Projection is a form of rhetorical mirroring that shifts blame onto the opponent to deflect attention from the speaker’s own faults. By reflecting the same accusations onto the opponent or the opposing side, the speaker creates confusion and a false sense of moral equivalency, making it harder for the audience to discern who is truly at fault.
Projection is effective because it exploits the psychological bias toward false balance
- the cognitive bias that occurs when equal weight is given to opposing viewpoints, regardless of their actual validity, evidence, or merit, creating the illusion of balance.
. When both parties accuse each other of the same misdeed, audiences are inclined to assume the truth lies somewhere in between, even if one party is demonstrably at fault. This bias creates a perception of equal culpability, neutralizing the impact of legitimate criticism.
cognitive dissonance - the mental discomfort experienced when we are confronted with evidence that contradicts our beliefs, values, or attitudes, prompting a motivation to reduce the inconsistency.
also plays a significant role. When audiences are confronted with conflicting information—such as an accusation against a speaker they support and the speaker’s mirrored accusation against their opponent—they experience psychological discomfort. To resolve this tension, they may unconsciously gravitate toward the explanation that better aligns with their existing beliefs or biases.
Moreover, projection shifts the burden of proof to the opponent, forcing them to defend against accusations rather than focus on the speaker’s actions. This tactic preys on the audience’s desire for simplicity in complex disputes, leaving them uncertain about who to believe.
Projection shifts accountability by accusing the opponent of the same wrongdoing the speaker is guilty of, without ever acknowledging or addressing their own actions. While similar, it should not be confused with whataboutism - discrediting a criticism by accusing hypocrisy to shift the focus away from oneself and onto others.
, which implicitly concedes some shared guilt but redirects attention to the opponent’s supposed hypocrisy.
For example, imagine a politician who has been caught using violent or inflammatory rhetoric against political opponents. Using projection, the politician accuses their opponents of engaging in the same divisive behavior, making it appear as though the opposing party is solely responsible for the polarization. By mirroring the accusation, the politician avoids addressing their own actions entirely.
In the case of whataboutism, the politician would point out past instances where their opponent used similarly divisive language. The key distinction is that projection lacks the "you too" acknowledgment inherent in whataboutism. While whataboutism attempts to deflect criticism by emphasizing mutual guilt, projection denies the speaker’s own wrongdoing entirely, seeking instead to obscure accountability by simply blaming the opponent.
Projection is challenging to expose because it thrives on the audience’s inability or unwillingness to investigate competing claims. When faced with mirrored accusations, audiences often default to assuming shared blame or they may simply dismiss the issue entirely, assuming it’s just another example of partisan bickering.
This apathy benefits the speaker employing projection, as it allows them to avoid accountability without fully convincing the audience of their innocence. Ultimately, this often results in the audience becoming disengaged altogether, leaving the original accusation unresolved and forgotten.
To recognize projection, pay attention to whether a speaker’s accusations closely mirror criticisms that are already leveled against them. Key indicators include accusations by the speaker of the same wrongdoing, a lack of acknowledgment for their own actions, and an absence of supporting evidence for their claims. Mirroring too closely is particularly telling—when the language, tone, or framing of the accusation seems almost identical to the criticisms already directed at the speaker.
Ask yourself: Do the speaker’s accusations too closely resemble the same criticisms made against them?
