Think of a person you know of your own gender whom you really really really dislike. Now, list the qualities this person has that bug you so much.
My most unlikeable person is:
– cold;
– distant;
– mean;
– robotic;
– overachieving;
– harsh;
– indifferent;
– garishly dressed;
– self-centered like there is no tomorrow.
Now, describe the person you dislike the most.
Do you know what we just described? Ourselves. The qualities I hate so much in my person X might or might not be ones she actually possesses. But we do know for sure (on the basis of my intense dislike of her) that I possess them. And I don’t like them in myself, which is why I project them onto her and then dissociate myself from them by saying, “God, I hate X. for being this way! And if I do, then, certainly, I’m nothing like that.”
Clarissa's Blog 
I will play. My most-hated person is cold/reserved, aloof, fake/phony, self-righteous, know-it-all, holier-than-thou, hypocritical.
LikeLike
I hope it isn’t your image of me. 🙂
I think I might be slightly paranoid.
LikeLike
Oh God, of course it’s not you.
It’s actually a coworker of mine, who’s down the hall from me and really a thorn in my side…
LikeLike
Most people are unaware of projection, that’s for sure.
All the same, I think it is very important to caution against the turning of any understanding of projection into a metaphysical ideology. For instance, not all hatred is a result of projection. I may hate Idi Amin not because I’m really like him in all sorts of ways, but because my relatives were killed by him (not that they were, you understand, but there is no reason to maintain that hatred can’t be linked to cause and effect).
Also, I’m inclined to think that group dynamics, already mentioned on this blog, tend to be greater determinants of projection than individual nuances. We always exclude others when we create a group identity. The excluded others then often take on the negative characteristics that the group wishes to disown.
LikeLike
I’m talking about disliking a person one knows. It is, of course, a very different process with historical figures.
” We always exclude others when we create a group identity. The excluded others then often take on the negative characteristics that the group wishes to disown.”
– Exactly. “Greedy lascivious” Jews are a perfect example.
LikeLike
It’s funny but I find it easier to see the effect that you mention with those of the opposite gender.
I don’t think of anyone of my own gender as someone that I dislike, my classification goes more like this: I like them, I can deal with them, I can’t deal with them.
Anyway, It’s scary to look at such a sincere mirror.
LikeLike
I think cause and effect is also a reality in one’s more direct social sphere. How can it not be?
The reason I’m making such an obvious point is that if you are trained, as I was, to think about everything in terms of postmodernism’s postulates (I suspect especially and particularly, in relation to the postulates of Lacan), you view everything in terms of self-referentiality. This means you can’t say anything about the world anymore. You can’t draw others’ attentions to important issues relating to it and you can’t make general observations. Rather, it is to be presumed that absolutely everything you say relates only to yourself and to your own mental states.
LikeLike
This is essentially my objection to the idea that anything one dislikes is a projection.
What about people one likes? Why do we like the people we like?
LikeLike
The other point is that if a Jew hates Nazis, is that projection? Is it a projection to hate those who project?
LikeLike
No, that’s the second and the 3rd layer.
LikeLike
But you are not sartorially ridiculous.
I am afraid of making that exercise. Really afraid.
LikeLike
Oh. Because I’ve always had the “argument” used against me that I must necessarily embody the characteristics of those I hate for very good reason. In other words, I have no legitimate basis for my hatred, apart from that I’m a hateful person myself.
So the concept of projection as a type of metaphysical explanation of the world can be used to justify group dynamics of projection and to silence those who notice it.
LikeLike
“Oh. Because I’ve always had the “argument” used against me that I must necessarily embody the characteristics of those I hate for very good reason. In other words, I have no legitimate basis for my hatred, apart from that I’m a hateful person myself.”
– Having access to the 2nd layer (cultural heritage of evil) and the 3rd level (historical heritage of evil acts) and understanding the events that condition your negative feelings towards the acts of these level is actually necessary for psychological health. It is important not to confuse the personal and intimate with the cultural and historical.
LikeLike
Let’s see…
The person of the same gender as me I dislike most:
Doesn’t bathe or shower frequently enough and smells like it
Is vainglorious
Gets fussy when she’s not the centre of attention
Is condescending
Is exceedingly paranoid and jealous
Is passive aggressive
Well, I bathe and shower every day, sometimes twice…
LikeLike
“Well, I bathe and shower every day, sometimes twice…”
– Maybe because you don’t want to be like her?
LikeLike
I was like that before I met her, but it does give me a certain sense of self-satisfaction to see people who were earlier wrinkling their noses when she passed by or avoiding her altogether, come up to me and compliment how nice I smell or my overall cleanliness. 🙂
LikeLike
The idea that everything one dislikes is projection is NOT psychology anymore, when it generalises like this, but a form of metaphysics.
Such a metaphysical principle ends up validating group psychological dynamics, including projection by the group, whilst giving the basis for denouncing individual or outsiders perceptions as merely self-referential.
LikeLike
Form of metaphysics, I get it. Let me see if I capture it all: the reason this can be used to justify group dynamics of projection is that no complaint can ever be lodged.
“You are doing X, please stop” can only elicit, “You are projecting into me the idea that I am doing X. I can’t stop you from projecting that, you have to stop yourself.”
?
LikeLike
Certainly, when psychology is turned into principles of metaphysics, one is not permitted to be anything other than a solipsist. Also group power dynamics are disregarded, as only the individual and his ability to refer to himself alone is allowed to exist.
So, the jew in the concentration camp is just feeling really aggressive towards those whom he or she wants to condemn as “nazis” and needs to take a good hard look at herself.
So long as nobody else is willing to come forward and say that nazis actually exist, we’ll just assume they don’t exist.
What kind of person would invent something so horrible anyway?
Surely someone with a huge amount of hate in her heart.
LikeLike
Yes, of course. But history doesn’t just stop at some point and then everything becomes personal. History is always in the making. It’s a dynamic beast.
At the same time, it is true to say that history is impersonal, whereas individuality is of course personal.
LikeLike
I have no doubt that my very personal dislike for X will not change the history of humanity. 🙂
LikeLike
Yes, but that is because your personal dislike is purely personal and has no other meaning than to do with your personality.
LikeLike
“Yes, but that is because your personal dislike is purely personal and has no other meaning than to do with your personality.”
– That’s my point exactly. This exercise allows one to discover things about oneself, which is the most fascinating thing on earth. God, I hate this self-centered X. 🙂 🙂
LikeLike
I still want to know, what about people we like?
LikeLike
That’s hard for me because I don’t like anybody. 🙂
Kidding.
This will depend on our gender (and sexual orientation.) I’ll get there eventually.
LikeLike
I once thought I was discovering all sorts of things about myself and then I realised I was discovering only my situatedness in relation to broad historical factors that had their psychological correlate on a more individual level.
LikeLike
But that’s still about you, isn’t it?
I’m not that into broad historical factors because nowadays it’s all about “we are conditioned by society” to do whatever sucky thing we do and that just gets on my nerves.
LikeLike
Nowadays, I don’t actually believe in an individual self that is independent of historical forces.
Certainly, I maintain that there is a subjective self that is independent of same, to a high degree. Also, that I possess certain biologically bestowed consistent elements that form my temperament.
However, I don’t actually believe in entity of a stand-alone individual that can be morally interrogated by principles that are knowable, consistent and external to the individual.
History is overwhelmingly powerful in creating our interpersonal subjectivities. This theoretical truth is validated by my own experiences. Those who don’t have any particular notion of my cultural identity treat me with great impartiality, which is to my benefit. Those who have any emotional attachment to their idea of what “colonial” means in the Western world will certainly spew their worst characteristics out at me.
Thus history forms a part of everybody’s private subjectivities.
LikeLike
It’s not really about me. The only part that is “about me” was how I chose to react to being interpellated in various ways by those who had been commandeered by historically based psychological forces.
That part is certainly about me — what I do with my situation.
But the identity part is not about me. That’s the disappointing aspect.
About three quarters of ourselves is not about us at all.
LikeLike
…and this is why you see I have drawn conclusions that have certain affinities with Buddhism.
LikeLike
“About three quarters of ourselves is not about us at all.”
– My worldview is very different. I think we can gain access to those familial and collective forces that we have allowed to shape us and transform them. As a result, it is all always about what one decides to do, to reject, to accept.
LikeLike
I discovered the idea of “projection” when I was 8 years old, walking down my driveway to get the mail (this was such an important “eureka” moment in my life I actually know exactly where I was at the time. It was also winter, because there was snow on the ground. About 8″ of it). I was busy grouching to myself about how much little sister annoyed me, and realized that much of what I was thinking about and harping on, was little things that I myself do and hate about myself. It took me another few years to realize that everything my mother hated about me was stuff she also hated about my father – same sort of projection going on there, too. From the moment I realized that I disliked things in other people that I also disliked in myself, I have spent an enormous amount of effort attempting to identify those things and change them in myself. Along with the “Golden Rule”, “Be the change you want to see in the world” has been one of the guiding forces in how I conduct myself.
I honestly don’t have anyone in my life that I “hate”. Or even really dislike. But the one trait that bothers me most of all (and I can honestly say that I do not, and have never had this trait) is obnoxious over-superficiality to someone’s face, while secretly (in their presence anyway) despising them, and then making it known that you despise them to everyone else behind their back. Dishonesty bothers me on many levels.
LikeLike
What a great comment!
You were a very insightful child. For me, this realization took over 30 years.
LikeLike
I used to have that view, for sure. I think my current view is hard to understand for those who have not had my experiences. It’s not, for instance, a “world view”, in the way this term is usually meant. Also, I am not abrogating responsibility by allowing for the fact that three quarters of the way I am perceived has more to do with historical forces than anything I’ve personally done. To assume so would be to fall into a binary, either-or perspective on how reality is structured.
Actually, my current understanding of the world must necessarily be an extremely accurate one, since it has freed me up to fully be myself. I can react or not react to any situation without feeling that I’m responsible for outcomes that are merely historically generated. I’m more forgiving, more humorous. I can accept my own and others’ failings much more.
I’m also more truly an individual, since I choose to do what I do without wondering about others’ judgments of me. I think, “I like martial arts. Maybe I’m not good at everything I do, but this is how I like to pass my time right now.” I think, “I have to help my father write his memoirs. He was a real ape to me in the past, but that past is gone now, and here we are with an entirely different, historically generated present.’ I think, “Contemporary Western culture is certainly screwed up in my view, because its whole ideological construction seems to rely so heavily on hatred and contempt for ‘the colonial’ — the one who is at the basis of Western civilization itself. But, luckily, this kind of training I’ve endured makes me appreciate the Japanese, and I have formed a lifestyle that I would not have had the courage for, had I not been pushed so hard towards it.”
LikeLike
What I’d say is that the exercise is too elementary. Anything one feels strongly about reveals something about one, but it could be something about one’s history, not one’s character, etc., blah blah.
LikeLike
We are in a culture where I share with a colleague that I have vivid dreams and she advises me to take anti-depressants. The very existence of the unconscious is something most people refuse to believe. There is nothing too elementary in this particular area.
LikeLike
The whole point, in shamanism, of facing death and degeneration, is to face down the shadow parts of ourselves so that we no longer project them.
The “unconscious” is made up of nothing more nor less than the aspects of life we fear — and humans fear nothing more than death and degeneration.
LikeLike
I fucking hate Martians.
Oh … oh my God … wait.
I’m stuck in a Heinlein novel! Fuck!
LikeLike
We’ve had a lot of fun here today, but anti-Martianism is no laughing matter. For more information on this heartbreaking subject, pick up a copy of Frederick Pohl’s short story “The Day After the Day the Martians Came”.
LikeLike
After Bradbury’s Martian Chronicles, I don’t think I need any better source on the Martians. What a beautiful book!
People who haven’t read it are wasting their lives.
LikeLike
Of course that’s the way it SHOULD be, when psychology isn’t being treated as metaphysics.
But psychology is metaphysics if one starts with metaphysical premises. These could be:
1. We all have individual and discrete “souls”.
2. We are here on Earth to morally perfect these discrete souls
3. Continual growth towards perfection is not only necessary but realizable.
4. There are no overwhelming forces. The “soul” rises above all.
5. Others are on Earth to indicate to us how to morally perfect ourselves. We fail to listen to their views to our own demerit.
6. There is some system of natural justice in the universe, whereby accurate self-analysis has a direct (not loose or indistinct) correlation with personal success.
LikeLike
“5. Others are on Earth to indicate to us how to morally perfect ourselves. We fail to listen to their views to our own demerit.
6. There is some system of natural justice in the universe, whereby accurate self-analysis has a direct (not loose or indistinct) correlation with personal success.”
– These two statements are mutually incompatible.
LikeLike
Not in terms of Christianity. We are to analyse our “sins” on the basis of how we fall short in pleasing others. Once we eliminate such tendencies, the Lord assures us personal success.
LikeLike
Points 1-6 are all basic things I’ve been taught and to some degree believe or think I ought to believe – they’re all over the culture. I’m not saying I agree with them – I just notice myself acting as though they were true, it’s irritating.
LikeLike
If you can integrate your awareness of death and decay into your presently existing paradigm, you will destroy it by causing it to sublate.
This is not without its own risks. I say this as someone who has actually succeeded in destroying all of these metaphysical beliefs I used to hold.
I’m much more realistic now, much calmer, but then suddenly I’ll have a moment of sheer panic that I’ve missed the boat in some way.
I haven’t. I just need to get more used to my new mode of being. It’s much better not to be second guessing myself. I used to think, “Well, maybe the other person has a point. They can see something I cannot.” Now I’m much more sure of my instincts and feel no emotion at all when calling someone out as a stupid right-winger.
Even if I wanted to believe in metaphysics again, I’m not sure how I would go about persuading myself.
It’s like a totally different game. With metaphysics, you’re following a predefined network of meanings, blindly. The false assurance metaphysics offers is that if you perform well enough this balancing act, there is life after death.
Face your fears of death directly and you see that metaphysics is nothing but a system set up for ego-defence. It can be very calming and reassuring, as well as providing a purpose and direction. However, it’s false. It’s promises don’t match up to reality, and ultimately we die.
LikeLike
” Now I’m much more sure of my instincts and feel no emotion at all when calling someone out as a stupid right-winger.”
– Not even joy? But that’s what they exist for, you know. 🙂 🙂
LikeLike
Somehow I don’t even experience joy, because I don’t expect that stupidity can be eradicated. It’s like brushing away a cockroach. I can’ t feel anything good about that.
LikeLike
And this is how we discovered that I;m a mean cold-hearted person, which is what this exercise was supposed to prove to begin with. 🙂
LikeLike
Yeah, maybe so. In my case, so many of my school friends, having been brought up in a very conservative society, have retained right wing ideas. One popped up on Facebook today with an article by some Australian right wing media personality, who blew that infanticide article out of proportion, saying liberals were prepared to kill live babies. It makes me sad that people fall for this kind of garbage, but I know they can’t be corrected. They don’t have intellectual training and they’re way too complacent. So, I resort to sarcasm, which is bound to fail. I say, “If you believe that kind of right wing propaganda, you probably believe that Jews are coming to eat your babies and that brown people will overrun whites due to too many abortions.” Then another idiot asks me if I was one of those liberals who thought it okay to kill babies. So, sarcasm is way over their heads.
LikeLike
” One popped up on Facebook today with an article by some Australian right wing media personality, who blew that infanticide article out of proportion, saying liberals were prepared to kill live babies. ”
– Yes, I agree that such folks are hopeless and cannot be reached by reason. Terror consumes them and there is nothing left.
“I say, “If you believe that kind of right wing propaganda, you probably believe that Jews are coming to eat your babies and that brown people will overrun whites due to too many abortions.” Then another idiot asks me if I was one of those liberals who thought it okay to kill babies. So, sarcasm is way over their heads.”
– The level of stupidity is daunting.
LikeLike
Yes – it is true one cannot reason with right wing and it is worth remembering.
Ideas 1-6, I think I actually learned them in professordom more than earlier on, which is interesting. I am going to think about them more.
LikeLike
“Not in terms of Christianity. We are to analyse our “sins” on the basis of how we fall short in pleasing others.”
– Pleasing others is not something I have seen in the Bible, to be honest.
LikeLike
Ok. I’m not religious, so I’m happy to cede the point, rather than engage in hairsplitting over religious ideology.
In any case, when psychology is treated as metaphysics, it becomes a means to judge the morality of others, predict their outcomes for success, and all sorts of things that actual psychology would not be able to do.
LikeLike
“In any case, when psychology is treated as metaphysics, it becomes a means to judge the morality of others, predict their outcomes for success, and all sorts of things that actual psychology would not be able to do.”
– Oh, I finally get it! I’m getting a little dense these days. I now totally know the kind of people you are talking about. They use pseudo-psychological methods to justify the aggression they need to dump on others.
LikeLike
Interestingly enough I couldnt think of anyone. Hmm what does that say about me? 🙂
LikeLike
You are extremely healthy and have great insights into your psyche. Good for you!
LikeLike
The person of my own gender who I hate the most is:
silly
nosy
intrusive
sexist
dishonest
manipulative
dresses garishly
Actually I think I am the completely opposite of her. What does that say about me? Do I only like people who are like myself? 🙂
LikeLike
“1. We all have individual and discrete “souls”.
2. We are here on Earth to morally perfect these discrete souls
3. Continual growth towards perfection is not only necessary but realizable.
4. There are no overwhelming forces. The “soul” rises above all.
5. Others are on Earth to indicate to us how to morally perfect ourselves. We fail to listen to their views to our own demerit.
6. There is some system of natural justice in the universe, whereby accurate self-analysis has a direct (not loose or indistinct) correlation with personal success.”
– I like 1 and 3.
5 makes no sense to me.
2 has an annoying New Agey feel.
4 is too simplistic to work.
6 would be good if it didn’t have that part about the natural justice. And self-analysis is also kind of wrong here.
Great list, JFA!
LikeLike
I would say that most Australians of middle class status and higher think about themselves in these terms.
It goes without saying that under certain circumstances some of these would be healthier postulates to adopt than others. This does not make them metaphysically true, though, just as it does not make them suitable ideas to maintain in all situations.
Consider number 1. A lot of people who would swear that they move through the world as nothing but individuals can very easily get drawn into playing a role in terms of pack mentality. They think they are being persuaded to adopt a particular stance by others’ valid reasons and perceptions, but in actual fact they’re just going with the flow and being used by astute manipulators to reinforce conformity.
So, even though it is ideal to be an individual, and this is my own ethical stance, I see that our individual surfaces are very porous indeed and that we can take on all sorts of shades, depending on what mood is in the air.
My point is that we should differentiate between ethical or ideal states and statements of faith or what I all “metaphysical postulates”, because the world does not conform to the statements of faith, not unless we have the tools, insights and methods to enforce those.
LikeLike