys sitting at the bar. Everyone's watching the game and then in walks the Eagles fan sits down wants to have a drink.
Speaker A
Everyone looks at him like he has three eyeballs. But um then when you see the Eagles fan and the Giants fans together in a foreign country, they realize that they're all united by virtue of their nationality.
Speaker A
So again, it's that splitting within a context. And and and I would argue also that the nuance or the togetherness is actually where there is harmony. I it's almost like if we asked any of those fans, okay, but
Speaker A
what actually is bad about the other? What why are you using splitting? We can't actually put a finger on what is bad about a fan just because they're from a different team. So I don't know that we actually want to devalue the
Speaker A
other. So when we have the luxury of being outside of a context, outside of society that expects us to split in a sense, we actually can unite and and come together. And that's also a beautiful other side of splitting. Um and I I and
Speaker A
your comment about you know, the social um cohesive whole. So it can play out in some ways and then depending on the context, it's just it just goes away. I think that Dr. Puder also um I believe it was Dr. Yeomans who brought
Speaker A
up in one of the podcast. We also have the Yankees and the Red Sox here on the East Coast. And it was that example of how you can be best friends, even married.
Speaker A
One's from Boston, one's from New York. You're going to hate each other for 2 hours, but when you walk out of the stadium, you're you're partners in love. So, I love your examples and your explanation of that as well, Heidi.
Speaker A
Yeah, s- splitting. And does this bring up any other thoughts for anyone else? I I I One thought I had was on psychological safety. So, there's research studies on like NICUs where like they look at the psychological safety, which is how easily do you give
Speaker A
negative feedback to the authority structure. And what they have found is that you have better patient outcomes when there's a higher level of psychological safety.
Speaker A
Um and so I looked at this in the research when I did the connection index and such. And I found that um it's not a given that there's going to be psychological safety.
Speaker A
And I would say when you have a more authoritarian leader, the psychological safety is completely zero, right? Like you cannot give them negative feedback or the amount of um especially publicly, right? Maybe privately, maybe in you you you use your
Speaker A
words in such a way to not make them look bad, you know, but you know, and you're kind of like trying to coax them towards the truth.
Speaker A
But in a in a more healthy system, there isn't that much of a a weight to the necessity of hiding the truth from a leader, right?
Speaker A
So, I will aspire to be psychologically safe. I and I wonder if like the the piece of that is that when there's psychological safety, people can handle the gray.
Speaker A
When it's when it's an all or nothing, there's no safety to figure out, does my opinion, does my feedback completely fit in to to their their vision, their thought process.
Speaker A
Um and so people avoid it. They avoid voicing that. Yeah. Right. And And you could see if a leader idealizes himself completely, right? If they like to stay completely psychotically idealized, any form of uh truth that would be seen as a slight
Speaker A
devaluation or slight insult to the ego would be catastrophic to that individual. And they would they they may get incredibly angry and defensive and you know, uh devalue the person in front of them.
Speaker A
Would you say that those who have splitting as one of their main primary defenses have low uh reflective functioning?
Speaker A
By the very nature, they would they would be around like if they have splitting in their adult attachment interview, it's it it it goes around a three. It score It scores around a three.
Speaker A
Um and so, yeah, it is low reflective function by the very nature of the splitting. Holding the nuance is actually a lot harder, which is why, you know, if if a if a patient has only negative views towards a parent,
Speaker A
um I'm not going to sit there and tell them that they're splitting. I'm not going to sit there and tell them that they're only devaluing and they need to find the gray.
Speaker A
Um but with empathy and with time, I've seen most patients move towards seeing a little bit more gray, the good and the bad.
Speaker A
Um you don't want them to flip from devaluation idealization, right? Which is like if if they get the sense that you are upset at them devaluing their parent, then they may flip to idealization, which is not what you want to promote either,
Speaker A
right? So, it's like there's some there's there's a developmental pathway that usually arrives at some knowledge of the gray. That being said, some parents are completely like it's it's also the potential, right?
Speaker A
Like that there are people that should be devalued mostly, right? Someone was like, "Well, Epstein, you know, like I feel like Epstein was kind of good." And it's like, "No, no, no." It's like, right? Like we need to
Speaker A
devalue certain people and we need to um have categories for that as well, so.
Speaker A
April, why don't you take me through acting out now? All right. So, acting out is a primitive defense where some feelings aren't able to be symbolized into words, um and so they're acted out. So, another way Nancy McWilliams talks about this is
Speaker A
enactment, um is a word that a lot of us have used as we've gone through this cohort, you know, having a patient enact um these old patterns of behavior uh that that they aren't aware of. Um so, they haven't symbolized that
Speaker A
behavior into words yet. Um so, this defense helps them to have agency over these feelings um that they haven't yet verbalized, so they still exist in this unconscious space or this, you know, nonverbal space.
Speaker A
And they can be both positive and negative, right? So, they some of them can be self-destructive.
Speaker A
Uh for example, maybe uh somebody experienced a lot of feelings of shame. Um that shame wasn't able to be verbalized, and so it's enacted in the form of bullying, right? Um exerting power over with people. And um but the
Speaker A
the unconscious, you know, kind of drive there is this feeling of shame that has not been, you know, symbolized into words.
Speaker A
Um, it can also move into a growth-enhancing process. So, um, maybe somebody has spent a lot of time, you know, with a group of friends and they're feeling ignored and they're feeling like, you know, there's no place for them and
Speaker A
then, you know, they abruptly speak up finally for themselves. They act out this, you know, I I want to take control, I want to speak up, I want to, um, you know, have a place here. They might not necessarily know that it's
Speaker A
coming from this feeling of not feeling a part of the group or not feeling seen or, you know, things like that. Um, but the behavior ends up, you know, kind of speaking for them. So, um, when there's no words, the behavior speaks,
Speaker A
essentially. Um, and so, therapists can experience this, um, you know, with our patients where we are be kind of participate in an enactment with our our patients. Um, or, you know, our patients act out these kind of patterns
Speaker A
of behavior or these ways of being that they engage in in their other relationships and we find ourselves in this enactment with them and as we have to kind of try try to figure out what is being acted out here. Um,
Speaker A
and so, that can be be really helpful, really confusing for us at first to figure out, um, what is getting enacted in in the interaction that we're having with our patients.
Speaker A
Um, and so, yeah, I I guess just to kind of summarize it out, it's it's it is a a process by which a person acts out a preverbal or unconscious feeling.
Speaker A
Um and it allows them to experience a sense of control or relieves the anxiety that that is, you know, present um due to not being able to verbalize what's actually happening.
Speaker A
Mhm. Really well said, yeah. It's fear of abandonment. They could sabotage, they do something to sabotage the relationship. Feeling powerless, maybe they could be a bully. Feeling shame, they could be a bully.
Speaker A
Mhm. Not not to not to say that that would abrogate the moral responsibility of that act, but Mhm.
Speaker A
they're acting out other deeper things, right? Bernat, go ahead. What are you thinking? This came up recently in a session.
Speaker A
I was talking and this person was expressing a lot of this um painful relationship that this person had with a very close relative um who's sick.
Speaker A
And then goes away, comes back and is ex- talking about their their you know, their activities in the last week. And then expressed how they had this truly emotionally like wonderful experience having a great um kind of back and forth with a person who
Speaker A
had a similar uh illness than the person who they're related to that they have a bad relationship with and did not put that together at all. And um when talking about it, they were just expressing how relieving it was to hug and to be with
Speaker A
that person um who was experiencing something almost identical to what was going on in their personal life. And so, kind of what April is saying, it's that that it's this enactment is a very unaware process. They have very little
Speaker A
awareness of what's going on, but they're trying their best to express it in some way. And um yeah, so I I always appreciate the point of how unconscious this is.
Speaker A
Great. Yeah. And I we had a Someone else had their hand up. Um Erica.
Speaker A
I think it's interesting how uh acting out, like many defenses, has come into common parlance and people toss this word out, people that are in treatment, people that are not in treatment. And I have a lot of patients who will describe
Speaker A
themselves, oh I acted out. And what they mean by that is sort of a return to a compulsion, like I went on a shopping spree or I bought a bag of Fritos or So they'll use the term acting out as a way
Speaker A
to describe an indiscretion that could almost fit or does fit under the category of compulsion. So again, we have this overlap and jumbling of defenses, but I like how there's uh the common parlance and what the individual means by it. Similar with splitting.
Speaker A
People use that term a lot and it means very different things. Um so it's interesting as psychology and mental health become more of the zeitgeist and more of what we talk about globally, we have to watch what all these terms mean and who's
Speaker A
using them and what the intent is. It's very interesting. I think that's actually really important to to discuss cuz um you know, if if it is a primitive defense that's occurring, you know, an acting out, um it's going
Speaker A
to be completely unconscious to the person. They're not actually going to say, "I'm acting out." cuz that indicates awareness of what what is happening and why it's happening. So the the primitive part of this is that it there's there's a lack
Speaker A
of awareness about why this behavior's getting enacted. It's It's occurring out of their conscious awareness and and that's where therapy becomes helpful because once the therapist is in this enactment, um the hope is that the therapist can catch the enactment
Speaker A
happening and then bring it into the conscious awareness of the patient and say, "Oh, you know, I'm I'm noticing that you're engaging with me in this way, you know, and try to be curious about um if this enactment has happened before and where
Speaker A
it's coming from. So, um it it's not a defense a primitive defense if it's in the conscious awareness of the patient and it really has to be it really is an unconscious process that's happening um and and that's um by definition what
Speaker A
makes it a primitive defense. Excellent. Yeah, so your curiosity, your your sort of um gentle inquisitiveness reduces the shame, allows for some exploration of what might be going on, what might be underneath the enact um enactment, the acting out.
Speaker A
Very good. Did someone else have their hand raised? Johan, did you? I did. Um but I think, you know, April, you you actually started to answer my question. You know, acting out in in a therapy setting um is seen in many ways
Speaker A
whether if it's a patient that's like missing a session all of a sudden from like the previous session or over the weekend they suddenly get into this really intense fight with their partner or I've also had patients who have done
Speaker A
like impulsive behaviors, um drinking heavily um and so that gets brought into the session if you have the opportunity, um uh I was curious about like your approach in terms of some of the situations, um how you would bring that into conscious
Speaker A
awareness for for the patient. Um and what does that approach look like? Yeah, I I think um this is something that I am definitely still practicing and working on. I wouldn't consider myself an expert here. But um one of the
Speaker A
phrases that I do like, I think it was Nancy McWilliams, correct me if I'm wrong, Dr. Peter, but um at some point we we had read or, you know, listened to a podcast where we heard, you know, to strike while the
Speaker A
iron is cold, right? Um and basically, you know, there's a lot of wisdom that I think and and then art that comes to knowing when to approach the enactment and bring it up to the patient, recognizing um do they have the
Speaker A
capacity to um take in this information? Cuz if we if we kind of see them too soon or reveal something that we're seeing too soon, that can be very disregulating and overwhelming and it will almost turn those defenses up, you know, really
Speaker A
really quickly. Um so I I kind of like to go inch by inch, you know, just kind of a little little bit at a time as much as I can, instead of saying things like um you know, here's the enactment that you're
Speaker A
engaging in with me, right? Um so I can give like a small example, um you know, I I've had patients in the past where um you know, I might ask them a question and um every time, you know, we're we're
Speaker A
talking, there's this kind of way of communicating with me where I start to feel like it did I ask this in a way that was aggressive? Did I because I feel like they're defending against me. And then I
Speaker A
start questioning my own sense of tone. I start questioning did I ask the question like in a harsh way, you know, and then I'm then I'm starting to to worry that I'm inducing shame in them or that I'm, you know, um
Speaker A
not doing a good job in the here and now. Uh and so that's usually a lot of information for me about perhaps how they engage or act out this same way of communicating with their partners or with their friends, you know, or perhaps
Speaker A
this is how their friends feel when or their partners feel when they're trying to ask them a question. Um and so a lot of times I'll I'll just I'll do a small like um I I just I might say something like, you
Speaker A
know, I I just want to want to make sure that, you know, I I didn't offend you with that question or I I tried to ask them how it's feeling, you know, was it how did you feel with me asking you that
Speaker A
question, right? Um was it difficult, you know, for you to um have to answer that question. I find any number of ways to to bring up that emotion in the room without actually saying, I think there's an enactment
Speaker A
happening in the room. Um and so um yeah, I'm still practicing that, but I've I've found that to be really helpful. I'm sure there's other people who are um have good practice at this who can provide maybe some better
Speaker A
feedback there. Um just just to to emphasize something you said, April, uh to strike when the iron is cold means that you know, the enactment may happen in one session and the next session they're coming in, they're more regulated,
Speaker A
they're more calm. You can come back to, hey, let's can we talk about like last session, something happened between us, you know.
Speaker A
So, you're striking with the iron is cold there because you're not necessarily trying to do the insight work during the the heat of the moment. During the heat of the moment, maybe you're giving trying to get more empathy, trying to
Speaker A
make sure you understand the perspective. Okay. Yeah, April, it sounds like you're really exploring the um resistance piece that is so core in acting out. Um it's almost like you're exploring the countertransference part of your patient's resistance.
Speaker A
Um there's something that's being acted out in order to prevent others from coming in. Um or rather the patient from coming into the self and acknowledging and feeling that which they are trying to to resist. Um and you're picking up
Speaker A
on that and and how one in a relationship with a person who's using that as their defense might feel such a distance, feel such a resistance, feel such a what am I not getting here? You know, what is this person have that I
Speaker A
don't have? Why am I feeling like this right now? So, which would also fall back into the bullying, pushing people away, putting out the negative onto the other and bringing in some of the other defenses. But the countertransference
Speaker A
piece as well and then striking when the iron is cold, bringing it up in session, sounds like a really good process that's working for you very well when you allow that sort of reflection piece in between when it's hot and when it's
Speaker A
cold especially. Uh just to interject, I'm so impressed I'm here in this podcast with y'all and I am learning so much. I feel like I'm over here with popcorn and feverishly taking notes. So, uh just very impressive. Congratulations, everybody.
Speaker A
Evan, what were you going to say? You have more with that? Yeah, I was thinking on this defense especially as well as maybe some of the earlier ones. I was thinking about maybe the newer therapist who's listening to
Speaker A
this and feeling like this is really hard to figure out how to enact that.
Speaker A
Um maybe something that or maybe myself like a year or two ago that especially when trying to highlight maybe or you're observing that an acting out's going on in a session with a client and I think it's it's it is valuable to wait till
Speaker A
the iron's cold, but if you frame it tentatively, if you frame it gently, if you frame it like maybe this is going on and you you don't just put it out there.
Speaker A
If they're not ready to hear it typically then then they'll just say no and you move on and you wait for a better opportunity that as long as you're putting these things in a like maybe this is interesting to you kind of way. Like
Speaker A
it's not a big mistake if they're just not ready to hear it yet and you can try again at a later date or maybe they'll probably be another enactment of a similar sort and you'll have another opportunity.
Speaker A
Thank you, Evan. Yeah, that's good. You don't have to, right? You don't feel the pressure. Don't don't necessarily feel the pressure. And Danny, I agree. I was listening Danny also and I'm like, man, maybe I need to restructure
Speaker A
the cohort a little bit to be more of a, you know, how do we split up the topics that everyone presents a little bit of the topic every week? Like that's it's fun.
Speaker A
I agree. It's I'm I'm learning a lot from you guys as always. Um okay, shall we move on to the next defense of interest?
Speaker A
Maybe we'll go to Grant. Okay. So, I have projection and I think projection, introjection, and then projective identification, the way that Dr. McWilliams kind of groups them in and explains it was very helpful to me.
Speaker A
Um a lot of your listeners are obviously in the mental health field, so we read about this a lot, but the way that Dr.
Speaker A
McWilliams kind of goes through it helped me really grasp it. So, I'll try to do my best to kind of put it in my own words, but with all the primitive defenses at their core, there's an issue or a a
Speaker A
permeation between self and the world. And so, with that in mind, you try to take that principle and apply it to each of these primitive defenses.
Speaker A
With projection, introjection, and then at the far end of projective identification, it's very easily to see if you think about what happens in an infant when an infant experiences pain, they don't understand that the pain is coming from within or without I'm
Speaker A
outside, whether it's, you know, an upset stomach or that they're being swaddled too tightly. They just know, "Hey, I'm in pain. This is not good." And so, from that and as the infant matures and develops, you they develop the ability to have
Speaker A
projection, introjection. And so, um if you think about it that way, I think when you start building on further, when like when you think about projective identification, which Sheila beautifully explained, it might help frame it better, where there's a permeation. So,
Speaker A
it's also helpful to to kind of think of them in a spectrum of the amount of permeation.
Speaker A
So, at a relatively healthy level, projection can be a good thing. And then at its far more extreme permeation between self and outside world, then you have this projective identification that can be at times very painful to the other and
Speaker A
the self. So, just to do a definition though of projection, what it what it is in particular, as we all know, it's a process in which um the inside or what you're feeling or experiencing inside is misunderstood as coming from the outside. So, kind of
Speaker A
the stereotypical I'm not mad, you're mad kind of um experience. But, as Dr. McWilliams beautifully brought out, there's a healthy aspect to this. She brought up empathy, which was a new kind of way for me to think about that, and I thought that was
Speaker A
really a nice point. I'll just try to briefly kind of relate it. But, she she mentions that to understand someone else's experience, you can't go into that person. So, what what do you have to what what resources can you do?
Speaker A
Well, you easily can reference a past experience or emotion that you felt, and then assign that to that person. And by doing so, you're having this kind of emotional reciprocity, and being able to have empathy for that person. And a very similar psychic kind
Speaker A
of dynamic is done with intuition. And so, that's a nice point because it proves that these defenses are not always defensive, but that they are just ways of handling the world around you.
Speaker A
Uh and then of course, you have the negative aspect of it where you are disowning these negative emotions and putting them onto other, which doesn't feel good for the other person.
Speaker A
Um Or or you could or you could put your positive things on other people.
Speaker A
True. True. Yeah. Yeah. project your positive, like I need to do more of that.
Speaker A
Do you Don't you? I thought you do that, Grant. I could see you doing more of that one.
Speaker A
I try. Everything is awesome. I'm I'm projecting on Grant that he projects his positivity on other people, imagining other people to be positive, because you're a very positive person, Grant.
Speaker A
And I hope that's not just my projection on you, that you're positive. I'll gladly introject that and make that true. So.
Speaker A
One thing I I thought that was helpful, um like even before this cohort reading, listening, I would often hear about these defenses and be like, okay, I need to How do I make sense of this? I need to
Speaker A
kind of solidify this. Something that helped me Why is my hand raised? Sorry. Was I think for me what's helpful in the differentiation between projection and then projective identification is the force to make the projection reality.
Speaker A
So, with someone who is just projecting, they can project, but maybe it's there's some resistance, right? Like, no, that's not true.
Speaker A
Okay, let's talk about it. Whereas a projective identification, it is imperative that that person has to disavow what's inside and has to make it reality, because if it wouldn't happen, that would be so painful.
Speaker A
And that was helpful for me to kind of conceptualize, but also to give a lot of empathy for patients who are going through a projective identification kind of episode or spell that it really is distressing. It's It's kind of
Speaker A
It's It's painful. They They need that to to to be reality. So. Mhm. How How might someone who's paranoid project their paranoia? Or what is paranoia?
Speaker A
Others can definitely comment on this. I I I did think about this briefly kind of Um I have someone who I know well, who I believe kind of maybe falls into that paranoid personality kind of typology.
Speaker A
And I find that there's a true disavowing of their own fear and a rejection of it.
Speaker A
And because when that happens, it often is is thrown where um these worst-case scenarios are being put on others or motive is put on others.
Speaker A
Um but I think if I stay with that person long enough, it ends up that the conversation tends to go back to that there's just fear inside of of that person. And rightfully so, you go back into the the childhood and you see this
Speaker A
perfect explanation as to not trusting authority or being fearful. That's kind of how I look at it, but maybe others would have kind of a better explanation, but that that's how I see it.
Speaker A
Paranoia is like I'm I'm incredibly fearful. But the world is out to get me, right?
Speaker A
But the world is persecuting me. The world is embodying the fearfulness against me. And if if if Yeah, that's the the projection of the the fear.
Speaker A
So, others are hostile. Others are angry at me. I don't You know, you you may have a patient at some point that says like I'm sitting here and I think that you hate me.
Speaker A
They're projecting on you. One thing I'll I'll say on that Dr. Peter is that I think this was on a podcast that maybe Dr. McWilliams talked about that I found very helpful was with particular paranoid personality type um
Speaker A
if you were to confront or or or disagree with their paranoia's they become more distrusting at first.
Speaker A
You would need to almost kind of work along with a little bit or have more kind of truthfulness or or more transparency maybe I think is how she put it and it brings down that amount of of angst.
Speaker A
Right. There's a statement that there's there's some people that only feel truth and negative critique.
Speaker A
Or you know, if you're if you're too positive it's like if they they almost like none of that registers.
Speaker A
They only register the negative. Ariel, go ahead. Yeah. So, what you just said about only registering the negative something was coming up for me there but just backing up a little bit with the paranoia and and um I'm thinking about my patients
Speaker A
really high on the psychotic side of the organization with the paranoia and the projection and also your comment about how you really have to kind of be patient with that. You have to um let it kind of come out otherwise there
Speaker A
will be that fear that you two are shutting them down. Thinking about um this was a case a long time ago, no longer a patient. I've changed some things to not give away the identification.
Speaker A
Um I the the concept of the world is a video game. We're all playing in a video game and we're all being manipulated. We're all being um put into these little mazes and moved around and and um we have no
Speaker A
no say. Everyone's watching us all of the time. And yes, while while this individual had full-blown psychotic illness, at the same time, this is a human being with whom I'm doing a very psychodynamic style of psychotherapy.
Speaker A
And you know, you just feel the terror. You feel the fear. You feel the the everything that this person is um lacking in control, lacking in trust of others. Um and this self-deprecating torment um that's going on within and
Speaker A
and there's one individual where I really really experienced it. But that experience and looking at the projection with the paranoia is one of the I can say I'd be interested to hear other people's opinions of working with people on the more psychotic um
Speaker A
range was very really explained that people who are like very very high on the psychotic psychotic end are dealing with issues of normalcy just like everyone else. Um it really helps to like destigmatize that when we just recognize the level of fear that is in
Speaker A
that is in individuals, no matter what their level of attachment to reality. There is that element of fear and shame and lack of control and powerlessness and literally just feeling like your life is one big manipulation by a power that you just don't have.
Speaker A
Mhm. Find that to be really fascinating about this defense and really entering into it and really holding empathy and space for our patients or parts of ourselves who are feeling that fear and feeling that power struggle.
Speaker A
Yeah. And with a in the psychotic realm where where we're really referring to is no insight into the delusion it becomes a a delusion the projection the projection becomes a massive delusion of like it's not that the CIA could be spying on
Speaker A
me the CIA is spying on me. Correct. to kill me. Yes, absolutely and to not challenge that um not to support it in the sense that I think in in general there's a notion of oh don't argue with someone's
Speaker A
delusion. Well, no. It's to be supportive in terms of getting into the projection and working through the projection that makes a difference.
Speaker A
Mhm. Yeah. Erica jump in. Uh the point the point about um paranoid structure and paranoid personality disorder um Nancy McWilliams makes a point to say that extreme withdrawal is one of the defenses that they utilize or draw upon um
Speaker A
towards fear or her term unjustified suspicion. So there we have again that note of of not lost base lost touch with reality.
Speaker A
So it's an extreme withdrawal to avoid fear for something that is it distorted in the difference between how they're saying it and what it really is. So Mhm.
Speaker A
I thought that was an interesting link. Great. I I know we have one one more to get through. So, let's just jump to the last one. Introjection? Is it introjection?
Speaker A
Projection? Introjection? it. Yeah. Introjection with April April. Take it away. It's me. All right. Um so, introjection um is basically the the opposing part of projection. So, projection is, you know, taking something within and putting it out. Introjection is taking something
Speaker A
outside of yourself and introjecting it or Nancy McWilliams uses the word swallowing uh a swallowing of affect, of behavior, of ideas, cognitions, things like that to the point that you don't recognize them as the other, as something that has
Speaker A
come from outside of you. You start to um identify with it. And so, it feels like your thought, your affect, your behavior. Um and this can happen in a healthy way. It's an important part of, you know, development where
Speaker A
um we learn internalize love, internalize comfort, safety from, you know, our caregivers, people, our spouses, our friends. We introject all those positive things um about them. So, an introjected voice in a healthy example might be, you know, you're
Speaker A
having a bad day, things are tough, maybe you're nervous about this podcast today, and then you hear a voice that says, "It's all right. You're doing your best. You know, you're going to do great. It's going to be fine." Right?
Speaker A
So, perhaps at some point in time you had a uh primary attachment, secure attachment with somebody who you have introjected that, you know, that voice, that that supportive, loving, um caring voice. On the opposite end, on like the
Speaker A
negative aspect or the unhealthy parts, um you know, Nancy McWilliams discusses, you know, we can engage in introjecting um parts of our abusers, you know, or negative aspects. And so, identification with the abuser would be we begin to
Speaker A
take on the behaviors, the beliefs, the ideas, thoughts of the abuser. And this becomes adaptive because it's taking an unconscious powerlessness, anxiety, and giving the psyche a sense of control.
Speaker A
If I can be like my, you know, abuser, I can predict that behavior. I can maybe keep myself safe, create a sense of power, you know, within the psyche. And keeping in mind, this is not conscious. Again, it's an unconscious process. So, you
Speaker A
know, identifying with the abuser, taking on is not a conscious thing that happens. It's a process that allows the psyche to remain whole, to not have to wrestle with this powerlessness that they experienced being in this abusive situation. So,
Speaker A
the introjected voice that might come from, you know, an unhealthy relationship or a situation where a child maybe had parents that weren't as supportive and loving and caring, they might grow up and then as adults, when they are trying to rest,
Speaker A
for example, they might hear a voice that says, "You're lazy. You're worthless. You're You don't try hard enough." And they kind of take in this voice as their own voice, that it's their thoughts, not recognizing that this has actually been
Speaker A
introjected. It's been swallowed or taken in from outside of them. And so, one of the best examples, or an example that I thought of that I thought was kind of fun and this is a I guess you know kind of in a more
Speaker A
healthy range is in the movie Inside Out. You know, Riley's parents are frequently telling Riley, "You're our happy girl, right? You're you're you got to be happy. Just do your best." And they're kind of always positive and always kind of
Speaker A
trying to get her to disavow her sadness, right? And disavow her anger. And so you see this in the movie where Joy is always at odds with all of the other emotions and trying to just take over Riley's internal world. And so
Speaker A
Riley has introjected this belief from her parents that she should be happy all the time. That Riley is a happy girl, right?
Speaker A
And so that's kind of a a fun way of understanding introjection is it's just the taking in of affect, beliefs, ideas from outside of us and then believing that they're ours at some point.
Speaker A
Yeah, and one thing I want to I want to say just just for anyone who's listening like what cuz you could think like oh do do people who you know, let's say boys who are molested at a young age, do they
Speaker A
become future abusive molesters because they've introjected trauma? Actually, the rate is very low. It's in one in one cohort I remember it's about 3% of people that have been sexually molested boys, they will become later people that will
Speaker A
do something similar. So, the majority do not, but many more than that 3% can have intrusive uh uh is sometimes obsessive obsessive almost like an OCD level obsession of I'm going to hurt another boy, right? Or so they could be kind of
Speaker A
an unwanted distressing thought. Which would be kind of an introjection of that trauma. That they would be the abuser. Not because they want to abuse. Not that they Not if Not because they are abusing.
Speaker A
But because um they're they've introjected a piece of that. Um I another uh client I'm going to change the details a little bit. But she after being abused as a child thought she was abusing herself when she would masturbate.
Speaker A
Um she thought she was molesting herself. And he you know, so she she became the abuser towards herself before before the the event, the sexual violation.
Speaker A
She believed um she was just you know, playing with herself. Afterwards she's molesting herself.
Speaker A
So and and a lot of people like this, therapy can really help them untangle this and decrease the shame.
Speaker A
De- understand why they might put themselves as the abusive role in their mind, in their fantasy mind, right?
Speaker A
Mhm. Yeah, so one of the one of the things I thought was um helpful is thinking about the countertransference, you know, that you might experience when somebody is you know, communicating an introjected belief or idea or you know, something like that.
Speaker A
Um and one of the things I read was um you know, the therapist might find themselves thinking the introjected thought. So you maybe there's a patient that's really frustrating to you. And you're having an experience where you're thinking, "Why won't they just do it?
Speaker A
Why are they being lazy? You know, why are they X Y and Z?" That question of why are they lazy or why aren't they trying or whatever thoughts, questions that might come up that actually might be introjected material that you are kind
Speaker A
of getting access to from that patient. Um and that can be really helpful for for then being able to ask the the patient, you know, um can you tell me more about this, you know, these questions you have about
Speaker A
this or, you know, if they start um communicating some of their experience, um it allows you to kind of ask them where they first heard that or how they came to believe that or um you know, kind of be curious about their
Speaker A
narratives that they have about their own behavior. Um and that can be really really helpful, I think.
Speaker A
Excellent. Excellent. Anyone confused on this one yet? Is it This is a tough one to understand.
Speaker A
Um becoming the aggressor in your own mind, siding with the aggressor. Not necessarily uh becoming aggressive, but in your own mind uh introjecting maybe the components, right, of of what is going on. I think it's very helpful.
Speaker A
I think um the quote that was on the the document from Fairbairn helps a lot. Um the for someone who introjects a lot, which often is someone who's depressive style, better to be a sinner in a world ruled
Speaker A
by God than to live in a world ruled by the devil. It's this this defense, it doesn't usually, I think, help empower the person, but it gives them a sense of having some more control than they actually have. And this and I
Speaker A
think there's some comfort in that, even though it's usually actually disempowering in terms of their actions.
Speaker A
It It's also like a It's almost like um in in medical school, you learn about a disease sometimes and you'd start to think like, oh, do I have this disease?
Speaker A
You're kind of like introjecting the disease into you, right? So, you as the listener of these defenses might be saying, oh, do I have this problem? I have this Oh, do I have this defense?
Speaker A
Right? It's also a way of kind of mastery of of kind of trying to make sense of something.
Speaker A
Uh yeah. There can be a dissociation away from the anger pointed in the direction towards the perpetrator.
Speaker A
Which sometimes will come out more as therapy progresses, like you'll feel more angry at the person that did the actual bad thing, right?
Speaker A
Yeah, and thank you for bringing that up, Evan, cuz I think that you know, Nancy actually talks about how introjection is is primarily associated with like a depressive personality style.
Speaker A
And she actually actually highlighted it. She said, in in working with introjectively depressive patients, one can practically hear the internalized object speaking when a client says something like, it must be because I'm selfish.
Speaker A
Uh that the therapist can ask who is who is saying that. Um so, the the patient kind of takes takes on these qualities that they think led to the abuse. Because if it's their fault, then it's potentially something they can fix.
Speaker A
Um versus having to accept or acknowledge that the situation they were in was, you know, it was somebody that was just abusive.
Speaker A
So, it's adaptive in that way for them to help give them reduce anxiety, give them kind of a continuity of self. Um a kind of an illusion of control.
Speaker A
Right, like in a like an abusive patient with domestic violence going on, their spouse is abusing alcohol. It's not the spouse's problem. It's like, "Man, what could I have done differently when my spouse came home drunk that could have not elicited them to be so
Speaker A
angry at me?" Um I must have been such a bad wife. I must have been you know, like like the house must have not been clean enough. So, they're And and as a therapist, you're you're listening to this and you may be
Speaker A
thinking like uh this has nothing to do with you. Like what are you talking about, right? Or if you're a friend or a family member of someone going through that.
Speaker A
Yeah, and you know, to add to this um from like a client in perspective, um infants introject the good and bad objects. And so, if for example, if a a caregiver is nurturing, the child is introjecting the good objects.
Speaker A
On the other hand, if the caregiver is harsh, the child is introjecting the persecutory objects.
Speaker A
And so, you know, in the example that you both were talking about, the child is essentially um has these mental representations of uh a persecutory objects and a devalued self other. So, they're devaluing them themselves in certain situations.
Speaker A
Um so, these two mental representations are internalized. Um on a more positive note, um a an example I want to provide is um teachers can also play a very positive role in terms of a child's upbringing. And so, uh
Speaker A
um te- teachers can have these positive messages that can be internalized. And so, there's some research behind teachers um having a more positive message uh on students. So, for example, if a teacher is uh um highlighting a a student's intelligence
Speaker A
and how good they are, um there's a behavioral aspect to that, but in in this regard, they're creating this um message that's being internalized and the child takes that on. Um now, we don't know if the child's IQ is actually really smart, um but they
Speaker A
continue to take that on and it shapes the way they um uh navigate their academic journey.
Speaker A
I could see these sports parents. There's one in particular after a game just completely railing on their kid every mistake. That gets internalized.
Speaker A
The kid's not going to enjoy sports long-term. You know, a couple years in, they're going to get burned out. It's like uh compare that with like a parent who is positive, right? Emphasizing the good that the kid did. But also, I would say
Speaker A
not creating a delusional child. Like, I'm delusional. You are everyone was not passing to you under every condition and the refs were calling everything and the only reason you lost is because of everyone else, right?
Speaker A
That's creating a delusion of sorts. But, to say like, "Hey, like, we're going to continue to work hard. We're going to continue to take steps towards, you know, um improving, you know, and our hard work is going to pay off, right? That kind of
Speaker A
message. So, it's like positive with a with there's many steps to the top of the mountain. I would say that combination of things allows for thriving.
Speaker A
Um so, they can inter- they can interject a positive force, but also a sense of like, "Okay, I can work hard and obtain my goals." Sort of that uh hero's journey. All right, guys, we'll leave that we'll leave it here for
Speaker A
today. Uh once again, thanks for being a part of this and uh if you're listening still congratulations.
Speaker A
You understand psychological defenses more. We'll put up the transcript on the website psychpodcast.com. Okay, we'll leave it there for today.
Topics:primitive defense mechanismspsychotherapypsychoanalytic diagnosisextreme withdrawalsexualizationprojective identificationsplittingdissociationacting outpsychodynamic psychotherapy
