Mind Projection

intermediate4 min readsociology · science · philosophy · psychology · statistics

The mind projection fallacy occurs when we wrongly attribute properties of our own mental states or perceptions to external objects, assuming that our subjective experiences reflect objective features of the world. For example, concluding that sugar is inherently sweet, or projecting harmful stereotypes onto groups based on biased judgments.

THE IDEA

89 Mind Projection

Charles Taliaferro

If you are looking down while you are walking, it is better to walk up hill. The ground is nearer.

Gertrude Stein

This fallacy occurs when we reason that the world has features that we (wrongly) project on to it or, using Stein's whimsical language, when we do not carefully and humbly observe the world around us. Physicist E.T. Jaynes claimed to identify this fallacy as part of his critique of quantum theory of probability in his work "Clearing up Mysteries – The Original Goal." He claimed that probability theory led to fallacious thinking about the properties of nature. In Jaynes’s interpretation, probability describes incomplete knowledge rather than an inherent indecision in nature. This involves mind projection insofar as someone takes a property of the mind (probabilistic reasoning) and falsely attributes this to the world (probability as if it were a feature of things independent of mind). "We are all under an ego-driven temptation to project our private thoughts out onto the real world, by supposing that the creations of one's own imagination are real properties of Nature, or that one's own ignorance signifies some kind of indecision on the part of Nature" (Jaynes [1989], 7). He likens the occurrence of this fallacy to the occurrence of a mental disorder: "A standard of logic that would be considered a psychiatric disorder in other fields, is the accepted norm in quantum theory" (7). These quotations express Jaynes’s criticism of interpretations of probability and quantum theory; they do not establish that his interpretation is uncontested.

Going beyond Jaynes's special use of the term in the context of quantum theory, the mind projection fallacy is committed when a person creates and believes without sufficient justification factual claims about the world solely based on his experiences, mental or sensory, of the world. Given that radical skepticism is false and that some of our experiences of the world are indeed justified, this fallacy is restricted to cases in which a person (Joe) falsely attributes to things in the world properties that actually reflect Joe's own judgments and dispositions rather than the properties that are actually in the world. For example, it would be fallacious to conclude from one's tasting the sweetness of sugar that the property of sweetness is itself lodged in the sugar rather than sweetness's being a feature of how sugar tastes when consumed by humans with healthy taste buds. A more disturbing example of this fallacy is when persons wrongly attribute to others harmful stereotypes that reflect bias in the context of race, sexuality, social class, and so on. In outrageous claims that are clearly false as when a United States citizen claims that all immigrants to the USA from Mexico are rapists and criminals, the claim provides us more information about the person making the claim (he is racist) than it does about the people he seeks to identify (the immigrants to the USA from Mexico).

One promising way to avoid this fallacy is through what is frequently referred to today as epistemic humility. Be cautious about when you can infer from your own response to X that X (whatever it is) has a property related to your response. For example, do not infer just because you happen not to be interested in philosophy (i.e., it is a subjective matter of fact that you are not interested in philosophy) that philosophy is itself uninteresting (in the sense that philosophy is not worthy of interest or, indeed, not worthy of passionate, energetic commitment).

When to use it

When evaluating personal tastes in food or art, avoid claiming that one's subjective preference is an objective measure of quality.
To reduce prejudice and stereotyping, question whether your judgments about groups are based on evidence or on projection of your own fears and biases.
In scientific reasoning, distinguish a model of uncertainty from the separate claim that the uncertainty is an inherent feature of the system being modeled.
In everyday decision-making, consider how your emotional state (e.g., fear, anger) might lead you to overestimate threats or attribute malicious intent to others without justification.

FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE

In practice

Sweetness of Sugar

When we taste sugar, we perceive sweetness. It is fallacious to conclude that sweetness is an inherent property of sugar itself, rather than a product of our taste receptors interacting with the substance. The sweetness is a relational property between the sugar and our sensory system, not an intrinsic feature of the sugar.

Racial Stereotyping

A person who holds a racist stereotype about immigrants (e.g., claiming all Mexican immigrants are rapists and criminals) is projecting their own biased judgments onto an entire group. The claim reveals more about the person's own prejudice than about the actual characteristics of the immigrants. This is a harmful example of the mind projection fallacy.

✳

A MOMENT TO REFLECT

Put it to work.

Reflect on a time when you assumed that your emotional reaction to a situation reflected an objective quality of that situation. How might epistemic humility have changed your interpretation?
How does the mind projection fallacy operate in the formation of stereotypes? What steps can you take to ensure you are not projecting your own biases onto others?
When does a scientific probability describe uncertainty in our knowledge? What further argument would be needed to claim that it describes an inherent property of nature?