Vigil on 14/10/2006 at 17:06
Quote Posted by Columbo
Blaming others of the exact things that you do is a classic guilty man's tactic.
Whereas blaming others of the exact things they have alleged you do is...?
Uncia on 14/10/2006 at 18:30
Defending yourself is such a classic guity man's tactic.
Bjossi on 14/10/2006 at 18:44
Quote Posted by Uncia
Defending yourself is such a classic guity man's tactic.
Well, it is, but sometimes people are actually not guilty when they are defending themselves. :p
Vigil on 14/10/2006 at 18:48
Whoa there fella. I think you need to get an upgrade for your Sarcasm Meter.
Bjossi on 14/10/2006 at 18:55
My Sarcasm Meter is fine, I'm just sparing it. :cheeky:
Renegen on 14/10/2006 at 21:20
Quote Posted by Uncia
Defending yourself is such a classic guity man's tactic.
You obviously never heard of projection. When a person did something bad that others don't know about, they blame that exact thing on others, and they're usually the only ones to do it. This case it's a whole company however..
Hell I'll link to the wiki page, even though it's more about emotions and feelings than actions, or motives.
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection)
Quote:
"The individual perceives in others the motive he denies having himself. Thus the cheat is sure that everyone else is dishonest."
That doesn't really lead to anything, except being a bit more suspicious of Google.
Vigil on 14/10/2006 at 22:18
So in other words your eagerness to attribute fraud to Google is a sign of your own poorly-concealed dishonesty?
Or where did you want to get off the Wikipedia psychology bus?
Renegen on 15/10/2006 at 16:31
No Google would be doing the projecting in this case. In any case, when it comes to applicable psychology or the one that you learn in say your 1st or 2nd year, they're usually true. If you ever did psychology or say management theories you will identify with a lot of the things they say because you already experienced them. In the case of learning about projection, that came after I had seen it before a number of times and decided it was true.
Plus some of the defense mechanisms like denial, intellectualization, rationalization, repression and even sublimation we all did them numerous, numerous times and can easily identify them(especially after having read about them). So I think the whole topic can be taken as something true.
Projection does happen, if you want to argue that I was pulling information from Google's statement that was never there fine, but that's the kind of conclusions you need to come to if you want to be able to read between the lines or be able to be more informed.
Uncia's statement "Defending yourself is such a classic guity man's tactic." is a perfect example of being unable to make distinctions. Something that they teach you in books is "if something appears random, it's that you don't understand it". Note it only applies to human behaviour, obviously some natural phenomena are random but no human behaviour is. This can be a bit applied in this case, the statement has something to say for those who are looking and shouldn't be dismissed as of no value immediately.
Vigil on 15/10/2006 at 18:45
Congratulations on taking a psychology course but you missed, or wilfully ignored, my point.
If you hold that the Google representative is displaying obvious indications of guilt by casting accusations at other companies, then you open yourself up to the counterargument that your reading between the lines with your highly-trained psychologist brain is in fact just a projection of your own guilty conscience.
See, this is why we don't bring along armchair psychology to support allegations for which we currently have no corroborating evidence.
Renegen on 15/10/2006 at 19:13
I got your point, but projection is not an endless bumber board. Projection is tied to avoiding the negative emotions from your actions, me making that observation on Google would not somehow alleviate any negative emotions I would have if I had indeed been a cheat, I wouldn't project it on Google. Furthermore I think I explained it enough that it was me reading between the lines and had enough analysis behind it, a projection is just calling someone that thing that you project, it's not as rigourous. But hey, maybe I could say you're the cheat for possibly trying to see me as the cheat? See it never ends. It was a weak jab because it takes a bit more than just making an observation or judgement on something to qualify as projecting your own emotions, desires etc.
And I like your arm-chair psychology comment, you obviously still don't respect the idea, which is fine, but tell me your plan when making a judgement on something, how successfull are you? You gotta start somewhere, and believe me I'm not in the business of being wrong, I have no problem changing. I'm also honest enough with myself to answer your question directly and tell you I know I'm not a cheat.
