I meant the social psychology must have been different.

Anthropocentrism is certainly related to personifications and anthropomorphic projections, although the latter can be based on childlike solipsism or on the view that the seemingly objective, external world and matter are illusions.

Indeed, anthropocentrism isn't confined to the distant past, but it's also no more the default view in intellectual circles, to say the least.

The kind of mysticism we talked about in our dialogue connects with metaphysical idealism, monism, and mind-first ontology. If you believe the source of all being is mental, it's a short step to imagining that creation happens for the sake of that being or for its avatars and projections. That's the essence of anthropocentrism, not just the geocentric view that Earth is geometrically central to the universe.

The question is whether the source of reality is like us or whether we're intrinsically alienated from that source. The anthropocentrist can believe humans are the measure of all things, because aspects of human nature (consciousness, reason, love) are at the heart of reality which governs everything that's created. Again, this kind of anthropocentrism is different from narcissistic solipsism (a Trumpian view).