Becker (1971, p. 55) goes even further by suggesting that this vaccinating signal anxiety becomes the basis for creation of distinctive defensive structures that each of us creates as we mature in a world that is often threatening or at least unpredictable:
“[T]he ego grows by putting anxiety under its control, as it finds out what anxiety is for the organism, and then choose to avoid it by building defenses that handle it. . . . [T]he ego ‘vaccinates itself’ with small doses of anxiety; and the ‘antibodies’ that the organism builds up by means of this ‘vaccination’ become its defenses.’”
There is a more positive side. The “inoculation” from signal anxiety is preventative in nature, like the inoculations we receive for various physical diseases. We gain insights about ourselves even when there is not a major “meltdown” in our relationship with another person. We learn about ourselves and other people even when we are impacting another person in a manner that evokes only small nonverbal reactions rather than wholesale blurting out of angry (or effusively positive) feedback.
We are “primed” to learn more about ourselves as a result of this opaque knowledge. Initially, we “see through a glass darkly,” but with “faith” (interpersonal trust), we will soon see clearly. Our opaque knowledge of other people’s perceptions of us prepares us for, helps us to interpret and enables us to make use of feedback from other people. We learn about ourselves—our strengths as well as our weaknesses—from this opaque knowledge and gain interpersonal wisdom even without direct and open feedback from other people.
Attribution Error: there is another aspect operating in the acquisition and use of opaque knowledge about self. This third aspect has to do with attribution. We are often only opaquely aware of our consistent patterns of behavior, choosing instead to attribute our behavior to the specific setting(s) in which we find ourselves. We believe that our behavior is primarily a function of context and external forces—while we tend to walk around with a different theory of attribution regarding other people. This alternative theory is based on an assumption that other people operate as they do because of their ingrained personality or “character.” As the attribution researchers, Jones and Nisbett (1972, p. 80) suggest:
“. . . the actor’s perceptions of the causes of his behavior are at variance with those held by outside observers. The actor’s view of his behavior emphasizes the role of environmental conditions at the moment of action. The observer’s view emphasizes the causal role of stable dispositional properties of the actor. We wish to argue that there is a pervasive tendency for actors to attribute their actions to situational requirements, whereas observers tend to attribute the same actions to stable personal dispositions.”
We are rarely completely “blind.” At some level we “know” what we don’t “know.” Our knowledge is opaque, in part, because we view ourselves from a state or contextual point of view, whereas others tend to view us from a trait or personality perspective. We think we can change (it’s a matter of situation), whereas others don’t think we can change (it’s a matter of personality). This attribution error is not entirely off based. There is just enough error to enable us to discount how other people see us—but just enough truth in the attribution to force us (at least sometimes) to listen to what other people say about our consistent behavior patterns (our “personality”). Our honesty is always a bit contextual and partial.
Protected Rather than Hidden Self
We also tinker a bit with Luft’s labeling and description of the third quadrant. Trust and honesty are often founded on the capacity to be open with other people. However, once again, we propose that openness is always a relative thing. We are never fully open with one another (quad one). We are also never really “hidden” in Q3. We are “leaking” all over the place—nonverbal communication, what we do and don’t say. We make assumptions and try to “hide” these assumptions; however, through our actions we tend to provoke thoughts and actions in other people that confirm these assumptions. These assumptions become “self-fulfilling prophecies.” We can’t talk about any of this with other people and are even unlikely to reflect on these dynamics in our own minds. We are left, as a result, with what Chris Argyris and Don Schön (1974) identify as “self-sealed assumptions”. Given this leakage and these dynamics regarding self-fulfilling prophesies and self-sealed assumptions, I am inclined to call this quadrant the “protected self” rather than the “hidden self.”
