8 Ways We Protect Our Denial


1 - Ignore you.
The simplest and easiest defense mechanism. What you are doing is making us aware that we are unable to be introspective, due to reduced brain tissue in our prefrontal cortex. Of course, we cannot acknowledge this, (because that would require introspection!). So we have to try to ignore you. It looks very childish, and for good reason: only a child would believe that if they can't physically hear you, then that means what you are saying is wrong. "Blah, blah, blah, I'm not listening, I'll put my hands over my ears and I can't hear you."


2 - Talk over top of you.
This has become a favorite for TV hosts in recent years. They have guests on their shows who they disagree with, and they talk over top of their guests as they try to answer questions. They will also ask other questions WHILE their guests are trying to answer the first question, and they will comment AS their guests attempt to figure out which question they are supposed to be answering. All of this is a way to make the other person look scatterbrained and not worth listening to. In reality, it makes the host look like a jerk. But, it does protect the host from hearing something that threatens their denial, which is the point.


3 - Simple flip.
We simply take what you just said and flip it back on to you.
This is a classic Warrior Instinct behavior where words are seen as weapons. If you say, "You are acting immature", we will immediately respond, "YOU are acting immature!". We cannot absorb the word "immature" due to a lack of introspection, so we pick the word up, like it was a spear, and throw it back at you. Another version of this is to accuse you of the exact behavior that we are doing. In a cognitive part of our brains, we know that this behavior must be exposed, but, since we lack introspection, we cannot attach it to ourselves, therefore, you become the target.


4 - Attack the messenger to avoid the message.
We question your credibility. If we can make it look like you can't be trusted as a messenger, then we can dismiss your message. Even if your message is something that you didn't come up with yourself, even if it is something that many other credible people have said before, the fact that YOU are saying it now, coupled with the fact that YOU are not a credible messenger, means that WHAT you are saying is wrong, and anyone, and everyone who says it is wrong.
Another way to attack the messenger is to pick apart what you are saying and find one small piece of it that we try to prove wrong. If we can make it seem that ONE part of what you are saying is wrong, then in our mind that means EVERYTHING you are saying is wrong.

"If one, then all."
That is one of the core beliefs of our Warrior Instinct.

And, we can focus on HOW you are talking rather than on WHAT you are saying.
If you stumble over your words, (possibly because we are talking over top of you), we will pick on you about that.
"Well, look, you can't even talk, so why would anyone listen to you?!"

Mocking is also a very popular way to attack a messenger. We simply repeat what you said in a childish voice. Mocking highlights the juvenile nature of our Instinct. It's like being 13 years old again, because having an underdeveloped prefrontal cortex halts our emotional growth at about that age. It's like reliving junior high school over and over again for your entire life.


5 - Assumption of an absolute. "So you're saying that ALL people ALWAYS..." This usually shows that we are getting desperate in finding ways to shut you up. If we can make it look like you are assuming some kind of absolute, then that means you are crazy and not to be trusted. Our Warrior Instinct operates out of absolutes, so we are likely to hear one even if you don't actually say it.

This usually goes hand in hand with another behavior: Attaching emotional content to a logistical situation. The most common emotion usually attached is anger, and it often appears disproportionate to the situation.


6 - Justification by comparison to an opposite extreme.
"So were supposed to just stand by and let him kill his own people?"
Warrior Instinct sees the world in terms of black and white. There are only two choices:
My way, (which obviously is the right way),
and any other way, (which is obviously the wrong way).
There is no possibility of a third way to handle a situation. The way to handle anything is my way,
(which is usually the first thing that pops into my head).
And if you question me, then I will defend it by comparing it to some opposite extreme that is so obviously wrong, that my way looks right by comparison.


7 - Try to silence you.
"No one is forcing you live here!"
The "Love it or leave it!" defense.

The goal here is: if you leave, then I don't have to hear you anymore, and my denial will be protected.
Or, I could just punch you in the face, and then you will be quiet.
Physical violence is born out of our Warrior Instinct coming out to protect our denial.
This is pure Neanderthal behavior and yet it is still popular with modern 'Advanced' humans.
Physically hitting someone does not make you right, and them wrong. Beating the living crap out of them doesn't do it either. And beating them to within an inch of their life still does not make what they were saying wrong.
All it does is attempt to protect our denial. But it fails. Which usually leads us closer to the next defense...


8 - Kill you.
It sounds extreme, but it happens every day.
Our Warrior Instinct acts out of extreme beliefs, and an extreme view of reality. Black or white. Friend or foe.
Dead men cannot contradict you.
If we do something that we know is going to cause us to face consequences, and someone else has the power to make us face those consequences, then the best thing we can do is to kill them. Then we won't have to face the consequences of our own behavior. We will threaten, bully, force, invade, and kill to avoid facing the consequences of our own behavior.


We act out of instincts.
Survival instincts.
The way they help us survive, is by operating below our conscious level of awareness.
If we were aware of them, they wouldn't be instincts.

They would be conscious choices of behavior.