home Auditorium 8 Psychic reality as an experience and as an activity. Psychic reality. What is psychological protection

Psychic reality as an experience and as an activity. Psychic reality. What is psychological protection

Experiments in psychology are carried out for scientific and practical purposes. Differing in the possibilities of subsequent generalizations, they are planned and constructed according to similar standards in the part where the requirements characteristic of the experimental method are set for the collection of empirical data and the ability to explain the patterns identified. There are two traditions that, to varying degrees, emphasize the status of the experimental method:

1) classifying it as an empirical method;

2) understanding of the experimental method as a certain logic of the researcher’s reasoning.

Accordingly, we can distinguish standards of activity in the structure of the experimental method and standards of scientific thinking.

An important part of psychological experiments is the assumption of the possibility of identifying patterns in them that can be considered in the context of a causal explanation of the psychological reality being studied. That is why it is very important to clearly understand what psychological reality is and what are the methods for studying it.

1. The concept of “psychological reality”

The concept of “psychological reality” is of fundamental importance for psychology. We are talking about a phenomenological orientation, which requires considering all phenomena of the perceived world as givens (facts) of consciousness, and not objective, that is, realities independent of the perceiving consciousness. In this regard, the individual reacts not to the “actual” state of affairs, but to what state of affairs seems to him to be real.

Somewhat softening the distinctive pathos of the Spanish philosopher, we can say that all participants in the interaction still have a certain common segment of perception. Despite all the different interpretations, none of them would think of perceiving what was happening as a social event or a vacation on a tropical beach. In the approach we share, such a general segment is usually called a “zone of relevance” (A. Schütz). Zones of relevance are intersubjective in nature and represent a product of the solidarity of the current society. Something is considered to be this and that. The presence of zones of relevance ensures consistent human action, largely depriving it of uniqueness. At the same time, each interacting person perceives and experiences the situation as unique. For now, we will only note that the situation described by Ortega y Gasset would be more accurately qualified not as a difference in events, but as a discrepancy in interpretations of subjects of interaction of different statuses.

At the same time, the factuality of a person’s death, involvement in it constitutes the existential basis of the situation, what all communicants perceive as the actual state of affairs, as authenticity or reality. This means that reality for us is everything whose existence we do not doubt. The reality of the psyche in the case under consideration is the experiences and feelings of the participants in the event, acts of mutual perception and self-perception, the general atmosphere of presence, called “psychological climate” in socio-psychological treatises. It is obvious that each of the characters is aware, to one degree or another, of both their own experiences and the feelings of their interaction partners. Their presence has the status of factuality for them. At the same time, it can be argued that the perceptions of those present are contextually determined by the relations of relevance, by what is consensual.

This interpretation of reality does not allow us to consider the content of human relations in a simplified dichotomy of “objective - subjective”. Taking into account the meaning of zones of relevance introduced above, we must talk about the complex nature of human phenomena - objectified subjectivity, processes of objectification and even ontologization (giving phenomena an existential (not activity) status, as well as deontologization and, in some cases, derealization (disappearance of reality). At the same time apparently we should agree with the opinion that many products of human activity can be perceived by consciousness as independent of it, i.e. objective.In some cases, the products of human thinking and activity are assigned the status of natural objects, things.

The everyday semantics of “reality” is based on the opposition to “illusion,” “fiction,” and “unreal.” Thus, an atheistically oriented consciousness recognizes divine reality as illusory, considers it a distorted reflection in the human consciousness of external forces acting on him in everyday life, and contrasts it with the reality of the material world as the primary substrate of reflection. The secondary nature of consciousness in relation to being is the initial postulate, the foundation on which the majestic edifice of materialism is erected.

Meanwhile, when faced with believers, we easily discover the fact that the reality of God appears to them as reliable (if not more) than its absence for an atheist. It is precisely this that determines the semantic and normative universe from which believing individuals draw various qualities, including psychological ones.

The points of view we have presented on the reality of God indicate not only that people are capable of endowing the same objects with mutually exclusive meanings of the real, but also that the real itself can be of different qualities, for example, supersensible. In some cases, the reality of objects is verified sensory-empirically, in others, its presence is not verifiable at all, and it itself acts as the initial condition for any and all verifications. A person is able to experimentally record many of his own mental states: through their experience and reflective attitude. He can judge some indirectly, reflected in the reactions of other people. Thanks to Freud, we know today that significant content of our mental life eludes self-observation or is expressed differently. As for the inner world of other people, the presence of zones of relevance allows us to draw conclusions about their states analogously, reproducing similar situations in our own experience. Moreover, this applies even to those phenomena that we study “objectively”. Psychological structures identified by one method or another become real for us.

At the same time, a person can be in different relationships with reality, one of which is reflexive-analytical. An atheist who exposes divine reality takes it as the subject of his creative effort, while his own reality - the reality of existence - is perceived by him as self-evident or as a basic condition for the existence of a reflexive act. This does not mean, of course, that the reality of being cannot become the subject of attention, but the conditions for such a relationship are always existentially limited. Most often, the reality of being is endowed by its subject with the status of authenticity, which is expressed in speech formulas like “in fact.” A person’s inability to decide what “really” is indicates his disorientation, and in some cases, derealization. The latter often represents the area of expertise of psychiatry.

From the above it follows that the substrate of reality is associated with what is sometimes called “dispositional determinants of behavior”: attitudes of consciousness, the cognitive complexity of the inner world, currently formed mental dominants. Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget generally believed that the idea of reality is constructed by the intellect. A number of different arguments can be given in this regard. Thus, an aesthetically developed person will perceive a classical piece of music differently than a consumer of hits, and a sexually liberal-oriented individual will evaluate the frivolous plot of a novel completely differently than a puritan. By the way, the psychological regulation of their behavior will unfold according to different models. Reality cannot be viewed only as a dispositional variable, but rather as an outcome variable. Being an intersubjective organization (having a social nature), reality is more accurately considered as an attribution of the individual. The subject entering the human world appropriates it in a long-term and socially acceptable way, and, having been assimilated, reality is perceived as the immanence of the individual. The process of assimilating the structures of reality in humanities writings is often called “socialization.” It is important to take into account that socialization deals both with the interpretation of subjective psychological structures obtained by the individual empirically, in socially acceptable meanings, and with the transmission of transcendental experience, which the individual acquires through imitation (tradition) or directed learning.

Let us consider, as an example, the experience of a small person constructing the psychological reality of another person. From numerous life observations we know that until a certain age a child is not focused on the motivation of another as a factor in his interaction with him. That is, the reality of the motive simply does not exist for him. J. Piaget's research on the “moral realism” of children is a brilliant confirmation of this.

In a series of experiments “who is more guilty”, Piaget discovered that when assessing the action of another child, the subject tends not to take into account the inner intention of the actor, but to qualify the action by its formal effect. According to Piaget's respondent, a child who violated his mother's prohibition and broke one cup is less guilty than one who broke several cups wanting to help his parent. He should be punished more severely. Only as an individual grows older and matures intellectually does he become able to abstract the psychological reality of another's motive. At the same time, if you imagine a fantastic society in which psychological reality is the object of social repression, then you can with a high degree of confidence extend moral realism into a person’s adult life.

As the famous phenomenologist A. Schutz writes in this regard, “the world existed before our birth, was experienced and interpreted by our predecessors as an organized world. It appears before us in our own experience and interpretation. But any interpretation of the world is based on previous acquaintance with it - our personally or transmitted to us by parents and teachers. This experience in the form of "present knowledge" (knowledgeathand) acts as a scheme with which we relate all our perceptions and experiences" (11,129).

This scheme also contains a set of mental indices. In a relatively homogeneous culture, individuals unambiguously interpret their own states and the states of others, resorting to the most important intersubjective subject - language. In this case, we propose to understand interpretation not only as a statement containing this or that understanding, but also as the understanding itself and the behavior associated with it, including the mechanism of psychoregulation, as discussed above. Let's turn to the promised illustration. The formerly famous Soviet and now American psychologist Vladimir Lefebvre discovered conflicting structures in the everyday consciousness of his contemporaries, which led the researcher to the conclusion that there are two alternative ethical systems in human culture.

Stereotype, typicality means, first of all, the socio-psychological status of the phenomenon of psychological reality under consideration. Moreover, as a rule, the problem of the reality of being in a homogeneous cultural environment does not arise for a person. Receiving intersubjective confirmation in the form of similar reactions of dorm partners, the individual perceives the world as self-evident, unproblematic. His difficulties begin when “his” definition of reality begins to diverge from the “reality” of other people. In some cases, psychotherapy (psychiatry) comes into play and eliminates the emerging anomaly.

The interpretation of reality shared by everyone is usually called “basic”. For a man of the ancient world, this can be considered the reality of myth, and for a medieval man - God. The latter is interestingly described by P. Sorokin in his work “Sociocultural Dynamics,” highlighting God as the system-forming principle of European medieval civilization: “All important sections of medieval culture expressed this fundamental principle or value, as it is formulated in the Christian Credo.

The architecture and sculpture of the Middle Ages were the "Bible in stone." Literature was also thoroughly permeated with religion and the Christian faith. The painting expressed the same biblical themes and lines in color. The music was almost exclusively religious in nature. Philosophy was almost identical to religion and theology and centered around the same core value or principle, which was God. Science was just a handmaiden of the Christian religion. Ethics and law represented only a further elaboration of the absolute commandments of Christianity. Political organization in its spiritual and secular spheres was predominantly theocratic and based on God and religion. The family, as a sacred religious union, expressed the same fundamental value. Even the organization of the economy was controlled by religion, which prohibited many forms of economic relations that might be appropriate and profitable, while encouraging other forms of economic activity that were inappropriate from a utilitarian point of view. The prevailing morals and customs, way of life, and thinking emphasized their unity with God as the only and highest goal, as well as their negative or indifferent attitude towards the sensory world, its wealth, joys and values."

Basic reality acts as the initial coordinate scheme for the individual, thanks to which only orientation in the world is possible. At the same time, as V. M. Rozin notes, “every person knows many realities, or rather lives in them: this is the reality of play, art, knowledge, communication, dreams, etc. Each reality sets a certain world for consciousness and is separated from other realities by boundaries conventions; logic and events that operate in one reality do not hold true in others. To simplify matters somewhat, we can say that one reality differs from another in the nature of events, the order and logic of things and relationships. In any reality, the events experienced in it are perceived as unintentional.

If reality takes possession of a person’s consciousness (or he enters reality), then a stable world arises in which very specific events take place. Having arisen, reality imposes a certain range of meanings and meanings on the consciousness, forcing it to experience certain states."

At the same time, a person, as a rule, is aware of the conventionality of all realities except the basic one. She alone is unconditional. Even experiencing the content of a dream quite deeply, we are still aware that everything is not happening in reality, and even individuals who deeply believe in the mystical connection between dreams and reality record the non-identity of these worlds. At the same time, the structuring of reality can be considered the most important cultural achievement of people, especially if we recall the textbook example of an archaic person’s failure to distinguish between the plane of dreaming and waking. The ability of our contemporary to navigate the structure of generally accepted reality is taken as the initial criterion when diagnosing a psychological norm. An individual claiming to have just had a conversation with his late grandfather is clearly problematic from a psychiatric point of view in the civilized world.

The syndrome of personal problems of a modern person is, as we see it, destruction of understanding or disorientation. Understanding, as is known, is associated to a large extent with constructing an image of the whole. The whole can be considered as the structure of the reality of being, which interacting individuals and groups “chose” for themselves as basic and relevant. Any agreed upon answer to the question of WHAT is going on? and WHAT to do? becomes problematic in a crisis situation.

Destruction in the system of basic reality makes the individual reality of the psyche problematic. How, for example, should an individual qualify his anger if, according to some unwritten rules, he must certainly repress it, and according to others, he must certainly express it. Moreover, each of these requirements can be conceptually substantiated and is based on such authorities that making a choice often turns out to be in opposition to authority, for which the individual has neither the time nor the means. This kind of situation is potentially conflicting and destructive for a person.

The individual usually finds a way out in the evidence of his own common sense. However, it is here that a huge number of dangers await him. The fact is that the main source of common sense is empirical experience, that is, the experience of sensory cognition and corresponding thinking. In a situation of symbolic redundancy, when the givens of our reality are largely formed by the media, an appeal to experience gained empirically leads to even greater disorientation of the individual, since a radical reduction to a phenomenon turns out to be simply impossible in some cases. The phenomenon is taken to be interpreted by someone else. Our perceptions and self-perceptions turn out to be hostages of sociocultural processes, without analyzing the dynamics of which any judgments about psychological reality turn out to be partial. Moreover, in analysis we increasingly discover their irrational nature.

The success of N. Copernicus’s heliocentric picture of the world would have been problematic without society’s faith in the authority of science, which was emerging at that time, since all sensory experience convinced people of the opposite, of the validity of the geocentric worldview.

The absolutization of science was of great importance for the development of interpretations of mental reality. Psychological science has arrogated to itself the right to determine the status of mental reality “in reality.” Moreover, in some cases there were attempts to generalize psychological considerations to areas traditionally far from the scientific method. We are talking about the triumph of Sigmund Freud. In this regard, let us give a successful description of Freud’s contribution to world culture created by L. Radzikhovsky.

2. Experiment and reconstruction of psychological reality

Disclosure of the concept of experimental method, from the point of view of the implemented methods of cognitive activity, involves highlighting both its commonality with other standards of scientific thinking and its specificity in relation to other possible forms of organizing psychological research.

From the point of view of the structure or organization of research, the experimental method is characterized by special forms of cognitive attitude towards the reality being studied and corresponding systems of evidence when testing psychological hypotheses. These characteristics of the standards of scientific activity are prerequisites for understanding the general principles of experimentation methodology in psychology.

One of the main standards is the assumption of the possibility of identifying patterns in a psychological experiment that can be considered in the context of a causal explanation of the psychological reality being studied. The hallmark of a causal explanation distinguishes this approach to the analysis of empirically established dependencies, which allows one to substantiate the need for relationships between causes and effects. The reality of a causal relationship is ensured by the fulfillment of a number of conditions for a causal inference or components of a causal explanation:

1) implementation of some control actions on the processes being studied or functional control of “independent variables”;

2) inclusion of empirically established patterns in the system of deductive inference.

Obviously, the establishment of a pattern is not yet the formulation of psychological laws. The law will imply a statement of a generalized nature, i.e., indicate the range within which the identified factual pattern operates. Psychological explanation involves the extension of deductive inferences to psychological reality or a model representing it. The experimental method can be considered as a method for the most rigorous comparison of deductive projections (coming from psychological theories) onto the plane of empirically established dependencies.

The experiment to some extent acts as an element in the reconstruction of psychological reality. An important standard here is for the researcher to determine his position in understanding the subject of study. This understanding includes assumptions about the adequacy of the formulated psychological concepts of subjective reality. Precisely because the psyche acts as a subjective reality, it is difficult to talk about psychological reality as independent of the research position. With the same psychological reality chosen as the subject of study, it is possible to implement different types of research as different approaches to it.

A specific feature of the ontologization of the psyche in the experimental approach is the assumption of the possibility of reconstructing unobservable basic processes that determine changes in indicators recorded and objectified in one or another psychological technique. The relationship between the methods of obtaining empirical data and theoretical reconstructions in a psychological experiment means treating psychological reality as a reality that is reconstructed and modeled (i.e., represented in one way or another in an experimental or theoretical model). Therefore, psychological reality must be understood as an object of study presented in certain psychological concepts. And if for some psychological problems the dispute between researchers will concern precisely the peculiarities of the interpretation of similar empirical patterns, then for the discussion of other problems the dispute may not take place, since the psychological reality reconstructed within the framework of one psychological approach may not be analyzed as reality within the framework of another understanding. For example, a classic here is the reference to the concepts of “repression” or “sublimation”, which are not considered by psychologists who do not share the position of Freud’s theory of personality as having anything to do with empiricism or subjective reality.

The study of psychological reality is inevitably connected with people, since the object of psychological science is groups of people and individuals. The decision to conduct a particular psychological study should be based on the conscious desire of each psychologist to make a tangible contribution to science and promote human well-being. A responsible psychologist will consider various areas where human energy and capabilities are needed, but the highest priority remains compliance with the ethical principles of conducting research on human subjects.

1. When planning an experiment, the researcher is personally responsible for making an accurate assessment of its ethical acceptability, based on research principles. If, based on this assessment and weighing scientific and human values, the researcher proposes to deviate from the principles, then he or she additionally assumes serious obligations to develop ethical guidelines and take stronger measures to protect the rights of research participants.

2. It is always the responsibility of each researcher to establish and maintain acceptable research ethics. The researcher is also responsible for the ethical treatment of research subjects by colleagues, research assistants, students, and all other employees.

3. Ethics requires that the researcher inform subjects about all aspects of the experiment that may affect their willingness to participate in it, and also answer all questions about other details of the study. The inability to see the full picture of the experiment further increases the researcher's responsibility for the well-being and dignity of the subjects.

4. Honesty and openness are important features of the relationship between researcher and subject. If concealment and deception are necessary according to the research methodology, then the researcher must explain to the subject the reasons for such actions in order to restore their relationship.

5. Research ethics requires that the researcher respect the client's right to reduce or terminate his participation in the research process at any time. The obligation to protect this right requires particular vigilance when the researcher is in a position of dominance over the participant. A decision to limit this right increases the researcher's responsibility for the dignity and well-being of the participant.

6. Ethically acceptable research begins with the establishment of a clear and fair agreement between the researcher and the participant that explains the responsibilities of the parties. The researcher is required to honor all promises and understandings included in this agreement.

7. An ethical researcher protects his clients from physical and mental discomfort, harm and danger. If the risk of such consequences exists, then the researcher is obliged to inform the subjects about this, reach agreement before starting work and take all possible measures to minimize harm. A research procedure may not be used if it is likely to cause serious and lasting harm to participants.

8. Work ethics requires that after data collection, the researcher ensures that the experiment is fully explained to the participants and that any misunderstandings that arise are resolved. If scientific or human values justify delaying or withholding information, then the researcher has a special responsibility to ensure that there are no dire consequences for his clients.

9. If a research procedure may have undesirable consequences for participants, the researcher is responsible for identifying, eliminating or correcting such consequences (including long-term ones).

10. Information obtained during the study about the participants in the experiment is confidential. If there is a possibility that other people may have access to this information, then ethical research practice requires that this possibility, as well as plans to ensure confidentiality, be explained to participants as part of the process to achieve mutual information consent.

Thus, once psychologists decide to conduct research, they must carry out their research with respect for the people involved and with concern for their dignity and well-being.

An important standard within the framework of any psychological method is the determination by the researcher of his position in understanding the subject of study. This understanding includes assumptions about the adequacy of the formulated psychological concepts of subjective reality. The psyche acts as a subjective reality, so it is difficult to talk about psychological reality as independent of the research position. J. Piaget, one of the authors of the textbook “Experimental Psychology,” proceeds from the premise of the ontological reality of the mental (ontological status of the mental), but points out the possibility of projecting various reductionist explanations onto this reality. From here it is possible to explicate a cognitive attitude towards the “subject” of research, independent of theoretical reconstructions, related to a real subject (if the psyche is considered as a property or attribute of the subject). The relationship between the methods of obtaining empirical data and theoretical reconstructions in a psychological experiment means the implementation of an attitude towards psychological reality as a reconstructed and simulated reality (i.e., represented in one way or another in an experimental or theoretical model). Further, psychological reality should be understood as the subject of study presented in certain psychological concepts. When discussing psychological problems, a dispute between researchers may concern precisely the peculiarities of interpretation of similar empirical patterns. For other problems, the debate may not take place, since the psychological reality reconstructed within the framework of one psychological approach may not be analyzed as a reality within the framework of another understanding of the psyche.

Literature

1. Burtovaya E.V. Reader on psychology - M.: Prospekt 2000

2. Ionin L. G. Sociology of culture. M.: – Logos, 1998

3. Obukhova L. F. Child psychology: theories, facts, problems. – Trivola, 1995

4. Polonnikov A. A. Essays on methods of teaching psychology. System-situational analysis of psychological interaction - Mn.: Yerevan State University, 2001.

5. Rozin V. M. Psychology: theory and practice: textbook for higher school. -M:. Publishing House "Forum", 1997.

6. Sorokin P. Sociocultural dynamics // In the book. Human. Civilization. Society. – M.: Politizdat, 1992. – P. 425 – 504.

7. Schutz A. The structure of everyday thinking. //Sociological Research, 1988. N 12 – pp. 129-137.

Essay 1. STRUCTURE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL REALITY.

1. The concept of psychological reality (mental reality)

The concept of “psychological reality” is of fundamental importance for this work. By introducing it, we emphasize the methodological orientation in which she defines herself and which makes all the statements given below not only more open to criticism, but also relieves the author of part of the responsibility for their inevitable absolutization. In this case, we are talking about a phenomenological orientation, which requires considering all phenomena of the perceived world as givens (facts) of consciousness, and not objective, that is, realities independent of the perceiving consciousness. In this regard, the individual reacts not to the “actual” state of affairs, but to what state of affairs seems to him to be real.

This means that the processes and facts of individual and group consciousness as special psychological constructs, as well as the contents dependent on these constructs, come into the focus of our attention. The essence of this position, as it seems to us, was quite successfully expressed by H. Ortega y Gasset in his work “On Phenomenology”. Let's read what he wrote.

“A man dies. At his bedside are his wife, two friends, a newspaperman whose duty of service brought him to this deathbed, and an artist who ended up here by accident. The same event - the agony of a person - is seen for each of these people from their own point of view. And these points of view are so different that they hardly have anything in common. The difference between how a grief-stricken woman perceives what is happening and an artist impartially observing this scene is such that they can be said to exist in two completely different events” (5.237).

Somewhat softening the distinctive pathos of the Spanish philosopher, we can say that all participants in the interaction still have a certain common segment of perception. Despite all the different interpretations, none of them would think of perceiving what was happening as a social event or a vacation on a tropical beach. In the approach we share, such a general segment is usually called the “zone of relevance” (A. Schütz). Zones of relevance are intersubjective in nature and represent a product of the solidarity of the current society. Something is considered to be this and that. The presence of zones of relevance ensures consistent human action, largely depriving it of uniqueness. At the same time, each interacting person perceives and experiences the situation as unique. The topic raised will be developed in more detail in the second paragraph. Here we just note that the situation described by Ortega y Gasset would be more accurately qualified not as a difference in events, but as a discrepancy in the interpretations of subjects of interaction of different statuses.

At the same time, we insist that reality cannot be viewed only as a dispositional variable, but rather as a resultant one. Being an intersubjective organization (having a social nature), reality is more accurately considered as an attribution of the individual. The subject entering the human world appropriates it in a long-term and socially acceptable way, and, having been assimilated, reality is perceived as the immanence of the individual. The process of assimilating the structures of reality in humanities writings is often called “socialization.” It is important to take into account that socialization deals both with the interpretation of subjective psychological structures obtained by the individual empirically, in socially acceptable meanings, and with the transmission of transcendental experience, which the individual acquires through imitation (tradition) or directed learning.

In a series of “who is more guilty” experiments, Piaget discovered that when assessing the action of another child, the subject tends not to take into account the actor’s internal intention, but to qualify the action by its formal effect. According to Piaget's respondent, a child who violated his mother's prohibition and broke one cup is less guilty than one who broke several cups wanting to help his parent. He should be punished more severely. Only as an individual grows older and matures intellectually does he become able to abstract the psychological reality of another's motive. At the same time, if you imagine a fantastic society in which psychological reality is the object of social repression, then you can with a high degree of confidence extend moral realism into a person’s adult life.

As the famous phenomenologist A. Schutz writes in this regard, “the world existed before our birth, was experienced and interpreted by our predecessors as an organized world. It appears to us in our own experience and interpretation. But any interpretation of the world is based on previous acquaintance with it - ours personally or transmitted to us by parents and teachers. This experience in the form of “present knowledge” ( knowledgeand ) acts as a scheme with which we relate all our perceptions and experiences” (11.129).

This scheme also contains a set of mental indices. In a relatively homogeneous culture, individuals unambiguously interpret their own states and the states of others, resorting to the most important intersubjective subject-language. In this case, we propose to understand interpretation not only as a statement containing this or that understanding, but also as the understanding itself and the behavior associated with it, including the mechanism of psychoregulation, as discussed above. Let's turn to the promised illustration. The formerly famous Soviet and now American psychologist Vladimir Lefebvre discovered conflicting structures in the everyday consciousness of his contemporaries, which led the researcher to the conclusion that there are two alternative ethical systems in human culture. V. Lefebvre shows them using the example of a saleswoman who was rude to a buyer.

“A saleswoman in an American store,” he writes, “will lose self-respect if she yells at a customer, even if he is aggressive, if he is obviously wrong. And it's not because she's in danger of losing her job; she was simply raised in such a way that she would destroy her self-image if she lost her temper and screamed. For her, sacrificial behavior will be realized in restraint, a smile, and politeness. If the buyer completely “goes crazy,” she will depersonalize him, that is, she will treat him like a nurse in a psychiatric hospital, begin to professionally feel sorry for him, and think about what means to calm him down. The American saleswoman will not allow herself to be aggressive, because this leads to a decline in the status of her image. The same - in the functional sense of the word - saleswoman in the Soviet Union will behave completely differently. She will be ritually aggressive because her sacrifice is that she is confrontational. She may not want to conflict with this person, but she will feel deeply hurt if she retreats without a fight. If she is restrained, serious psychological damage can be caused to her” (2.57).

The above example shows quite well the deep rootedness of social patterns of reality in the inner world of a person, rootedness to such an extent that we have the right to say that this is his inner world, his consciousness. Of course, one can find many cases of atypical behavior of “saleswomen”, for example, when the opponent of the Soviet defender of honor is her boss or the code of politeness is included in the terms of remuneration. However, the inevitable “domestic detente” in this case will inexorably testify to the effect of the social pattern.

The interpretation of reality shared by everyone is usually called “basic”. For the man of the ancient world, this can be considered the reality of myth, and for the medieval man - God. The latter is interestingly described by P. Sorokin in his work “Sociocultural Dynamics,” highlighting God as the system-forming principle of European medieval civilization: “All important sections of medieval culture expressed this fundamental principle or value, as it is formulated in Christian Credo.

The architecture and sculpture of the Middle Ages were the “Bible in stone.” Literature was also thoroughly permeated with religion and the Christian faith. The painting expressed the same biblical themes and lines in color. The music was almost exclusively religious in nature. Philosophy was almost identical to religion and theology and centered around the same core value or principle, which was God. Science was just a handmaiden of the Christian religion. Ethics and law represented only a further elaboration of the absolute commandments of Christianity. Political organization in its spiritual and secular spheres was predominantly theocratic and based on God and religion. The family, as a sacred religious union, expressed the same fundamental value. Even the organization of the economy was controlled by religion, which prohibited many forms of economic relations that might be appropriate and profitable, while encouraging other forms of economic activity that were inappropriate from a utilitarian point of view. The prevailing morals and customs, way of life, and thinking emphasized their unity with God as the only and highest goal, as well as their negative or indifferent attitude towards the sensory world, its wealth, joys and values” (10.430).

We allowed ourselves to quote for such a long time with only one purpose - to evoke in the reader an image of the solidity of the cultural foundation of human psychological reality. Its maintenance is associated not only with the actual communication of contemporaries, but also with a solid cultural and symbolic organization on which actual communication relies and in which it acquires its main intentions. It is not difficult to imagine the tragedy of the existence of an individual who comes into conflict with generally accepted opinion. But even denying the basic nature of generally accepted reality, this individual finds support for his nonconformism in it.

Basic reality acts as the initial coordinate scheme for the individual, thanks to which only orientation in the world is possible. At the same time, as V. M. Rozin notes, “every person knows many realities, or rather lives in them: this is the reality of play, art, knowledge, communication, dreams, etc. Each reality sets a certain world for consciousness and is separated from other realities by boundaries conventions; logic and events that operate in one reality do not hold true in others. Simplifying things somewhat, we can say that one reality differs from another in the nature of events, the order and logic of things and relationships. In any reality, the events experienced in it are perceived as unintentional.

If reality takes possession of a person’s consciousness (or he enters reality), then a stable world arises in which very specific events take place. Having arisen, reality imposes on consciousness a certain range of meanings and meanings, forcing it to experience certain states” (9.242).

The image of the human Self is inscribed into the structure of reality as its function and system-forming principle. That is why changes in the structure of basic reality or the change from one basic reality to another cause crisis phenomena in the self-determination of the individual. Considerable literature is devoted to the identity crisis in modern humanitarian knowledge (1; 4; 6; 10). However, unfortunately, most of the psychological works known to us tend to consider the crisis of identity exclusively in dispositional characteristics, while in modern dynamic conditions sociocultural determinants of identity are beginning to acquire increasing importance, the change of which leads to profound changes in the human personality.

“When it was not possible to distinguish,” we read from V. M. Rozin, “a normal person from a mentally ill person, to understand how weather prediction differs from an astrological forecast (after all, on our screens they often follow each other), to find the criteria that distinguish a believer from an esotericist , esotericism from a madman, and all of them, for example, from an ordinary person with oddities or from an artist who also lives in symbolic realities and quite seriously.

Or another example: the problem of personal salvation. Today we are called to be saved, but in the bosom of different faiths or even worldviews. But why, one might ask, is it necessary to believe the Orthodox Church and not believe Eastern teachings, to believe Protestantism and not believe, for example, the “White Brotherhood”. The problem is that each person talks about salvation and true reality, but understands them differently. For some it is God, for others Nirvana, for others the planets that determine our destiny; some are oriented towards the church, others towards esoteric societies or communication with secret forces” (8:26-27).

The individual usually finds a way out in the evidence of his own common sense. However, it is here that a huge number of dangers await him. The fact is that the main source of common sense is empirical experience, i.e. the experience of sensory cognition and the corresponding sch his thinking. In a situation of symbolic redundancy, when the givens of our reality are largely formed by the media, an appeal to experience gained empirically leads to even greater disorientation of the individual, since a radical reduction to a phenomenon turns out to be simply impossible in some cases. The phenomenon is taken to be interpreted by someone else. Our perceptions and self-perceptions turn out to be hostages of sociocultural processes, without analyzing the dynamics of which any judgments about psychological reality turn out to be partial. Moreover, in analysis we increasingly discover their irrational nature.

The success of N. Copernicus’s heleocentric picture of the world would have been problematic without the faith society into authority Sciences, since all sensory experience convinced a person of the opposite, of the validity of the geocentric worldview.

“First of all, Freud, Freud, it was Freud who moved psychological science from the barely noticeable periphery to the center, to the very core of human culture. Psychoanalysis has entered the deep foundation, the single trunk, the root, the “gene pool” of the entire humanitarian culture. If there had been no associationism or behaviorism, Gestaltism or cognitive psychology, then twentieth-century art and people's daily lives would have changed very little or not at all. Without psychoanalysis, it is simply impossible to imagine literature, cinema, painting, philosophy, or simply everyday human life in Europe and America. People who have not read a single line of Freud nevertheless know him. It's not just a matter of hundreds of millions of people recognizing this name. It is much more important that some ideas that simply did not exist before psychoanalysis are now one way or another included in the conscious or unconscious spiritual experience of these people, in what is called their cultural baggage. Psychoanalysis “rigidly” entered the collective unconscious (or superconscious) of humanity, into the noosphere. Not only no other psychologist plays such a pivotal role in the general system of culture, but also none of the humanities scientists of our century. It can be said that in the public consciousness, all psychological science, regardless of direction, exists to a huge extent on interest from the moral capital earned by psychoanalysis” (7.102).

However, today psychological science itself is even more heterogeneous than before. The existing and newly emerging trends in it offer the community such different competing interpretations of the psyche that it can hardly count on Freud’s former total success. In the matter of total definition of human reality in the language of psychology, Freud's “aria” was not only the most virtuosic, but also most likely the last.

1.* Ionin L.G. Sociology of culture. – Logos, 1998. – 278 p.

2. “Incomprehensible” effectiveness of mathematics in the study of human reflection // Questions of Philosophy, 1990, No. 7. -S. 51-58.

3. Obukhova L. F. Child psychology: theories, facts, problems. - Trivola, 1995. – 360 s.

4.* Ortega y Gasset H. “Around Galileo (diagram of crises). / In the book. Selected works. – M:. Publishing house “The Whole World”, 1997. – pp. 233-403.

5. Ortega-Gassett H. A bit of phenomenology // In the book. Self-awareness of European culture of the twentieth century: Western thinkers and writers on the place of culture in modern society. – M.: Politizdat, 1991. – P. 237-240.

6.* Polonnikov A. A. The crisis of a personally defined form of human existence in the modern sociocultural situation. // Adukatsiya i vyhavanne, 1997, N 7. – P. 73-81.

7. Radzikhovsky L. A. Freud’s theory: change of attitude // Questions of psychology, 1988, No. 6. – P. 100-105.

8.* Rozin V. M. Personality crisis as a reflection of the crisis of culture. // World of psychology and psychology in the world, 1994, N 0, p. 26 – 32.

9. Rozin V. M. Psychology: theory and practice: textbook for higher school. -M:. Publishing House "Forum", 1997. -296 p.

10.* Sorokin P. Sociocultural dynamics // In the book. Human. Civilization. Society. - M.: Politizdat, 1992. – P. 425 – 504.

11.* Schutz A. The structure of everyday thinking. //Sociological research, 1988. N 12 – pp. 129-137.

__________________

“Psychological reality is more real than actual reality.”
The world of mysteries and farces, the theater of existence,
Makeup tests: who is a saint, who is an enemy...
Between the nature of play and the nature of lies
To the right is an abyss, and to the left is a step.
E. Achilova “Couples of an actor before going on stage”

In a sense, he is right - the main thing is to be aware of exactly what sense.
If there is some person about whom you think that he acted badly towards you, betrayed you, then this is what will determine your relationship with this person (or lack thereof). The fact that in reality it was a misunderstanding, an unfortunate misunderstanding or simply misinformation, the fact that in reality no offense may have been caused, will not change anything in your behavior towards this person if you continue to believe that he offended you. Reconciliation is only possible after your psychological reality changes.
We have all seen more than once parents who are unhappy with their children, despite all their (children’s) achievements. Their children remain failures for them (and receive their share of censure and lack of support) because they do not correspond to the psychological reality of success that their parents have. Although in reality they can already achieve much more than in the wildest dreams of their ancestors.
So the mother of her son, a teacher, the author of several books, is still dissatisfied that he did not receive a completed higher education (and she is not interested in his level of self-education, knowledge, social status and earnings).
This is even more true for the relationship of children to their parents. How many of us are in painful psychological dependence on our mothers and fathers, who have long ceased to play a real role in their lives (these people may no longer even exist in the world). Nevertheless, we are afraid to violate their prohibitions (in which we feel cramped), we are afraid of their anger (from which in reality we cannot suffer in any way or can easily defend ourselves) and are completely vulnerable to their criticism and condemnation (even if our values do not match theirs). values have nothing in common).
Psychological reality sometimes controls our lives much more reliably than actual reality.
Anyone who “knows” that friendship between a man and a woman is impossible will obviously lose a friend of the opposite sex, and will not believe those who have such experience (even twenty years).
The reason it is so difficult for people to find a common language is that the psychological reality of one group of people does not coincide with the psychological reality of another group. Anyone who is absolutely sure that Russia is a great country is unlikely to understand the emigrant. Someone for whom swearing is “just words” will not be too comfortable constantly communicating with someone for whom swearing is “dirty curses” that “you have no right to utter in my presence.”
Usually we either do not attach due importance to psychological reality, or, on the contrary, we are absolutely sure that it is real reality (that is, if I think that someone is a scoundrel, then so it is).
Myth is the truth of our psyche, the truth of inner meanings. In order to understand a person (and without this we cannot help him change), we must understand the myths in which he lives and realize their importance for this person.
Source

Today we will talk about such a phenomenon of the human psyche as psychological defense.

What is psychological protection?

This is a system of mechanisms that protect us from negative experiences, mental pain, anxiety and many other negative factors that threaten the integrity of the individual. If it were not for psychological defenses, we would constantly be under severe stress, cry or scream for any reason, throw ourselves at others, commit impulsive acts, etc. - in a word, they would see life in black.

For the first time, the Austrian psychologist, psychiatrist and founder of psychoanalysis, S. Freud, began to study psychological defenses. He interpreted the work of the defense system as a way of resolving the confrontation between unconscious drives and social norms (demands, prohibitions, etc.).

Psychological defense mechanisms are universal: they are inherent in us by nature and represent patterns of behavior or response to a traumatic situation.

Psychological defense does not change reality, events, or people’s characters; in addition, it distorts the perception of reality. In this regard, many problems remain unresolved. What to do? Psychologists advise: to make fear go away, look into its eyes. Let's sort it out in order.

Three lines of psychological defenses

There are three lines of psychological defense:

conscious stereotypes (help us exist in society);
archetypal defenses (protect society, group, collective through the individual);
unconscious defenses (protect our psyche from wear and tear).

At the same time, these lines form a holistic system that maintains our spiritual balance and helps cope with stress. Let's look at each of the lines in more detail.

Perceived stereotypes

These stereotypes are formed in our minds from early childhood, when we internalize social norms and rules. At first, these are the norms of your family: wash your hands before eating; eat with utensils rather than with your hands; draw in an album, not on a table. After some time, the child learns the norms of other communities: how to behave on the street, at a party, in kindergarten, at school, etc. All this allows us to avoid ostracism, and as a result the society in which we exist accepts us. Thanks to the principles laid down in childhood, we save time on thinking and taking actions, and also increase the likelihood of a favorable resolution of the situation.

For example, we initially learn to respect subordination, speak respectfully with elders, show signs of attention towards them, take their opinions into account, etc. We also understand the boundaries of what is permitted (for example, we learn that in a store you cannot behave at home, etc.).

Archetypal protections

This is a series of behavioral models that help to overcome difficulties and not get confused in extreme situations that arise in the life of a group, community, colleagues, friends, loved ones, etc. It is believed that these protections have been formed over thousands of years, and since the person has remained an element of the community, the protections continue to function. They do not always manifest themselves in our behavior, but only in cases when society is in danger. A person may not even know about the resources of his psyche and the capabilities of his body, and in a stressful situation, in order to save his family, he may commit heroic actions that he would not dare to do in ordinary life. Disaster medicine knows of cases where children, finding themselves in an extreme situation, without hesitation, helped those who were weaker (for example, boys helped pull girls out, gave them their clothes; girls calmed adults who could not pull themselves together). They performed such actions automatically, on a subconscious level: “If your neighbor is feeling bad, you need to help him.”

You can observe subconscious behavior patterns in yourself. For example, your friend quarreled with his parents, and you automatically begin to help him - listen, console, give advice. Many are willing to make self-sacrifice for the well-being of others. And it’s all about the subconscious, which dictates to us a program for protecting a small or large society.

Unconscious defenses

Everyone hears what they want to hear.

The essence of unconscious defense is that our psyche, without distortion, perceives only information that cannot traumatize it. If any fact, event, actions or words of a person threaten our peace of mind, cause anxiety or tension, unconscious defense immediately turns on. As a result, we do not perceive incoming information at all or perceive it in a distorted form. For example, some wives defend their husbands: “He’s not an alcoholic, he just has a stressful job.” Or a sick person says: “I feel better today, I won’t go to the doctor. I’m not sick, why are you all bothering me?” This is how the denial mechanism works: “You are all wrong, everything is fine with me/we!” As a result, a person artificially restores his mental balance, protects himself from fears, and reduces internal tension. Unfortunately, this trick of consciousness helps only for a while. An alcoholic remains an alcoholic, and a sick person does not recover. After some time, mental balance needs to be restored.

Let's consider the forms of unconscious defenses.

■ Escape. In the Paleolithic era, in case of a threat to life, a person defended himself or fled. Today escape has been modified and taken on unconscious forms. For example, if a person has not been able to build trusting relationships with people since childhood, he increasingly withdraws into himself and, as a result, becomes an introvert. Or if a person is not confident in the favorable outcome of any complex matter, he will, under any pretext, refuse to go to organizations, call people or generally make any efforts.

Basic and painful consequence escape is the inability to communicate constructively, ask for help, make suggestions or make comments if something does not satisfy. For example, fear of offending, fear of putting oneself in an unfavorable light lead to vague wording or replacement of requests. As a result, the person does not resolve his issue, wastes time and experiences personal discomfort because “nothing worked out again.”

For example, an employee returns from vacation and sees a mountain of other people’s papers on her desk. She is ashamed to ask the culprit to clean up after himself, so she does it herself. As a result, the problem is not solved, and the situation repeats itself after each vacation.

Sometimes escape manifests itself in the form of withdrawal into a specific activity (not to be confused with a hobby). In a situation of escape, a person is so carried away by his favorite activity that he directs all his mental and mental strength only to it. This activity saves him from unrequited love, from self-doubt, helps him forget about problems and personal shortcomings. Of course, such a person can demonstrate outstanding results in his field, but he will not be able to make friends or friends, because his personality has developed disharmoniously all this time.

■ Negation characterized by selective attention: “My house is on the edge, I don’t know anything.”

Selectivity helps us ignore the things that make us anxious and increase the intensity of the conflict. Denial is often the first reaction to irreversible events - illness, death. Denial can also be seen in family relationships: for many it is easier to close their eyes to a problem than to solve it. For example, a wife does not notice her husband’s alienation and, instead of talking, pretends that everything is fine. As a result, the husband leaves for someone else. Or the parents don’t notice that their son is addicted to drugs. Result: my son has a severe drug addiction. Why is this happening? People simply do not allow themselves to think that this could happen in their family.

In addition, the form of denial can take on the appearance of self-praise. For example, a child performed poorly at a competition, returns home and tells everyone about his victory, and he himself fully believes in this victory, or a lazy worker who creates the appearance of work: he litters his desk with papers (supposedly there is no time to clean), walks along the corridor with documents, stands idle in the reception area, answers the phone in an irritated voice, as if hinting: “I’m so busy, and here you are.” Moreover, he sincerely hopes that he will not be found out.

■ Rationalization. Sometimes it seems to us that it is easier to eat a toad than to admit that we are wrong. And in order not to recognize it, nature came up with a wonderful mechanism - rationalization. This mechanism helps to find explanations for one’s own unseemly behavior. Thanks to rationalization, you can isolate yourself from the “evil world” and feel like a king against the backdrop of people who understand nothing.

For example, a person who does not want to look for a job makes an excuse that there are no worthy offers; a child who eats all the sweets in the house believes that he is still small and can do anything; a boss who bullies his subordinates proves to himself that he is accomplishing a great mission by not allowing his employees to relax.

By the way, the hero of the story “Sakhalin” A.P. Chekhov, having killed his victim, justified his behavior by saying that he was slurping loudly at the table, violating general etiquette.

■ Suppression is expressed in the fact that we can forget some feelings, facts, events and people who brought us pain, suffering or simply some unpleasant emotions at one time. For example, the name of the person who once offended us, or the opening hours of the office where we need to go to resolve an unpleasant issue. In this way, the psyche protects itself, tries to save us from communicating with unpleasant people, protect us from going to unpleasant places, etc.

■ crowding out is also associated with a special mechanism of memory. Repression is similar to suppression, except that the event is not completely forgotten. The most traumatic part is erased from memory.

For example, a friend constantly complains to you that her mother-in-law is cruel to her. When you ask her to give examples, she can't really tell you anything. He remembers that there was a conflict, but for what reason and what served as the starting point, he doesn’t remember.

Remembering more good things than bad is a natural function of the psyche. But especially sensitive people, on the contrary, remember only the bad. This leads to a depressing state, depression, painful memories of traumatic situations: “But he told me this, but he did this. How could he?

■ Substitution is expressed in the form of satisfying an unacceptable desire in another way allowed by society. It can also occur in the form of transfer from one reaction to another. On the one hand, this transfer allows us to solve the problem, and on the other hand, to avoid social censure.

For example, one person is angry with another for something and wants to take revenge on him. Since revenge is condemned by society, a person takes revenge on his enemy with offensive jokes. If he is offended, he immediately asks for an apology, saying that he did not want to offend anyone, it was just a joke.

Therefore, if they constantly make fun of you, you should not blame yourself for being too touchy. Perhaps these people hold a grudge against you, but don't know how to say it.

In office life, hidden hostility can manifest itself in the form of hypercontrol over subordinates. For example, the boss does not like an employee who is very similar to his daughter’s negligent boyfriend. He understands that if he tries to tell someone around him about the reason for his hostility, he will be laughed at. Therefore, the boss finds an artificial reason to throw out his aggression on his subordinate - he begins to control him excessively, finds fault with him, accuses him of not doing anything, etc.

■ Projection. Let’s remember the folklore: “There’s no point in blaming the mirror if your face is crooked,” “Whoever calls you names is called that himself,” “You look at your neighbor with all your eyes, but at yourself with drooping eyelids” (Vietnamese proverb).

The truth of these expressions is undeniable: before you evaluate someone, look at yourself. It’s painful to criticize yourself – it’s easier to take it out on someone else. In psychology, this behavior is called projection. With projection, a person, seeing his own shortcomings, does not want to admit them, but notices them in others. Thus, a person projects his vices and weaknesses onto other people. Agree, how difficult it is to admit to ourselves that we envy someone, and how easy it is to see this envy in another person!

You can project feelings, thoughts and even behavior. Thus, a deceiver thinks that everyone around him is a cheater and wants to deceive him, a greedy person sees those around him as stingy, and someone who needs money will hate people with low incomes.

By the way, projection has not only negative, but also positive manifestations. For example, if it seems to you that everything around you is wonderful and wonderful, this means that you are in harmony with yourself; If you see only friends in your colleagues, this means that you are a kind and sociable person. No wonder they say: “Smile at the world, and the world will smile at you.”

■ Identification is expressed in identifying oneself with a person, in appropriating his personal qualities to oneself, in elevating oneself to his image. Identification can also be expressed in the desire to be like not only one person, but also a group of people. Identification protection is also called social mimicry. Most often, social mimicry manifests itself in adolescents. For example, a schoolboy strives to be like everyone else, tries to merge with his company. If everyone in the company wears expensive jeans, he will beg his parents for them; If it’s common to smoke in a group, he will definitely become addicted to this harmful habit. The desire to be like others creates the illusion of security in a teenager.

Social mimicry also manifests itself in the desire to be like people we fear or depend on. Very often, people who are offended begin to copy the behavior of their offenders. Some people need this identification in order to become as “strong-willed” and “strong,” while others need it in order to take it out on the weaker ones. In psychology, this mechanism is called “identification with aggression.”

■ Alienation is expressed in dividing our “I” into several parts and using them consistently. This process occurs at moments when a person experiences severe physical or mental pain. Let's give the simplest example. A person who has lived in his native land almost all his life suddenly leaves for a foreign land. Undoubtedly, it will be very difficult for him to leave his native land, especially if people dear to him remain there. In a new place, it will seem to him that a piece of his soul remains in his native land.

■ Fear of new things. Have you ever noticed that your loved ones, family and friends seem to be asking for your advice, but in fact they don’t need it? Such people are generally afraid to learn something new, because they need to rebuild, reconsider their views on life, doubt previously acquired knowledge, theories and opinions. Therefore, such people subconsciously protect themselves from advice - they talk a lot themselves and do not let you speak, they complain and do not listen to you (vest search syndrome), they are capricious, protest (they say that you are coming up with inappropriate advice), accuse you of incompetence, promise to follow the advice then, but do not fulfill their promises.

■ Artificial psychostimulants. Alcohol, tobacco, and drugs not only reduce your health to nothing, but also create the illusion of “control” of your psycho-emotional state. They, of course, do not solve the problem that has arisen.

Other unconscious defenses

These include:

psychosomatic diseases (the occurrence of somatic diseases due to mental trauma);
passive aggression (tendency to be late everywhere and everywhere, reluctance to do certain work);
reaction or aggression towards innocent people (sharp jumping up, screaming, hitting the table, aggressive attacks on people for imaginary reasons);
dissociation (after traumatic situations, the tendency to pretend that nothing happened, reluctance to solve problems, self-withdrawal);
internalization (refusal to get what you want: “Yes, it hurts me. I’ll get by”);
regression (return to childhood behavior patterns - whims, hysterics, throwing things, etc.).

The benefits and harms of unconscious defenses

Let's look at the benefits first.

Psychological defenses:

help preserve the integrity of the individual and protect it from disintegration, especially when there are conflicting desires. It is known that there are many different “I”s in a person (one “I” wants one thing, another – another, a third – a third). Psychological defenses are needed to bring all these “I” together and allow them to “agree”;
help to resist diseases, believe in one’s strength, reassure that everything will be fine, everything will be restored;
prevent disorganization of mental activity and behavior. For example, in a moment of sudden stress, disbelief in everything that is happening saves consciousness from destruction;
protect against negative qualities that a person does not possess, but mistakenly admits to himself. For example, it seems to a person that he is overly demanding of others, although in reality he is not. For the purpose of protection, he may begin to convince himself that overly demanding people are more successful in business, have excellent insight and are demanding of themselves. Thus, defenses save a person from mythical shortcomings and reduce self-blame;
restore self-esteem, help to accept a painful situation without lowering self-esteem: “Well, so be it. I’m still better than them,” “These people are unworthy of me,” etc.;
help maintain social approval. For example, a person did something wrong and, knowing this, turns the situation around: “It’s not me who is to blame, but other people/fate/circumstances”, “I’m not like that - life is like that”;
preserve relationships between people. For example, an employee does not like that his colleague gossips all the time and tries to involve him in conversation. He prefers not to bring the situation to a conflict and, instead of expressing everything, pretends to be uncommunicative.

If we talk about the dangers of psychological defenses, they are:

do not change the order of things, but only relieve anxiety and inconvenience for a while;
They distort reality and do not allow us to evaluate it normally. This is especially true when evaluating loved ones. For example, they say that “love is blind.” If a loved one suddenly commits a terrible act, we refuse to believe it, blame ourselves for not immediately understanding what kind of person he is, or rush to defend the offender;
facts and events are crowded out of consciousness. This temporarily calms, but the fear remains driven into the subconscious and from there affects the person for a long time;
people are confused. For example, instead of admitting to themselves a hostile attitude towards their child, understanding the causes of this problem and working through it, a parent hides behind overprotection and intrusiveness towards their child, which further complicates the relationship.

Mature unconscious defenses

There are natural unconscious defenses that are harmless and help cope with stress. They are called mature unconscious defenses. These include:

■ cry– a natural and natural protective reaction of a person to stress. Everyone knows that after crying, your soul becomes relatively lighter. It's all about the physiological processes occurring at this moment in the body.

Scientists believe that tears reduce pain, heal small wounds on the skin, and protect the skin from aging. In addition, crying normalizes blood pressure and has an anti-stress effect;

■ dream. Many people need long-term sleep after severe stress to restore mental and physical strength. This is how the compensation mechanism works. So if your loved one is a sleeper, don’t wake him up for no apparent reason, perhaps his body is now busy processing stress;

■ dreams. In the last issue, we talked about how dreams help us cope with the stress accumulated during the day, that dreams simulate situations in which you can prove yourself strong, courageous and decisive, which means you can work through all your stress and overcome your fears. Only this mechanism is connected not in the real, but in the imaginary world. Consequently, the person suffers less and does not have a negative impact on others, unlike, for example, projection or rationalization;

■ sweets, as is known, raise blood glucose levels, and this promotes the production of the joy hormone - endorphin. Therefore, moderate consumption of sweets leads to stress processing. The main thing is not to get carried away and follow the rules of a healthy diet;

■ sublimation– transformation of unwanted, traumatic and negative experiences into various types of constructive and popular activities (sports, creativity, favorite work). The more success a person achieves in his favorite activity, the more stable his psyche becomes;

■ altruism. No wonder they say: “If you feel bad, help someone who is even worse.” In fact, all misfortunes are known by comparison. When we see that another person has it much worse, our own problems seem petty. In addition, any help to someone in need helps us feel needed, and this is the best way to save us from stress;

■ kind and harmless humor . As you know, a well-timed joke defuses the situation and improves relations between interlocutors. Learn to laugh at yourself and your problems. Try to associate your problem with a joke, turn it into a funny story, Look at funny photos, download a good movie. And most importantly, smile more often, because laughter prolongs life.

Elementary psychoanalysis Mikhail Mikhailovich Reshetnikov

Phenomenon of psychic reality

In his developments, Freud attached significant importance to the phenomenon of “psychic reality,” which reflects and often replaces external, objective reality, but never completely corresponds to the latter. Subsequently, in modern psychology, on the basis of this position, the ideas of “bias of consciousness” and “subjectivity of perception” were formed, although the latter still significantly impoverish the original meaning and content of this phenomenon.

For example, I am sure that my beloved is the most beautiful woman in the world. And this is my mental reality, which my colleagues or friends may not share. But it is unlikely that they will be able to convince me, no matter what rational reasons they give. We encounter a similar situation in clinical practice: we can convince the patient as much as we like that his suffering, his suspicions or his feelings of guilt have no basis - this will be exclusively our point of view, and the patient will feel misunderstood and disappointed, for in his psychic reality everything is exactly as he feels and understands. Therefore, in psychotherapy we always work not with reality, but with the patient’s mental reality, no matter how distorted, frightening or even repulsive it may be.