Idea stealing or "borrowing": a defence mechanism?

[Frays]

Warning: This is a partial rant. I am interested in seeing if others have experienced similar situations, and your own ideas regarding why people engage in this form of psychological defence.

I noticed that a lot of times when I am in a debate/discussion/argument with someone, and I prove the other party to be incorrect in their convictions, the other party will repeat my own ideas back to me to refute.... my ideas - the same ones.

Imagine someone stating something that is just obviously incorrect (layer 1), you refute them with undeniable proof (layer 2), and then they refute the undeniable proof (layer 2) with itself (layer 2). Essentially, they stole your idea and are now somehow convinced that the idea belonged to them all along. To make matters worse, they are gloating about how brilliant they are for rebutting you...... with your idea.

I understand that nobody likes to be wrong and when people feel threatened, their shields start going up to prevent their system from malfunctioning. However, this kind of behaviour just strikes me as ridiculous... just.... how can someone so confidently, so easily, take someone else's character as theirs? <- I hope that statement is understandable. I can't think of a better way to describe it. It is kind of like they are subconsciously rejecting their own self, or they have very little self value/sense of self.

At the same time, I am offended because for me, it's kind of like they are trying to tear my character out to take home. My ideas are very important to me and for someone to even attempt that kind of thing... it is akin to the worst kind of identity theft, in a psychological way.

What do you guys speculate? And more importantly, what do you think of it in relation to yourself?

[X51]

They try to refute your layer 2 by repeating layer 2? Or do you mean they adopt your layer 2, so that they are now proving their original layer 1 incorrect, but they make it sound like layer 2 was theirs all along and you never even said anything remotely resembling it?

[Frays]

They try to refute your layer 2 by repeating layer 2? Or do you mean they adopt your layer 2, so that they are now proving their original layer 1 incorrect, but they make it sound like layer 2 was theirs all along and you never even said anything remotely resembling it?

They refute my layer 2 by both repeating layer 2 and "adopting" it as in they make it sound like layer 2 was theirs all along.

[Silence]

Yeah- it used to drive me up a wall.

The only way I could actually deal with it was to simply accept it as validation- someone that does that is NEVER going to say, "You know what? You're right. I had it all wrong." It's an infuriating part of discussions and discourse, but there is no satisfaction in seeking affirmation of your ideas as being yours.

Then again, discussions like that often leave me at a slow, murderous simmer, so I may not be viewing this with the most objectivity. I'm definitely here to say that it happens far more often than I'd like. Here's your validation!

[Grave]

The goal of an argument is to refute the other person's idea even if that means using his own idea to refute it. If your idea was really that flawed that it refutes itself it isn't something to be proud of, now is it?

However, I'm not so sure what it is you mean by idea. How can the theory of relativity refute itself? Is this a method you speak of?

[Frays]

Yeah- it used to drive me up a wall.

The only way I could actually deal with it was to simply accept it as validation- someone that does that is NEVER going to say, "You know what? You're right. I had it all wrong." It's an infuriating part of discussions and discourse, but there is no satisfaction in seeking affirmation of your ideas as being yours.

Then again, discussions like that often leave me at a slow, murderous simmer, so I may not be viewing this with the most objectivity. I'm definitely here to say that it happens far more often than I'd like. Here's your validation!

Thank you for the validation. You know exactly what I mean. It certainly does not come with a very nice feeling but I think we both know that people who do this can't be argued with.

The goal of an argument is to refute the other person's idea even if that means using his own idea to refute it. If your idea was really that flawed that it refutes itself it isn't something to be proud of, now is it?

However, I'm not so sure what it is you mean by idea. How can the theory of relativity refute itself? Is this a method you speak of?

My idea did not refute itself. It was as if the other person was suggesting that layer 1 was mine and layer 2 was his. I hope that clarifies things.

It is like the latter of what you said - "how can the theory of relativity refute itself?" - it can't.

I'll use a really simplistic example to illustrate what I mean:

Person: The can is made of plastic.
Me: The can is made of aluminium.
Person: It feels like plastic.
Me: It says it is made of aluminium on it.
Person: So? It is made of aluminium.
Me: Exactly...?
Person: It's made of aluminium, not plastic.
Me: That's what I said... it's made of aluminium.
Person: It's made of aluminium, not plastic!
Me: You said plastic, not me.
Person: I said aluminium!
Me: What? Okay.

[DrCiao]

Thank you for the validation. You know exactly what I mean. It certainly does not come with a very nice feeling but I think we both know that people who do this can't be argued with.



My idea did not refute itself. It was as if the other person was suggesting that layer 1 was mine and layer 2 was his. I hope that clarifies things.

It is like the latter of what you said - "how can the theory of relativity refute itself?" - it can't.

I'll use a really simplistic example to illustrate what I mean:

Person: The can is made of plastic.
Me: The can is made of aluminium.
Person: It feels like plastic.
Me: It says it is made of aluminium on it.
Person: So? It is made of aluminium.
Me: Exactly...?
Person: It's made of aluminium, not plastic.
Me: That's what I said... it's made of aluminium.
Person: It's made of aluminium, not plastic!
Me: You said plastic, not me.
Person: I said aluminium!
Me: What? Okay.


:laugh: yes I have come across this. I had this done to me several times by a charming fellow. I think it is some sort of gas lighting technique. Otherwise some people have a weird sense of humor.

[Grave]

Thank you for the validation. You know exactly what I mean. It certainly does not come with a very nice feeling but I think we both know that people who do this can't be argued with.



My idea did not refute itself. It was as if the other person was suggesting that layer 1 was mine and layer 2 was his. I hope that clarifies things.

It is like the latter of what you said - "how can the theory of relativity refute itself?" - it can't.

I'll use a really simplistic example to illustrate what I mean:

Person: The can is made of plastic.
Me: The can is made of aluminium.
Person: It feels like plastic.
Me: It says it is made of aluminium on it.
Person: So? It is made of aluminium.
Me: Exactly...?
Person: It's made of aluminium, not plastic.
Me: That's what I said... it's made of aluminium.
Person: It's made of aluminium, not plastic!
Me: You said plastic, not me.
Person: I said aluminium!
Me: What? Okay.

Haha, I'm sorry, It is really unfortunate that you have to deal with those type of people. It's best not to argue their strange logic.

[Othesemo]

I was unaware that people did that seriously. I'll occasionally do that just to annoy my friends, but I shudder to imagine the type of person who might do that in an actual debate.

[squarebox]

I simply do not interact or surround myself with people of the stature.
It's a waste of time.

[Solar]

This drives my ego crazy, but at least we've come to an agreement/conclusion. There's an ever worse one, and that's when I start doubting my ability to talk to any person. It's when they jump back and forth between standpoint 1 and standpoint 2, lacking any sort of consistency as if they have some serious issue with short term memory. It seems this happens when you try to go to the next level by following the consequences of standpoint 2, then they fall back to standpoint 1.

Person: The can is made of plastic.
Me: The can is made of aluminium.
Person: It feels like plastic.
Me: It says it is made of aluminium on it.
Person: So? It is made of aluminium.
Me: Exactly...?
Person: It's made of aluminium, not plastic.
Me: That's what I said... it's made of aluminium.
Person: It's made of aluminium, not plastic!
Me: You said plastic, not me.
Person: I said aluminium!
Me: What? Okay.
Me: So then, with that settled, lets throw it in the box for metal stuff.
Person: No no, in the one for plastic!

[Sethis]

I don't know. You hang out with weird people mate. I don't see that very often.

Seriously, where's the harm if they just agree and repeat your ideas while understanding them? Unless they're claiming them to be theirs I don't get your problem. Don't be so protective of your ideas. They're meant to be "borrowed".


Person: The can is made of plastic.
Me: The can is made of aluminium.
Person: It feels like plastic.
Me: It says it is made of aluminium on it.
Person: So? It is made of aluminium.
Me: Exactly...?
Person: It's made of aluminium, not plastic.
Me: That's what I said... it's made of aluminium.
Person: It's made of aluminium, not plastic!
Me: You said plastic, not me.
Person: I said aluminium!
Me: What? Okay.


You have been trolled.

[Frays]

:laugh: yes I have come across this. I had this done to me several times by a charming fellow. I think it is some sort of gas lighting technique. Otherwise some people have a weird sense of humor.

Thank you, that is the correct terminology I was looking for. It definitely is a form of gaslightning, no matter how I look at it. Now I am left to wonder whether gaslighting could be seen as a defence mechanism, or something else.

This drives my ego crazy, but at least we've come to an agreement/conclusion. There's an ever worse one, and that's when I start doubting my ability to talk to any person. It's when they jump back and forth between standpoint 1 and standpoint 2, lacking any sort of consistency as if they have some serious issue with short term memory. It seems this happens when you try to go to the next level by following the consequences of standpoint 2, then they fall back to standpoint 1.

Person: The can is made of plastic.
Me: The can is made of aluminium.
Person: It feels like plastic.
Me: It says it is made of aluminium on it.
Person: So? It is made of aluminium.
Me: Exactly...?
Person: It's made of aluminium, not plastic.
Me: That's what I said... it's made of aluminium.
Person: It's made of aluminium, not plastic!
Me: You said plastic, not me.
Person: I said aluminium!
Me: What? Okay.
Me: So then, with that settled, lets throw it in the box for metal stuff.
Person: No no, in the one for plastic!

That is the EXACT problem I've been having when I am communicating with some people. The conversation never gets anywhere because they jump around every single point in existence, and somehow justify it to themselves that what they are doing is linear (to themselves only, maybe). And they really CAN'T remember, no matter what! Thank you for putting my thoughts into more understandable terms... and double thank you, because I was really starting to doubt myself.... since it is ridiculous that some people can't remember the point they were at from two seconds ago.

[IncorrectLabel]

I usually cant stand it when people jump around back and forth with irrelevant material during an argument.

As far as the main topic, I've mostly seen people do that jokingly.