1
00:00:00,600 --> 00:00:01,320
Speaker 1: I get a team.

2
00:00:01,320 --> 00:00:04,680
Speaker 2: I hope you bloody terrific happy, whatever day it is

3
00:00:04,680 --> 00:00:08,880
Speaker 2: for you. So one of the things that I am

4
00:00:09,000 --> 00:00:11,559
Speaker 2: constantly doing, or regularly doing, I guess I should say,

5
00:00:11,760 --> 00:00:15,000
Speaker 2: is trying to understand, trying to explain and try to

6
00:00:15,080 --> 00:00:18,640
Speaker 2: understand myself as well, but trying to explain my research,

7
00:00:19,360 --> 00:00:23,840
Speaker 2: my PhD research to people in a way that's really

8
00:00:23,880 --> 00:00:27,640
Speaker 2: accessible and understandable and helpful and practical and something that

9
00:00:27,680 --> 00:00:32,440
Speaker 2: they can do something with. But it can be because

10
00:00:32,440 --> 00:00:36,000
Speaker 2: of the language that's used in psychology and psychological research,

11
00:00:36,120 --> 00:00:39,360
Speaker 2: and you know, this kind of academic jug and that

12
00:00:39,440 --> 00:00:45,560
Speaker 2: people were out trying to explain what is really quite simple,

13
00:00:45,720 --> 00:00:49,639
Speaker 2: fundamental things, but it can be explained in a way

14
00:00:49,680 --> 00:00:53,600
Speaker 2: which all of a sudden is more complicated and more

15
00:00:53,640 --> 00:00:56,360
Speaker 2: confusing than fucking ever. So I've been writing a bit

16
00:00:56,400 --> 00:00:58,080
Speaker 2: of an article which I'm going to do something with.

17
00:00:58,200 --> 00:01:00,280
Speaker 2: I don't know what I'm going to do exactly actly

18
00:01:00,400 --> 00:01:02,880
Speaker 2: what I'm going to do with it, but it's still

19
00:01:02,880 --> 00:01:05,760
Speaker 2: a little bit of a work in progress. But today,

20
00:01:05,880 --> 00:01:11,280
Speaker 2: twice twice today I've been asked, could I explain my

21
00:01:11,400 --> 00:01:15,000
Speaker 2: research in simple terms? And I thought, why don't I

22
00:01:15,040 --> 00:01:17,600
Speaker 2: do that? A lot of you know kind of what

23
00:01:17,680 --> 00:01:24,080
Speaker 2: it's about. But and before I kind of read share

24
00:01:24,200 --> 00:01:28,720
Speaker 2: the you know what I've written, I guess I want

25
00:01:28,760 --> 00:01:34,040
Speaker 2: to explain the genesis for this work. So I'm, as

26
00:01:34,040 --> 00:01:36,600
Speaker 2: you know, I'm fascinated with human behavior. I'm fascinated with

27
00:01:37,200 --> 00:01:39,600
Speaker 2: how people think and why they think the way they do.

28
00:01:39,720 --> 00:01:45,640
Speaker 2: And I'm fascinated with how people see themselves in the

29
00:01:45,680 --> 00:01:50,720
Speaker 2: world with kind of self awareness, with other awareness, understanding,

30
00:01:50,280 --> 00:01:57,080
Speaker 2: having an insight into someone else's experience. What is this

31
00:01:57,240 --> 00:02:00,360
Speaker 2: person's experience at the moment. We are in the same

32
00:02:00,440 --> 00:02:03,840
Speaker 2: room at the same time, going through what seems to

33
00:02:03,880 --> 00:02:08,000
Speaker 2: be the same thing, being exposed to the same stimuli.

34
00:02:08,720 --> 00:02:11,440
Speaker 2: Yet I am having one experience and they're having another.

35
00:02:11,480 --> 00:02:14,560
Speaker 1: What is that about? And where does that come from?

36
00:02:14,600 --> 00:02:19,200
Speaker 2: And how does that eventuate versus mine? So not better

37
00:02:19,280 --> 00:02:22,239
Speaker 2: or worse, not good or bad, just different. And it's

38
00:02:22,240 --> 00:02:24,440
Speaker 2: all about trying to lean into the different, trying to

39
00:02:24,560 --> 00:02:28,480
Speaker 2: lean into the understanding the different, not judging it, not

40
00:02:28,560 --> 00:02:32,960
Speaker 2: evaluating it, not labeling it, just trying to get your

41
00:02:32,960 --> 00:02:37,520
Speaker 2: head around it. And my very very firmly held belief

42
00:02:37,560 --> 00:02:41,840
Speaker 2: based on more experience than research, but both experience and

43
00:02:41,880 --> 00:02:44,200
Speaker 2: research is that if I can understand how other people

44
00:02:44,280 --> 00:02:47,520
Speaker 2: think as a coach, as a mentor, as a teacher,

45
00:02:47,560 --> 00:02:49,480
Speaker 2: as a writer, as an author, as a podcaster, or

46
00:02:49,520 --> 00:02:52,880
Speaker 2: as an excise scientist, you know, as a communicator, if

47
00:02:52,919 --> 00:02:55,480
Speaker 2: I can understand how other people think, not agree or

48
00:02:55,480 --> 00:02:57,400
Speaker 2: align with, as I've said many times, but if I

49
00:02:57,440 --> 00:03:01,080
Speaker 2: can understand how other people think, then i'stically increase my

50
00:03:01,240 --> 00:03:05,400
Speaker 2: chances of building you know, trust and connection and rapport

51
00:03:05,960 --> 00:03:14,200
Speaker 2: and having meaningful, positive exchanges and interactions. And for that reason,

52
00:03:16,120 --> 00:03:20,160
Speaker 2: I'm really passionate about sharing this information and this kind

53
00:03:20,240 --> 00:03:24,240
Speaker 2: of you know, these insights with the world because you know,

54
00:03:24,280 --> 00:03:26,880
Speaker 2: we look at the world through our lens, and sometimes

55
00:03:26,880 --> 00:03:29,440
Speaker 2: we forget that the only person looking through our lens

56
00:03:29,480 --> 00:03:32,960
Speaker 2: or our window or whatever fucking metaphor you want to use,

57
00:03:33,360 --> 00:03:36,240
Speaker 2: the only person seeing the world the way that we

58
00:03:36,440 --> 00:03:40,120
Speaker 2: see the world is us. And because you only live

59
00:03:40,200 --> 00:03:42,960
Speaker 2: in your head and I only live in my head,

60
00:03:43,000 --> 00:03:45,960
Speaker 2: well it's of course you and I get shit wrong,

61
00:03:46,120 --> 00:03:50,160
Speaker 2: of course, And of course I look at things through

62
00:03:50,200 --> 00:03:53,720
Speaker 2: the Craig window. And the Craig window is my thinking,

63
00:03:53,800 --> 00:03:58,559
Speaker 2: my beliefs, my values, my ideas, my background, my programming,

64
00:03:58,680 --> 00:04:03,040
Speaker 2: my story, is my fear, my anxiety, my personality, my genetics,

65
00:04:03,080 --> 00:04:09,400
Speaker 2: my bullshit right, and awareness kind of starts to arise

66
00:04:10,600 --> 00:04:15,000
Speaker 2: when I recognize all of those things that shape my

67
00:04:15,160 --> 00:04:17,800
Speaker 2: reality and I go, oh, this is not the reality.

68
00:04:17,920 --> 00:04:23,720
Speaker 2: This is just my reality. This is not the universal, objective,

69
00:04:24,400 --> 00:04:29,520
Speaker 2: big picture truth. This is just Craig's version of Craig's

70
00:04:29,560 --> 00:04:33,599
Speaker 2: subjective experience of something bigger than him that he is

71
00:04:33,680 --> 00:04:39,800
Speaker 2: giving a label to. Now, that objective subjective thing is omnipresent.

72
00:04:40,080 --> 00:04:43,680
Speaker 2: It's always going on in every conversation, in every situation.

73
00:04:43,880 --> 00:04:46,440
Speaker 2: There's the thing that's happening. There's you and me at

74
00:04:46,480 --> 00:04:49,080
Speaker 2: a cafe, you and me sitting down in a conversation.

75
00:04:49,640 --> 00:04:53,080
Speaker 2: What's the objective reality. Well, the objective reality is two

76
00:04:53,120 --> 00:04:58,200
Speaker 2: humans in a cafe at a table talking, right, That's it.

77
00:04:58,200 --> 00:05:00,280
Speaker 2: It's a bit more than that, but that's essentially what's

78
00:05:00,320 --> 00:05:03,240
Speaker 2: going on too humans in a conversation. People around us

79
00:05:03,240 --> 00:05:05,719
Speaker 2: can go, that's two humans over there at a table

80
00:05:05,760 --> 00:05:07,039
Speaker 2: on chairs having a chat.

81
00:05:07,120 --> 00:05:09,240
Speaker 1: Perfectly, that's what's going on.

82
00:05:09,920 --> 00:05:13,880
Speaker 2: But then there's the other bit, which is my version

83
00:05:13,920 --> 00:05:17,719
Speaker 2: of what's going on, my experience at the table, my

84
00:05:17,920 --> 00:05:22,159
Speaker 2: personal reality, my understanding of what is and what isn't

85
00:05:22,160 --> 00:05:25,039
Speaker 2: in that moment. And then you on the other side,

86
00:05:25,120 --> 00:05:26,880
Speaker 2: who you are not in my head, You are not

87
00:05:26,960 --> 00:05:30,359
Speaker 2: in my experience, you are not in my subjective reality.

88
00:05:30,480 --> 00:05:33,960
Speaker 2: You are not in the middle of the same story

89
00:05:34,000 --> 00:05:37,240
Speaker 2: that I'm in the middle of. And so connection and

90
00:05:37,640 --> 00:05:41,400
Speaker 2: insight and harmony and all of these beautiful things that

91
00:05:41,440 --> 00:05:45,279
Speaker 2: we want to happen on in its personal level begin

92
00:05:45,560 --> 00:05:50,280
Speaker 2: to happen when we start to or seek to remember,

93
00:05:50,320 --> 00:05:54,560
Speaker 2: seek first to understand, when we start to understand or

94
00:05:54,560 --> 00:05:59,359
Speaker 2: seek to understand the person that we're engaged with presently.

95
00:05:59,560 --> 00:06:04,479
Speaker 2: Now that's a person or a team that you're talking to,

96
00:06:05,240 --> 00:06:08,320
Speaker 2: or your kids at dinner, or your spouse, your partner,

97
00:06:08,440 --> 00:06:09,560
Speaker 2: your mum, your dad.

98
00:06:10,720 --> 00:06:12,480
Speaker 1: It's the moment that.

99
00:06:12,480 --> 00:06:15,640
Speaker 2: We try to look at whatever it is through their eyes.

100
00:06:16,520 --> 00:06:19,120
Speaker 2: Is the moment that great shit starts to happen in

101
00:06:19,200 --> 00:06:26,200
Speaker 2: terms of communication and problem solving and conflict resolution and

102
00:06:27,360 --> 00:06:31,479
Speaker 2: building a healthier kind of interpersonal dynamic.

103
00:06:32,120 --> 00:06:35,280
Speaker 1: Right now, the next.

104
00:06:35,080 --> 00:06:38,040
Speaker 2: Level of this, you know, theory of mind, theory of

105
00:06:38,040 --> 00:06:41,520
Speaker 2: mind understanding how others think. The next level on that,

106
00:06:41,600 --> 00:06:43,880
Speaker 2: which I've spoken about a bit, but I'm going to

107
00:06:43,920 --> 00:06:48,880
Speaker 2: do a deep dive today, is met a perception, which

108
00:06:48,960 --> 00:06:52,279
Speaker 2: is having an insight into how other people see us,

109
00:06:53,120 --> 00:06:57,160
Speaker 2: how other people see us. And then so my research

110
00:06:57,240 --> 00:07:00,400
Speaker 2: is around that. It's you know in it. It's a

111
00:07:00,400 --> 00:07:02,080
Speaker 2: bit more than what I'm going to share today, but

112
00:07:02,160 --> 00:07:04,960
Speaker 2: I'm going to give you a really good, pretty comprehensive,

113
00:07:05,040 --> 00:07:08,320
Speaker 2: easy to understand snapshot. And not just because I want

114
00:07:08,360 --> 00:07:12,160
Speaker 2: you to get my research or I think, you know,

115
00:07:12,360 --> 00:07:14,680
Speaker 2: like it's important that everyone knows what I'm doing, not

116
00:07:15,080 --> 00:07:19,000
Speaker 2: at all. I think it's actually important just because understanding

117
00:07:19,200 --> 00:07:23,520
Speaker 2: others really matters, even if you don't agree with them

118
00:07:23,600 --> 00:07:26,440
Speaker 2: or even dare I say, like them. You know, there

119
00:07:26,440 --> 00:07:27,840
Speaker 2: are going to be lots of people in your life

120
00:07:27,920 --> 00:07:30,520
Speaker 2: over time, either close or not so close, so that

121
00:07:30,640 --> 00:07:34,080
Speaker 2: at work or acquaintances or in your friendship circle or

122
00:07:34,120 --> 00:07:38,080
Speaker 2: social circle that maybe you don't see eye to eye with,

123
00:07:40,040 --> 00:07:42,400
Speaker 2: maybe sometimes you do, sometimes you don't, or there might

124
00:07:42,440 --> 00:07:46,160
Speaker 2: be somebody who buys situation or circumstance is in your

125
00:07:46,280 --> 00:07:50,040
Speaker 2: world that you really don't fucking like and that doesn't

126
00:07:50,080 --> 00:07:53,040
Speaker 2: make you bad or flawed, that makes you human. Is

127
00:07:53,040 --> 00:07:55,480
Speaker 2: there anyone that I ever bump into every now and

128
00:07:55,520 --> 00:07:58,240
Speaker 2: then or on a regular, semi regular basis that I

129
00:07:58,360 --> 00:08:02,920
Speaker 2: don't really have warm, fuzzy feelings about of course, of course,

130
00:08:02,960 --> 00:08:05,680
Speaker 2: and probably many people about me. So that's not good

131
00:08:05,760 --> 00:08:10,760
Speaker 2: or bad, that's human, but being able to understand them

132
00:08:11,080 --> 00:08:14,720
Speaker 2: and then being able to understand how other people see you.

133
00:08:15,600 --> 00:08:22,480
Speaker 2: So this particular long winded, fucking introduction is into this

134
00:08:22,760 --> 00:08:28,760
Speaker 2: idea of understanding what we are and who we are

135
00:08:28,880 --> 00:08:33,280
Speaker 2: for other people. So here we go. Do you ever

136
00:08:33,320 --> 00:08:36,040
Speaker 2: walk out of a business meeting, a social encounter, or

137
00:08:36,080 --> 00:08:38,800
Speaker 2: even just a quick chat with someone, a colleague perhaps,

138
00:08:38,880 --> 00:08:42,920
Speaker 2: and immediately you start thinking about it in your head,

139
00:08:43,040 --> 00:08:46,280
Speaker 2: like replaying it. You're thinking, what did they really think

140
00:08:46,320 --> 00:08:50,200
Speaker 2: of me? Did I seem confident? Did I look like

141
00:08:50,240 --> 00:08:54,920
Speaker 2: a dickhead? Am I likable? Did they think I'm competent? Incompetent?

142
00:08:55,679 --> 00:08:59,600
Speaker 2: Did I overshare? Am I overthinking the shit out of

143
00:08:59,600 --> 00:09:04,080
Speaker 2: this now? And it's that internal second guessing, you know that,

144
00:09:04,800 --> 00:09:08,360
Speaker 2: and it's really common and what you're doing in that

145
00:09:08,480 --> 00:09:11,240
Speaker 2: moment when you're thinking about how was I for them?

146
00:09:11,320 --> 00:09:12,760
Speaker 2: What kind of impression did I make?

147
00:09:12,760 --> 00:09:14,080
Speaker 1: Did they like me? Not like me?

148
00:09:15,559 --> 00:09:17,520
Speaker 2: And of course sometimes that can come from a place

149
00:09:17,520 --> 00:09:20,080
Speaker 2: of fear, But really what I'm talking about today is

150
00:09:20,120 --> 00:09:24,640
Speaker 2: more and yes, I'm riffing now. It is really more

151
00:09:24,640 --> 00:09:30,000
Speaker 2: about curiosity and a real inclination to be able to

152
00:09:30,080 --> 00:09:33,120
Speaker 2: understand how you are for them. But what you're doing

153
00:09:33,120 --> 00:09:34,800
Speaker 2: in that moment, whether you know it or not, is

154
00:09:34,880 --> 00:09:41,720
Speaker 2: you're forming what psychologists call metaperceptions. Metaperceptions, which is just

155
00:09:41,760 --> 00:09:48,199
Speaker 2: a fancy term for your beliefs about how you think

156
00:09:48,360 --> 00:09:51,320
Speaker 2: other people see you. So I'll say that again. So

157
00:09:51,480 --> 00:09:58,040
Speaker 2: metaperceptions is just a sciencey, academic y fancy word or

158
00:09:58,120 --> 00:10:03,160
Speaker 2: term for your beliefs about how you think people see you.

159
00:10:04,520 --> 00:10:08,520
Speaker 1: And I'm going to tell you that many people are

160
00:10:08,640 --> 00:10:10,080
Speaker 1: pretty fucking terrible at this.

161
00:10:10,760 --> 00:10:13,880
Speaker 2: It's like they think that people see them a certain

162
00:10:13,920 --> 00:10:19,480
Speaker 2: way and they don't. And quite often it's a negative bias,

163
00:10:19,559 --> 00:10:22,280
Speaker 2: as in they think that people think worse of them

164
00:10:22,600 --> 00:10:27,320
Speaker 2: than is actually true. Sometimes it's a positive bias, where

165
00:10:27,320 --> 00:10:29,360
Speaker 2: they think other people think they're shit hot in a

166
00:10:29,400 --> 00:10:33,760
Speaker 2: particular way and they're not. But it's probably fair to

167
00:10:33,840 --> 00:10:37,360
Speaker 2: say that while we can be quite accurate, we can

168
00:10:37,400 --> 00:10:42,880
Speaker 2: also be wildly inaccurate, depending on you know, situation, circumstance, environment,

169
00:10:42,960 --> 00:10:49,960
Speaker 2: and the group that we're in. So it sounds academic,

170
00:10:50,000 --> 00:10:53,560
Speaker 2: but it's not that complicated. It's basically your internal map

171
00:10:54,280 --> 00:10:59,040
Speaker 2: of your social reflection. And these I guess mental maps,

172
00:10:59,080 --> 00:11:03,520
Speaker 2: these metapas sceptions are actually really important because they influence

173
00:11:03,559 --> 00:11:07,600
Speaker 2: your behavior and relationships and even how you see you.

174
00:11:08,400 --> 00:11:13,240
Speaker 2: It's they're like like blueprints that you use to navigate

175
00:11:13,280 --> 00:11:17,679
Speaker 2: your social world at times. So the question is, for

176
00:11:17,800 --> 00:11:22,640
Speaker 2: my research anyway, is how accurate are they, like, these

177
00:11:22,800 --> 00:11:26,840
Speaker 2: metaperceptions that I have, these ideas, these beliefs that I

178
00:11:26,880 --> 00:11:30,760
Speaker 2: have in my head about how other people see me.

179
00:11:31,040 --> 00:11:35,080
Speaker 2: Are they wildly inaccurate or are they kind of on

180
00:11:35,120 --> 00:11:37,880
Speaker 2: the money? Do we really know how other people see us?

181
00:11:39,120 --> 00:11:43,199
Speaker 2: And so, as you can imagine, when it comes to humans,

182
00:11:43,280 --> 00:11:48,480
Speaker 2: the answer is not predictable. It's not a constant, it's

183
00:11:48,559 --> 00:11:52,079
Speaker 2: not a straightforward yes or no. It's kind of complex,

184
00:11:52,800 --> 00:11:56,840
Speaker 2: and it's that complexity that I want to unpack with you.

185
00:11:57,000 --> 00:12:01,520
Speaker 2: So let's start with how researchers even measure this kind

186
00:12:01,559 --> 00:12:08,720
Speaker 2: of insight. So imagine Sarah forms an impression of David,

187
00:12:09,480 --> 00:12:13,880
Speaker 2: and then David forms a belief about what Sarah thinks

188
00:12:13,920 --> 00:12:21,640
Speaker 2: of him. So David's belief that's his metaperception. The question

189
00:12:21,840 --> 00:12:27,880
Speaker 2: is does it match Sarah's actual impression? Is what Sarah

190
00:12:27,960 --> 00:12:34,040
Speaker 2: really thinks about David aligned with what David thinks Sarah

191
00:12:34,080 --> 00:12:38,120
Speaker 2: thinks of him. Oh Am, I getting confusing anyway. That

192
00:12:38,240 --> 00:12:43,600
Speaker 2: overlap is what researchers called meta accuracy. So I think

193
00:12:43,760 --> 00:12:48,880
Speaker 2: you are really reliable and really trustworthy. And if somebody said,

194
00:12:50,200 --> 00:12:53,760
Speaker 2: what would you give insert your name right now, what

195
00:12:53,840 --> 00:12:57,720
Speaker 2: would you give that person out of five for reliability

196
00:12:57,720 --> 00:12:58,720
Speaker 2: and trustworthiness?

197
00:12:58,720 --> 00:13:00,800
Speaker 1: And I'd say I would give them.

198
00:13:01,400 --> 00:13:03,560
Speaker 2: I have no reason to not trust them, and they've

199
00:13:03,559 --> 00:13:05,719
Speaker 2: always proven to be reliable, so I'm going to give

200
00:13:05,720 --> 00:13:12,560
Speaker 2: them a five. Now, if you think that I would

201
00:13:12,600 --> 00:13:17,040
Speaker 2: give you a five, then you've got very high metaaccuracy, right.

202
00:13:17,600 --> 00:13:20,200
Speaker 2: So it's the gap or lack of gap, between how

203
00:13:20,280 --> 00:13:24,840
Speaker 2: I see you and how you think I see you. Conversely,

204
00:13:26,200 --> 00:13:30,160
Speaker 2: if you have a negative bias, you might think that

205
00:13:31,080 --> 00:13:33,840
Speaker 2: I would score you a two because I don't think so.

206
00:13:34,160 --> 00:13:36,839
Speaker 2: I actually think you're a five, But you think I

207
00:13:38,600 --> 00:13:42,199
Speaker 2: would perceive you as a two, then your meta accuracy

208
00:13:42,240 --> 00:13:44,800
Speaker 2: in this particular example is not great at all. In fact,

209
00:13:44,800 --> 00:13:48,320
Speaker 2: it's bad, and you have what we would call a

210
00:13:48,360 --> 00:13:54,560
Speaker 2: negative bias. It's usually measured statistically as a correlation better

211
00:13:54,600 --> 00:13:57,440
Speaker 2: the alignment between what someone thinks about you and what

212
00:13:57,520 --> 00:14:01,000
Speaker 2: they actually do think. Then, of course, the more meta

213
00:14:01,040 --> 00:14:04,960
Speaker 2: accurate you are. So my research was really around so

214
00:14:05,080 --> 00:14:10,520
Speaker 2: much around trying to understand who is more or less accurate,

215
00:14:10,559 --> 00:14:13,360
Speaker 2: What are the variables and influencers around that can we

216
00:14:13,480 --> 00:14:17,440
Speaker 2: measure it? A whole bunch of interesting stuff. But it

217
00:14:17,480 --> 00:14:21,880
Speaker 2: doesn't stop there. So there's also another thing called metaperceptual bias,

218
00:14:21,920 --> 00:14:26,040
Speaker 2: which is all about whether people tend to consistently overestimate

219
00:14:26,920 --> 00:14:31,120
Speaker 2: or underestimate how they're seen as I said to you,

220
00:14:31,200 --> 00:14:34,600
Speaker 2: positive or negative. For example, do you tend to believe

221
00:14:34,600 --> 00:14:38,880
Speaker 2: that people see you as more competent than they actually do, Well,

222
00:14:38,880 --> 00:14:40,160
Speaker 2: that's a positive bias.

223
00:14:41,680 --> 00:14:43,760
Speaker 1: So here's something interesting from the research.

224
00:14:43,880 --> 00:14:51,120
Speaker 2: Metaperceptions are often both somewhat accurate and slightly positively biased,

225
00:14:51,360 --> 00:14:55,040
Speaker 2: especially when it comes to personality traits. You can know

226
00:14:55,080 --> 00:15:00,080
Speaker 2: the relative order of how people see you, say, more

227
00:15:00,120 --> 00:15:04,280
Speaker 2: extroverted than Mark, but less than Jess. So somebody might go,

228
00:15:04,360 --> 00:15:07,280
Speaker 2: if we've got you and Mark and Jess, you are

229
00:15:07,280 --> 00:15:12,040
Speaker 2: more extroverted than Mark, but you are less extroverted than Jess,

230
00:15:12,720 --> 00:15:18,280
Speaker 2: while still slightly overestimating the overall impression you make. The

231
00:15:18,360 --> 00:15:22,920
Speaker 2: research also makes a distinction between knowing how one specific

232
00:15:23,000 --> 00:15:29,920
Speaker 2: person sees you and knowing your general reputation across the group.

233
00:15:29,960 --> 00:15:32,160
Speaker 2: So I'll say that again. So the research that we

234
00:15:32,240 --> 00:15:35,680
Speaker 2: looked at, it makes a clear distinction between knowing how

235
00:15:35,720 --> 00:15:40,080
Speaker 2: an individual one person sally for example, sees you in

236
00:15:40,160 --> 00:15:43,080
Speaker 2: contrast to knowing how a group of people see you.

237
00:15:43,520 --> 00:15:46,960
Speaker 2: So you might be a basketball coach and you know

238
00:15:47,040 --> 00:15:51,320
Speaker 2: that this individual player really has an issue with you,

239
00:15:51,520 --> 00:15:55,400
Speaker 2: They maybe find you a bit intimidating, right, So you

240
00:15:55,560 --> 00:15:58,480
Speaker 2: know that that's one specific we call that diadic that's

241
00:15:58,600 --> 00:16:01,800
Speaker 2: one specific relationship. But when you zoom out to the

242
00:16:01,840 --> 00:16:04,880
Speaker 2: totality of the group, your twelve players, you know that

243
00:16:04,920 --> 00:16:10,000
Speaker 2: the general reputation or perception of the group is more

244
00:16:10,040 --> 00:16:15,040
Speaker 2: positive than that. It's the rest are not so intimidated.

245
00:16:15,560 --> 00:16:18,960
Speaker 2: And that one on one kind of one to one

246
00:16:19,080 --> 00:16:22,840
Speaker 2: person accuracy. We call that diatic metaaccuracy or DMA.

247
00:16:23,680 --> 00:16:24,720
Speaker 1: And the second one.

248
00:16:24,560 --> 00:16:27,560
Speaker 2: Where we're referring to a bigger a collection of people

249
00:16:27,680 --> 00:16:31,800
Speaker 2: or a group or a team, that's called generalized metaaccuracy

250
00:16:32,360 --> 00:16:33,080
Speaker 2: or GMA.

251
00:16:34,120 --> 00:16:36,640
Speaker 1: So how accurate are we? Well?

252
00:16:37,040 --> 00:16:41,000
Speaker 2: In general, people have a reasonably good sense of their

253
00:16:41,120 --> 00:16:46,239
Speaker 2: reputation or how they're seen by a group their GMA

254
00:16:46,880 --> 00:16:51,240
Speaker 2: generalized metaaccuracy for things like personality traits.

255
00:16:51,320 --> 00:16:54,840
Speaker 1: So there's a thing in.

256
00:16:56,320 --> 00:16:59,640
Speaker 2: A framework in psychology called the Big Five, which is

257
00:16:59,680 --> 00:17:04,840
Speaker 2: five different dimensions of personality or five different personality traits.

258
00:17:04,840 --> 00:17:12,080
Speaker 2: So they are extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness. People

259
00:17:12,280 --> 00:17:15,399
Speaker 2: also tend to have insight into how they're seen in

260
00:17:15,480 --> 00:17:20,439
Speaker 2: terms of leadership, abilities, competence, or attractiveness, and all of

261
00:17:20,480 --> 00:17:23,800
Speaker 2: these measures, all of these kind of individual traits or

262
00:17:25,080 --> 00:17:32,920
Speaker 2: factors are used when assessing meta accuracy. And so say,

263
00:17:32,960 --> 00:17:36,159
Speaker 2: for example, with the Big five, we might pick extraversion,

264
00:17:37,359 --> 00:17:39,560
Speaker 2: and I would get five people who know me well,

265
00:17:39,640 --> 00:17:42,840
Speaker 2: and I've got to rate myself one to five on

266
00:17:42,880 --> 00:17:44,679
Speaker 2: a like art scale. Let's say one seven on a

267
00:17:44,840 --> 00:17:49,680
Speaker 2: like art scale, one to seven, one being very very

268
00:17:49,720 --> 00:17:54,120
Speaker 2: low on the extraversion scale, number seven being a complete

269
00:17:54,320 --> 00:17:55,399
Speaker 2: freak of an extrovert.

270
00:17:56,480 --> 00:17:56,960
Speaker 1: Seven.

271
00:17:57,320 --> 00:18:00,640
Speaker 2: I see myself as a seven, and the other five

272
00:18:00,680 --> 00:18:03,920
Speaker 2: all see me as a seven. So what we're doing

273
00:18:04,000 --> 00:18:09,359
Speaker 2: is where we're using extra version as the trait or

274
00:18:09,400 --> 00:18:16,560
Speaker 2: as the factor to assess meta accuracy in this particular instance.

275
00:18:17,680 --> 00:18:22,200
Speaker 2: So it's specific to in the measurement. It's always specific

276
00:18:22,240 --> 00:18:26,160
Speaker 2: to something a trait, might be a skill, it might

277
00:18:26,240 --> 00:18:34,040
Speaker 2: be a personality factor. So it's not generally general, so

278
00:18:34,119 --> 00:18:38,440
Speaker 2: we don't go, oh, yeah, she is a seven, well

279
00:18:38,560 --> 00:18:43,360
Speaker 2: seven on what because I might be On one scale,

280
00:18:43,440 --> 00:18:46,679
Speaker 2: I might be I might rate highly, and on another scale,

281
00:18:46,840 --> 00:18:49,919
Speaker 2: I rate poorly, depending on the measure, of course, and

282
00:18:49,960 --> 00:18:54,520
Speaker 2: this kind of insight into your general vibe kind of

283
00:18:54,520 --> 00:18:59,280
Speaker 2: holds up across all sorts of social settings, from first

284
00:18:59,280 --> 00:19:05,680
Speaker 2: impression like when you first meet someone, to online stuff,

285
00:19:06,160 --> 00:19:11,000
Speaker 2: to intimate relationships, personal relationships people that you've known for

286
00:19:11,000 --> 00:19:11,920
Speaker 2: a whole bunch of years.

287
00:19:12,000 --> 00:19:13,160
Speaker 1: But here's where it gets weird.

288
00:19:13,240 --> 00:19:16,600
Speaker 2: Right when it comes to the more affective stuff like

289
00:19:16,800 --> 00:19:22,800
Speaker 2: how much people like you or your popularity, our insight

290
00:19:22,960 --> 00:19:23,760
Speaker 2: tends to be worse.

291
00:19:23,800 --> 00:19:25,480
Speaker 1: We seem to be more inaccurate.

292
00:19:25,520 --> 00:19:30,200
Speaker 2: You might not really know whether people find you likable

293
00:19:30,520 --> 00:19:35,840
Speaker 2: or not. And that's because those impressions are often more

294
00:19:35,880 --> 00:19:41,040
Speaker 2: personal and inconsistent, because, for example, one person might love

295
00:19:41,640 --> 00:19:46,199
Speaker 2: and I truly know this you're weird shitty humor, and

296
00:19:46,240 --> 00:19:50,000
Speaker 2: someone else will find it completely inappropriate and off putting,

297
00:19:50,640 --> 00:19:52,640
Speaker 2: and so there's less consensus.

298
00:19:53,440 --> 00:19:56,160
Speaker 1: So it's much harder in that instance.

299
00:19:55,760 --> 00:20:00,960
Speaker 2: To guess the average so like I know with people

300
00:20:01,600 --> 00:20:04,760
Speaker 2: they absolutely love what I write, I might put something

301
00:20:04,760 --> 00:20:09,000
Speaker 2: on social media and literally on the same post, there

302
00:20:09,040 --> 00:20:12,240
Speaker 2: will be a group of people who love it, who

303
00:20:12,400 --> 00:20:14,960
Speaker 2: give it likes and loves and comments and thumbs up

304
00:20:15,000 --> 00:20:18,000
Speaker 2: and all of that positive reinforcement. But there might also

305
00:20:18,119 --> 00:20:21,120
Speaker 2: be usually a smaller group, thankfully, but a smaller group.

306
00:20:20,960 --> 00:20:22,920
Speaker 1: Who go, you're a fucking idiot, this is bullshit.

307
00:20:23,920 --> 00:20:30,000
Speaker 2: So trying to ascertain, you know, the global kind of

308
00:20:30,400 --> 00:20:35,680
Speaker 2: score is hard because it's going to vary across domains

309
00:20:35,720 --> 00:20:40,560
Speaker 2: and dimensions and groups of people. Interestingly, while we often

310
00:20:40,960 --> 00:20:46,600
Speaker 2: underestimate how people like us, remember that's a negative bias.

311
00:20:46,600 --> 00:20:51,919
Speaker 2: In some situations, like first impressions, we might overestimate it. So,

312
00:20:52,040 --> 00:20:57,800
Speaker 2: as I said, context situation really matters. So now when

313
00:20:57,800 --> 00:21:00,399
Speaker 2: it comes to knowing how an individual sees us, like

314
00:21:00,440 --> 00:21:04,800
Speaker 2: one specific person, remember DMA dietic meta accuracy, it's a

315
00:21:04,800 --> 00:21:08,639
Speaker 2: bit trickier. So for personality traits, people tend to be

316
00:21:08,760 --> 00:21:11,080
Speaker 2: less accurate than.

317
00:21:10,920 --> 00:21:14,359
Speaker 1: They are with general reputation.

318
00:21:16,160 --> 00:21:20,640
Speaker 2: But for liking, like on the likability scale, how much

319
00:21:20,680 --> 00:21:22,440
Speaker 2: do they like me, it's actually the opposite.

320
00:21:22,440 --> 00:21:23,920
Speaker 1: We're better at knowing whether a.

321
00:21:23,960 --> 00:21:28,840
Speaker 2: Specific person likes us than we are at estimating our

322
00:21:29,240 --> 00:21:34,760
Speaker 2: general popularity with a group. So, in other words, we

323
00:21:34,880 --> 00:21:37,760
Speaker 2: seem to be pretty good at knowing if an individual.

324
00:21:37,359 --> 00:21:39,240
Speaker 1: Likes us, quite accurate at that.

325
00:21:40,560 --> 00:21:44,160
Speaker 2: But when we zoom out to a whole group, does

326
00:21:44,200 --> 00:21:47,639
Speaker 2: the group like me? Or am I popular? Am I

327
00:21:47,720 --> 00:21:50,840
Speaker 2: well thought of? In the context of this group, we

328
00:21:50,920 --> 00:21:53,200
Speaker 2: are less accurate less accurate.

329
00:21:55,119 --> 00:21:56,199
Speaker 1: And so why is that?

330
00:21:56,600 --> 00:22:00,720
Speaker 2: Well, we don't exactly know, but it could be because

331
00:22:02,000 --> 00:22:03,000
Speaker 2: liking is.

332
00:22:03,680 --> 00:22:04,840
Speaker 1: How much we like someone.

333
00:22:04,920 --> 00:22:08,959
Speaker 2: The likability is more about the chemistry between two people.

334
00:22:11,080 --> 00:22:14,240
Speaker 2: It's more personal, and that makes the cues more noticeable

335
00:22:14,800 --> 00:22:19,560
Speaker 2: and potentially easier to interpret, even if we can't read

336
00:22:19,600 --> 00:22:23,240
Speaker 2: the room at large. So all right, let's talk about

337
00:22:23,280 --> 00:22:27,240
Speaker 2: where these meta perceptions come from. So you might think

338
00:22:27,359 --> 00:22:34,440
Speaker 2: the answer is obvious feedback, but as I've said many

339
00:22:34,480 --> 00:22:39,800
Speaker 2: times before, direct, honest, real feedback is surprisingly rare in

340
00:22:39,880 --> 00:22:44,560
Speaker 2: our day to day life because people tend to say

341
00:22:44,640 --> 00:22:48,879
Speaker 2: what they think people want them to say, and truthfully,

342
00:22:48,920 --> 00:22:51,040
Speaker 2: you know, like when people ask for feedback, often they

343
00:22:51,040 --> 00:22:53,480
Speaker 2: don't want feedback. They want praise, they want accolades, they

344
00:22:53,520 --> 00:22:56,040
Speaker 2: want endorsement, they want to cuddle, they want to pad

345
00:22:56,040 --> 00:22:59,480
Speaker 2: on the back and everyone you know, wants feedback till

346
00:22:59,480 --> 00:23:01,600
Speaker 2: they get feed back they don't want. So people are

347
00:23:01,640 --> 00:23:04,840
Speaker 2: often going to sugarcoat, they're going to avoid conflict or

348
00:23:05,160 --> 00:23:09,679
Speaker 2: say not much at all. And even when the feedback

349
00:23:10,040 --> 00:23:15,959
Speaker 2: is there, sometimes we miss it, or we misinterpret it,

350
00:23:16,520 --> 00:23:20,320
Speaker 2: or we filter it through our own biases. So a

351
00:23:20,359 --> 00:23:25,680
Speaker 2: big part of metaperception actually comes from observing our own behavior.

352
00:23:26,880 --> 00:23:30,680
Speaker 2: And the logic is if I noticed myself talking a lot,

353
00:23:31,600 --> 00:23:35,399
Speaker 2: others probably saw that to and think I'm extroverted. And

354
00:23:35,440 --> 00:23:38,399
Speaker 2: that can be valuable, especially for visible traits. But the

355
00:23:38,440 --> 00:23:43,919
Speaker 2: problem is we often judge ourselves based on intentions, not

356
00:23:44,200 --> 00:23:44,720
Speaker 2: just what.

357
00:23:44,640 --> 00:23:46,040
Speaker 1: Others actually saw.

358
00:23:47,680 --> 00:23:51,040
Speaker 2: So there's something called the illusion of transparency, and it

359
00:23:51,119 --> 00:23:55,040
Speaker 2: just means we assume that others can see our internal states,

360
00:23:55,080 --> 00:23:59,879
Speaker 2: but they usually can't. And as I've said many times,

361
00:24:00,119 --> 00:24:02,960
Speaker 2: for probably ten times on this show, there's a thing called,

362
00:24:03,640 --> 00:24:06,760
Speaker 2: you know, the false consensus effect, and that being this

363
00:24:06,880 --> 00:24:10,080
Speaker 2: kind of idea that we think that other people think

364
00:24:10,240 --> 00:24:13,000
Speaker 2: like us. And this is really the it's almost the

365
00:24:13,080 --> 00:24:17,199
Speaker 2: starting point for leaning into that curiosity around you know,

366
00:24:17,320 --> 00:24:20,080
Speaker 2: metacognition why we think the way we do, and theory

367
00:24:20,080 --> 00:24:22,520
Speaker 2: of mind, why we you know, understanding how others think

368
00:24:22,800 --> 00:24:25,199
Speaker 2: and what we're talking about right now, which is metaperception

369
00:24:25,320 --> 00:24:28,280
Speaker 2: and meta accuracy. And I think we're better to operate

370
00:24:28,320 --> 00:24:32,400
Speaker 2: on the assumption generally that however I see this thing

371
00:24:32,480 --> 00:24:35,840
Speaker 2: in front of me, is not how the person next

372
00:24:35,840 --> 00:24:38,600
Speaker 2: to me sees it. That's more likely to be true

373
00:24:38,720 --> 00:24:43,280
Speaker 2: than yes, they think exactly like me. But a huge

374
00:24:43,320 --> 00:24:50,240
Speaker 2: influence on metaperceptions is just our self view.

375
00:24:50,400 --> 00:24:52,440
Speaker 1: So we tend to, or we.

376
00:24:52,400 --> 00:24:56,280
Speaker 2: Can tend to assume that other people see us the

377
00:24:56,320 --> 00:25:00,440
Speaker 2: way that we see us, and that helps when your

378
00:25:00,480 --> 00:25:04,320
Speaker 2: self use and others' perceptions aligned. But when they don't

379
00:25:05,080 --> 00:25:09,400
Speaker 2: like when you think you're hilarious and they don't think

380
00:25:09,400 --> 00:25:12,399
Speaker 2: you're hilarious, well then we've got an accuracy problem. And

381
00:25:12,440 --> 00:25:15,240
Speaker 2: that accuracy problem, that gap between what you think you

382
00:25:15,359 --> 00:25:17,800
Speaker 2: are for them and what you actually are for them,

383
00:25:18,200 --> 00:25:20,520
Speaker 2: is going to create or potentially going to create, all

384
00:25:20,600 --> 00:25:25,760
Speaker 2: kinds of interpersonal problems. And I think it's more guys

385
00:25:25,760 --> 00:25:29,280
Speaker 2: that think they're hilarious than girls guys that think they're

386
00:25:29,359 --> 00:25:32,639
Speaker 2: hilarious and aren't anyway. And when it comes to all

387
00:25:32,640 --> 00:25:37,440
Speaker 2: this stuff, we also use shortcuts, or we call them heuristics.

388
00:25:37,760 --> 00:25:42,920
Speaker 2: One is reciprocity. If I like you, I assume you

389
00:25:43,080 --> 00:25:46,320
Speaker 2: like me, and that can help things like liking, but

390
00:25:46,400 --> 00:25:49,280
Speaker 2: not so much for personality traits.

391
00:25:50,480 --> 00:25:51,200
Speaker 1: Another is.

392
00:25:52,920 --> 00:25:58,920
Speaker 2: Normative knowledge, which is assuming people see you like they

393
00:25:58,960 --> 00:26:02,439
Speaker 2: see the average per and that kind of gives us

394
00:26:02,440 --> 00:26:06,720
Speaker 2: an okay starting point, but we can do better. And

395
00:26:06,760 --> 00:26:09,000
Speaker 2: one thing that really doesn't work in this space. One

396
00:26:09,040 --> 00:26:13,520
Speaker 2: thing that tends to backfires is stereotypes. So when we

397
00:26:13,600 --> 00:26:17,440
Speaker 2: assume that someone sees you a certain way or they

398
00:26:17,480 --> 00:26:21,040
Speaker 2: perceive you in a certain light because of you know,

399
00:26:21,640 --> 00:26:24,399
Speaker 2: stereotypical things like your age, or your gender, or your

400
00:26:24,440 --> 00:26:30,520
Speaker 2: background or stuff that might not reflect actually who you are,

401
00:26:31,480 --> 00:26:33,119
Speaker 2: we tend to be more inaccurate.

402
00:26:33,560 --> 00:26:33,920
Speaker 1: And so.

403
00:26:35,359 --> 00:26:37,480
Speaker 2: You know, even me, as a sixty one year old dude,

404
00:26:38,000 --> 00:26:43,640
Speaker 2: sixty one year old white male traversing suburbia, there are

405
00:26:43,760 --> 00:26:47,080
Speaker 2: understandably I'm not mad about this, I'm not upset about this,

406
00:26:48,440 --> 00:26:51,560
Speaker 2: but because I look the way that I look, and

407
00:26:51,640 --> 00:26:54,680
Speaker 2: I fill in the blank all of the things that

408
00:26:54,760 --> 00:26:59,119
Speaker 2: I appear to be, so there are stereotypical assumptions made

409
00:26:59,160 --> 00:27:04,320
Speaker 2: about I am based on my appearance. Now, in an

410
00:27:04,359 --> 00:27:06,639
Speaker 2: ideal world, that wouldn't happen. We don't live in that

411
00:27:06,840 --> 00:27:10,640
Speaker 2: ideal world, so we all assume things, you and me both,

412
00:27:11,880 --> 00:27:18,280
Speaker 2: And research tells us that these meta stereotypes tend to

413
00:27:18,320 --> 00:27:24,399
Speaker 2: reduce accuracy, No surprise there, especially in diadic situations or

414
00:27:24,440 --> 00:27:25,879
Speaker 2: one on one situations.

415
00:27:27,119 --> 00:27:28,639
Speaker 1: So what else.

416
00:27:28,480 --> 00:27:36,880
Speaker 2: Makes somebody better or worse at understanding how they're seen?

417
00:27:38,400 --> 00:27:41,760
Speaker 2: So researchers refer to a thing called the Realistic Accuracy

418
00:27:41,800 --> 00:27:46,040
Speaker 2: Model or RAM. RAM It says that meta accuracy depends

419
00:27:46,080 --> 00:27:49,360
Speaker 2: on four things. So let's whip through those. So one

420
00:27:49,440 --> 00:27:53,359
Speaker 2: is the information available more cues, more context, more interaction

421
00:27:54,440 --> 00:27:57,840
Speaker 2: means you've got more data, more information to work with.

422
00:27:58,560 --> 00:28:04,600
Speaker 2: And because you've got more context, more cues, interaction insight,

423
00:28:04,680 --> 00:28:08,960
Speaker 2: you're probably going to make more accurate judgments about how

424
00:28:09,040 --> 00:28:17,040
Speaker 2: people are than say, a stranger a stranger, so you'll

425
00:28:17,040 --> 00:28:23,439
Speaker 2: make more accurate assessments with people you know well. In

426
00:28:23,480 --> 00:28:28,439
Speaker 2: other words, so close friends. Number two the trait being judged,

427
00:28:28,480 --> 00:28:33,160
Speaker 2: So observable traits like extraversion are generally easier to track

428
00:28:33,840 --> 00:28:39,400
Speaker 2: than internal. For one of better terms, internal traits like anxiety.

429
00:28:40,520 --> 00:28:44,200
Speaker 2: Number three the target. So the truth is that some

430
00:28:44,240 --> 00:28:50,040
Speaker 2: people are just easier to read, they're more expressive, they're

431
00:28:50,080 --> 00:28:55,240
Speaker 2: more consistent with how they are, and they're more they're

432
00:28:55,240 --> 00:28:59,720
Speaker 2: more vulnerable, they're more transparent, they're more open, and they're

433
00:28:59,760 --> 00:29:01,560
Speaker 2: more you know, this is not the right term, but

434
00:29:01,560 --> 00:29:05,240
Speaker 2: they're more themselves. So behind closed doors and in front

435
00:29:05,240 --> 00:29:07,200
Speaker 2: of the door, they're kind of the same persons. So

436
00:29:07,320 --> 00:29:10,200
Speaker 2: it gives us a better chance of being able to

437
00:29:10,480 --> 00:29:13,640
Speaker 2: truly understand the person that's in front of us. And

438
00:29:13,760 --> 00:29:16,480
Speaker 2: number four is the judge. And the judge is not

439
00:29:17,000 --> 00:29:21,240
Speaker 2: the court judge, but the judge in this particular conversation.

440
00:29:21,520 --> 00:29:25,120
Speaker 2: Is you the meta perceiver in other words, the one

441
00:29:25,160 --> 00:29:27,960
Speaker 2: who's doing the judging the perceiving.

442
00:29:28,480 --> 00:29:32,200
Speaker 1: Some people are just better at this stuff.

443
00:29:32,240 --> 00:29:35,800
Speaker 2: Some people have better self awareness, better memories, stronger social skills,

444
00:29:38,640 --> 00:29:45,480
Speaker 2: I guess, a bigger cognitive bandwidth to understand and discern

445
00:29:45,720 --> 00:29:51,360
Speaker 2: and process all of these social subtleties, all of these cues,

446
00:29:51,400 --> 00:29:54,520
Speaker 2: all of these things that are happening. I used to

447
00:29:54,520 --> 00:29:59,680
Speaker 2: be terrible at this, but well, I would say probably

448
00:29:59,720 --> 00:30:02,640
Speaker 2: tip or maybe not terrible, but maybe typical. And since

449
00:30:03,320 --> 00:30:06,480
Speaker 2: you know, trying to do my research, but also understanding

450
00:30:06,520 --> 00:30:09,880
Speaker 2: before I even started my PhD, how much information there

451
00:30:10,080 --> 00:30:14,440
Speaker 2: is that's not coming out of someone's mouth. So I'm

452
00:30:14,480 --> 00:30:17,080
Speaker 2: fascinated by what they're telling me when they're not telling

453
00:30:17,120 --> 00:30:19,800
Speaker 2: me anything. So when their lips are not moving, or

454
00:30:19,840 --> 00:30:23,600
Speaker 2: even when their lips are moving, what is the actual information?

455
00:30:23,840 --> 00:30:27,960
Speaker 2: What is the beyond the words, beyond the verbal audible

456
00:30:28,120 --> 00:30:32,720
Speaker 2: kind of stuff, what's the real message? Because sometimes the

457
00:30:32,840 --> 00:30:36,520
Speaker 2: thing that they're not telling you is more insightful, powerful

458
00:30:36,600 --> 00:30:41,000
Speaker 2: and valuable than the thing that they are telling you.

459
00:30:41,760 --> 00:30:45,080
Speaker 2: So some people are just going to have better self awareness, memory,

460
00:30:45,160 --> 00:30:49,360
Speaker 2: stronger social skills, and like I said, cognitive bandwidth. And conversely,

461
00:30:49,440 --> 00:30:55,040
Speaker 2: things like social anxiety or certain personality disorders for some

462
00:30:55,120 --> 00:31:00,000
Speaker 2: people really reduce their accuracy, either through biased filtering or behavior.

463
00:31:00,120 --> 00:31:04,880
Speaker 2: Is that illicit negative feedback that gets misread or ignored,

464
00:31:05,800 --> 00:31:08,080
Speaker 2: And all of these factors interact. So you might be

465
00:31:08,120 --> 00:31:12,160
Speaker 2: great at reading your partner but terrible with your boss.

466
00:31:13,280 --> 00:31:16,479
Speaker 2: You might accurately engauge how you're seen in terms of

467
00:31:16,560 --> 00:31:20,320
Speaker 2: by others in terms of competence, but not for warmth.

468
00:31:21,640 --> 00:31:24,280
Speaker 1: So what's the takeaway?

469
00:31:24,400 --> 00:31:27,640
Speaker 2: So we do have some real insight into how others

470
00:31:27,680 --> 00:31:31,840
Speaker 2: see us, especially when it comes to stable observable traits,

471
00:31:31,840 --> 00:31:35,120
Speaker 2: but that insight comes with a dose of bias. Quite

472
00:31:35,120 --> 00:31:38,680
Speaker 2: often a positive bias for personality. We think we're seen

473
00:31:38,720 --> 00:31:42,240
Speaker 2: a little better than we are, and sometimes a negative

474
00:31:42,240 --> 00:31:46,280
Speaker 2: one when it comes to things like things like liking.

475
00:31:46,960 --> 00:31:50,280
Speaker 2: That is, we don't think we're liked as much as

476
00:31:50,320 --> 00:31:51,640
Speaker 2: we actually are liked.

477
00:31:51,680 --> 00:31:54,040
Speaker 1: But again, context matters, so that can change.

478
00:31:54,400 --> 00:31:58,520
Speaker 2: And weirdly, it's easier to know who specifically likes you

479
00:31:59,280 --> 00:32:04,200
Speaker 2: than it is to know how generally well liked you

480
00:32:04,240 --> 00:32:08,120
Speaker 2: are or how popular you are in terms of a group.

481
00:32:09,680 --> 00:32:14,440
Speaker 2: So here's the final thought. Is perfect insight really the

482
00:32:14,520 --> 00:32:22,040
Speaker 2: goal for us to absolutely, categorically, unequivocally, accurately understand how

483
00:32:22,080 --> 00:32:28,440
Speaker 2: others see us know there's evidence suggesting that a slight

484
00:32:28,720 --> 00:32:34,280
Speaker 2: positive illusion, like believing your partner sees you a little

485
00:32:34,320 --> 00:32:37,800
Speaker 2: more positive than they positively than they actually do, can

486
00:32:37,920 --> 00:32:39,800
Speaker 2: actually strengthen relationships.

487
00:32:40,600 --> 00:32:42,040
Speaker 1: So maybe a.

488
00:32:42,000 --> 00:32:45,280
Speaker 2: Tiny glow a soft filter isn't a bug in the system.

489
00:32:45,360 --> 00:32:50,160
Speaker 1: Maybe it's a feature something to think about. See next time,

490
00:32:50,200 --> 00:32:51,040
Speaker 1: team