Well, Toby, let me give you an example.

One of the "truths" of life is that eventually everyone dies, either violently as through accident, warfare, murder, etc., or by a physical decline and illness, or perhaps by means of suicide. The ego cannot face up to the fact of its own demise, its own ending, so some kind of defense mechanism is needed. What kind of mechanism is employed depends upon the developmental level of the personality.

1. psychotic defense: "I look human, but actually my body is made of rare elements from another planet and so is not subject to death like the bodies of ordinary people."

2. immature defense: Whenever a certain person begins to think about death, she finds someone to have sex with. This is the defense mechanism called "acting out."

3. neurotic defense: "I'm not afraid of death because when I die I am certain to be in heaven with God and all my old friends and family will be there too." This is the defense mechanism called "rationalization."

4. mature defense: "My whole approach to marriage is simple: my wife will do something that drives me insane, I won't say anything, and then, later, I'll die of cancer." This is the defense called "humor."

To answer your questions:

Defense mechanisms have nothing to do with the truth or falsity of an idea. They really have nothing to do with ideas at all. It is much more basic than that. For example, I write something which I claim is scientific but really is nonsense. Dr. Robert calls me on it and proves it false. Then I tell Dr. Robert that his work is "unsupported by accepted scientific views." This is the defense mechanism called "projection," which means that I accuse someone else of having a problem which is really my problem.
Another example, a beautiful, shapely woman walks into the room. A rather plain woman who does not even know the hottie comments, "Just another dumb blonde." This is the defense mechanism called "devaluation," and in this case it serves to protect the plain woman against her unacknowledged feelings of inferiority.

Ego is the motivating force behind everything. Theoretically there is a state of egolessness, called "enlightenment," but that state would also be beyond normal psychology and so does not pertain to any of this.

Your example:

1. Person A is acting very superior and makes it evident in all he says, he doesn't necessarily even call anyone else inferior.
2. Person B notices how person A acts and starts flaming him."

1. The superior act is a defense mechanism called "compensation." It is used by someone who has hidden, unacknowledged doubts about his or her powers. For example, someone with ordinary, second-rate ideas corrects others' grammar (translation: "I don't have to consider your ideas or respond to them, because your bad grammar proves I am smarter than you.").
2.The flaming is a defense mechanism called "splitting," which means experiencing oneself or someone else as either all good or all bad.

Now, regarding self-analysis of defenses, here is an analysis of one of my recent actions:
When I asked everyone to stop flaming Adam, I probably, without realizing at the time, was employing a neurotic defense mechanism called "reaction formation," which means to replace an unacceptable impulse (I'm really enjoying seeing this guy who attacked me coming under some heavy fire himself. I hope they take off the gloves, and really sock it to him) with its exact opposite (Let's all be nice).

Hope this helps, Toby. I would like to see this kind of analysis of both self and others replace some of the flaming which clogs up the system here a bit too much for my taste.

How about this one? My body is merely an instrument, created by semen and blood. It is not me, for I am so much more then this mass of decaying flesh.

The more I see it, the more I'm disgusted by humans actually. Even the most beautiful whore walking the planet is nothing more then worm food if you think about it.

I can think that way if I tried....is that more intellectualization or repression of what is really there???

What kind of a mechanism about death is this then? I know i'll die, sooner or later. I don't believe there is anything after we die. The thing that makes us "us" simply ceases to exist in any shape or form. When it's over it's over but i don't fear death, it's the absolute and unshakeable destination of everything that is. I can't fathom how hard is it to imagine it. People have said "what, so there will just be darkness?" I say "no, darkness is. When you die there is no definition of the state that you. yourself, can perceive".

This doesn't make me apathetic towards life though, as i've said it here on some occasions that i do enjoy the things that i enjoy about life.

To paraphrase Bill Clinton ("It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."), it depends on what the meaning of the word "me" is. Hexi puts forth the view that "me" is something the brain and body do, and when the heart stops, or whatever, that "me" ends entirely. That's why he, correctly in my view, sees that condition as unimaginable. This is very much the current view among scientists and philosophers.

Lightbearer puts forth an older view, present across many of the wisdom traditions--Vedanta, for example, or Tibetan Buddhism--that the self exists apart from any materiality (prior to it, as this is sometimes expressed), arising perpetually or eternally in a field of energy or "thought."

This changes the direction of the thread from defense mechanisms to metaphysics, but OK, perhaps there is not the same interest in the way the ego deals with perceived threats as there is in a much more speculative conversation about what the ego is or is not.

In any case, I am happy to be back in a relatively sane world, which offers some possibility of intelligent discourse, after the recent boring descent into flaming absurdity.

Dr.Robert wrote:
The ego, or sense of self, is remarkably fragile and requires protection. This is so regularly observed that it has become an undeniable truism in psychology. This protection is provided by the so-called "defense mechanisms," the aim of which is to shield the ego against any truths or facts which might threaten to overwhelm it—in other words, the defense mechanisms serve to protect the integrity of the ego. They are adaptive.


I would like to inquire what happens if a defense mechanism isn't used, or if it fails to protect the integrity of the ego?

What are potential outcomes of ineffective defense mechanisms?

Is the Ego shattered? And what would be the symptoms of this process? And if this did occur, how does the ego recover, if at all?

Thanks for those intelligent insights Dr Robert. The only issue that perplexes me is your view that no-one can help their defence mechanisms.

Is this really true when at their extremes, some are shifting blame, distorting and deflecting inescapable evidence of their behaviours, denying accountability and manipulating situations for their advantage to the detriment of other people's well being?

At the very least when someone is presented with clear proof that they are in denial, is it really true that they still do not have any insight into their behaviour? Some experiences I have had in this regard seem to show that confronted by such things some people either remain silent, having run out of excuses, or after a pregnant pause renew their denials after frantically searching their minds for yet further excuses or explanations.

Doesn't that indicate that they are consciously producing devious behaviour in order to head off the truth about themselves? If that is the case then are at least some defence mechanisms more conscious and calculating than we might have assumed?

Jodartha,
The exposed ego cannot survive, so a defense mechanism is always needed and always used. The only possible exception might be the theoretical state of perfect enlightenment in which, it is said, the ego is "transcended," whatever that means. The question is not whether or if a defense mechaism is used, but how mature or archaic the particular mechanism is. For example, laughing at a joke about dying is on the mature side, while maintaining that I will never die because I am special and not, like other humans, subject to death, is archaic, meaning that it is a mechanism that normally would be used early in psychological development. If one mechanism fails to provide sufficient protection, another will take its place, even if that means that the person, for example, falls into a completely delusional state.

For example, if I habitually protect my weak ego by pretending superiority to others, and that fails because a number of people point out that I am not superior, I might have to fall back on the delusion that I have a special mission in the world which my critics simply cannot understand. We saw this kind of thing recently, as you remember.

Leonard,
You are most welcome. And welcome to the forum.

A person might consciously play around with facts by denying evidence of something, but that denial will not be a defense mechanism but rather an attempt to control or manipulate. Deviousness is not a psychological defense mechanism, but an attempt to fool someone else or gain some kind of advantage. A defense mechanism is an unconscious operation, not aimed at anyone else, but aimed internally at protecting the ego against disintegration in the face of an unacceptable truth. Although a defense mechanism is normally unconsciously employed, an aware and mature person could become aware of having used one—probably after the fact. I gave an example of this earlier in this thread:

When I asked everyone to stop flaming Adam, I probably, without realizing at the time, was employing a neurotic defense mechanism called "reaction formation," which means to replace an unacceptable impulse (I'm really enjoying seeing this guy who attacked me coming under some heavy fire himself. I hope they take off the gloves, and really sock it to him) with its exact opposite (Let's all be nice).

Here is one more example of a defense mechanism: I fail an exam and then tell myself that my failure was not due to my lack of preparation, but due to unfairness of the exam.

I hope this answers the questions you both posed.

Be well..

Dr. Robert Saltzman,

Is it possible for one to erase from memory something he/she has said or done within seconds of saying or doing it, or it it more likely that person is lying?

Sylvia--
This does not sound like idle curiosity. Why do you want to know this?

I want to know the answer because my husband has frequently denied saying or doing what I know he said/did when talking or otherwise interacting with me.

Maybe your husband is just a freaking liar like mine. It comes naturally to my guy. He lies to me about everything. Including that he has had several girlfriends since we got married. He denies it, but I know better. He even lies when he has no reason to lie. He just likes to lie.

When I read this, I was reminded of instances where I have heard something different from what was actually said.

Did they lie? Did I misunderstand? Did they forget what they said? I don't know. I just know that it wasn't clear to me.

Can you give more details? This questions begs for specifics. Otherwise, I just refer to my experiences, which are probably nothing like yours.

When dealing with very defensive people who routinely also lie in order to hide their defensiveness, I realise that some become very practised at speaking in riddles, deflecting questions and dodging issues.

They will say anything that comes into their head to put off being direct or straightforward. Unless they have a perfect recall, they can get found out, but it requires almost forensic logging of what they previously said, because they can sound so convincing.

Someone I know is so skilled at dodging and hedging that she has become a virtuoso at doing this. She can completely contradict what she said the day before and then make you feel that you misheard the first time, or that you didn't take in what she said. In fact you did listen first time, but she's convinced you that it's you that has the problem.

I got taken in for a long while, until I started really concentrating on everything she said, then began to confront her about these deceptions. Once she was rumbled, she attempted to change the subject or went silent, desperately scrabbling around for a new angle. Bingo! Her new angle was to project back on me my exact criticism of her. I said she was controlling, and now apparently I am controlling. I said she was spiteful, but now I am apparently spiteful.

In the field of defensiveness and resultant deception, some people have spent a lifetime improving those deception skills. They are very hard to deal with.

Very well put.