Regression as a defence mechanism?

[NickofNewjersey]

After looking around the internet, I found a web site talking about different types of defense mechanisms of the ego/brain. Defense Mechanisms

On the list was regression, Regression

I know very little about physiology, so I'm confused about this.

Anyway look at this quote: "Phallic fixation can lead to conversion hysteria (the transformation of psychic energy into physical symptoms) which is disguised sexual impulses."

Wait... are you saying my tb side is a coping mechanism and my DL side is just the transformation of psychic energy to sexual impulses?

What?

I know sucking my paci calms me down and my husky makes me feel warm inside, but is this really all some crazy defense plan my mind is trying?

Does anyone have an idea about this?

[Prisoner of Destiny]

Well you are pleasing a desire which can only be physically performed to enjoy. I can see how it relates to sexual on that note, but no more than for the sake of comfort. In the end fixation and well... masturbation are both simply fulfilling a physical pleasure. Of course in a stressful situation you'd want to relieve tension and I'd say these two options could be the most easiest at any time. Fixation being the more acceptable of the two :P

[WoodlandWanderer]

My thought are that your TB side (or anyone else's) has always been there and makes you feel nice. However the body is quite clever and decides to utilise this quality as a coping mechanism (seems sensible if it's already there).
I'm no psychologist but it the above were the case, it would explain why the TB feelings crop up more often or appear to start during stressful periods.
Also, if it were just a coping mechanism, then surely it would go away if you were perfectly fine.

[NickofNewjersey]

Originally Posted by WoodlandWanderer

Also, if it were just a coping mechanism, then surely it would go away if you were perfectly fine.

That makes sense, I still feel tbdl feelings when everything is fine . But I do remember how badly I wanted a diaper when my parents almost divorced.

[Lizzie]

I believe it's just saying that when some people get super anxious, the mind resorts to kind of a regressed state to calm down. Not that we're TBs because it's a defense mechanism. That's just my interpretation of it though...

[KodyNewlight]

I know that for me at least, I've used it as a defense mechanism....at least in cases of extreme stress (like a divorce as you said)

but I do have feelings of infantilism outside of stress as well...
it's a thing about us, that we enjoy, but it is also convenient way to let off stress when it's building up a lot...regressing takes you to a point of no worries, ya know?

so...it's not Solely a defense mechanism...but regressing can be used as such. ^_^

that's my take on it at least.

[Mugiwara]

Hey, Its just what Freud thought. You shouldnt look to deep into it you know.

[Raccoon]

Originally Posted by NickofNewjersey

After looking around the internet, I found a web site talking about different types of defense mechanisms of the ego/brain. Defense Mechanisms

On the list was regression, Regression

, so I'm confused about this. (You mean psychology, for a start.)

Anyway look at this quote: "Phallic fixation can lead to conversion hysteria (the transformation of psychic energy into physical symptoms) which is disguised sexual impulses."

Wait... are you saying my tb side is a coping mechanism and my DL side is just the transformation of psychic energy to sexual impulses?

What?

I know sucking my paci calms me down and my husky makes me feel warm inside, but is this really all some crazy defense plan my mind is trying?

Does anyone have an idea about this?

Part of the problem is that certain words have a bad connotation. "Defense mechanism" or "Coping mechanism" makes it sound like the behaviour is somehow artificial or a personal weakness - like such "mechanisms" are things which are a response to an illness and therefore what they are in response to must be an illness, and being psychological, must be a personal weakness or defect. Piffle.

A lot of the confusion comes over saying "regression is a coping/defense mechanism" and meaning "all regression is always a defense mechanism." While both statements may be true - whether they are MEANINGFUL depends on what you mean by "defense mechanism." The second statement, with its terms so broad as to include all coping, or all forms of regression becomes true always - but loses all its meaning at the same time. I'll try to explain.

When a theory is couched in technical-sounding language and has a ring of authenticity to it; we might think the theory is sound just because it is said in a text book or by a clinician. And we trust in it because it sounds beyond our understanding so we think whoever said it must have a better understanding of the process than we (you) do, and we misplace trust in their expertise: snake oil, flim-flammery. Yes, sometimes people who know what they are talking about use technical, language; but not all technical language means people know what they are going on about.

YouTube - Wall Street Crash - Razzle Dazzle

back to the first point: if I say I like to drink alcohol that sounds better than I am a drinker, or a boozer. Even better: I enjoy my spirits. Calling a fetish a "defense mechanism" MEANS "it comforts me when I am stressed." Using bad-sounding terminology makes it sound like it must be unhealthy.

Like saying I eat = a defense mechanism to my hunger. Having fun is a defense mechanism against being unhappy.

Now it's not that I dismiss psychological theories as empty, or not useful. To be an effective psychologist you do need to base your approaches on some kind of theory; but any number of theories can yield a useful approach if they indicate what is healthy, or not, and which methods might convert one state into another.

You can be a good psychologist - and follow Freud or Skinner or Jung; just as you can come up with a consistent morality based on applied theology from whatever religion you please. Doesn't mean any one of those religions is more right than the others or any particular school of psychology is "right." I think of it like writing a program that describes or computes something useful; though the program might be written in any number of programming languages. Or writing an equation in polar or rectangular coordinates might say the same thing but one or the other is handier for solving some kinds of problems; even though they look very different.

I guess I am saying

"Phallic fixation can lead to conversion hysteria (the transformation of psychic energy into physical symptoms) which is disguised sexual impulses."

is (practically speaking) meaningless mumbo-jumbo unless it is given meaning in the context of a more complete theory, which is itself only one way to look at things.

So your confusion arises, not from misunderstanding on your part due to a lack of brain-power, but from statements made in confusing language, or terms with bad connotations.

Example: a girl, when over-stressed, especially fearing a repeat of a childhood trauma (or simply reliving it) has a psychotic break and reverts to her personality from when she was young, younger than when the original trauma had occurrred. Being the person she was prior to the trauma makes her feel safe. In this case it is useful to describe her regression as a coping mechanism.

I liked to play with lego when I was 8. When I play with it as an adult, my enjoyment resembles the enjoyment I had at 8 from doing the same thing. "Regression" would be too strong a term for simply playing with lego; childhood-style fun would be too strong a term to call a "defense mechanism" - even if that's how I unwind after a day in court or on the rigs. And as to quotations from arbitrary theories couched in technicalese: pay them no heed; they are as likely to be confusing because the theory is confused, or the terminology has particular technical meanings only understandable in the context of the theory itself, and it is your unfamiliarity with the terminology that makes it sound so sophistimacated and beyond your grasp.

I have no idea what

"Phallic fixation can lead to conversion hysteria (the transformation of psychic energy into physical symptoms) which is disguised sexual impulses."

means, as I don't know the theory it is based on.

I suspect it means there is a mind-body connection, and emotions can have physical manifestations, which might even be called symptoms: seeing the hawt person can give you a boner, scary dudes trigger adrenaline release which ups the heartrate, and so on. It can feel better to feel younger. I am less sure that phallic fixation/disguised sexual impulses have anything to do with it.

Sounds to me though like an insistence on a given theory leads to spouting nonsense where the theory falls down, and leads to the construction of strange imaginary objects to make the theory work, and an assumption that those imaginary objects must be somehow real because of believing in a theory which is falsely believed to be "right."

Oh... And psychologists are not the only ones who play these games; physicists invent dark matter; transcultural nurses (relying on anthropologists) invent certain categories of cultural norms; philosophers invent "negative facts," and Hindu theologists talk about "karma" as though it were a kind of metaphysical substance. The theologians are the worst offenders.

[dogboy]

I would add as well, that it only becomes a defense mechanism if it's overt. In other words, it becomes a defense mechanism if you suck your pacifier or wear a diaper in front of someone else in order to get a reaction. You'll notice that the writer never even mentioned the wearing of diapers or acting more outwardly like a baby, particularly in private. The infantilism illustrated was more acting childish or selfish, not acting like a baby, or having a fetish. I think those two sides of infantilism are very different.

I have to agree with Raccoon in that psycho mumbo jumbo can get in the way of truth, or finding truth. Our infantilism is far more overt than refusing to drive a car. We have had an event in our lives which have made us fixate on that point of nurture, when we were infants, or more likely toddlers. We regress back to that stage in our lives to seek the safety and comfort of being taken care of. Identifying with the objects from that period in our lives helps our minds to re-live those emotional feelings, which then include a feeling of being safe. If we fixate on oral gratification, it is because we were still sucking on a bottle nipple and a pacifier. The sucking instinct is one of the strongest instincts we have because it was hard wired into us so that we could obtain nourishment and survive. Replicating it now tricks the mind into thinking it is back at that mental place, psychic affecting our present physical place in time.

Ultimately, enjoy who you are and what you do, because it hurts no one, and helps you cope and survive, just as it helps me. For me, it sure as hell beats being depressed every time.

[Raccoon]

I am also apt to look down on theories that try to seek single causes: like those who enjoy sucking phalluses do so because it has something to do with breastfeeding. I think the sucking instinct is multi-purpose: guzzling milkshakes, giving *oral pleasure*, suckling, sucking a pinched finger to make if feel better all independently use one mechanism with nothing necessarily to do with each other: they can be equi-valued, not derivative. I do not see elephants sucking up water to spray their backs as repressed urges to give each other oral pleasure.

Part of the problem with human psychology theories is they are so human-centric, when reflexive actions are better explained through genetics, and what we share with other species, rather than looking for explanations in what we don't share ie things unique to our human selves.