Author Topic: Defense Mechanisms ~ A Primer  (Read 3083 times)

Certain Hope

  • Guest
Defense Mechanisms ~ A Primer
« on: October 02, 2006, 03:20:12 PM »
Hi,

In case some folks aren't aware of the various (mind over matter?) techniques of which we human beings are capable,
here are the basics.

Each time you see the word " EXAMPLE " in the text, the author links to various real-life situations which she believes are evidence of that particular mechanism in action. Non-conservatively minded folks may not appreciate her examples, tho  :) Link at end.

What are psychological defense mechanisms?

They are psychological strategies used individuals (and by extension--groups of indidivuals and even entire nations at times) to cope with reality and to maintain his/her self -image intact.

A healthy person will use many different defenses throughout life. A defense mechanism becomes pathological when it is used persistantly and leads to maladaptive behavior that will eventually threaten the physical and/or mental health of the individual. Having said that, there are psychological defenses that are:
1) almost always pathological - when they prevent the individual from being able to cope with a real threat and obscure his/her ability to perceive reality;
2) immature - used in childhood and adolescence, but mostly abandoned by adulthood, since they lead to socially unacceptable behavior and/or prevent the adult from optimal coping with reality;
3) neurotic - common in everyone, but clearly not optimal for coping with reality since they lead to problems in relationships; work; and problems in enjoying life; and finally,
4) mature defense mechanisms - used by "healthy" adults, they optimize one's ability to have normal relationships; enjoy work, and to take pleasure in life.

Let's look at these different types of defense mechanisms, which as you see above I have listed in a heirarchy from least effective to most effective. The defenses I have selected to discuss are the most typical, and are frequently discussed in the psychiatric and psychological literature.

Level 1 Defense Mechanisms - Almost always pathological; for the user these three defenses permit someone to rearrange external reality (and therefore not have to cope with reality); for the beholder, the users of these mechanisms frequently appear crazy or insane. These are the "psychotic" defenses, common in overt psychosis, in dreams, and throughout childhood. They include:

Denial - a refusal to accept external reality because it is too threatening. There are examples of denial being adaptive (for example, it might be adaptive for a person who is dying to have some denial (EXAMPLE, EXAMPLE )
Distortion - a gross reshaping of external reality to meet internal needs (EXAMPLE, EXAMPLE, EXAMPLE)
Delusional Projection - frank delusions about external reality, usually of a persecutory nature (EXAMPLE, EXAMPLE)

Level 2 Defense Mechanisms are seen frequently in adults and are common in adolescents. For the user these mechanism alter distress and anxiety caused by reality or other people; while for the beholder, people who use such defenses are seen as socially undesirable, immature, difficult and out of touch. They are considered "immature" defenses and almost always lead to serious problems in a person's ability to cope with the world. These defenses are seen in severe depression, personality disorders, and adolescence. They include:

Fantasy - tendency to retreat into fantasy in order to resolve inner and outer conflicts (EXAMPLE)
Projection - attributing one's own unacknowledged feelings to others; includes severe prejudice, severe jealousy, hypervigilance to external danger, and "injustice collecting". (EXAMPLE, EXAMPLE, EXAMPLE, EXAMPLE, EXAMPLE , EXAMPLE (remember that projection is a primitive form of paranoia, so it is common in today's world)
Hypochondriasis - the transformation of negative feelings towards others into negative feelings toward self, pain, illness and anxiety (EXAMPLE)
Passive Agressive Behavior - aggression towards others expressed indirectly or passively (EXAMPLE)
Acting Out Behavior - direct expression of an unconscious wish or impulse to avoid being conscious of the emotion that accompanies it (EXAMPLE, EXAMPLE)

Level 3 Defense Mechanisms are often considered "neurotic" but are fairly common in adults. They can have short-term advantages in coping, but they often cause long-term problems in relationships, work, and enjoyment of life for people who primarily use them as their basic style of coping with the world. They include:

Intellectualization - separation of emotion from ideas; thinking about wishes in formal, affectively bland terms and not acting on them (EXAMPLE)
Repression - seemingly inexplicable naivete, memory lapse, or lack of awareness of physical status; the emotion is conscious, but the idea behind it is absent (EXAMPLE, EXAMPLE, and, of course, Scarlet "I won't think about that today" O'Hara from Gone With The Wind)
Reaction Formation - behavior that is completely the opposite of what one really wants or feels (e.g, taking care of someone when what one really wants is to be taken care of; studying to be a pilot to cover-up being afraid to fly). Note - this can work in the short term as an effective strategy to cope, but will eventually break down. (EXAMPLE, EXAMPLE)
Displacement - separation of emotion from its real object and redirection of the intense emotion toward someone or something that is less offensive or threatening in order to avoid dealing directly with what is frightening or threatening (EXAMPLE, EXAMPLE, EXAMPLE)
Dissociation - temporary and drastic modification of one's personal identity or character to avoid emotional distress (EXAMPLE)

Level 4 Defense Mechanisms are common among most "healthy" adults and are considered the most "mature". Many of them have their origins in the "immature" level, but have been honed by the individual to optimize his/her success in life and relationships. Use of these defenses gives the user pleasure and feelings of mastery. For the user, these defenses help them to integrate many conflicting emotions and thoughts and still be effective; and for the beholder their use by someone is viewed as a virtue. They include:

Sublimation - transformation of negative emotions or instincts into positive actions, behavior, or emotion (EXAMPLE, EXAMPLES, art, sports, hobbies, or even one's choice of profession)
Altruism - constructive service to others that brings pleasure and personal satisfaction (EXAMPLE, EXAMPLE)
Suppression - the conscious decision to delay paying attention to an emotion or need in order to cope with the present reality; able to later access the emotion and accept it. (EXAMPLE)
Anticipation - realistic planning for future discomfort (EXAMPLE)
Humor - overt expression of ideas and feelings (especially those that are unpleasant to focus on or too terrible to talk about) that gives pleasure to others; (humor lets you call a spade a spade, while "wit" is actually a form of displacement) (EXAMPLE, EXAMPLE)

Since all of these defense mechanisms can be used by adults to adapt to life, the question is:
When is a defense mechanism considered really "adaptive" and when is it considered "pathological"? What we call "mental illness" is actually a manifestation of an individual's pathological adaptive resposne to events in his/her life. Here is what makes a defense "pathological":

the defense is used in a rigid, inflexible, and exclusive manner
the motivation for using the defense comes more from past needs than present or future reality
the defense severely distorts the present situation
use of the defense leads to significant problems in relationships, functioning, and enjoyment of life
use of the defense impedes or distorts emotions and feelings, instead of rechanneling them effectively
Research has shown (see Adaptation to Life) that use of the "mature defenses" (Level 4) I listed is related to:

1) excellent adjustment as an adult, 2) happiness(by self-report), 3) job satisfaction, 4) rich friendships, 5) fewer hospitalizations over life, 6) better overall health, 7) a lower incidence of mental illness.

Use of the "immature Defenses" (Levels 1, 2, 3) is related to:

1) poor adjustment as an adult; 2) higher divorce rates and marital discord, 3) poor friendship patterns, 4) higher incidence of mental illness, 5) greater number of sick leave days taken, 6) poorer health generally.

You can see from some of the examples of these defenses I have chosen that defense mechanisms are not limited to individuals. Societies also sometimes need to protect their self-images and cope with events in the world. They need to explain why their society is failing; why they are not as important in the world as they feel they should be, etc. etc. Why the ideologies they embrace aren't successful.

Societies, like individuals, can adopt mature defenses and deal with reality; or they can deny reality and look elsewhere for the source of their problems. Many countries, like individuals, prefer to put the blame for their own failures onto an outside source, since that is safer for the self-image. A "healthy" country, like a healthy individual will evaluate the facts and utilize mature defenses to cope with and change the situation they find themselves in. They are not afraid of their aggressive impulses because those impulses are reigned in by reason and not indulged in lightly. When necessary, healthy societies look inward. When necessary, they focus outward.

Entire Article at:  http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2004/08/psychiatry-101-defense-mechanisms.htmlHi,

penelope

  • Guest
Re: Defense Mechanisms ~ A Primer
« Reply #1 on: October 04, 2006, 01:22:42 AM »
This is very interesting hope..

I have not seen Neuroses broken down in this manner before.  I think I'll have to go back and read it a few times and think of more examples.

pb

Portia

  • Guest
Re: Defense Mechanisms ~ A Primer
« Reply #2 on: October 04, 2006, 12:11:19 PM »
Hi Hope thanks for this.

I remember why I come here and that’s to learn new things and see if I understand them. (Because I’ve posted a few times today, I’ve been thinking again, why do I come here?)

The above pretty much makes sense. I can see myself and others in the above, from the pathological to the neurotic. I was reading and nodding then I read this:

Societies, like individuals, can adopt mature defenses and deal with reality; or they can deny reality and look elsewhere for the source of their problems. Many countries, like individuals, prefer to put the blame for their own failures onto an outside source, since that is safer for the self-image. A "healthy" country, like a healthy individual will evaluate the facts and utilize mature defenses to cope with and change the situation they find themselves in. They are not afraid of their aggressive impulses because those impulses are reigned in by reason and not indulged in lightly. When necessary, healthy societies look inward. When necessary, they focus outward.

And I stopped nodding and frowned. Because……is this a step too far? Does this logically follow? Because: psychology and individuals is one thing, but applying individual defences to groups, as though the group is one brain…? Maybe it works to a point where a society is pretty enclosed, insular and the people are all living similar sorts of lives (being raised in the same ways, being subjected to the same rules, morals etc). Back to Nazi Germany again. Okay, there was a group of people who were raised in particularly punitive ways and they were manipulated by leaders who met the needs the society had encouraged. So it is possible to have societies where the majority of people act together in an unhealthy way. But some didn’t, some people rebelled. Those people are also part of the same society/country.

Many countries, like individuals, prefer to put the blame for their own failures onto an outside source, since that is safer for the self-image.
When she says ‘countries’ here, I want to ask: who? Who is a country? The leaders?

And then this:
A "healthy" country, like a healthy individual will evaluate the facts and utilize mature defenses to cope with and change the situation they find themselves in.

Isn’t this a step too far? I don’t think there is such a thing as a healthy country. Are there such things as healthy leaders? Ummm. By the very nature of the job they do, the fact that they want to do it makes me suspicious of their mental balance!

They are not afraid of their aggressive impulses because those impulses are reigned in by reason and not indulged in lightly.

Whoah! Well I disagree. ‘They’ (the leaders) are not afraid of their aggressive impulses because they themselves are not picking up the gun and going into battle. They get other people to do that. Now, if the leaders themselves literally fought from the front, I think they’d indulge in those aggressive impulses a lot less lightly than they do, i.e. they might not indulge them at all. That is to say: killing is stupid unless there isn’t enough food to go around. Until we agree that killing is stupid, we can hardly call any country ‘healthy’. I think we can call one country healthier than another, but wholly healthy? That is an intellectual defence on the part of the writer. I dunno. Maybe this is my hot spot. I get sticky when someone starts talking about societies and countries as though they are one-brained organisms. It smacks of a dictator in the making and … it takes a potential dictator to recognise another one!

Certain Hope

  • Guest
Re: Defense Mechanisms ~ A Primer
« Reply #3 on: October 04, 2006, 04:04:31 PM »
Hi PB,

  I thought it was a bit different, too. The more I study the list, the more I recognize my own uses of these mechanisms and see how they can morph from defensive to offensive without proper attention. Intellectualization is a big one, and Reaction Formation! I didn't even know what that meant till I read this, but it's been something that's plagued me for a long while... seemingly throwing myself into the midst of situations in an attempt to overcome fear. And yeah, it can help to overcome... or it can become a self defeating, damaging pattern.  If you want to share any examples you come up with, I'd like to hear them... sometimes I draw a big blank when first signs of recognition begin to break through and further discussion helps to work it out.

Hi Portia,

  I've asked myself on several occasions why do I come here. Well, the fact is, I continue to learn and also I hope that the sharing benefits others. I'm glad you're still posting, too.

In reading the author's views of society, I assumed she meant the "majority" within that society, not only the leadership, and not 100% of the population.
Yes, I think it's possible for a group to develop a "one brain" mentality, especially when there is a perceived threat... a sense of "nationalism" or even, within a religious group, "denominationalism". Power in numbers, power in unity, blah, blah... I dunno.

Re: leaders....  By the very nature of the job they do, the fact that they want to do it makes me suspicious of their mental balance!

I tend to share this view. However, I'm familiar with some leaders who give every evidence of having what I can only term a special "annointing" for their position. If we compare leadership (of a country or a church) to the role of parental authority... oh, what a debate we could have  :shock:   I'm no debater, so I'd be far afield to take on the last portion of your post. One thing, though...
Until we agree that killing is stupid, we can hardly call any country ‘healthy’.  That doesn't make logical sense to me. I think that ometimes killing is necessary, for the purpose of self-defense. If an imminent threat is not dealt with, a food shortage will be the least of concerns, as there won't be any people left to feed.

No system is perfect, that's for sure, and I can relate to what you've expressed here, Portia. In some ways, this sort of message strikes me as one big pep-talk that's designed to inspire a rousing "all for one and one for all"... to which I say, "not necessarily".
And yet, to me, anarchy = chaos, so all things considered... I appreciate those who seek to unify the group under a strong defense, to maintain order, and to keep the "wolf" at bay. I just don't think that human nature allows for the possibility of remaining neutral, passive, or non-aggressive, nor do I believe that there will be an end to wars until this earth passes away. Ever peruse the book of Revelation? Interesting read!

Hope






Portia

  • Guest
Re: Defense Mechanisms ~ A Primer
« Reply #4 on: October 05, 2006, 05:46:40 AM »
Hi Hope,
thanks for your reply and for saying you’re glad I’m still posting – if someone tells me that, hey I feel useful, wanted! I do like to feel ‘useful’ and we all like to belong to a group (I think we just have to think critically about any group we belong to, if you see what I mean). About the debate part, which I’ll get over quickly I hope :D:

Until we agree that killing is stupid, we can hardly call any country ‘healthy’.  That doesn't make logical sense to me. I think that ometimes killing is necessary, for the purpose of self-defense. If an imminent threat is not dealt with, a food shortage will be the least of concerns, as there won't be any people left to feed.

I was being idealistic, in thinking that just maybe one day we could agree to live as one race on one planet and just maybe the notion of ‘enemy’ won’t be relevant, so we wouldn’t need self-defence. John Lennon’s ‘Imagine’. I hold a hope that humans don’t need to respond to the flight or fight response (feel it but not act on it). If I’m being pragmatic, the group needs enough food. If the group is the race, well, we could cut the food intake by reducing the population and that could be by not breeding so much, rather than ‘culling’ (what a euphemism that is). But more pragmatically, if someone wants to take my food today and hurt my loved ones, yeah, I’m going to defend them. I’ve read some of Revelation, yes, and Genesis too.

I just don't think that human nature allows for the possibility of remaining neutral, passive, or non-aggressive

“Human nature” – what do you mean by human nature? The way our brains are constructed? We can change our brains to an extent… I’m not sure we could remain non-aggressive; I think maybe non-aggression is something we have to work hard to accomplish? A bit like learning not to grab other people’s food, have sex willy-nilly or queue-jump. Some of it is taught for social reasons, some of it can be learned for pleasure (the pleasure of mastering our own brain).?

Examples of defence mechanisms, I had a go but decided I was waffling a lot and hit delete. Google on "Coping Mechanisms" produces results such as this: http://changingminds.org/explanations/behaviors/coping/coping.htm which has lots of examples such as for

Reaction Formation:

A person who is angry with a colleague actually ends up being particularly courteous and friendly towards them.
A man who is gay has a number of conspicuous heterosexual affairs and openly criticizes gays.
A mother who has a child she does not want becomes very protective of the child.
An alcoholic extols the virtues of abstinence.

Portia

  • Guest
Re: Defense Mechanisms ~ A Primer
« Reply #5 on: October 05, 2006, 07:10:34 AM »
This made me smile Hope: from the site above, under defense mechanisms, one of Freud's originals:

Reality Anxiety
This is the most basic form of anxiety and is typically based on fears of real and possible events, such as being bitten by a dog or falling from a ladder.

The most common way of reducing tension from Reality Anxiety is taking oneself away from the situation, running away from the dog or simply refusing to go up the ladder.


I'd call that logic! Yah, anxiety is not always a 'problem', sometimes it's a very helpful indicator that you are in danger. The more i think, the more I think I don't have many problems these days. Reading this kind of stuff, you can imagine that anything you feel or think could be 'disordered' or 'unhealthy' but really......being human isn't so bad. 8)

Certain Hope

  • Guest
Re: Defense Mechanisms ~ A Primer
« Reply #6 on: October 07, 2006, 10:24:22 AM »
Hi Portia,

  I'm sorry to have left this one hanging! Seems I've been avoiding the formulation of a response to your question re: "human nature" . Yes, I am a coward when I smell a debate in the air. Not saying you're trying to debate, just I'm well aware of how inept I am at this sort of discussion, because often the response is... "well, those are your beliefs, not necessarily true". And of course, that's a fact... my beliefs are not necessarily right, simply by virtue of the fact that they're mine.  :) However, I do believe in absolute truth... not everything is gray and subjective, imo. Anyway..... To locate the exact thread where you'd asked about this, I went through your profile, recent posts, and  saw where you'd said on another thread,

"People are people are people are people are people……..

Not good. Not bad. Human. Good acts, bad acts sometimes but people are not wholly good or bad....skippety skip skippy....tum-te-tum..."


That is the basic gist of what I meant by "human nature"... "people are people". In other words, we're all fallible. we make mistakes, we tend to be self-centered, we hurt other human beings (whether intentionally or not), we are not naturally as pure as the driven snow in our interpersonal relationships, much less in our relationship to our Creator.

My beliefs, based on the Bible, take that assessment a step further (a giant leap?) to say that all human beings have a natural propensity, or bent, toward evil, since the "fall" of mankind in the Garden of Eden. So when I refer to human nature, I mean the sinful nature which one man, Adam, passed on to each and every one of his descendents except for Jesus, who was God in the flesh. Now there's a load of dogma  :shock: SO....no, it's not about the way our brains are constructed, it's about the corruption of our spirit which requires a new birth in order to be redeemed from depravity, according to my knowledge (I like that better than IMO).

On this:
thanks for your reply and for saying you’re glad I’m still posting – if someone tells me that, hey I feel useful, wanted! I do like to feel ‘useful’ and we all like to belong to a group (I think we just have to think critically about any group we belong to, if you see what I mean).

You're welcome! I really mean it! You encourage me to think through some things that I tend to assume are "givens" in everyone's mind and define the terms better for myself. And I absolutely agree that we need to think critically and not ever just go blindly along with the group simply for the sake of being a member. I've been a part of enough groups to be well aware of the degree tp which they can run amock... especially when the most vocal members have a few loose screws and/or leadership is weak.

Thanks for the examples on Reaction Formation... that particular mechanism has played a major role in my life and I was absolutely unaware. Alot of it also seems to be wrapped up in having been such a people-pleaser.


Re:
Reality Anxiety
This is the most basic form of anxiety and is typically based on fears of real and possible events, such as being bitten by a dog or falling from a ladder.

The most common way of reducing tension from Reality Anxiety is taking oneself away from the situation, running away from the dog or simply refusing to go up the ladder.
I'd call that logic! Yah, anxiety is not always a 'problem', sometimes it's a very helpful indicator that you are in danger.



YES!! It's so simple. But you see... when I was a girl, I'd be helping my dad with some project and get my finger smashed by his hammer... or he'd tell me to plug in an outdoor electrical cord which was damp and I'd get a jolt... and when I'd express doubt in his next directive to me, he'd shrug it off as foolishness. If I asked a question re: doing whatever in the manner he'd planned, he'd become irate and ask me, did I think he was just born yesterday? I was, in his words, a "knucklehead", for doubting him.
No more.

Thanks Portia.

Hope

P.S.   Sov + Safe... thanks for the link! Marking it to favorites to review later.

 ~ on edit ~  oops, I see it's a link to a book and my book budget is kapoot! There's alot of info available online re: this topic tho... years ago I'd read quite a bit about the Enneagram stuff, but not much stuck in the cobwebs of my brain. Will research further!
« Last Edit: October 07, 2006, 10:29:31 AM by Certain Hope »