The Empirical Manifesto

Dawning comprehension of how psychology is applicable is an unending source of fascination for me. I had previously regurgitated a stock definition of the defense mechanism, "projection" in my post The Sustainability of Blame. While a fairly straight-forward concept, I wasn't thinking at the time of any real practical application, or example of projection in action - and may very well never had, excepting a short, personal recounting I ran across by Storylane author Elandus Lake about what his father always said:

When there is no evidence, the thing that you think someone else is doing is the very thing that you would, or are, doing yourself. Your thoughts come from you not someone else. If you think someone is doing something wrong, and there's no reason for you to think that way, you are the person who came up with the possibility.

For me, it puts a face on psychological projection, and allows me to step back and consider the possibility that my conclusions are based on my own filtered perception, and not necessarily the truth. Mr. Lake went on to further explain how even "tone" in a conversation can be misrepresented through projection. Just because I may use that tone when I am angry or defensive, doesn't mean that the person I am communicating with is using it for that purpose - they may use "tone" entirely differently.

It reminds me of when I was in a high-level vendor meeting with an IT sales guy pitching these fantastic throughputs of their new RAID array. Fantastic because they were false. While he was talking Ernest was jotting down equations and numbers and when the sales guy finally took a breath, Ernest - in a very shaky voice (I thought he was nervous about public speaking) - disproved the throughput numbers to the point the sales guy recanted. I asked Ernest about that later. He wasn't nervous, he was attempting to curb his anger. I totally misread that tone!

Re-reading The Sustainability of Blame reminded me that I really do believe we are all, in part, responsible for what happens around us. Our choices, our attitudes, and the nature of causality - even when we're anticipating (notice I didn't say expecting) different outcomes. Because that is one of my core beliefs, I would never insinuate it wasn't. For me to insinuate fault, or blame would mean I did believe in it, but I didn't want anyone to think I did. Are insinuations therefore subject to projection as well?

I don't know, but with this new found understanding, it just adds one more thing to the list I need to be mindful of.

If you want to truly understand something, try to change it.
~Kurt Lewin



There are many complex things I can pare down to simple patterns of behavior. I can also just as easily over-complicate what should be an entirely benign matter. Why the difference? For me, is the nuanced eddies which dance around any given subject - some are cacophonous and erratic, others appear as single melodies in a greater orchestration - order in chaos versus the sheer terror of its abjectness. But that doesn't really tell the whole story, does it? While I can see the individual notes to be plucked from a symphony, I cannot hear the colors of the wind. I admit to occasionally over-complicating simple matters to those who will readily agree, yet disavow they ever over-simplify complex things. Such stark dichotomy never ceases to amaze me.

I applaud Occam and his deft razor, but argue the over-simplification of his theorem that the simplest answer is likely the true one, rather than truth is more likely to be found from that which makes the fewest assumptions - which is obviously self-defeating in the given scenario - for it adds complexity to an otherwise common, if slightly misunderstood, principle of simplicity. Yet simplicity is a complex undertaking. You cannot reach simplicity without understanding the complexity and subtleties of your topic. Which is all I'm ever trying to ferret out. My goal is never to over-complicate nor over-simplify, rather to reach mutual understanding. And this my friends, is rarely easy.

In Difficult Conversations: Nine Common Mistakes, based on Holly Weeks Failure to Communicate, the first trap we (yes, I included) fall into is a combative mentality - demarcating a clear "winner" or "loser" which is the opposite of mutual understanding. Honestly, I don't care if you agree with me or not, but I would appreciate the courtesy of you understanding my point of view as I endeavor to understand yours.

As an aside, if you are unable to articulate your point of view, its not my understanding, nor respect which is at fault here.

What I have found most fascinating is not the troublesome differences in communicative styles or variations of definitions or even discordant terminology which is at fault - all of those things can be overcome with what does seem to be the culprit: A willingness and eagerness to understand. It is that above all else which appears to be the roadblock in mutual communication.

As I've stated, I don't care if you agree with me or not, but there are those out there who do. They liken a counter viewpoint as a personal attack on their character. People, I know you think this sounds far too far-fetched to be true, but I have come across it time and again. One of the most difficult aspects of this particularly disturbing psychology is its hidden nature - either they are not aware of it, or don't understand why its a fallacy. My disagreement isn't an inharmonious quest for discontent, its a desire to be understood, and in turn, understand.

There is always a reason behind not wanting mutual understanding, whatever it may be. Perhaps its just an over-simplified solution to a complex challenge.



It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent.
It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.
~Charles Darwin