DEFENSE MECHANISMS AS RELATED TO PSYCHOLOGY
WHAT ARE DEFENSE MECHANISMS AS RELATED TO PSYCHOLOGY?
You've probably heard about "defense mechanisms," or ways that we protect ourselves from things that we don't want to think about or deal with. The term started in Freud's psychoanalytic therapy, but it has slowly worked its way into our everyday language. Think of the last time you referred to someone as being "in denial" or accused someone of "rationalizing."
SEE PICTURE TO THE LEFT FOR THE 9 DEFENSE MECHANISMS...
DENIAL AND RATIONALIZING:
Both of these are examples refer to a type of defense mechanism.
Sigmund Freud noted a number of ego defenses which he refers to throughout his written works. His daughter Anna Freud developed these ideas and elaborated on them, adding five of her own. Many other psychoanalysts have also added further types of ego defenses.
Freud once said, "Life is not easy!" The ego -- the "I" -- sits at the center of some pretty powerful forces: reality; society, as represented by the superego; biology, as represented by the Id.
When these make conflicting demands upon the poor ego, it is understandable if you feel threatened, fell overwhelmed, feel as if it were about to collapse under the weight of it all. This feeling is called anxiety, and it serves as a signal to the ego that its survival, and with it the survival of the whole organism, is in jeopardy.
In order to deal with conflict and problems in life, Freud stated that the ego employs a range of defense mechanisms. defense mechanisms operate at an unconscious level and help ward off unpleasant feelings (i.e. anxiety) or make good things feel better for the individual.
NOTE: People who are struggling beyond normal with this issue in general
at their psychological core likely have “arrested emotional development”. MORE LINKED ABOVE...
For the treatment method I recommend click the “Emotional Intelligence Therapy” link above.
You've probably heard about "defense mechanisms," or ways that we protect ourselves from things that we don't want to think about or deal with. The term started in Freud's psychoanalytic therapy, but it has slowly worked its way into our everyday language. Think of the last time you referred to someone as being "in denial" or accused someone of "rationalizing."
SEE PICTURE TO THE LEFT FOR THE 9 DEFENSE MECHANISMS...
DENIAL AND RATIONALIZING:
Both of these are examples refer to a type of defense mechanism.
Sigmund Freud noted a number of ego defenses which he refers to throughout his written works. His daughter Anna Freud developed these ideas and elaborated on them, adding five of her own. Many other psychoanalysts have also added further types of ego defenses.
Freud once said, "Life is not easy!" The ego -- the "I" -- sits at the center of some pretty powerful forces: reality; society, as represented by the superego; biology, as represented by the Id.
When these make conflicting demands upon the poor ego, it is understandable if you feel threatened, fell overwhelmed, feel as if it were about to collapse under the weight of it all. This feeling is called anxiety, and it serves as a signal to the ego that its survival, and with it the survival of the whole organism, is in jeopardy.
In order to deal with conflict and problems in life, Freud stated that the ego employs a range of defense mechanisms. defense mechanisms operate at an unconscious level and help ward off unpleasant feelings (i.e. anxiety) or make good things feel better for the individual.
NOTE: People who are struggling beyond normal with this issue in general
at their psychological core likely have “arrested emotional development”. MORE LINKED ABOVE...
For the treatment method I recommend click the “Emotional Intelligence Therapy” link above.
Notes: Psychological Defense Mechanisms
The intellectual disturbances detailed below are groups of automated considering, and are to be recognized from [logical fallacies]].
All-or-nothing thinking: seeing factors in dark or white-colored in contrast to colors of gray; considering with regards to incorrect problems. Breaking includes using conditions like "always", "every" or "never" when this is neither real, nor comparative to the fact.
1 Example: A slimmer recognizes eating a chew of ice lotion as a complete failing that damaged his or her whole diet
Overgeneralization: Creating quick overview from inadequate encounters and proof.
2 Example: A individual is alone and often usually spends most of her time at home. Her buddies sometimes ask her to come out for supper and make new buddies. She seems it is ineffective to try to fulfill people. No one really could like her.
Mental filter: in the middle of positivity or neutrality, concentrating entirely on adverse rather than seeing the whole picture
3 Example: After getting feedback about a work demonstration, a individual disregards all of the beneficial reviews and concentrates on the single crucial comment
Disqualifying the positive: beneficial activities are reduced, making emotions of inadequacy
4 Example: Even when a individual does a excellent job, they refuse their achievements and say it wasn't that excellent or impressive
Jumping to conclusions: attaining initial results (usually negative) from little (if any) proof. Two particular subtypes are identified:
Mind reading: Inferring a people possible or potential (usually negative) ideas from their activities and non-verbal communication; supposing the most serious without asking the individual.
5 Example: A student represents the visitors of their document have already created up their thoughts concerning its subject, and therefore composing the document is a useless exercise
Fortune-telling: forecasting adverse results of events
6 Example: Being assured of failing before a test
Magnification and minimization – Providing proportionally higher bodyweight to a recognized failing, weak point or risk, or smaller bodyweight to a recognized achievements, durability or chance, so the bodyweight varies from that allocated to the occasion or factor by others. This is common enough in the regular inhabitants to popularize idioms such as "make a hill out of a molehill". In frustrated customers, often the beneficial features of other people are overstated and adverse features are moderate. There is one subtype of magnification:
Catastrophizing – Providing higher bodyweight to the most serious possible result, however unlikely, or suffering from a scenario as intolerable or difficult when it is just unpleasant.
Emotional reasoning: supposing that negative thoughts reveal the real characteristics of factors, and suffering from truth as a expression of psychologically connected thoughts
7 Example: "I feel (i.e. think that I am) ridiculous or tedious, therefore I must be." Or, sensation that worry of traveling in aircraft means aircraft are a very risky way to journey. Or, finishing that it's despairing to fresh a person's house due to being confused by the possibilities of washing.
Should statements: styles of ethical thinking based on what a individual fairly should or ought to do rather than the particular case the individual is experienced with, or contouring strenuously to ethical specific imperatives which, by meaning, "always apply". Jordan Ellis known as this "musturbation".
8 Example: After a performance, a piano player seems he or she should not have created so many errors. Or, while awaiting an consultation, considering that the company should be promptly, and sensation nasty and exacerbated consequently.
Labeling and mislabeling: a more serious type of overgeneralization; linking an unreasonable brand, switching a individual into nothing more than their activities. Rather than explaining the particular activities, the individual designates a brand to someone or something that indicates the personality of that individual or factor. Mislabeling includes explaining a meeting with terminology that has a powerful significance of a people assessment of the occasion.
9 Example: Instead of knowing that you created an error, you believe that you are a loss. Or, someone who created a bad first impact is a "jerk".
Personalization – Attribution of personal liability (or causal part or blame) for activities over which a individual has no management.
10 Example: A mom whose kid is having difficulties in university places fault on herself entirely for being a bad mom.
Blaming: the other of personalization; having other people accountable for the damage they cause, and especially for their deliberate or irresponsible infliction of psychological problems on us.
11 Example: a partner places fault on their partner entirely for marriage problems
Fallacy of change - Depending on public management to acquire supportive activities from another individual.
Always being right - Showing priority for fact or values over the emotions of another individual.
Cognitive activities treatment[edit]
Cognitive Restructuring
Cognitive reorientating (CR) is a well-known way of treatment used to recognize and crack down maladaptive intellectual disturbances. It is generally used with people with depressive disorders.CR treatments aim to remove “automatic thoughts” which make structural or adverse opinions for people. Cognitive reorientating is the main part of Beck’s and Burn’s intellectual activities treatment (CBT).
See also:
Cognitive bias
Cognitive dissonance
Defence mechanism
Destabilisation
Emotional memory
Language and thought
List of intellectual biases
List of fallacies
Narcissistic defense sequences
Negativity effect
Parataxic distortion
Rationalization (making excuses)
Spin (public relations)
The intellectual disturbances detailed below are groups of automated considering, and are to be recognized from [logical fallacies]].
All-or-nothing thinking: seeing factors in dark or white-colored in contrast to colors of gray; considering with regards to incorrect problems. Breaking includes using conditions like "always", "every" or "never" when this is neither real, nor comparative to the fact.
1 Example: A slimmer recognizes eating a chew of ice lotion as a complete failing that damaged his or her whole diet
Overgeneralization: Creating quick overview from inadequate encounters and proof.
2 Example: A individual is alone and often usually spends most of her time at home. Her buddies sometimes ask her to come out for supper and make new buddies. She seems it is ineffective to try to fulfill people. No one really could like her.
Mental filter: in the middle of positivity or neutrality, concentrating entirely on adverse rather than seeing the whole picture
3 Example: After getting feedback about a work demonstration, a individual disregards all of the beneficial reviews and concentrates on the single crucial comment
Disqualifying the positive: beneficial activities are reduced, making emotions of inadequacy
4 Example: Even when a individual does a excellent job, they refuse their achievements and say it wasn't that excellent or impressive
Jumping to conclusions: attaining initial results (usually negative) from little (if any) proof. Two particular subtypes are identified:
Mind reading: Inferring a people possible or potential (usually negative) ideas from their activities and non-verbal communication; supposing the most serious without asking the individual.
5 Example: A student represents the visitors of their document have already created up their thoughts concerning its subject, and therefore composing the document is a useless exercise
Fortune-telling: forecasting adverse results of events
6 Example: Being assured of failing before a test
Magnification and minimization – Providing proportionally higher bodyweight to a recognized failing, weak point or risk, or smaller bodyweight to a recognized achievements, durability or chance, so the bodyweight varies from that allocated to the occasion or factor by others. This is common enough in the regular inhabitants to popularize idioms such as "make a hill out of a molehill". In frustrated customers, often the beneficial features of other people are overstated and adverse features are moderate. There is one subtype of magnification:
Catastrophizing – Providing higher bodyweight to the most serious possible result, however unlikely, or suffering from a scenario as intolerable or difficult when it is just unpleasant.
Emotional reasoning: supposing that negative thoughts reveal the real characteristics of factors, and suffering from truth as a expression of psychologically connected thoughts
7 Example: "I feel (i.e. think that I am) ridiculous or tedious, therefore I must be." Or, sensation that worry of traveling in aircraft means aircraft are a very risky way to journey. Or, finishing that it's despairing to fresh a person's house due to being confused by the possibilities of washing.
Should statements: styles of ethical thinking based on what a individual fairly should or ought to do rather than the particular case the individual is experienced with, or contouring strenuously to ethical specific imperatives which, by meaning, "always apply". Jordan Ellis known as this "musturbation".
8 Example: After a performance, a piano player seems he or she should not have created so many errors. Or, while awaiting an consultation, considering that the company should be promptly, and sensation nasty and exacerbated consequently.
Labeling and mislabeling: a more serious type of overgeneralization; linking an unreasonable brand, switching a individual into nothing more than their activities. Rather than explaining the particular activities, the individual designates a brand to someone or something that indicates the personality of that individual or factor. Mislabeling includes explaining a meeting with terminology that has a powerful significance of a people assessment of the occasion.
9 Example: Instead of knowing that you created an error, you believe that you are a loss. Or, someone who created a bad first impact is a "jerk".
Personalization – Attribution of personal liability (or causal part or blame) for activities over which a individual has no management.
10 Example: A mom whose kid is having difficulties in university places fault on herself entirely for being a bad mom.
Blaming: the other of personalization; having other people accountable for the damage they cause, and especially for their deliberate or irresponsible infliction of psychological problems on us.
11 Example: a partner places fault on their partner entirely for marriage problems
Fallacy of change - Depending on public management to acquire supportive activities from another individual.
Always being right - Showing priority for fact or values over the emotions of another individual.
Cognitive activities treatment[edit]
Cognitive Restructuring
Cognitive reorientating (CR) is a well-known way of treatment used to recognize and crack down maladaptive intellectual disturbances. It is generally used with people with depressive disorders.CR treatments aim to remove “automatic thoughts” which make structural or adverse opinions for people. Cognitive reorientating is the main part of Beck’s and Burn’s intellectual activities treatment (CBT).
See also:
Cognitive bias
Cognitive dissonance
Defence mechanism
Destabilisation
Emotional memory
Language and thought
List of intellectual biases
List of fallacies
Narcissistic defense sequences
Negativity effect
Parataxic distortion
Rationalization (making excuses)
Spin (public relations)