Forensic Psychology Case Analysis, Part II B : ‘dialogue examples’
Projection as Game Strategy and Relational Manipulation
Abstract
This sequel extends the first analysis (Forensic Psychology Case Analysis: Transactional Analysis Perspective) by focusing on projection as a central tactic of the Speaker. Projection is examined as both a psychological defense (unconscious displacement) and a manipulative device (conscious domination). Using dialogue examples, we analyze how projection functions within the Speaker’s established games, how it impacts the Recipient, and how both parties are locked into distorted relational patterns.
Instance One: “Keeping this real, though…”
Dialogue:
• Recipient: “I think the issue is that we are not addressing the underlying point.”
• Speaker: “Keeping this real, though… the real problem is that you’re focusing on details that don’t matter.”
Analysis:
• Projection: The Speaker disowns their own avoidance of the underlying issue by accusing the Recipient of irrelevance.
• TA framing:
• Surface transaction: Adult → Adult (“Let’s clarify the point”).
• Ulterior transaction: Critical Parent → Adaptive Child (“You are misguided, not me”).
• Game connection: This resembles Now I’ve Got You, You Son of a Bitch: the Speaker sets a trap where the Recipient is always “at fault.”
• Relational impact:
• On Recipient: Forced into defending their clarity, which they never lost.
• On Speaker: Secures temporary dominance but avoids self-examination.
Forensic note: Projection here is a deflection strategy. The disowned trait = avoidance of relevance. The projection target = Recipient, accused of “focusing on details.”
Instance Two: “I’m worried about you because…”
Dialogue:
• Recipient: “I just see the situation differently.”
• Speaker: “I’m worried about you because… you seem to be thinking in a way that could be paranoid.”
Analysis:
• Projection: The paranoia is in the Speaker, who mistrusts differing viewpoints. By labeling the Recipient “potentially paranoid,” the Speaker exports their own internal insecurity.
• TA framing:
• Surface: Nurturing Parent → Child (“I care for you”).
• Ulterior: Critical Parent → Child (“You are defective because you disagree”).
• Game connection: This is a form of Courtroom: the Speaker as judge, the Recipient as defendant, guilt pre-determined.
• Relational impact:
• On Recipient: Caught in a double bind (Bateson, 1972). Accepting the projection (“Yes, I’m paranoid”) validates the Speaker’s superiority; rejecting it (“No, I’m not paranoid”) is taken as proof of paranoia.
• On Speaker: Gains an illusion of moral concern but further entrenches projection as their only game move.
Forensic note: Projection here is characterological rather than situational. The disowned trait = paranoia. The projection target = Recipient, framed as unstable.
Instance Three: Retort and Escalation
Dialogue:
• Recipient: “It sounds like you are projecting your concerns onto me.”
• Speaker: “That’s exactly what a paranoid person would say.”
Analysis:
• Projection doubled: The Recipient identifies the mechanism; the Speaker intensifies projection to defend it.
• TA framing:
• Surface: Adult → Adult (“You are describing reality”).
• Ulterior: Child → Parent (“It’s not me, it’s you”) + Critical Parent → Child (“You prove my point by denying it”).
• Game connection: This evolves into Yes, But or It’s You, Not Me — a custom variant where all Recipient responses are trapped within the Speaker’s projection.
• Relational impact:
• On Recipient: Frustration, destabilization, and pressure to withdraw.
• On Speaker: Momentary control, but exposure of repetition reveals limited tactical repertoire.
Forensic note: This repetition suggests either defensive rigidity (borderline or paranoid personality organization) or deliberate tactical minimization (psychopathic personality strategy).
Projection as Systemic Strategy
Projection works in tandem with the Speaker’s game structure established in Part I:
• Step 1: Disown inner trait (avoidance, paranoia, inadequacy).
• Step 2: Project onto Recipient.
• Step 3: Establish dominance frame (Critical Parent → Child).
• Step 4: Trap Recipient into defensive posture.
• Step 5: Harvest payoff (ego reinforcement, dominance, public image of moral superiority).
This closed system leaves no room for Adult–Adult dialogue.
Counter-Strategy for the Recipient
To resist projection within this game system:
1. Stay in Adult – refuse to be pulled into Adaptive Child.
2. Name without engaging – e.g., “That’s your interpretation.”
3. Return ownership – e.g., “That sounds more like your concern than mine.”
4. Exit the game – as Berne noted:
“The only winning move in a game is not to play.” (Games People Play, 1964)
By refusing the projected role, the Recipient blocks the payoff loop.
Conclusion
Projection in this case is not incidental but systemic — the organizing principle of the Speaker’s manipulative games. It allows them to export unwanted traits, destabilize dialogue partners, and preserve a false position of superiority. For the Recipient, recognizing and rejecting the projected material is essential to preserve autonomy and prevent entrapment.
The forensic implication is clear: projection plus games equals relational domination system. Analysis of both the Speaker’s words and the Recipient’s responses reveals the structure of this covert abuse, making it possible to diagnose, predict, and interrupt the cycle.
Index of Relevant Sources
1. Eric Berne – Games People Play: The Psychology of Human Relationships (1964)
2. Eric Berne – Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy (1961)
3. Sigmund Freud – The Neuro-Psychoses of Defence (1894)
4. Melanie Klein – Notes on Some Schizoid Mechanisms (1946)
5. Gregory Bateson – Steps to an Ecology of Mind (1972)
6. Otto Kernberg – Borderline Conditions and Pathological Narcissism (1975)
7. Carl Jung – Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self (1951)
8. Hervey Cleckley – The Mask of Sanity (1941; 5th ed. 1988)
9. Robert Hare – Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us (1993)
10. Paul Ekman – Telling Lies: Clues to Deceit in the Marketplace, Politics, and Marriage (1985)
For the full exploration, see also;
No comments:
Post a Comment