So I’m fairly social for someone like me and have done my fair share of talking to people as well as toward people, some talks being more passionate than others, so I guess having my odds of this reduced is a factor here when I say occasionally “projecting” will be brought up during a conversation. One should “stop projecting” they might say. It’s always in an accusatory kind of context, with being described a certain way by someone else often being connected to the latter person fitting what they’re thinking of.
Is this… a meme for a lack of a better word? Where does this conceivably come from? Seeing such a thing all the time, I can’t fathom the mindset, it seems so faulty my mind groups it in with grievance misapplication. Why would someone play hot potato with things even deemed to be things nobody should be handling like it’s second nature? How could someone in control subconsciously see instinct in this? What happened the last time this came up for you, when did it turn out to be the case?
It’s not a meme, it’s a psychological concept. It boils down to when you attribute a motive or a mindset to someone when in fact you’re only speculating based on that of your own. So if you assert that someone let’s say is doing something because they’re afraid of xyz - and in fact there could be many reasons and there’s no real evidence of what you’re claiming, but if your peers know that that is a characteristic of yours, they might accuse you of projecting.
I mean the way you explained it does make sense for them to do, for example if I had a certain medical condition, I might see someone describe it in terms I’d describe and say “it sounds like you might have MS”, but the confusing side/aspect of it, to me, comes from exchanges where someone is, for example, accusing another person of being an art thief, and that person responds “stop projecting, you’re the art thief” (or, alternatively, the act of projecting is hard to think of a lead-up for). And it happens often enough I scratch my head at how it’s seen as having gravity.
I’ve seen/heard it described as “psychologically caused”, but I’ve never been in a situation where I’ve felt gravitation towards doing it, or, strictly speaking (which I say that way because it might boil down to coincidence when I describe others doing it, so I’m saying it relatively loosely in those instances), suspected it. It reminds me of how long it took me to understand sarcasm, which I still take literally, since “I didn’t know you were being sarcastic” when they were is easier to fathom as a plea for forgiveness than “I thought you were being sarcastic” in response to someone being sarcastic.
Removed by mod
I think there’s an added element of “some aspect of the strawman you’re projecting on to others is actually something you think about yourself”
In this context “projecting” is a fancy “no u”, used to imply that you’re claiming that someone has an attribute not because the person has it, but because you do.
It isn’t quite a meme, just one of those “catch-all” idiotic defences. Typically given by people who care more about appearances than the validity of a claim (i.e. stupid thus harmful people).
EDIT: it’s relevant to note that I’m being fairly specific when I say “this context”, the context specified by the OP in the first paragraph: people discussing, and one claims/implies that another is projecting in an accusatory way. I am not criticising the actual psychological concept that this pseudo-psychological crap comes from. Is this clear?
You don’t know the context, because OP didn’t provide any details of what was being discussed. It’s entirely possible that it was a valid call in some or all of those situations.
You don’t know the context,
I do know enough of the context to back up what I said, because the poster did provide enough details through the post. Like this:
- “and have done my fair share of talking to people as well as toward people” - or, roughly, “I’m used to expose what I think”. This strongly hints “random” (i.e. non-specific) topics; either casual monologues or casual discussions. Either way it’s hinted that it isn’t a single topic.
- “some talks being more passionate than others” - i.e. multiple discussions. “Passionate” reads like an euphemism for “heavy disagreement”; and while this utterance isn’t enough to confirm that reading, it gets confirmed later on.
- “so I guess having my odds of this reduced is a factor here” - there’s some edition error here but, alongside the adjacent utterances, it conveys roughly “so I guess that my odds of being wrong in this claim are reduced by a factor” or similar. OP found a pattern that they claim to believe to be true.
- “when I say occasionally “projecting” will be brought up during a conversation.” - further confirming that OP is talking about multiple discussions.
- “It’s always in an accusatory kind of context” - confirms #2 (“passionate” as an euphemism, it’s basically name calling). And that “always” confirms multiple occurrences.
- What OP did not say: anything that even hints topic-dependence, further reinforcing #1.
Parse the above and you get the context - OP is talking about debating multiple topics with different people, and found what they believe to be a pattern on the usage of the word when there’s a fight.
Remember - just like the context provides information to interpret the text, the text also provides information to determine the context.
because OP didn’t provide any details of what was being discussed. [i.e. the topic]
As shown above, OP is claiming to have found a pattern across multiple discussions. As such, “what was being discussed” is not relevant here.
It’s entirely possible that it was a valid call in some or all of those situations.
Yeah, nah.
Outside psychoanalysis this “waaaaah ur projectin” shite is on the same tier as name calling, “NO U”, whataboutism and similar crap. It’s fallacious, and it assumes shit about the other person. It is not a valid argument, it’s condensed idiocy.
Side note: while anecdotal I can confirm, independently from OP, that people often use this “waaah projection!” pseudo-defence a bit too often when discussing.
Why is it seen so often in discussions of psychology, which make it out like it’s that kind of phenomenon?
It is an actual phenomenon in psychology, where you assign a set of your attributes that you consider undesirable to another person. It works like a defence mechanism to stabilise the psyche. It is not that commonly discussed though - except perhaps in psychoanalysis.
And that’s exactly why those “keyboard psychologists” (who are neither psychologists, nor informed laymen) repurposed the term into the “no u!” defence that I mentioned. It’s simply too good of an excuse when someone criticises them, an easy way to turn the criticism against the critic.
That’s the other confusing part to me. I might be of a scrutinizing nature, but the part of me that is able to put myself in others’ shoes cannot imagine for the life of me the act of projection as a psychological urge. As I think of that, one of two thoughts either come to mind, that either this is another instance of the phenomenon of Stockholme Syndrome (which only pop psychologists are saying is that common) or it’s one of those obscure neurodivergent phenomena (not saying that as a form of judgment, just that maybe, I think, their inner workings work differently enough for it to be a thing).
Coming from someone who values her tactical side, dare I say projection seems maladaptive if I’m underestimating its social value, like it’s another instance of how sarcasm took centuries to become normalized as an oral literary device.
