When some people perceive a situation as being dangerous or threatening, they are realistic if they act adequately, trying to protect themselves.  Some others, because of their previous traumatic experiences, feel a danger when there is no threat at all.  The latter may simply be superimposing a gesture, expression or tone of voice onto similar situations, which in their past (most often childhood) caused them harm, if they were repeatedly persecuted and abused. Sexual and physical abuses often, but not always, coincide.

Physical abuse creates fear and constant vigilance, while sexual, although invoking the same feelings, is much more confusing.  The abuser often seduces (rather than forces the victim) and may be able to groom him or her into a seemingly participatory illusion of conjoined activities. The feelings of shame and guilt for keeping the 'secret' makes them feel responsible and in cahoots with the perpetrator.

Paradoxically, the victim of physical abuse, although constantly expecting to be attacked,  may develop some trust if the situation proves to be safe for some while, but the sexually manipulated ones never know and can not predict whether the seemingly soothing and comforting behaviour of the one who has at least some power over them will lead to re-traumatization.

In both cases the anticipation of being helpless causes difficulties to interact with others and to function in society to a degree which corresponds with the impact of the traumatic past.  This degree may range from the ‘satisfactorily functioning’ to the ‘malfunctioning’ individual. Not everyone has suffered significant trauma, but everyone has sensitivities and reacts according to the imprint the past has made on them.

These sensitivities create 'projections' which determine the distortion of reality we experience in our encounters - especially with family members and groups of individuals at our workplace. When we are so convinced in a conflict that our way of seeing the situation, that our point of view is the only one, the conflict becomes practically irresolvable - unless we get someone else involved, someone whom all trust.

These personal convictions we call "subjective obviousness". We simply ‘play chess’ with ourselves in the solitary confinement of our own sculls. We always win. But who loses? It is better in therapy to ‘analyze the party’ in repeated ‘instant playbacks’ not unlike in the televised sport games.