Criticism, Judgment and Projection

[Lark]

Yyyyes... In many cases, I think people do criticize others for displaying the same qualities that they dislike in themselves.

However, I have also noticed that people tend to over-use the phrase "You're projecting" as a kind of trump card, a way to spin an argument and avoid the real issue. It's a non-answer that adds nothing to the discussion, and it just seems kind of lazy to me.

But what if they are?

I agree with you it can be quite circular, an example of the internet meme "Noyou" or "I know you are but what am I?".

If Eric Berne is to believed most things boil down one way or another to those kinds of playground games and scripts.

 

[highlander]

I encounter this a lot, most recently at work, some of the least competent people I work with will consistently label others as defensive and unreflective when it comes to any matter of competence being discussed at all, although its difficult to counter or challenge the allegation of being defensive and unreflective because anything you say can be used as further evidence of your defensive and unreflective nature. Its pretty circular. Its been roundly critiqued as on aspect of psychoanalytical theory which takes no account of power relations and roles in framing, reframing and managing narratives.

I actually worry about this from a work perspective because performance evaluations by nature include judgments. How many cases are out there where a boss is unconsciously unloading their own crap on some poor subordinate? I remember once when I was up for a really big promotion I heard this one guy in the meetimg where the promotions were being decided talked about me being very arrogant. I guess everyone sort of ignored him but something like that could have cost me the promotion if other circumstances had existed. As you can imagine that guy was really pretty arrogant but didn't see that in himself.

 

[Xann]

Could you run by an example of what you are talking about? Is there a specific situation you have a mind?

Here's an example I noticed. I used to hate people who acted on their sexual drive more than I did, and I acted as though they were doing something immoral. Then I realized I had those same drives, and that judging others for actually acting on them, just because I chose something different, was stupid. I need to take responsibility for my own decisions and actions, ultimately, even if they happen to be stupid.

Hmm, well while I'm sure there are countless examples of this on the forum, especially along Ti/Fe and Fi/Te lines where communication issues and perceived moral and intellectual failings are common on both sides, this dynamic seems to exist nearly everywhere that extreme moral judgement and condemnation is made with little examination of why or without respect for the freedoms of others. The Israel/Palestine argument that you brought up is an excellent example, as well as the gay marriage/christian bakery owner being sued due to not making a cake for a gay couple debate. In both sides there is a lack of willingness to overcome some perceived moral wrong in the other party and allow the debate to follow a more clear-sighted conclusion and outcome devoid of these quite avoidable obstacles if only there was a shred more empathy and awareness of the self and other whenever confronted with one of these "character flaws".

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Hmm, well while I'm sure there are countless examples of this on the forum, especially along Ti/Fe and Fi/Te lines where communication issues and perceived moral and intellectual failings are common on both sides, this dynamic seems to exist nearly everywhere that extreme moral judgement and condemnation is made with little examination of why or without respect for the freedoms of others. The Israel/Palestine argument that you brought up is an excellent example, as well as the gay marriage/christian bakery owner being sued due to not making a cake for a gay couple debate. In both sides there is a lack of willingness to overcome some perceived moral wrong in the other party and allow the debate to follow a more clear-sighted conclusion and outcome devoid of these quite avoidable obstacles if only there was a shred more empathy and awareness of the self and other whenever confronted with one of these "character flaws".

How would you resolve these conflicts? Suppose you were president. How would you handle them?

 

[Xann]

How would you resolve these conflicts?

I'm not claiming to have solutions to them, the awareness that projection plays a large part in blowing these conflicts out of proportion and making them far more damaging to both sides is helpful though for accurate insight into the matter, especially amongst the parties involved. I have a hypothesis that psychological projection is so commonplace because it actually evolved as a tool to be able to allow the justification of "immoral" behavior in situations where otherwise one would have had to admit error, in most cases resulting in death. Usually in any debate where there is a subjective component involving morality there is error or at least a lack of insight and facts on both sides which can lead to infringement on the freedoms of the other party, sometimes in pursuit of the greater good and sometimes out of purely selfish motivation, which means there is likely projection going on from both sides as well.

 

[Lark]

I also want to add that for some people (types?) there simply is no framework for legitimizing the concept of psychological projection logically, so either accusing them of it or bringing it up in a discussion is only going to bring anger and frustration, as if you were suddenly speaking a different language or were making a completely fallacious argument out of the blue even when their own character deficit is actively ruining the debate or causing it to run down an extremely limited (and also fallacious...strawman arguments are common here but never admitted to) trajectory. While I have no empirical evidence except my own personal experiences for this claim, I would say some people simply lack a level of accurate theory of mind and empathy to be able to conceptualize the idea of psychological projection and actively spot it in themselves and others. In my experience, the person accusing the other party of projection tends to be correct 90% of the time but it is a dead-end communication wise which is why it is to be avoided.

This post is very interesting to me because I actually wrote something to this effect in an essay once, now the essay was a piece of "busy work" set by someone I felt was messing with me and I decided to write a lot of things just to occupy their time in turn, I know that was pretty immature/stupid but at the time I thought the idea of them combing over a lot of nonsense seeking to pick out nuggets of information to use was amusing.

The bit I've highlighted was exactly the conclusion I reached, I also raised that sort of conclusion again in another different context in which someone was suggesting the MBTI derivative test, is it the big three? Its got neuroticism, agreeableness and something else, was a good test for prospective workers in my field (helping, caring professionals) but I was challenging that as I strongly suspected this was a person who was searching for a tool to select individuals based on their conclusions about others but excluding any insight into their self and how that had shaped their conclusions about others, if that makes sense, as they had that impoverished or none existent theory of mind you mention.

I've wondered for a while how these theories sync with theories of type in the popular typologies but also others, such as Erich Fromm's social unconscious and social character theories, or sociology and micro-sociology theories.

I even wonder how it syncs with theories of narcissism, benign or malign, theories of psychological deployment, over compensation etc.

 

[Lark]

Yeah that kind of annoys me, oftentimes seems like a cheap way to suck the merit out of any statement. Pushed out like a statement of fact and at that point there pretty much is no reason to continue to attemp any further discussion. It shuts down instead of opening up, and I believe users know that. Self protective at the expense of placing that blow upon someone else.

That definitely happens, most posting on internet forums doesnt qualify as discussion, let alone dialogue and I think to even suggest its debate or even dispute would be flattering it too much.

The internet, in part because of anonymity but also because of traditions of trolling and things like that, is often just a place people go to vent in manners they otherwise cant or seek cheer leading support, in the worst instances the validation of strangers, its the shallows. Then again the writer I like the most on the topic of dialogue suggests this was and can be an aspect of peer review journals, although more strongly so in the past when researchers too up a particular position and defended it to destruction against rival researchers, that adversarial style of discourse inhibits discovery much more than mutual dialogue on a matter with falsifiability in mind (referencing science journals here).

I agree its about shutting things down and controlling things a lot of the time. To the expense of any actual point being made or possibility of being made.

Although I think projection, properly understood, could provide an opportunity for gaining insight into the self, people do avoid that and maybe that's due to experience or their feeling someone else is trying to shut things down or control things and their own need to prevent it. Though if you're just reflecting on things yourself it shouldnt be too fearful an idea, no more so than the role of affect in decision making or opinion formation, rationalisation, ego defense, scripts and games or a bunch of other similar insightful ideas.

 

[Lark]

Word.

Also, that type of justification reeks of the whole "He started it" mentality. Shifting the blame to others does not make it okay to respond in kind.

Well that is certainly true, when people get triggered it often becomes about the fact that they've been triggered than the original trigger itself. Particularly if their response or reaction has sparked an escalation. Its easily noticeable on this forum or forums like it, I think someone had a username Provoker for a while and I wondered if that was the role they saw themselves in.

When I'm working with aggression in others I am wary of co-workers whose response to that kind of behaviour is liable to be panic or provocation, those responses are classic flight or fight and seem to be patterned on people.

Something I try to keep in mind when situations are turning affective or escalating is that when your anger increases your cognitive ability decreases, so when you're at your angriest you're at your stupidest. Some people like that in themselves or others and you see it in any big issue topic and or political movement.

 

[Lark]

Of course, everyone is above projecting, right? It's always the other guy who's projecting. We're all self-aware and rational and our criticisms are well-thought out. I can say that I experience myself as very rational and reasonable. *pats self on back*

/projecting

I wouldnt say so, I am really self critical and reflective and from the time I learned what projecting was and what it involved I've checked my own thinking to see if its a consequence of it in some shape or form.

Its part of the reason I get really angry when others suggest I'm defensive or unreflective, it could be that they're simply pushing my buttons or have acted quickly to place themselves in a superior position to myself, ie blameless, analytical, objective, when they arent but whatever the reason (or rather rationalisation) their attribution of those things to me is not accurate.

That said you're pointing out something that's worthwhile to note.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I wouldnt say so, I am really self critical and reflective and from the time I learned what projecting was and what it involved I've checked my own thinking to see if its a consequence of it in some shape or form.

Its part of the reason I get really angry when others suggest I'm defensive or unreflective, it could be that they're simply pushing my buttons or have acted quickly to place themselves in a superior position to myself, ie blameless, analytical, objective, when they arent but whatever the reason (or rather rationalisation) their attribution of those things to me is not accurate.

That said you're pointing out something that's worthwhile to note.

Why did you assume she was talking about you?

 

[Lark]

I actually worry about this from a work perspective because performance evaluations by nature include judgments. How many cases are out there where a boss is unconsciously unloading their own crap on some poor subordinate? I remember once when I was up for a really big promotion I heard this one guy in the meetimg where the promotions were being decided talked about me being very arrogant. I guess everyone sort of ignored him but something like that could have cost me the promotion if other circumstances had existed. As you can imagine that guy was really pretty arrogant but didn't see that in himself.

Me too, for similar reasons, from my own perspective I've encountered individuals who do not have good capacity to deal with crisis situations being the individuals charged with debriefing others in the wake of those same situations, it results in their highly critical appraisal of the people who has dealt with it and often I cant help but recognise a lot of projecting going on. I do think there's unconscious misdirection in all that, office politics, if someone directions attention to others its away from themselves.

My brother works in IT and I've heard stories about performance evaluations in his line of work and precisely the thing you mention, often I marvel at how similar the problems are with managerial personnel given that the work is so different but he has told me there are managers in his field who are not IT professionals themselves.

This is something which has slowly bled into my field of work, that managers dont necessarily need to be uber skilled versions of the operational staff, probably as a recognition of the fact that many people, years ago, elected to pursue promotion as an exit strategy from a role they were in and found too stressful, ironically sometimes the stressors involved demanding/draining communication and/or accountability how they thought managerial roles would involve less of either is beyond me but this is one of those things no one admits to but people suspect.

A lot of it I think can be traced back some time to the managerial revolution and emergence of management per se, the Dunning Kruger effect is just one piece of research with worrying conclusions (which the US Navy took serious interest in), sociology has provided some other insights into elite reproduction or elite selection and recruitment too, a humourist in the UK wrote about the Peter Principle, ie that people rise to their level of incompetence, so someone who is a good operational staff member will be recognised for the same and promoted and promoted until they reach a level they cant cope with, it becomes obvious and they arent promoted again but the outfit suffers and if everyone is lucky a subordinate compensates for the bad manager (think of Radar in MASH) but the author of the Peter Principle thought the answer was old Etonians due to their possesing "class" so maybe not so good an example.

 

[Lark]

Hmm, well while I'm sure there are countless examples of this on the forum, especially along Ti/Fe and Fi/Te lines where communication issues and perceived moral and intellectual failings are common on both sides, this dynamic seems to exist nearly everywhere that extreme moral judgement and condemnation is made with little examination of why or without respect for the freedoms of others. The Israel/Palestine argument that you brought up is an excellent example, as well as the gay marriage/christian bakery owner being sued due to not making a cake for a gay couple debate. In both sides there is a lack of willingness to overcome some perceived moral wrong in the other party and allow the debate to follow a more clear-sighted conclusion and outcome devoid of these quite avoidable obstacles if only there was a shred more empathy and awareness of the self and other whenever confronted with one of these "character flaws".

Hear, Hear.

If you read JS Mill's "chapters on socialism" it proves really interesting, Mill was not a fan of socialism and the "book" is really a response to the popularity of socialism, his citations are pretty expansive and he is generous in his analysis (much, much more so than anti-socialists since) he even agrees with them about objectives, some of their description but not necessarily their prescription (he thinks the role of the state should be the same whether an economy can be described as capitalist or socialist for instance, I dont just mean the civil liberty sphere, the book predates modern life its got to be said).

Anyway, my point, Mill describes his process for researching and responding to positions he disagrees with, he's ambivalent about universal sufferage and democracy its got to be said BTW, and explains that he thinks the whole thing is so important as his nightmare scenario is not the prevailing of one position on another but "ignorant change versus ignorant opposition" which I think is pretty enlightened, its also what I actually is occuring most of the time in the world as it is, the LGBT dividing line is only one example as you say, Israel-Palestine is another and perhaps every topic descends to that point.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I wonder if another factor is that we tend to reject the negative traits we have encountered from others. Since we are creatures deeply influenced by environment, it is easy to internalize those same negative traits in ourselves. In this way the projection also has a reverse causality.

This can be a big issue for children whose parents were hurtful, but who also share those same traits simply through environmental influence. It takes a lot of self awareness to look at the negative influences and either admit to possessing those same traits and/or to make the effort to not personally possess those same traits. That deep, childhood influence can be one key factor to rejecting a trait we unknowingly posses.

Then it is possible to reject a trait because it is so opposite to ones own traits, and too foreign to process without agitation. A neat-freak is likely to reject the behavior of a slob without any projection involved whatsoever because the behavior is fundamentally at odds.

I think the key place to look is at our childhood environmental influences, especially those influences we reject. Those early years before our frontal cortex (judgment and emotional processing center) is fully developed is the time we can most easily internalize a trait we genuinely dislike. After noticing this in others, I've started to remember my own family dynamics and identify the areas I share with their negative traits.

 

[Lark]

I wonder if another factor is that we tend to reject the negative traits we have encountered from others. Since we are creatures deeply influenced by environment, it is easy to internalize those same negative traits in ourselves. In this way the projection also has a reverse causality.

This can be a big issue for children whose parents were hurtful, but who also share those same traits simply through environmental influence. It takes a lot of self awareness to look at the negative influences and either admit to possessing those same traits and/or to make the effort to not personally possess those same traits. That deep, childhood influence can be one key factor to rejecting a trait we unknowingly posses.

Then it is possible to reject a trait because it is so opposite to ones own traits, and too foreign to process without agitation. A neat-freak is likely to reject the behavior of a slob without any projection involved whatsoever because the behavior is fundamentally at odds.

I think the key place to look is at our childhood environmental influences, especially those influences we reject. Those early years before our frontal cortex (judgment and emotional processing center) is fully developed is the time we can most easily internalize a trait we genuinely dislike. After noticing this in others, I've started to remember my own family dynamics and identify the areas I share with their negative traits.

That is very, very insightful.

Especially when you consider that people develop at different paces, I've known adolescents which wouldnt be assessed as having any sort of cognitive deficits or impairments or emerging disorders or anything of that kind but its clear that they'll maybe reach what would be considered teenaged levels of judgement and emotional processing when they're in their early or mid-twenties, if they're lucky (by which I mean have lots of repeated good relationships with others, possibly a steady single attachment figure, dont mess around with drugs to permanently alter their brain or body chemistry too much, dont experience too much trauma, all of that's a tall damn order sometimes).

Sometimes this is so, so strong a thing, what you mention, that I've known people to wonder about genetic influences contra environment, the whole "they are their father/mother's son/daughter" thing and self fufilling prophecy.

Although even with these things in mind I think there is a huge and often unacknowledged role for sociology and socialisation and culture which people dont realise.

 

[Eilonwy]

Why did you assume she was talking about you?

I didn't take @Lark's reply that way. I have no posting history with him, so I didn't take it as him taking my post personally. I took it as him seeing a point that resonated with him and that he wanted to reply to.

ETA: However, both of us are assuming, when it might be more productive to just ask Lark nicely about his intent if we're curious.

 

[Andy]

I have observed so many times in life that when one person criticizes another person that in fact the person doing the criticizing appears to quite strongly demonstrate the behavior they are raising. "That person is so bossy" said the bossy person. "They are so indecisive" says the indecisive person. "XXXX is very reactive" says the reactive person. "They always jumps to conclusions" says the person who jumps to conclusions.

Has anybody noticed this? It is very interesting behavior. I wonder if we can use these kinds of statements to more quickly identify a person's flaws that they don't want to admit - especially when stated in strong/absolute form, "so" "always" "never" etc. Thoughts?

Here is an article I found on it.

https://chrismaser.wordpress.com/2010/05/13/criticism-in-the-form-of-projection/

It's always struck me that the first model we use to understand other people is ourselves - that is, we start by assuming other people are a bit like us. Hopefully, we refine that model as we get older and more experienced.

 

[Cellmold]

I punch a man in the face, he criticises me for it.

Man is scared of punching others in the face.

 

[Jaguar]

Bob rapes a woman and I strongly criticize him for it, ergo, I'm unwilling to admit to myself I have rapist tendencies?

I think not.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Bob rapes a woman and I strongly criticize him for it, ergo, I'm unwilling to admit to myself I have rapist tendencies?

I think not.

#notalljaguars

 

[Z Buck McFate]

The important thing is to "know thyself." Ultimately, it requires intrapersonal awareness, which is a trait that many people sadly lack.

I agree that self-awareness is required to avoid projecting, but to be more specific (and, in Jung's words):

Most people confuse “self-knowledge” with knowledge of their conscious ego personalities. Anyone who has any ego-consciousness at all takes it for granted that he knows himself. But the ego knows only its own contents, not the unconscious and its contents. People measure their self knowledge by what the average person in their social environment knows of himself, but not by the real psychic facts which are for the most part hidden from them.​

I think it's usually the unconscious that dumps shame into other people through projection (we aren't aware it's happening), so what's required- to be able to own up to our own unpleasant qualities/shame (or in Jung's terms, 'to bring consciousness to light' and become aware of it)- is enough self compassion to be able to accept those things about ourselves in the first place.

The thing said at in the second half of the blog post is sorta interesting too. Only I see this happening on a smaller scale too, in interpersonal dynamics between individuals- one person will absorb too much shame between the two of them, and project better qualities into the other person than that other person deserves (e.g. abused partner who stays in a relationship and excuses behavior they shouldn't excuse). This is not a healthy situation of someone becoming self-aware/owning shame that is rightfully theirs (although it can feel, to them, like it is), this is someone compulsively (unconsciously) absorbing more shame than they should. It's a tendency learned in childhood, when (oversimplified explanation ahead) parents/caregivers are too critical and the only way to 'earn' love is to systematically absorb more than a fair amount of shame.


Another great Jung line that applies here:

Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.​

I'm a die hard believer in that^. (I tried starting a thread on it before, but it didn't get very far.)