Common Communication Errors: Overwatering, Scorekeeping, and Projection
We communicate all the time. It’s a skill in constant use. Even the best communicators trip into common errors, and they do so great intentions. They assume shared goals. They assume that if we are kind, thoughtful, or logical, communication will land the way we expect. This is an understandable starting place. Yet many breakdowns in professional and personal relationships come from predictable and common patterns.
Three of the most damaging are what I call overwatering, scorekeeping, and projecting. They can show up individually, or braided together, reinforcing one another and unintentionally derailing otherwise healthy relationships.
Overwatering
Overwatering is the easiest misstep because it usually comes from a generous place. The intention is care, encouragement, or support. But impact can be suffocating.
When I first started keeping houseplants, I learned about “root rot” the hard way. I believed more water meant more care, so I didn’t miss a day. Then a plant died. Then another. It turns out that plants, like people, have wildly different needs.
Boston ferns thrive in consistently moist soil and high humidity. They crave regular watering and flourish when the soil never fully dries out. Succulents, on the other hand, evolved in dry environments. They store water in their leaves and need soil to dry completely between watering. Treat a succulent like a fern and it will literally rot.
Human relationships work the same way. Some people thrive on frequent encouragement, daily check-ins, and overt expressions of appreciation. Others prefer autonomy, trust, and space to work without constant affirmation. (Most of us want a combination, but that too is individualized.) When we give care in the way we prefer to receive it, we risk overwhelming someone who experiences that same behavior as pressure or surveillance. The phrase “too loving” sometimes appears in feedback conversations, and it often surprises the person hearing it. After all, they were just trying to help.
The lesson is simple but uncomfortable: intent does not override impact. Care is not one-size-fits-all. Effective communication requires calibration. The question shifts from How can I show support? to What kind of support is actually helpful for this person right now?
Scorekeeping
The second communication trap is scorekeeping, and it is one of the fastest ways to turn a collaborative conversation into a competitive one.
Scorekeeping happens when people track contributions, mistakes, and perceived imbalances. The mental tally might sound familiar. I stayed late last week, so they owe me flexibility this week. I handled the last crisis, so they should handle this one. I sent them a card for their birthday. I went out of my way to… fill in the blank. Over time, an invisible game forms. Rules appear. Expectations arise. No one formally agrees to the game, but everyone starts playing it.
When conflict finally surfaces, the conversation turns into evidence presentation. People bring receipts. Dates, times, and examples fly across the table. Facts do matter, but facts alone rarely resolve relational tension. Emotion and interpretation shape how those facts are received.
The Gottman Institute, known for decades of relationship research, captures this dynamic clearly. “Behind every complaint is a deep personal longing.” That line changes the entire conversation. Complaints are often framed as accusations or evidence. Yet beneath the evidence is usually a need for trust, appreciation, fairness, or safety. Scorekeeping pulls attention toward proving who is right. Resolution requires understanding what actually matters.
Once scorekeeping begins, conversations become ping-pong matches of correction and counter-correction. Defensiveness rises. Curiosity disappears. Even when both people want a positive outcome, the structure of the interaction makes it almost impossible to reach one. Winning replaces understanding. Simply, it never works. This is a game no one wins.
Projecting
The third issue sits beneath both overwatering and scorekeeping: projecting.
Projection is natural. It is the brain’s first attempt at perspective taking. We try to understand others by imagining ourselves in their position. We say things like “If I were in that situation, I would have handled it differently.” Or “If it were me, I would think this was helpful.” These statements feel empathetic because they attempt to bridge the gap between experiences.
But they stop one step short of empathy.
Imagining what you would do in someone else’s situation still centers the situation on your own experience – it projects an imagining of your experience onto theirs. Real, practical empathy begins when we recognize that we are not the person in front of us. Their history, stressors, personality, and context shape their interpretation of events in ways we cannot fully predict.
Projection explains why overwatering happens. We give the encouragement we would want. Projection explains scorekeeping. We interpret others’ behavior through the lens of what it would mean if we had behaved that way. A missed email becomes disrespect because it would signal disrespect if we had missed it. A brief response becomes annoyance because it would signal annoyance if we had written it.
Projection is the beginning of perspective taking, not the end of it.
The shift from projection to empathy requires curiosity. Instead of assuming meaning, we ask about meaning. Instead of assuming intent, we explore intent. Instead of assuming impact, we check impact. This is the difference between I know what you meant and Help me understand what you meant.
Moving Forward
Across these three communication traps, the pattern becomes clear. The conversation stops being about the relationship and starts being about the self. My preferred way of giving support. My internal scoreboard. My imagined interpretation of your actions.
The solution is not complicated, but it does require awareness.
Notice when the conversation starts to feel tense or circular. Pause long enough to regulate your own emotional state. Curiosity is difficult when the nervous system is activated. Then shift attention outward.
Ask what kind of support is helpful. Ask what matters most in the situation. Ask what the other person experienced. The goal is not to abandon your perspective. The goal is to expand the conversation so that more than one perspective can exist at the same time.
Communication rarely fails because people want conflict. It fails because people unknowingly slip into patterns that prioritize intention, evidence, and personal interpretation over shared understanding. Overwatering, scorekeeping, and projecting are common because they are human. They are also fixable.
When conversations begin to go sideways, the path forward is usually the same. Slow down. Regulate. Get curious. Meet the other person where they actually are, not where you assume they should be.