Speaker 1: I've got a team. I hope you bloody terrific. One
Speaker 1: of the things that I've spoken about on this show
Speaker 1: a bit, but I've never done a podcast on I've
Speaker 1: never gone in depth. I don't know if it's going
Speaker 1: to last five minutes or thirty five minutes, but I
Speaker 1: thought it'd open the door. I have no script, it's
Speaker 1: just me. I have no one to bounce it off.
Speaker 1: But the reason I want to talk to you about
Speaker 1: this is because it's it's really relevant. It's broadly relevant.
Speaker 1: And as we've spoken many times before about theory of mind,
Speaker 1: understanding how other people think, and metacognition understanding thinking in general,
Speaker 1: meta perception, understanding how others see us, I think it's
Speaker 1: really important that we understand people's behavior, past, present, and
Speaker 1: likely future behavior in order for us to be able
Speaker 1: to self manage and self regulate emotionally and psychologically and
Speaker 1: practically so and maybe even self preserve and self protect.
Speaker 1: So one of the funny things that we humans do
Speaker 1: is we expect people to be different, Like we expect
Speaker 1: the person that hasn't been nice to us the last
Speaker 1: fifty seven times that they're going to be nice this time.
Speaker 1: Not all of us do this, but some of us
Speaker 1: do this we kind of for no logical reason. We
Speaker 1: expect that somebody will see the error of their ways,
Speaker 1: they'll be kind this time, they'll treat us better this time,
Speaker 1: And we base our expectations of what's going to come
Speaker 1: from the next interaction. We base it on more hope
Speaker 1: and wish for thinking than we do any kind of
Speaker 1: logic or science or data that we've been receiving over
Speaker 1: the last one, two, five, ten fifty one hundred interactions.
Speaker 1: So we know that we know that the best predictor
Speaker 1: of future behavior is past. We know that we know
Speaker 1: it's not the only one. There are other variables, there
Speaker 1: are other factors, But overwhelmingly, if somebody's treated you like
Speaker 1: an asshole the last hundred times and you expect them
Speaker 1: to be nice to you today, then that is an
Speaker 1: irrational expectation. This is not me trying to throw you
Speaker 1: under the bus or be critical. This is just logical,
Speaker 1: isn't it. If we've got a certain result one hundred
Speaker 1: times in a row, and today is going to be
Speaker 1: experiment number or interaction number one hundred and one, then
Speaker 1: we would be at the very best somewhat illogical to
Speaker 1: suspect that today the person that hasn't treated us nicely
Speaker 1: or has been disrespectful or horrible or worse, that somehow
Speaker 1: today they will be magically nice because since our last interaction,
Speaker 1: they've had a spiritual awakening, they've found awareness, they've found
Speaker 1: Jesus or Mother Deity, and now they are on a
Speaker 1: path through righteousness, and they're back to rectify the damage
Speaker 1: they've done. And to see all of that's probably not likely.
Speaker 1: It's possible, not probable. And of course people can change,
Speaker 1: and of course my career and my passion is predicated
Speaker 1: on the idea that people can do better, be better,
Speaker 1: think better. And of course of course they can. But
Speaker 1: generally that transition or that transformation doesn't happen instant instantly,
Speaker 1: And so we can we can do these two things.
Speaker 1: We can simultaneously support and encourage people to be better.
Speaker 1: We can hope they get better, we can want them
Speaker 1: to get better. We can even still love them. I mean,
Speaker 1: how many parents love their kids hate what their kids
Speaker 1: are doing a certain behavior or a habit or something
Speaker 1: where they're you know, they're self destructing. They love them,
Speaker 1: but they hate the use of the whatever it is
Speaker 1: that habit or that behavior which that can the parent
Speaker 1: considers to be damaging and harmful and toxic. Of course,
Speaker 1: so we can we can at the same time, we
Speaker 1: can concurrently hope that somebody is going to treat us
Speaker 1: differently next time, while expecting that they probably won't. Right,
Speaker 1: So these two things are possible to exist at the
Speaker 1: same time in the same human and one of them
Speaker 1: is more an emotional driver. That is, I want I
Speaker 1: care about this person, I want them to be better.
Speaker 1: I love them, I have an emotional connection to them,
Speaker 1: I wish good for them. But also when I am
Speaker 1: now coming back to me where I need to look
Speaker 1: after me, I need to you know that what is
Speaker 1: likely to come as not something positive for me, It
Speaker 1: might not be a great experience. Anyway, I was thinking
Speaker 1: about this. I was thinking about all this, and I
Speaker 1: went into chatters to see if there was a name
Speaker 1: for this. This was the only bit of research, by
Speaker 1: the way, and I didn't know that there's a name.
Speaker 1: I don't know if this is broadly used. I've never
Speaker 1: heard of it rope, so let's just take it with
Speaker 1: a grain of salt. But I thought it was interesting.
Speaker 1: So this is what I typed into when I say Chatters.
Speaker 1: Chat gpt I wrote, when we keep expecting people to
Speaker 1: behave a certain way in brackets differently despite how they
Speaker 1: typically behave their track record. Is there a name for
Speaker 1: this misplaced expectation? And Chatters said to me, it said Harps,
Speaker 1: It said Cocker, It said nugget. It said, yes, Harps.
Speaker 1: This phenomenon is often referred to as the hopeful fallacy.
Speaker 1: It can be linked to a cognitive bias such as
Speaker 1: optim isn't bias or confirmation bias, depending on the context.
Speaker 1: The hopeful fallacy is informally used to describe situations where
Speaker 1: we rationally expect someone to act differently despite a consistent
Speaker 1: track record to the contrary. This is rooted in our
Speaker 1: desire to believe people can improve or change, even without
Speaker 1: evidence to support that belief. And so that is interesting,
Speaker 1: isn't it? That is interesting? So we know, we know
Speaker 1: that people can change and evolve, but we also know
Speaker 1: on a really practical operational level that whatever we've got
Speaker 1: now by the way, it could be something positive it
Speaker 1: doesn't have to be negative, or it could be something
Speaker 1: it could be a habit or a trait or a
Speaker 1: behavior in a certain person that's not particularly positive or negative,
Speaker 1: that's just them. So, for example, I know how my
Speaker 1: dad works. I've spoken about my dad a bit, my
Speaker 1: eighty five year old dad, I know. I know how
Speaker 1: he works, and I know the kinds of compliments he
Speaker 1: might give or might not give, or the kind of
Speaker 1: things that he'll be interested in. I know the way
Speaker 1: that my dad will talk to me and treat me.
Speaker 1: And there's no good or bad in this. I just
Speaker 1: know how he's going to be. So when I meet
Speaker 1: with my dad on the weekend, which I'm gonna and
Speaker 1: I walk in the door, based on thousands of interactions
Speaker 1: over decades of being his bloody kid, I know what
Speaker 1: is almost absolutely guaranteed to transpire. Now that's not because
Speaker 1: my dad's bad and I'm good. That's just because the
Speaker 1: best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. I know
Speaker 1: that my dad's not going to go fuck, it's great
Speaker 1: to see you give me a hug. I know that
Speaker 1: because he's never done that. And that's okay. That's just
Speaker 1: so if I went in every time, and by the way,
Speaker 1: I give my a man a hug and tell him
Speaker 1: I love him and all of that, and he's a
Speaker 1: bit clunky emotionally, and he's the old guy, and we
Speaker 1: get all that he's amazing, but he's not like me.
Speaker 1: He's not better or worse. He's different. So I don't
Speaker 1: expect my dad to be like me. And when I
Speaker 1: expect my dad to be like me were one problems
Speaker 1: arise too. I'm operating an ego, and also being like
Speaker 1: me is not necessarily a good thing or a better thing,
Speaker 1: by the way, of course, but it's also an irrational
Speaker 1: expectation for him to be like I think he should be.
Speaker 1: But nonetheless, we humans, we create our own frustration and
Speaker 1: disappointment because we expect people who have behaved a certain
Speaker 1: way for a very long time to be different magically
Speaker 1: and mysteriously the next time, if not the next time,
Speaker 1: then very soon. So understanding how people will most likely behave,
Speaker 1: or act or react in all kinds of situations is
Speaker 1: a social skill. It's a kind of a social intelligence.
Speaker 1: Knowing how people will be talk, communicate, connect, act, react,
Speaker 1: respond in conflict or in negotiation or in the middle
Speaker 1: of a problem solving kind of situation, or how they
Speaker 1: might be socially versus how they might be one on one,
Speaker 1: how they might be at work, versus how they might
Speaker 1: be in a group of friends, understanding how people are,
Speaker 1: understanding how people have been, understanding how they think, and
Speaker 1: also being conscious of their track record, good or bad.
Speaker 1: The history that you you two have, the history of interactions,
Speaker 1: the history of conversations, the history of experiences that you
Speaker 1: two have, is going to be the best predictor moving
Speaker 1: forward for you in terms of what is likely if
Speaker 1: I'm being honest, and I try to be honest all
Speaker 1: the time. If I'm being honest, There've been lots of
Speaker 1: times over the years where people's words and people's behavior
Speaker 1: have told me, in inverted commas, two different things. So
Speaker 1: there were people that would consist, and these were people
Speaker 1: that I really cared about, where I kind of knew
Speaker 1: deep down, like I knew like they'd done some things
Speaker 1: that were that kind of showed me on a level
Speaker 1: they weren't trustworthy, they didn't necessarily have the same values
Speaker 1: as me, they couldn't be relied on, and so on.
Speaker 1: And by the way, I'm not the high watermark of
Speaker 1: human potential and being the best person either, but just
Speaker 1: people that had taught me over time through their behaviors
Speaker 1: more than their words, what I should expect moving forward.
Speaker 1: But Nonetheless, I constantly found the reason to think that
Speaker 1: the dynamics and the interactions and the outcomes of that
Speaker 1: relationship would magically be better because I wanted it to
Speaker 1: be better. I wanted them to be better. I wanted
Speaker 1: us to be better. I wanted a healthier relationship. I
Speaker 1: cared about them, and I cared about my relationship with them,
Speaker 1: And despite my understanding and awareness of how humans work,
Speaker 1: my emotions overrode that logic, and I created my own
Speaker 1: devastation and disappointment for far too long because I kept
Speaker 1: expecting people who had absolutely told me in inverted commas
Speaker 1: who they were and how they were. I expected them
Speaker 1: to somehow be different one day, And clearly you know
Speaker 1: it was me creating the problem in that sense. So
Speaker 1: you and I have this capacity to be able to
Speaker 1: believe in someone's potential, believe in their potential good and
Speaker 1: their possibilities, while still practically managing our expectations and also
Speaker 1: holding space. Oh that's an overused term these days, isn't
Speaker 1: it Holding space for somebody's growth, somebody's development, somebody's awakening.
Speaker 1: Holding space for them in that way doesn't mean that
Speaker 1: you need to tolerate poor behavior indefinitely. If somebody treats
Speaker 1: you poorly, you're not obligated to keep giving them chances.
Speaker 1: There needs to be I believe, this is my belie
Speaker 1: my thought. There needs to be evidence of change or
Speaker 1: evidence of people really being willing to do the work.
Speaker 1: If somebody is genuinely trying, I mean genuinely trying, I'm
Speaker 1: in even if they're not producing good outcomes, even if
Speaker 1: they're a dick sometimes and I'm a dick sometimes, But
Speaker 1: if they're genuinely trying to do the right thing, and
Speaker 1: they're really working to be better, think better, do better,
Speaker 1: be a better friend, be a better business partner, be
Speaker 1: a better romantic partner, whatever it is. If that person's
Speaker 1: genuinely doing the work and trying to do the work,
Speaker 1: then I'm I'm supportive. Obviously, I can't take bullshit forever
Speaker 1: and definitely, but if somebody is taking the pissa, they're
Speaker 1: telling you one thing but doing another, or every time
Speaker 1: that they're showing up and every time that there's an
Speaker 1: interaction there's some kind of problem, then that is potentially
Speaker 1: a sign that you might need to create some distance
Speaker 1: between you and that person. People who are repeatedly demonstrating
Speaker 1: hurtful or hateful behavior while saying that, while while saying
Speaker 1: something else, like what is coming out of their mouth
Speaker 1: is not actually consistent with or representative of what they're
Speaker 1: actually doing, and you realize this person and sometimes these
Speaker 1: people are narcissists or sociopaths that's a different conversation, or
Speaker 1: gas sliders. We know all of those terms. But over time,
Speaker 1: you know, not everyone who calls themselves a friend to
Speaker 1: you is going to be a friend, and not everybody
Speaker 1: that you think is trustworthy or not everybody that you
Speaker 1: think shares the same or similar values as you and
Speaker 1: I think we don't all have to have identical values
Speaker 1: or identical beliefs or ideas, of course, but probably it's
Speaker 1: an idea that we have someone who's in the ballpark
Speaker 1: of having similar values to us. And so there are
Speaker 1: times when we might just need to walk away. We
Speaker 1: might need to walk away forever, or we might need
Speaker 1: to walk away for a while. So as you move
Speaker 1: forward over the next day or week, or month or
Speaker 1: a year, keep in mind that even though you might
Speaker 1: love these people, I'm not saying you need to ditch
Speaker 1: them or burn them, or disregard them or throw them
Speaker 1: on the sociological heap, but you might You might be
Speaker 1: wise to keep in mind that what they've been in
Speaker 1: the past is not absolutely definite, but it's likely what
Speaker 1: they're going to be in the future. We know that
Speaker 1: the best predictor of future indicator is past behavior, so
Speaker 1: we know that statistically, how he or she has been
Speaker 1: in the last ten, twenty thirty times is statistically how
Speaker 1: they will most likely be moving forward. We need to
Speaker 1: love people. I think we need to be patient and
Speaker 1: kind and tolerance, but also we don't need to be
Speaker 1: emotional doormats. There's a big difference between allowing ourselves to
Speaker 1: be used and abused and being kind. They are not
Speaker 1: the same things. You can be kind, you can be resilient,
Speaker 1: you can be empathetic, you can be aware, and you
Speaker 1: can also tell people to fuck off, because sometimes that's
Speaker 1: what's needed.