Speaker 1: I get a team.
Speaker 2: I hope you bloody terrific happy, whatever day it is
Speaker 2: for you. So one of the things that I am
Speaker 2: constantly doing, or regularly doing, I guess I should say,
Speaker 2: is trying to understand, trying to explain and try to
Speaker 2: understand myself as well, but trying to explain my research,
Speaker 2: my PhD research to people in a way that's really
Speaker 2: accessible and understandable and helpful and practical and something that
Speaker 2: they can do something with. But it can be because
Speaker 2: of the language that's used in psychology and psychological research,
Speaker 2: and you know, this kind of academic jug and that
Speaker 2: people were out trying to explain what is really quite simple,
Speaker 2: fundamental things, but it can be explained in a way
Speaker 2: which all of a sudden is more complicated and more
Speaker 2: confusing than fucking ever. So I've been writing a bit
Speaker 2: of an article which I'm going to do something with.
Speaker 2: I don't know what I'm going to do exactly actly
Speaker 2: what I'm going to do with it, but it's still
Speaker 2: a little bit of a work in progress. But today,
Speaker 2: twice twice today I've been asked, could I explain my
Speaker 2: research in simple terms? And I thought, why don't I
Speaker 2: do that? A lot of you know kind of what
Speaker 2: it's about. But and before I kind of read share
Speaker 2: the you know what I've written, I guess I want
Speaker 2: to explain the genesis for this work. So I'm, as
Speaker 2: you know, I'm fascinated with human behavior. I'm fascinated with
Speaker 2: how people think and why they think the way they do.
Speaker 2: And I'm fascinated with how people see themselves in the
Speaker 2: world with kind of self awareness, with other awareness, understanding,
Speaker 2: having an insight into someone else's experience. What is this
Speaker 2: person's experience at the moment. We are in the same
Speaker 2: room at the same time, going through what seems to
Speaker 2: be the same thing, being exposed to the same stimuli.
Speaker 2: Yet I am having one experience and they're having another.
Speaker 1: What is that about? And where does that come from?
Speaker 2: And how does that eventuate versus mine? So not better
Speaker 2: or worse, not good or bad, just different. And it's
Speaker 2: all about trying to lean into the different, trying to
Speaker 2: lean into the understanding the different, not judging it, not
Speaker 2: evaluating it, not labeling it, just trying to get your
Speaker 2: head around it. And my very very firmly held belief
Speaker 2: based on more experience than research, but both experience and
Speaker 2: research is that if I can understand how other people
Speaker 2: think as a coach, as a mentor, as a teacher,
Speaker 2: as a writer, as an author, as a podcaster, or
Speaker 2: as an excise scientist, you know, as a communicator, if
Speaker 2: I can understand how other people think, not agree or
Speaker 2: align with, as I've said many times, but if I
Speaker 2: can understand how other people think, then i'stically increase my
Speaker 2: chances of building you know, trust and connection and rapport
Speaker 2: and having meaningful, positive exchanges and interactions. And for that reason,
Speaker 2: I'm really passionate about sharing this information and this kind
Speaker 2: of you know, these insights with the world because you know,
Speaker 2: we look at the world through our lens, and sometimes
Speaker 2: we forget that the only person looking through our lens
Speaker 2: or our window or whatever fucking metaphor you want to use,
Speaker 2: the only person seeing the world the way that we
Speaker 2: see the world is us. And because you only live
Speaker 2: in your head and I only live in my head,
Speaker 2: well it's of course you and I get shit wrong,
Speaker 2: of course, And of course I look at things through
Speaker 2: the Craig window. And the Craig window is my thinking,
Speaker 2: my beliefs, my values, my ideas, my background, my programming,
Speaker 2: my story, is my fear, my anxiety, my personality, my genetics,
Speaker 2: my bullshit right, and awareness kind of starts to arise
Speaker 2: when I recognize all of those things that shape my
Speaker 2: reality and I go, oh, this is not the reality.
Speaker 2: This is just my reality. This is not the universal, objective,
Speaker 2: big picture truth. This is just Craig's version of Craig's
Speaker 2: subjective experience of something bigger than him that he is
Speaker 2: giving a label to. Now, that objective subjective thing is omnipresent.
Speaker 2: It's always going on in every conversation, in every situation.
Speaker 2: There's the thing that's happening. There's you and me at
Speaker 2: a cafe, you and me sitting down in a conversation.
Speaker 2: What's the objective reality. Well, the objective reality is two
Speaker 2: humans in a cafe at a table talking, right, That's it.
Speaker 2: It's a bit more than that, but that's essentially what's
Speaker 2: going on too humans in a conversation. People around us
Speaker 2: can go, that's two humans over there at a table
Speaker 2: on chairs having a chat.
Speaker 1: Perfectly, that's what's going on.
Speaker 2: But then there's the other bit, which is my version
Speaker 2: of what's going on, my experience at the table, my
Speaker 2: personal reality, my understanding of what is and what isn't
Speaker 2: in that moment. And then you on the other side,
Speaker 2: who you are not in my head, You are not
Speaker 2: in my experience, you are not in my subjective reality.
Speaker 2: You are not in the middle of the same story
Speaker 2: that I'm in the middle of. And so connection and
Speaker 2: insight and harmony and all of these beautiful things that
Speaker 2: we want to happen on in its personal level begin
Speaker 2: to happen when we start to or seek to remember,
Speaker 2: seek first to understand, when we start to understand or
Speaker 2: seek to understand the person that we're engaged with presently.
Speaker 2: Now that's a person or a team that you're talking to,
Speaker 2: or your kids at dinner, or your spouse, your partner,
Speaker 2: your mum, your dad.
Speaker 1: It's the moment that.
Speaker 2: We try to look at whatever it is through their eyes.
Speaker 2: Is the moment that great shit starts to happen in
Speaker 2: terms of communication and problem solving and conflict resolution and
Speaker 2: building a healthier kind of interpersonal dynamic.
Speaker 1: Right now, the next.
Speaker 2: Level of this, you know, theory of mind, theory of
Speaker 2: mind understanding how others think. The next level on that,
Speaker 2: which I've spoken about a bit, but I'm going to
Speaker 2: do a deep dive today, is met a perception, which
Speaker 2: is having an insight into how other people see us,
Speaker 2: how other people see us. And then so my research
Speaker 2: is around that. It's you know in it. It's a
Speaker 2: bit more than what I'm going to share today, but
Speaker 2: I'm going to give you a really good, pretty comprehensive,
Speaker 2: easy to understand snapshot. And not just because I want
Speaker 2: you to get my research or I think, you know,
Speaker 2: like it's important that everyone knows what I'm doing, not
Speaker 2: at all. I think it's actually important just because understanding
Speaker 2: others really matters, even if you don't agree with them
Speaker 2: or even dare I say, like them. You know, there
Speaker 2: are going to be lots of people in your life
Speaker 2: over time, either close or not so close, so that
Speaker 2: at work or acquaintances or in your friendship circle or
Speaker 2: social circle that maybe you don't see eye to eye with,
Speaker 2: maybe sometimes you do, sometimes you don't, or there might
Speaker 2: be somebody who buys situation or circumstance is in your
Speaker 2: world that you really don't fucking like and that doesn't
Speaker 2: make you bad or flawed, that makes you human. Is
Speaker 2: there anyone that I ever bump into every now and
Speaker 2: then or on a regular, semi regular basis that I
Speaker 2: don't really have warm, fuzzy feelings about of course, of course,
Speaker 2: and probably many people about me. So that's not good
Speaker 2: or bad, that's human, but being able to understand them
Speaker 2: and then being able to understand how other people see you.
Speaker 2: So this particular long winded, fucking introduction is into this
Speaker 2: idea of understanding what we are and who we are
Speaker 2: for other people. So here we go. Do you ever
Speaker 2: walk out of a business meeting, a social encounter, or
Speaker 2: even just a quick chat with someone, a colleague perhaps,
Speaker 2: and immediately you start thinking about it in your head,
Speaker 2: like replaying it. You're thinking, what did they really think
Speaker 2: of me? Did I seem confident? Did I look like
Speaker 2: a dickhead? Am I likable? Did they think I'm competent? Incompetent?
Speaker 2: Did I overshare? Am I overthinking the shit out of
Speaker 2: this now? And it's that internal second guessing, you know that,
Speaker 2: and it's really common and what you're doing in that
Speaker 2: moment when you're thinking about how was I for them?
Speaker 2: What kind of impression did I make?
Speaker 1: Did they like me? Not like me?
Speaker 2: And of course sometimes that can come from a place
Speaker 2: of fear, But really what I'm talking about today is
Speaker 2: more and yes, I'm riffing now. It is really more
Speaker 2: about curiosity and a real inclination to be able to
Speaker 2: understand how you are for them. But what you're doing
Speaker 2: in that moment, whether you know it or not, is
Speaker 2: you're forming what psychologists call metaperceptions. Metaperceptions, which is just
Speaker 2: a fancy term for your beliefs about how you think
Speaker 2: other people see you. So I'll say that again. So
Speaker 2: metaperceptions is just a sciencey, academic y fancy word or
Speaker 2: term for your beliefs about how you think people see you.
Speaker 1: And I'm going to tell you that many people are
Speaker 1: pretty fucking terrible at this.
Speaker 2: It's like they think that people see them a certain
Speaker 2: way and they don't. And quite often it's a negative bias,
Speaker 2: as in they think that people think worse of them
Speaker 2: than is actually true. Sometimes it's a positive bias, where
Speaker 2: they think other people think they're shit hot in a
Speaker 2: particular way and they're not. But it's probably fair to
Speaker 2: say that while we can be quite accurate, we can
Speaker 2: also be wildly inaccurate, depending on you know, situation, circumstance, environment,
Speaker 2: and the group that we're in. So it sounds academic,
Speaker 2: but it's not that complicated. It's basically your internal map
Speaker 2: of your social reflection. And these I guess mental maps,
Speaker 2: these metapas sceptions are actually really important because they influence
Speaker 2: your behavior and relationships and even how you see you.
Speaker 2: It's they're like like blueprints that you use to navigate
Speaker 2: your social world at times. So the question is, for
Speaker 2: my research anyway, is how accurate are they, like, these
Speaker 2: metaperceptions that I have, these ideas, these beliefs that I
Speaker 2: have in my head about how other people see me.
Speaker 2: Are they wildly inaccurate or are they kind of on
Speaker 2: the money? Do we really know how other people see us?
Speaker 2: And so, as you can imagine, when it comes to humans,
Speaker 2: the answer is not predictable. It's not a constant, it's
Speaker 2: not a straightforward yes or no. It's kind of complex,
Speaker 2: and it's that complexity that I want to unpack with you.
Speaker 2: So let's start with how researchers even measure this kind
Speaker 2: of insight. So imagine Sarah forms an impression of David,
Speaker 2: and then David forms a belief about what Sarah thinks
Speaker 2: of him. So David's belief that's his metaperception. The question
Speaker 2: is does it match Sarah's actual impression? Is what Sarah
Speaker 2: really thinks about David aligned with what David thinks Sarah
Speaker 2: thinks of him. Oh Am, I getting confusing anyway. That
Speaker 2: overlap is what researchers called meta accuracy. So I think
Speaker 2: you are really reliable and really trustworthy. And if somebody said,
Speaker 2: what would you give insert your name right now, what
Speaker 2: would you give that person out of five for reliability
Speaker 2: and trustworthiness?
Speaker 1: And I'd say I would give them.
Speaker 2: I have no reason to not trust them, and they've
Speaker 2: always proven to be reliable, so I'm going to give
Speaker 2: them a five. Now, if you think that I would
Speaker 2: give you a five, then you've got very high metaaccuracy, right.
Speaker 2: So it's the gap or lack of gap, between how
Speaker 2: I see you and how you think I see you. Conversely,
Speaker 2: if you have a negative bias, you might think that
Speaker 2: I would score you a two because I don't think so.
Speaker 2: I actually think you're a five, But you think I
Speaker 2: would perceive you as a two, then your meta accuracy
Speaker 2: in this particular example is not great at all. In fact,
Speaker 2: it's bad, and you have what we would call a
Speaker 2: negative bias. It's usually measured statistically as a correlation better
Speaker 2: the alignment between what someone thinks about you and what
Speaker 2: they actually do think. Then, of course, the more meta
Speaker 2: accurate you are. So my research was really around so
Speaker 2: much around trying to understand who is more or less accurate,
Speaker 2: What are the variables and influencers around that can we
Speaker 2: measure it? A whole bunch of interesting stuff. But it
Speaker 2: doesn't stop there. So there's also another thing called metaperceptual bias,
Speaker 2: which is all about whether people tend to consistently overestimate
Speaker 2: or underestimate how they're seen as I said to you,
Speaker 2: positive or negative. For example, do you tend to believe
Speaker 2: that people see you as more competent than they actually do, Well,
Speaker 2: that's a positive bias.
Speaker 1: So here's something interesting from the research.
Speaker 2: Metaperceptions are often both somewhat accurate and slightly positively biased,
Speaker 2: especially when it comes to personality traits. You can know
Speaker 2: the relative order of how people see you, say, more
Speaker 2: extroverted than Mark, but less than Jess. So somebody might go,
Speaker 2: if we've got you and Mark and Jess, you are
Speaker 2: more extroverted than Mark, but you are less extroverted than Jess,
Speaker 2: while still slightly overestimating the overall impression you make. The
Speaker 2: research also makes a distinction between knowing how one specific
Speaker 2: person sees you and knowing your general reputation across the group.
Speaker 2: So I'll say that again. So the research that we
Speaker 2: looked at, it makes a clear distinction between knowing how
Speaker 2: an individual one person sally for example, sees you in
Speaker 2: contrast to knowing how a group of people see you.
Speaker 2: So you might be a basketball coach and you know
Speaker 2: that this individual player really has an issue with you,
Speaker 2: They maybe find you a bit intimidating, right, So you
Speaker 2: know that that's one specific we call that diadic that's
Speaker 2: one specific relationship. But when you zoom out to the
Speaker 2: totality of the group, your twelve players, you know that
Speaker 2: the general reputation or perception of the group is more
Speaker 2: positive than that. It's the rest are not so intimidated.
Speaker 2: And that one on one kind of one to one
Speaker 2: person accuracy. We call that diatic metaaccuracy or DMA.
Speaker 1: And the second one.
Speaker 2: Where we're referring to a bigger a collection of people
Speaker 2: or a group or a team, that's called generalized metaaccuracy
Speaker 2: or GMA.
Speaker 1: So how accurate are we? Well?
Speaker 2: In general, people have a reasonably good sense of their
Speaker 2: reputation or how they're seen by a group their GMA
Speaker 2: generalized metaaccuracy for things like personality traits.
Speaker 1: So there's a thing in.
Speaker 2: A framework in psychology called the Big Five, which is
Speaker 2: five different dimensions of personality or five different personality traits.
Speaker 2: So they are extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness. People
Speaker 2: also tend to have insight into how they're seen in
Speaker 2: terms of leadership, abilities, competence, or attractiveness, and all of
Speaker 2: these measures, all of these kind of individual traits or
Speaker 2: factors are used when assessing meta accuracy. And so say,
Speaker 2: for example, with the Big five, we might pick extraversion,
Speaker 2: and I would get five people who know me well,
Speaker 2: and I've got to rate myself one to five on
Speaker 2: a like art scale. Let's say one seven on a
Speaker 2: like art scale, one to seven, one being very very
Speaker 2: low on the extraversion scale, number seven being a complete
Speaker 2: freak of an extrovert.
Speaker 1: Seven.
Speaker 2: I see myself as a seven, and the other five
Speaker 2: all see me as a seven. So what we're doing
Speaker 2: is where we're using extra version as the trait or
Speaker 2: as the factor to assess meta accuracy in this particular instance.
Speaker 2: So it's specific to in the measurement. It's always specific
Speaker 2: to something a trait, might be a skill, it might
Speaker 2: be a personality factor. So it's not generally general, so
Speaker 2: we don't go, oh, yeah, she is a seven, well
Speaker 2: seven on what because I might be On one scale,
Speaker 2: I might be I might rate highly, and on another scale,
Speaker 2: I rate poorly, depending on the measure, of course, and
Speaker 2: this kind of insight into your general vibe kind of
Speaker 2: holds up across all sorts of social settings, from first
Speaker 2: impression like when you first meet someone, to online stuff,
Speaker 2: to intimate relationships, personal relationships people that you've known for
Speaker 2: a whole bunch of years.
Speaker 1: But here's where it gets weird.
Speaker 2: Right when it comes to the more affective stuff like
Speaker 2: how much people like you or your popularity, our insight
Speaker 2: tends to be worse.
Speaker 1: We seem to be more inaccurate.
Speaker 2: You might not really know whether people find you likable
Speaker 2: or not. And that's because those impressions are often more
Speaker 2: personal and inconsistent, because, for example, one person might love
Speaker 2: and I truly know this you're weird shitty humor, and
Speaker 2: someone else will find it completely inappropriate and off putting,
Speaker 2: and so there's less consensus.
Speaker 1: So it's much harder in that instance.
Speaker 2: To guess the average so like I know with people
Speaker 2: they absolutely love what I write, I might put something
Speaker 2: on social media and literally on the same post, there
Speaker 2: will be a group of people who love it, who
Speaker 2: give it likes and loves and comments and thumbs up
Speaker 2: and all of that positive reinforcement. But there might also
Speaker 2: be usually a smaller group, thankfully, but a smaller group.
Speaker 1: Who go, you're a fucking idiot, this is bullshit.
Speaker 2: So trying to ascertain, you know, the global kind of
Speaker 2: score is hard because it's going to vary across domains
Speaker 2: and dimensions and groups of people. Interestingly, while we often
Speaker 2: underestimate how people like us, remember that's a negative bias.
Speaker 2: In some situations, like first impressions, we might overestimate it. So,
Speaker 2: as I said, context situation really matters. So now when
Speaker 2: it comes to knowing how an individual sees us, like
Speaker 2: one specific person, remember DMA dietic meta accuracy, it's a
Speaker 2: bit trickier. So for personality traits, people tend to be
Speaker 2: less accurate than.
Speaker 1: They are with general reputation.
Speaker 2: But for liking, like on the likability scale, how much
Speaker 2: do they like me, it's actually the opposite.
Speaker 1: We're better at knowing whether a.
Speaker 2: Specific person likes us than we are at estimating our
Speaker 2: general popularity with a group. So, in other words, we
Speaker 2: seem to be pretty good at knowing if an individual.
Speaker 1: Likes us, quite accurate at that.
Speaker 2: But when we zoom out to a whole group, does
Speaker 2: the group like me? Or am I popular? Am I
Speaker 2: well thought of? In the context of this group, we
Speaker 2: are less accurate less accurate.
Speaker 1: And so why is that?
Speaker 2: Well, we don't exactly know, but it could be because
Speaker 2: liking is.
Speaker 1: How much we like someone.
Speaker 2: The likability is more about the chemistry between two people.
Speaker 2: It's more personal, and that makes the cues more noticeable
Speaker 2: and potentially easier to interpret, even if we can't read
Speaker 2: the room at large. So all right, let's talk about
Speaker 2: where these meta perceptions come from. So you might think
Speaker 2: the answer is obvious feedback, but as I've said many
Speaker 2: times before, direct, honest, real feedback is surprisingly rare in
Speaker 2: our day to day life because people tend to say
Speaker 2: what they think people want them to say, and truthfully,
Speaker 2: you know, like when people ask for feedback, often they
Speaker 2: don't want feedback. They want praise, they want accolades, they
Speaker 2: want endorsement, they want to cuddle, they want to pad
Speaker 2: on the back and everyone you know, wants feedback till
Speaker 2: they get feed back they don't want. So people are
Speaker 2: often going to sugarcoat, they're going to avoid conflict or
Speaker 2: say not much at all. And even when the feedback
Speaker 2: is there, sometimes we miss it, or we misinterpret it,
Speaker 2: or we filter it through our own biases. So a
Speaker 2: big part of metaperception actually comes from observing our own behavior.
Speaker 2: And the logic is if I noticed myself talking a lot,
Speaker 2: others probably saw that to and think I'm extroverted. And
Speaker 2: that can be valuable, especially for visible traits. But the
Speaker 2: problem is we often judge ourselves based on intentions, not
Speaker 2: just what.
Speaker 1: Others actually saw.
Speaker 2: So there's something called the illusion of transparency, and it
Speaker 2: just means we assume that others can see our internal states,
Speaker 2: but they usually can't. And as I've said many times,
Speaker 2: for probably ten times on this show, there's a thing called,
Speaker 2: you know, the false consensus effect, and that being this
Speaker 2: kind of idea that we think that other people think
Speaker 2: like us. And this is really the it's almost the
Speaker 2: starting point for leaning into that curiosity around you know,
Speaker 2: metacognition why we think the way we do, and theory
Speaker 2: of mind, why we you know, understanding how others think
Speaker 2: and what we're talking about right now, which is metaperception
Speaker 2: and meta accuracy. And I think we're better to operate
Speaker 2: on the assumption generally that however I see this thing
Speaker 2: in front of me, is not how the person next
Speaker 2: to me sees it. That's more likely to be true
Speaker 2: than yes, they think exactly like me. But a huge
Speaker 2: influence on metaperceptions is just our self view.
Speaker 1: So we tend to, or we.
Speaker 2: Can tend to assume that other people see us the
Speaker 2: way that we see us, and that helps when your
Speaker 2: self use and others' perceptions aligned. But when they don't
Speaker 2: like when you think you're hilarious and they don't think
Speaker 2: you're hilarious, well then we've got an accuracy problem. And
Speaker 2: that accuracy problem, that gap between what you think you
Speaker 2: are for them and what you actually are for them,
Speaker 2: is going to create or potentially going to create, all
Speaker 2: kinds of interpersonal problems. And I think it's more guys
Speaker 2: that think they're hilarious than girls guys that think they're
Speaker 2: hilarious and aren't anyway. And when it comes to all
Speaker 2: this stuff, we also use shortcuts, or we call them heuristics.
Speaker 2: One is reciprocity. If I like you, I assume you
Speaker 2: like me, and that can help things like liking, but
Speaker 2: not so much for personality traits.
Speaker 1: Another is.
Speaker 2: Normative knowledge, which is assuming people see you like they
Speaker 2: see the average per and that kind of gives us
Speaker 2: an okay starting point, but we can do better. And
Speaker 2: one thing that really doesn't work in this space. One
Speaker 2: thing that tends to backfires is stereotypes. So when we
Speaker 2: assume that someone sees you a certain way or they
Speaker 2: perceive you in a certain light because of you know,
Speaker 2: stereotypical things like your age, or your gender, or your
Speaker 2: background or stuff that might not reflect actually who you are,
Speaker 2: we tend to be more inaccurate.
Speaker 1: And so.
Speaker 2: You know, even me, as a sixty one year old dude,
Speaker 2: sixty one year old white male traversing suburbia, there are
Speaker 2: understandably I'm not mad about this, I'm not upset about this,
Speaker 2: but because I look the way that I look, and
Speaker 2: I fill in the blank all of the things that
Speaker 2: I appear to be, so there are stereotypical assumptions made
Speaker 2: about I am based on my appearance. Now, in an
Speaker 2: ideal world, that wouldn't happen. We don't live in that
Speaker 2: ideal world, so we all assume things, you and me both,
Speaker 2: And research tells us that these meta stereotypes tend to
Speaker 2: reduce accuracy, No surprise there, especially in diadic situations or
Speaker 2: one on one situations.
Speaker 1: So what else.
Speaker 2: Makes somebody better or worse at understanding how they're seen?
Speaker 2: So researchers refer to a thing called the Realistic Accuracy
Speaker 2: Model or RAM. RAM It says that meta accuracy depends
Speaker 2: on four things. So let's whip through those. So one
Speaker 2: is the information available more cues, more context, more interaction
Speaker 2: means you've got more data, more information to work with.
Speaker 2: And because you've got more context, more cues, interaction insight,
Speaker 2: you're probably going to make more accurate judgments about how
Speaker 2: people are than say, a stranger a stranger, so you'll
Speaker 2: make more accurate assessments with people you know well. In
Speaker 2: other words, so close friends. Number two the trait being judged,
Speaker 2: So observable traits like extraversion are generally easier to track
Speaker 2: than internal. For one of better terms, internal traits like anxiety.
Speaker 2: Number three the target. So the truth is that some
Speaker 2: people are just easier to read, they're more expressive, they're
Speaker 2: more consistent with how they are, and they're more they're
Speaker 2: more vulnerable, they're more transparent, they're more open, and they're
Speaker 2: more you know, this is not the right term, but
Speaker 2: they're more themselves. So behind closed doors and in front
Speaker 2: of the door, they're kind of the same persons. So
Speaker 2: it gives us a better chance of being able to
Speaker 2: truly understand the person that's in front of us. And
Speaker 2: number four is the judge. And the judge is not
Speaker 2: the court judge, but the judge in this particular conversation.
Speaker 2: Is you the meta perceiver in other words, the one
Speaker 2: who's doing the judging the perceiving.
Speaker 1: Some people are just better at this stuff.
Speaker 2: Some people have better self awareness, better memories, stronger social skills,
Speaker 2: I guess, a bigger cognitive bandwidth to understand and discern
Speaker 2: and process all of these social subtleties, all of these cues,
Speaker 2: all of these things that are happening. I used to
Speaker 2: be terrible at this, but well, I would say probably
Speaker 2: tip or maybe not terrible, but maybe typical. And since
Speaker 2: you know, trying to do my research, but also understanding
Speaker 2: before I even started my PhD, how much information there
Speaker 2: is that's not coming out of someone's mouth. So I'm
Speaker 2: fascinated by what they're telling me when they're not telling
Speaker 2: me anything. So when their lips are not moving, or
Speaker 2: even when their lips are moving, what is the actual information?
Speaker 2: What is the beyond the words, beyond the verbal audible
Speaker 2: kind of stuff, what's the real message? Because sometimes the
Speaker 2: thing that they're not telling you is more insightful, powerful
Speaker 2: and valuable than the thing that they are telling you.
Speaker 2: So some people are just going to have better self awareness, memory,
Speaker 2: stronger social skills, and like I said, cognitive bandwidth. And conversely,
Speaker 2: things like social anxiety or certain personality disorders for some
Speaker 2: people really reduce their accuracy, either through biased filtering or behavior.
Speaker 2: Is that illicit negative feedback that gets misread or ignored,
Speaker 2: And all of these factors interact. So you might be
Speaker 2: great at reading your partner but terrible with your boss.
Speaker 2: You might accurately engauge how you're seen in terms of
Speaker 2: by others in terms of competence, but not for warmth.
Speaker 1: So what's the takeaway?
Speaker 2: So we do have some real insight into how others
Speaker 2: see us, especially when it comes to stable observable traits,
Speaker 2: but that insight comes with a dose of bias. Quite
Speaker 2: often a positive bias for personality. We think we're seen
Speaker 2: a little better than we are, and sometimes a negative
Speaker 2: one when it comes to things like things like liking.
Speaker 2: That is, we don't think we're liked as much as
Speaker 2: we actually are liked.
Speaker 1: But again, context matters, so that can change.
Speaker 2: And weirdly, it's easier to know who specifically likes you
Speaker 2: than it is to know how generally well liked you
Speaker 2: are or how popular you are in terms of a group.
Speaker 2: So here's the final thought. Is perfect insight really the
Speaker 2: goal for us to absolutely, categorically, unequivocally, accurately understand how
Speaker 2: others see us know there's evidence suggesting that a slight
Speaker 2: positive illusion, like believing your partner sees you a little
Speaker 2: more positive than they positively than they actually do, can
Speaker 2: actually strengthen relationships.
Speaker 1: So maybe a.
Speaker 2: Tiny glow a soft filter isn't a bug in the system.
Speaker 1: Maybe it's a feature something to think about. See next time,
Speaker 1: team