Talk:Psychological projection

Link

Restored inappropriate link http://www.bare-jesus.net/e2063.htm

Indeed it is to question to what extend social warfare, in particular on the Jews, is caused by psychological porjections of those who wage war. This link is necessary. More over, it is very closed to Friedrich Nietzsche. In case of doubt it is to decide for freedom of speech and freedom of research and science. That somebody does not like those questions is no reason to remove any link.

Rush Limbaugh as epitome

A good case could be made for Rush Limbaugh being a textbook case of this syndrome.

"Another, and an ironic, example is if Alice were to say, "Bob seems to project his feelings onto me." "

What does this mean? Given the definition as I understand it this doesn't make sense to me.

--Gbleem 02:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Alice dislikes Bob. Alice then projects her feelings on to Bob, shifting the blame of disliking someone on to that someone, essentially saying "Bob doesn't like me (Alice)." Your quote means that if Alice said Bob projects his feelings onto her it'd be ironic since Alice is doing all the projecting in the first place, and projects the thought of this by saying Bob is the one projecting. UltraSunshine (talk) 11:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

A good case could be made for just about any extremely political person of any persuasion being a textbook case. For example, some of those who rail against greed, which is a universal human emotion (let's face it), may be doing so because of projection. Hanxu9 (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

@Hanxu9 Greed is not a universal human emotion. Do a study & ask people "What is your purpose in life?" I bet that the majority of people who don't have an answer right away, tend to be more greedy. A lot of society teaches people that the main purpose in life is to get money, consume, self-indulge & reproduce. People who "buy" into this tend to lack a real purpose in life, as you can tell by asking them that one simple question. If they answer money, consume, self-indulge or reproduce, then are they really telling the truth? No. Because you could do those things forever, and still have moments where life has no meaning. Life in reality has a lot of meaning. Those who pursue projects to increase the positive randomness of the universe often go onto enjoy the deeper things in life that money cannot buy. Only hard work, time, energy and the right social network can bring these about. The people who have these are not as likely to be greedy because they have no need for consuming and spending on such a large scale. @Hanxu9 - I would recommend looking at those around you, and ask yourself, could i live with these people for eternity & have a good time? Most likely your answer is no, because your friends are probably all greedy as per your insight. And no i am not projecting my opinions of life. These are the facts of the universe & self-organizing energy. Enjoy it while you still can instead of distracting yourself! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.132.42 (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Most arguments about greed come about because the word is ill-defined, and people take opposing positions from broader or narrower definitions. In any case, it's a red herring to the actual claim, which was that most extremely political people could be textbook examples of projection. I don't think the *people* can be examples, but many emotionally-charged rants (whether political or not) seem to be. Maghnus (talk) 06:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Using Rush Limbaugh as an example is not NPOV. He is simply too high-profile and too polarizing a character. Some people believe him the bringer of unqualified truth and insight. More appropriate would be a bank robber who claims that "the banks are the biggest crooks of all". Pbrower2a (talk) 05:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The source from the Heretical Press

This site is not mainstream (nor accurate), the fact that the author of this article has cited it means that he/she has not done enough research.

The citation is therefore questionable.

Dannyza1981 (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Other meanings

I thought that "projection" in psychology also meant the interpretation of one's own psychological/emotional states as the direct perception of the intrinsic objective properties of an external object or person.

For example when one attributes to some "energies" of a certain object or person what one feels when that external phenomenon is percieved.

One could say that in such a projection, the psychological process is assimilated to a mere sensory/perceptive process.

This type of projection was the norm in primitive cultures, but a surprising number of modern people seem to function trought that same cognitive pattern, particularly when their values system is concerned. For example I recently read the comments of a young women who visited Gandhi's cremation place and interpreted her emotions as the perception of the"energies" of the place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.1.29 (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you expand on this? For instance: your first sentence could be interpreted as a truism because we have no other way than our interpretation (i.e. some form of cognitive/neurological processing) of whatever we mean by our "senses" (i.e. sight, touch etc but maybe more than five) to experience whatever we think of as "reality". Am I right in thinking you mean that: Projection is the inrepretation of our own emotional response as being the attribute of some external thing or event rather than of our own condition? I also see a problem with attributing "objective properties" to external objects. The only intrinsic properties that external objects have (and even these are relative) such as "mass" or "density", are simply empty data containers. Without the attribution of human meaning they have virtually no meaning at all. To say something is heavy means that it is heavy for you not for your child or for an ant. To say it weighs 1 kilogramis fine, but so what? It is helpful for comparison only: "this is more than that". But it has a similar sort of lack of utility to that which a word such as "colour" has for someone who is blind, without our additional human meaning. As far as objectivity goes: How much is 1 kg? Is it a lot or a little? Is it enough? The only thing one can say about it with any certainty is that it is as heavy as a particular lump of platinum. stored in a vault in Sèvres, France!! Secondly, empathy is a critical component of human social interation, at a species level. Empathy relies upon a harmonic resonance being set up between one's own internal state and the external state of another. Both of these issues are fatal problems for the concept of objectivity re: internal and external attributions and contributions.

LookingGlass (talk) 06:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Catching, or projecting, the light?

Both of you make excellent points that aren't even touched upon in this article. I suggest you read Catching the Light, by Arthur Zajonc, a Quantum Physicist and good friend of ours. He gives an astonishing history of how light was first seen as "projected" from the human eye by the Greeks, then gradually shifted to "receptive" mechanics from the sun in Newtonian and relativistic physics, and now, with the advent of Quantum brain states, prefrontal "mirroring" in the visual cortex, and, as LookingGlass says, resonance (in this case, resonance in synaptic networks), we're coming back to humans as cosmic "projectors" of light! In more empathic terms, a counselor might not want to deal with a patient any longer who is scaring her. But, how much of that decision is based upon the patient's state, and how much on her own state, and her projection of, or not dealing with, her own internal fears? This gets into transference and countertransference as well, but both put a fine point on your discussion of really "seeing" anything at all. Zajonc makes a little known and literally astonishing point: vision is something that must be learned, and if not learned by age 1, can take 15 to 20 years to learn. He cites references to people whose blindness was "cured" with laser technology who nevertheless still couldn't "see", because "seeing" is something the brain projects, not something the eye collects. He states that vision is tougher to learn than talking or walking, but we all take it for granted! Phoenixthebird (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

References

Removed TAG {{Refimprove|date=March 2008}} after adding citations. Rewriting additional sections for clarity. LisaKachold (talk) 02:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

projection bias vs projection

List_of_cognitive_biases has "Projection bias - the tendency to unconsciously assume that others share the same or similar thoughts, beliefs, values, or positions." which redirects here, and here has "projection bias" as if a synonym for projection, however I have the impression projection bias does not include the criteria of "own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts", and also, brings into question whether "projection" alone, has that criteria, either. Kermit2 (talk) 21:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like there's a strong case for a de-merge. The papers that come up in a Google Scholar search for "projection bias" are clearly talking about a different effect from Projection as meant in this article. I'd like to see sources that say that "projection bias" is a synonym for this meaning of "projection". MartinPoulter (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Projection bias is assuming others share mental qualities, that you know have too. This article is about thinking that others have a mental state that you are unaware of having yourself. Demerge. Ashmoo (talk) 11:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It's been 3 years. Can we demerge this now? -Anon User, 17 April 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.249.60 (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me it's been 4½ years, nobody objects, so please go ahead and demerge. Lova Falk talk 15:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I've restarted a separate stub article for projection bias. --Bequw (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche Quote

Is the quote really necessary? It seems like a kind of a stretch to me. 129.15.127.225 (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Freud info box

I added since he is the guy that came up with the idea... maybe it is appropriate to put that on. skip sievert (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Zionism is projection

This article is anti-semetic. 69.171.162.135 (talk) 05:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC) haha - stop projecting that we should even have a viewpoint about you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.132.42 (talk) 05:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there a condition Th opposite of this?

Im just wondering if there are cases were people do the opposite. Like blaming themselves for other peoples failures when it noth their fault, talking the blame themselves for something that is clearly to other person's fault. It's not that they are doing it to help the other person they just seem to unconsiously blame themselves for it? Is there a recorded condition like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.135.182 (talk) 05:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This might be of interest for the LGBTQ protal, methinks.

As Paul Boom, professor of psychology at Yale explains, Freud himself was using the subject of homosexuality as a classical example for explaining the idea of projection. Therefore, it is one of the popular (and often true,I believe) ways to explain homophobia. Therefore, this subject might be of use for the LGBTQ portal. And I think it shall be mentioned in the article, too. 188.115.254.36 (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Empirical Support section?

The article does not discuss whether the subject of whether empirical testing has supported the concept of projection. It would be nice if someone with expertise in psychology would address this question.

There is a paper on this question, "Freudian Defense Mechanisms and Empirical Findings in Modern Social Psychology", which can be found here:

http://faculty.fortlewis.edu/burke_b/personality/readings/freuddefense.pdf

Quoting from it: "Considerable evidence indicates that people’s conceptions of themselves shape their perceptions of other people. The tendency to see others as having one’s own traits has limitations and is found with good traits along with bad ones. The view that people defensively project specific bad traits of their own onto others as a means of denying that they have them is not well supported."

Kbombga (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I came to this page specifically to find out whether projection is a scientifically established phenomenon or arbitrarily made up pseudoscience, like it seems to me that most of psychology is. And what do I find? This vital information is stuck in the Talk section! To my mind the question of whether a "scientific" model is actually scientific or not should be central to the article. I will try to redeem this in some way - please continue to improve this aspect! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.39.217.100 (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Vicarious projection

The concept of vicarious projection exists (projection on behalf of somebody else) in the same way as vicarious bullying.--Penbat (talk) 07:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Primitive defences

Sentence in the text: According to Kernberg, all 'the primitive defenses, such as splitting, [projection] and projective identification, are commonly connected with primitively organized personalities
User:86.168.50.29's comment: I don't think the word "Primitive" should be used here, it could be perceived as particularly offensive to Personality Disorder sufferers! Especially with a lot of the other views that a lot of professionals and the public have about Personality Disorders, which are, a very real and are an extremely difficult thing to live with.

My answer: Hi! It is Kernberg who used the word primitive, and we only quote him. We cannot change a quoted text. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 18:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, we do not necessarily censor the use of a word merely because the word is considered offensive by some people. Famspear (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Farrajak's tagging edits

Tags are a nice idea in theory but in my experience of editing Wikipedia for abut 8 years, they are generally not very useful. I have inserted some tags myself over the years and would estimate that only around 20% have ever been attended to by somebody else and even then it may have taken years. Quite a few tags even from five years ago still remain. The downside to all this tagging is that it makes the article page look ugly and an eyesore. A bit of tagging is fine but too much is most likely pointless. I'm not convinced that all of User:Farrajak's tags are justified anyway. A much more constructive approach is for the tagger if possible to fix the problems himself. --Penbat (talk) 11:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

transference & counter-transference

I think it would be a useful idea to differentiate between:

• projection and transference
• counter-projection, projection identification and counter-transference.

--Penbat (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

If "all relating is mediated through the unconscious mental world by such processes as projection, projective identification and transference....an intermingling of the objective and subjective realities of each participant" (Casement, Further Learning p 165 and p. 125) may not too close a conceptual accounting of the processes perhaps be in itself counterproductive....? Jacobisq (talk) 10:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

main paragraph explicitly negative

the main paragraph is phrased in such a way that it presents psychological projection as a wholly negative phenomenon, as if the act were exclusive to a subjectively negative spectrum of emotions when in fact, it is not... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostubes (talk • contribs) 15:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

What do you base that on? Projection is supposedly a defensive mechanism. Why would you need to react defensively to positive traits??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.229.105.95 (talk) 09:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

This passage doesn't make sense...

The Babylonian Talmud (500 AD) notes the human tendency toward projection and warns against it: "Do not taunt your neighbour with the bleach you yourself drank."

First, the citation is correct, but the quotation is made up from whole cloth, and references "bleach" which did not exist until 1785, so this would seem to be an unneeded and inaccurate interpretation of the source. Second, the quotation doesn't actually make any sense, how could you taunt someone with bleach that you're drinking yourself? Projection is the transference of an innate trait that you possess unto someone else, not some external poison. It's a poor metaphor.

I'm assuming this is just a troll edit, can someone revert it back to it's original state, or edit the quotation to make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:DFC0:F:1C:C881:8245:DE44 (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)