WEBVTT - #1906 Meta-Perception Explained (Kind Of) - Harps 0:00:00.600 --> 0:00:01.320 I get a team. 0:00:01.320 --> 0:00:04.680 I hope you bloody terrific happy, whatever day it is 0:00:04.680 --> 0:00:08.880 for you. So one of the things that I am 0:00:09.000 --> 0:00:11.559 constantly doing, or regularly doing, I guess I should say, 0:00:11.760 --> 0:00:15.000 is trying to understand, trying to explain and try to 0:00:15.080 --> 0:00:18.640 understand myself as well, but trying to explain my research, 0:00:19.360 --> 0:00:23.840 my PhD research to people in a way that's really 0:00:23.880 --> 0:00:27.640 accessible and understandable and helpful and practical and something that 0:00:27.680 --> 0:00:32.440 they can do something with. But it can be because 0:00:32.440 --> 0:00:36.000 of the language that's used in psychology and psychological research, 0:00:36.120 --> 0:00:39.360 and you know, this kind of academic jug and that 0:00:39.440 --> 0:00:45.560 people were out trying to explain what is really quite simple, 0:00:45.720 --> 0:00:49.639 fundamental things, but it can be explained in a way 0:00:49.680 --> 0:00:53.600 which all of a sudden is more complicated and more 0:00:53.640 --> 0:00:56.360 confusing than fucking ever. So I've been writing a bit 0:00:56.400 --> 0:00:58.080 of an article which I'm going to do something with. 0:00:58.200 --> 0:01:00.280 I don't know what I'm going to do exactly actly 0:01:00.400 --> 0:01:02.880 what I'm going to do with it, but it's still 0:01:02.880 --> 0:01:05.760 a little bit of a work in progress. But today, 0:01:05.880 --> 0:01:11.280 twice twice today I've been asked, could I explain my 0:01:11.400 --> 0:01:15.000 research in simple terms? And I thought, why don't I 0:01:15.040 --> 0:01:17.600 do that? A lot of you know kind of what 0:01:17.680 --> 0:01:24.080 it's about. But and before I kind of read share 0:01:24.200 --> 0:01:28.720 the you know what I've written, I guess I want 0:01:28.760 --> 0:01:34.040 to explain the genesis for this work. So I'm, as 0:01:34.040 --> 0:01:36.600 you know, I'm fascinated with human behavior. I'm fascinated with 0:01:37.200 --> 0:01:39.600 how people think and why they think the way they do. 0:01:39.720 --> 0:01:45.640 And I'm fascinated with how people see themselves in the 0:01:45.680 --> 0:01:50.720 world with kind of self awareness, with other awareness, understanding, 0:01:50.280 --> 0:01:57.080 having an insight into someone else's experience. What is this 0:01:57.240 --> 0:02:00.360 person's experience at the moment. We are in the same 0:02:00.440 --> 0:02:03.840 room at the same time, going through what seems to 0:02:03.880 --> 0:02:08.000 be the same thing, being exposed to the same stimuli. 0:02:08.720 --> 0:02:11.440 Yet I am having one experience and they're having another. 0:02:11.480 --> 0:02:14.560 What is that about? And where does that come from? 0:02:14.600 --> 0:02:19.200 And how does that eventuate versus mine? So not better 0:02:19.280 --> 0:02:22.239 or worse, not good or bad, just different. And it's 0:02:22.240 --> 0:02:24.440 all about trying to lean into the different, trying to 0:02:24.560 --> 0:02:28.480 lean into the understanding the different, not judging it, not 0:02:28.560 --> 0:02:32.960 evaluating it, not labeling it, just trying to get your 0:02:32.960 --> 0:02:37.520 head around it. And my very very firmly held belief 0:02:37.560 --> 0:02:41.840 based on more experience than research, but both experience and 0:02:41.880 --> 0:02:44.200 research is that if I can understand how other people 0:02:44.280 --> 0:02:47.520 think as a coach, as a mentor, as a teacher, 0:02:47.560 --> 0:02:49.480 as a writer, as an author, as a podcaster, or 0:02:49.520 --> 0:02:52.880 as an excise scientist, you know, as a communicator, if 0:02:52.919 --> 0:02:55.480 I can understand how other people think, not agree or 0:02:55.480 --> 0:02:57.400 align with, as I've said many times, but if I 0:02:57.440 --> 0:03:01.080 can understand how other people think, then i'stically increase my 0:03:01.240 --> 0:03:05.400 chances of building you know, trust and connection and rapport 0:03:05.960 --> 0:03:14.200 and having meaningful, positive exchanges and interactions. And for that reason, 0:03:16.120 --> 0:03:20.160 I'm really passionate about sharing this information and this kind 0:03:20.240 --> 0:03:24.240 of you know, these insights with the world because you know, 0:03:24.280 --> 0:03:26.880 we look at the world through our lens, and sometimes 0:03:26.880 --> 0:03:29.440 we forget that the only person looking through our lens 0:03:29.480 --> 0:03:32.960 or our window or whatever fucking metaphor you want to use, 0:03:33.360 --> 0:03:36.240 the only person seeing the world the way that we 0:03:36.440 --> 0:03:40.120 see the world is us. And because you only live 0:03:40.200 --> 0:03:42.960 in your head and I only live in my head, 0:03:43.000 --> 0:03:45.960 well it's of course you and I get shit wrong, 0:03:46.120 --> 0:03:50.160 of course, And of course I look at things through 0:03:50.200 --> 0:03:53.720 the Craig window. And the Craig window is my thinking, 0:03:53.800 --> 0:03:58.559 my beliefs, my values, my ideas, my background, my programming, 0:03:58.680 --> 0:04:03.040 my story, is my fear, my anxiety, my personality, my genetics, 0:04:03.080 --> 0:04:09.400 my bullshit right, and awareness kind of starts to arise 0:04:10.600 --> 0:04:15.000 when I recognize all of those things that shape my 0:04:15.160 --> 0:04:17.800 reality and I go, oh, this is not the reality. 0:04:17.920 --> 0:04:23.720 This is just my reality. This is not the universal, objective, 0:04:24.400 --> 0:04:29.520 big picture truth. This is just Craig's version of Craig's 0:04:29.560 --> 0:04:33.599 subjective experience of something bigger than him that he is 0:04:33.680 --> 0:04:39.800 giving a label to. Now, that objective subjective thing is omnipresent. 0:04:40.080 --> 0:04:43.680 It's always going on in every conversation, in every situation. 0:04:43.880 --> 0:04:46.440 There's the thing that's happening. There's you and me at 0:04:46.480 --> 0:04:49.080 a cafe, you and me sitting down in a conversation. 0:04:49.640 --> 0:04:53.080 What's the objective reality. Well, the objective reality is two 0:04:53.120 --> 0:04:58.200 humans in a cafe at a table talking, right, That's it. 0:04:58.200 --> 0:05:00.280 It's a bit more than that, but that's essentially what's 0:05:00.320 --> 0:05:03.240 going on too humans in a conversation. People around us 0:05:03.240 --> 0:05:05.719 can go, that's two humans over there at a table 0:05:05.760 --> 0:05:07.039 on chairs having a chat. 0:05:07.120 --> 0:05:09.240 Perfectly, that's what's going on. 0:05:09.920 --> 0:05:13.880 But then there's the other bit, which is my version 0:05:13.920 --> 0:05:17.719 of what's going on, my experience at the table, my 0:05:17.920 --> 0:05:22.159 personal reality, my understanding of what is and what isn't 0:05:22.160 --> 0:05:25.039 in that moment. And then you on the other side, 0:05:25.120 --> 0:05:26.880 who you are not in my head, You are not 0:05:26.960 --> 0:05:30.359 in my experience, you are not in my subjective reality. 0:05:30.480 --> 0:05:33.960 You are not in the middle of the same story 0:05:34.000 --> 0:05:37.240 that I'm in the middle of. And so connection and 0:05:37.640 --> 0:05:41.400 insight and harmony and all of these beautiful things that 0:05:41.440 --> 0:05:45.279 we want to happen on in its personal level begin 0:05:45.560 --> 0:05:50.280 to happen when we start to or seek to remember, 0:05:50.320 --> 0:05:54.560 seek first to understand, when we start to understand or 0:05:54.560 --> 0:05:59.359 seek to understand the person that we're engaged with presently. 0:05:59.560 --> 0:06:04.479 Now that's a person or a team that you're talking to, 0:06:05.240 --> 0:06:08.320 or your kids at dinner, or your spouse, your partner, 0:06:08.440 --> 0:06:09.560 your mum, your dad. 0:06:10.720 --> 0:06:12.480 It's the moment that. 0:06:12.480 --> 0:06:15.640 We try to look at whatever it is through their eyes. 0:06:16.520 --> 0:06:19.120 Is the moment that great shit starts to happen in 0:06:19.200 --> 0:06:26.200 terms of communication and problem solving and conflict resolution and 0:06:27.360 --> 0:06:31.479 building a healthier kind of interpersonal dynamic. 0:06:32.120 --> 0:06:35.280 Right now, the next. 0:06:35.080 --> 0:06:38.040 Level of this, you know, theory of mind, theory of 0:06:38.040 --> 0:06:41.520 mind understanding how others think. The next level on that, 0:06:41.600 --> 0:06:43.880 which I've spoken about a bit, but I'm going to 0:06:43.920 --> 0:06:48.880 do a deep dive today, is met a perception, which 0:06:48.960 --> 0:06:52.279 is having an insight into how other people see us, 0:06:53.120 --> 0:06:57.160 how other people see us. And then so my research 0:06:57.240 --> 0:07:00.400 is around that. It's you know in it. It's a 0:07:00.400 --> 0:07:02.080 bit more than what I'm going to share today, but 0:07:02.160 --> 0:07:04.960 I'm going to give you a really good, pretty comprehensive, 0:07:05.040 --> 0:07:08.320 easy to understand snapshot. And not just because I want 0:07:08.360 --> 0:07:12.160 you to get my research or I think, you know, 0:07:12.360 --> 0:07:14.680 like it's important that everyone knows what I'm doing, not 0:07:15.080 --> 0:07:19.000 at all. I think it's actually important just because understanding 0:07:19.200 --> 0:07:23.520 others really matters, even if you don't agree with them 0:07:23.600 --> 0:07:26.440 or even dare I say, like them. You know, there 0:07:26.440 --> 0:07:27.840 are going to be lots of people in your life 0:07:27.920 --> 0:07:30.520 over time, either close or not so close, so that 0:07:30.640 --> 0:07:34.080 at work or acquaintances or in your friendship circle or 0:07:34.120 --> 0:07:38.080 social circle that maybe you don't see eye to eye with, 0:07:40.040 --> 0:07:42.400 maybe sometimes you do, sometimes you don't, or there might 0:07:42.440 --> 0:07:46.160 be somebody who buys situation or circumstance is in your 0:07:46.280 --> 0:07:50.040 world that you really don't fucking like and that doesn't 0:07:50.080 --> 0:07:53.040 make you bad or flawed, that makes you human. Is 0:07:53.040 --> 0:07:55.480 there anyone that I ever bump into every now and 0:07:55.520 --> 0:07:58.240 then or on a regular, semi regular basis that I 0:07:58.360 --> 0:08:02.920 don't really have warm, fuzzy feelings about of course, of course, 0:08:02.960 --> 0:08:05.680 and probably many people about me. So that's not good 0:08:05.760 --> 0:08:10.760 or bad, that's human, but being able to understand them 0:08:11.080 --> 0:08:14.720 and then being able to understand how other people see you. 0:08:15.600 --> 0:08:22.480 So this particular long winded, fucking introduction is into this 0:08:22.760 --> 0:08:28.760 idea of understanding what we are and who we are 0:08:28.880 --> 0:08:33.280 for other people. So here we go. Do you ever 0:08:33.320 --> 0:08:36.040 walk out of a business meeting, a social encounter, or 0:08:36.080 --> 0:08:38.800 even just a quick chat with someone, a colleague perhaps, 0:08:38.880 --> 0:08:42.920 and immediately you start thinking about it in your head, 0:08:43.040 --> 0:08:46.280 like replaying it. You're thinking, what did they really think 0:08:46.320 --> 0:08:50.200 of me? Did I seem confident? Did I look like 0:08:50.240 --> 0:08:54.920 a dickhead? Am I likable? Did they think I'm competent? Incompetent? 0:08:55.679 --> 0:08:59.600 Did I overshare? Am I overthinking the shit out of 0:08:59.600 --> 0:09:04.080 this now? And it's that internal second guessing, you know that, 0:09:04.800 --> 0:09:08.360 and it's really common and what you're doing in that 0:09:08.480 --> 0:09:11.240 moment when you're thinking about how was I for them? 0:09:11.320 --> 0:09:12.760 What kind of impression did I make? 0:09:12.760 --> 0:09:14.080 Did they like me? Not like me? 0:09:15.559 --> 0:09:17.520 And of course sometimes that can come from a place 0:09:17.520 --> 0:09:20.080 of fear, But really what I'm talking about today is 0:09:20.120 --> 0:09:24.640 more and yes, I'm riffing now. It is really more 0:09:24.640 --> 0:09:30.000 about curiosity and a real inclination to be able to 0:09:30.080 --> 0:09:33.120 understand how you are for them. But what you're doing 0:09:33.120 --> 0:09:34.800 in that moment, whether you know it or not, is 0:09:34.880 --> 0:09:41.720 you're forming what psychologists call metaperceptions. Metaperceptions, which is just 0:09:41.760 --> 0:09:48.199 a fancy term for your beliefs about how you think 0:09:48.360 --> 0:09:51.320 other people see you. So I'll say that again. So 0:09:51.480 --> 0:09:58.040 metaperceptions is just a sciencey, academic y fancy word or 0:09:58.120 --> 0:10:03.160 term for your beliefs about how you think people see you. 0:10:04.520 --> 0:10:08.520 And I'm going to tell you that many people are 0:10:08.640 --> 0:10:10.080 pretty fucking terrible at this. 0:10:10.760 --> 0:10:13.880 It's like they think that people see them a certain 0:10:13.920 --> 0:10:19.480 way and they don't. And quite often it's a negative bias, 0:10:19.559 --> 0:10:22.280 as in they think that people think worse of them 0:10:22.600 --> 0:10:27.320 than is actually true. Sometimes it's a positive bias, where 0:10:27.320 --> 0:10:29.360 they think other people think they're shit hot in a 0:10:29.400 --> 0:10:33.760 particular way and they're not. But it's probably fair to 0:10:33.840 --> 0:10:37.360 say that while we can be quite accurate, we can 0:10:37.400 --> 0:10:42.880 also be wildly inaccurate, depending on you know, situation, circumstance, environment, 0:10:42.960 --> 0:10:49.960 and the group that we're in. So it sounds academic, 0:10:50.000 --> 0:10:53.560 but it's not that complicated. It's basically your internal map 0:10:54.280 --> 0:10:59.040 of your social reflection. And these I guess mental maps, 0:10:59.080 --> 0:11:03.520 these metapas sceptions are actually really important because they influence 0:11:03.559 --> 0:11:07.600 your behavior and relationships and even how you see you. 0:11:08.400 --> 0:11:13.240 It's they're like like blueprints that you use to navigate 0:11:13.280 --> 0:11:17.679 your social world at times. So the question is, for 0:11:17.800 --> 0:11:22.640 my research anyway, is how accurate are they, like, these 0:11:22.800 --> 0:11:26.840 metaperceptions that I have, these ideas, these beliefs that I 0:11:26.880 --> 0:11:30.760 have in my head about how other people see me. 0:11:31.040 --> 0:11:35.080 Are they wildly inaccurate or are they kind of on 0:11:35.120 --> 0:11:37.880 the money? Do we really know how other people see us? 0:11:39.120 --> 0:11:43.199 And so, as you can imagine, when it comes to humans, 0:11:43.280 --> 0:11:48.480 the answer is not predictable. It's not a constant, it's 0:11:48.559 --> 0:11:52.079 not a straightforward yes or no. It's kind of complex, 0:11:52.800 --> 0:11:56.840 and it's that complexity that I want to unpack with you. 0:11:57.000 --> 0:12:01.520 So let's start with how researchers even measure this kind 0:12:01.559 --> 0:12:08.720 of insight. So imagine Sarah forms an impression of David, 0:12:09.480 --> 0:12:13.880 and then David forms a belief about what Sarah thinks 0:12:13.920 --> 0:12:21.640 of him. So David's belief that's his metaperception. The question 0:12:21.840 --> 0:12:27.880 is does it match Sarah's actual impression? Is what Sarah 0:12:27.960 --> 0:12:34.040 really thinks about David aligned with what David thinks Sarah 0:12:34.080 --> 0:12:38.120 thinks of him. Oh Am, I getting confusing anyway. That 0:12:38.240 --> 0:12:43.600 overlap is what researchers called meta accuracy. So I think 0:12:43.760 --> 0:12:48.880 you are really reliable and really trustworthy. And if somebody said, 0:12:50.200 --> 0:12:53.760 what would you give insert your name right now, what 0:12:53.840 --> 0:12:57.720 would you give that person out of five for reliability 0:12:57.720 --> 0:12:58.720 and trustworthiness? 0:12:58.720 --> 0:13:00.800 And I'd say I would give them. 0:13:01.400 --> 0:13:03.560 I have no reason to not trust them, and they've 0:13:03.559 --> 0:13:05.719 always proven to be reliable, so I'm going to give 0:13:05.720 --> 0:13:12.560 them a five. Now, if you think that I would 0:13:12.600 --> 0:13:17.040 give you a five, then you've got very high metaaccuracy, right. 0:13:17.600 --> 0:13:20.200 So it's the gap or lack of gap, between how 0:13:20.280 --> 0:13:24.840 I see you and how you think I see you. Conversely, 0:13:26.200 --> 0:13:30.160 if you have a negative bias, you might think that 0:13:31.080 --> 0:13:33.840 I would score you a two because I don't think so. 0:13:34.160 --> 0:13:36.839 I actually think you're a five, But you think I 0:13:38.600 --> 0:13:42.199 would perceive you as a two, then your meta accuracy 0:13:42.240 --> 0:13:44.800 in this particular example is not great at all. In fact, 0:13:44.800 --> 0:13:48.320 it's bad, and you have what we would call a 0:13:48.360 --> 0:13:54.560 negative bias. It's usually measured statistically as a correlation better 0:13:54.600 --> 0:13:57.440 the alignment between what someone thinks about you and what 0:13:57.520 --> 0:14:01.000 they actually do think. Then, of course, the more meta 0:14:01.040 --> 0:14:04.960 accurate you are. So my research was really around so 0:14:05.080 --> 0:14:10.520 much around trying to understand who is more or less accurate, 0:14:10.559 --> 0:14:13.360 What are the variables and influencers around that can we 0:14:13.480 --> 0:14:17.440 measure it? A whole bunch of interesting stuff. But it 0:14:17.480 --> 0:14:21.880 doesn't stop there. So there's also another thing called metaperceptual bias, 0:14:21.920 --> 0:14:26.040 which is all about whether people tend to consistently overestimate 0:14:26.920 --> 0:14:31.120 or underestimate how they're seen as I said to you, 0:14:31.200 --> 0:14:34.600 positive or negative. For example, do you tend to believe 0:14:34.600 --> 0:14:38.880 that people see you as more competent than they actually do, Well, 0:14:38.880 --> 0:14:40.160 that's a positive bias. 0:14:41.680 --> 0:14:43.760 So here's something interesting from the research. 0:14:43.880 --> 0:14:51.120 Metaperceptions are often both somewhat accurate and slightly positively biased, 0:14:51.360 --> 0:14:55.040 especially when it comes to personality traits. You can know 0:14:55.080 --> 0:15:00.080 the relative order of how people see you, say, more 0:15:00.120 --> 0:15:04.280 extroverted than Mark, but less than Jess. So somebody might go, 0:15:04.360 --> 0:15:07.280 if we've got you and Mark and Jess, you are 0:15:07.280 --> 0:15:12.040 more extroverted than Mark, but you are less extroverted than Jess, 0:15:12.720 --> 0:15:18.280 while still slightly overestimating the overall impression you make. The 0:15:18.360 --> 0:15:22.920 research also makes a distinction between knowing how one specific 0:15:23.000 --> 0:15:29.920 person sees you and knowing your general reputation across the group. 0:15:29.960 --> 0:15:32.160 So I'll say that again. So the research that we 0:15:32.240 --> 0:15:35.680 looked at, it makes a clear distinction between knowing how 0:15:35.720 --> 0:15:40.080 an individual one person sally for example, sees you in 0:15:40.160 --> 0:15:43.080 contrast to knowing how a group of people see you. 0:15:43.520 --> 0:15:46.960 So you might be a basketball coach and you know 0:15:47.040 --> 0:15:51.320 that this individual player really has an issue with you, 0:15:51.520 --> 0:15:55.400 They maybe find you a bit intimidating, right, So you 0:15:55.560 --> 0:15:58.480 know that that's one specific we call that diadic that's 0:15:58.600 --> 0:16:01.800 one specific relationship. But when you zoom out to the 0:16:01.840 --> 0:16:04.880 totality of the group, your twelve players, you know that 0:16:04.920 --> 0:16:10.000 the general reputation or perception of the group is more 0:16:10.040 --> 0:16:15.040 positive than that. It's the rest are not so intimidated. 0:16:15.560 --> 0:16:18.960 And that one on one kind of one to one 0:16:19.080 --> 0:16:22.840 person accuracy. We call that diatic metaaccuracy or DMA. 0:16:23.680 --> 0:16:24.720 And the second one. 0:16:24.560 --> 0:16:27.560 Where we're referring to a bigger a collection of people 0:16:27.680 --> 0:16:31.800 or a group or a team, that's called generalized metaaccuracy 0:16:32.360 --> 0:16:33.080 or GMA. 0:16:34.120 --> 0:16:36.640 So how accurate are we? Well? 0:16:37.040 --> 0:16:41.000 In general, people have a reasonably good sense of their 0:16:41.120 --> 0:16:46.239 reputation or how they're seen by a group their GMA 0:16:46.880 --> 0:16:51.240 generalized metaaccuracy for things like personality traits. 0:16:51.320 --> 0:16:54.840 So there's a thing in. 0:16:56.320 --> 0:16:59.640 A framework in psychology called the Big Five, which is 0:16:59.680 --> 0:17:04.840 five different dimensions of personality or five different personality traits. 0:17:04.840 --> 0:17:12.080 So they are extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness. People 0:17:12.280 --> 0:17:15.399 also tend to have insight into how they're seen in 0:17:15.480 --> 0:17:20.439 terms of leadership, abilities, competence, or attractiveness, and all of 0:17:20.480 --> 0:17:23.800 these measures, all of these kind of individual traits or 0:17:25.080 --> 0:17:32.920 factors are used when assessing meta accuracy. And so say, 0:17:32.960 --> 0:17:36.159 for example, with the Big five, we might pick extraversion, 0:17:37.359 --> 0:17:39.560 and I would get five people who know me well, 0:17:39.640 --> 0:17:42.840 and I've got to rate myself one to five on 0:17:42.880 --> 0:17:44.679 a like art scale. Let's say one seven on a 0:17:44.840 --> 0:17:49.680 like art scale, one to seven, one being very very 0:17:49.720 --> 0:17:54.120 low on the extraversion scale, number seven being a complete 0:17:54.320 --> 0:17:55.399 freak of an extrovert. 0:17:56.480 --> 0:17:56.960 Seven. 0:17:57.320 --> 0:18:00.640 I see myself as a seven, and the other five 0:18:00.680 --> 0:18:03.920 all see me as a seven. So what we're doing 0:18:04.000 --> 0:18:09.359 is where we're using extra version as the trait or 0:18:09.400 --> 0:18:16.560 as the factor to assess meta accuracy in this particular instance. 0:18:17.680 --> 0:18:22.200 So it's specific to in the measurement. It's always specific 0:18:22.240 --> 0:18:26.160 to something a trait, might be a skill, it might 0:18:26.240 --> 0:18:34.040 be a personality factor. So it's not generally general, so 0:18:34.119 --> 0:18:38.440 we don't go, oh, yeah, she is a seven, well 0:18:38.560 --> 0:18:43.360 seven on what because I might be On one scale, 0:18:43.440 --> 0:18:46.679 I might be I might rate highly, and on another scale, 0:18:46.840 --> 0:18:49.919 I rate poorly, depending on the measure, of course, and 0:18:49.960 --> 0:18:54.520 this kind of insight into your general vibe kind of 0:18:54.520 --> 0:18:59.280 holds up across all sorts of social settings, from first 0:18:59.280 --> 0:19:05.680 impression like when you first meet someone, to online stuff, 0:19:06.160 --> 0:19:11.000 to intimate relationships, personal relationships people that you've known for 0:19:11.000 --> 0:19:11.920 a whole bunch of years. 0:19:12.000 --> 0:19:13.160 But here's where it gets weird. 0:19:13.240 --> 0:19:16.600 Right when it comes to the more affective stuff like 0:19:16.800 --> 0:19:22.800 how much people like you or your popularity, our insight 0:19:22.960 --> 0:19:23.760 tends to be worse. 0:19:23.800 --> 0:19:25.480 We seem to be more inaccurate. 0:19:25.520 --> 0:19:30.200 You might not really know whether people find you likable 0:19:30.520 --> 0:19:35.840 or not. And that's because those impressions are often more 0:19:35.880 --> 0:19:41.040 personal and inconsistent, because, for example, one person might love 0:19:41.640 --> 0:19:46.199 and I truly know this you're weird shitty humor, and 0:19:46.240 --> 0:19:50.000 someone else will find it completely inappropriate and off putting, 0:19:50.640 --> 0:19:52.640 and so there's less consensus. 0:19:53.440 --> 0:19:56.160 So it's much harder in that instance. 0:19:55.760 --> 0:20:00.960 To guess the average so like I know with people 0:20:01.600 --> 0:20:04.760 they absolutely love what I write, I might put something 0:20:04.760 --> 0:20:09.000 on social media and literally on the same post, there 0:20:09.040 --> 0:20:12.240 will be a group of people who love it, who 0:20:12.400 --> 0:20:14.960 give it likes and loves and comments and thumbs up 0:20:15.000 --> 0:20:18.000 and all of that positive reinforcement. But there might also 0:20:18.119 --> 0:20:21.120 be usually a smaller group, thankfully, but a smaller group. 0:20:20.960 --> 0:20:22.920 Who go, you're a fucking idiot, this is bullshit. 0:20:23.920 --> 0:20:30.000 So trying to ascertain, you know, the global kind of 0:20:30.400 --> 0:20:35.680 score is hard because it's going to vary across domains 0:20:35.720 --> 0:20:40.560 and dimensions and groups of people. Interestingly, while we often 0:20:40.960 --> 0:20:46.600 underestimate how people like us, remember that's a negative bias. 0:20:46.600 --> 0:20:51.919 In some situations, like first impressions, we might overestimate it. So, 0:20:52.040 --> 0:20:57.800 as I said, context situation really matters. So now when 0:20:57.800 --> 0:21:00.399 it comes to knowing how an individual sees us, like 0:21:00.440 --> 0:21:04.800 one specific person, remember DMA dietic meta accuracy, it's a 0:21:04.800 --> 0:21:08.639 bit trickier. So for personality traits, people tend to be 0:21:08.760 --> 0:21:11.080 less accurate than. 0:21:10.920 --> 0:21:14.359 They are with general reputation. 0:21:16.160 --> 0:21:20.640 But for liking, like on the likability scale, how much 0:21:20.680 --> 0:21:22.440 do they like me, it's actually the opposite. 0:21:22.440 --> 0:21:23.920 We're better at knowing whether a. 0:21:23.960 --> 0:21:28.840 Specific person likes us than we are at estimating our 0:21:29.240 --> 0:21:34.760 general popularity with a group. So, in other words, we 0:21:34.880 --> 0:21:37.760 seem to be pretty good at knowing if an individual. 0:21:37.359 --> 0:21:39.240 Likes us, quite accurate at that. 0:21:40.560 --> 0:21:44.160 But when we zoom out to a whole group, does 0:21:44.200 --> 0:21:47.639 the group like me? Or am I popular? Am I 0:21:47.720 --> 0:21:50.840 well thought of? In the context of this group, we 0:21:50.920 --> 0:21:53.200 are less accurate less accurate. 0:21:55.119 --> 0:21:56.199 And so why is that? 0:21:56.600 --> 0:22:00.720 Well, we don't exactly know, but it could be because 0:22:02.000 --> 0:22:03.000 liking is. 0:22:03.680 --> 0:22:04.840 How much we like someone. 0:22:04.920 --> 0:22:08.959 The likability is more about the chemistry between two people. 0:22:11.080 --> 0:22:14.240 It's more personal, and that makes the cues more noticeable 0:22:14.800 --> 0:22:19.560 and potentially easier to interpret, even if we can't read 0:22:19.600 --> 0:22:23.240 the room at large. So all right, let's talk about 0:22:23.280 --> 0:22:27.240 where these meta perceptions come from. So you might think 0:22:27.359 --> 0:22:34.440 the answer is obvious feedback, but as I've said many 0:22:34.480 --> 0:22:39.800 times before, direct, honest, real feedback is surprisingly rare in 0:22:39.880 --> 0:22:44.560 our day to day life because people tend to say 0:22:44.640 --> 0:22:48.879 what they think people want them to say, and truthfully, 0:22:48.920 --> 0:22:51.040 you know, like when people ask for feedback, often they 0:22:51.040 --> 0:22:53.480 don't want feedback. They want praise, they want accolades, they 0:22:53.520 --> 0:22:56.040 want endorsement, they want to cuddle, they want to pad 0:22:56.040 --> 0:22:59.480 on the back and everyone you know, wants feedback till 0:22:59.480 --> 0:23:01.600 they get feed back they don't want. So people are 0:23:01.640 --> 0:23:04.840 often going to sugarcoat, they're going to avoid conflict or 0:23:05.160 --> 0:23:09.679 say not much at all. And even when the feedback 0:23:10.040 --> 0:23:15.959 is there, sometimes we miss it, or we misinterpret it, 0:23:16.520 --> 0:23:20.320 or we filter it through our own biases. So a 0:23:20.359 --> 0:23:25.680 big part of metaperception actually comes from observing our own behavior. 0:23:26.880 --> 0:23:30.680 And the logic is if I noticed myself talking a lot, 0:23:31.600 --> 0:23:35.399 others probably saw that to and think I'm extroverted. And 0:23:35.440 --> 0:23:38.399 that can be valuable, especially for visible traits. But the 0:23:38.440 --> 0:23:43.919 problem is we often judge ourselves based on intentions, not 0:23:44.200 --> 0:23:44.720 just what. 0:23:44.640 --> 0:23:46.040 Others actually saw. 0:23:47.680 --> 0:23:51.040 So there's something called the illusion of transparency, and it 0:23:51.119 --> 0:23:55.040 just means we assume that others can see our internal states, 0:23:55.080 --> 0:23:59.879 but they usually can't. And as I've said many times, 0:24:00.119 --> 0:24:02.960 for probably ten times on this show, there's a thing called, 0:24:03.640 --> 0:24:06.760 you know, the false consensus effect, and that being this 0:24:06.880 --> 0:24:10.080 kind of idea that we think that other people think 0:24:10.240 --> 0:24:13.000 like us. And this is really the it's almost the 0:24:13.080 --> 0:24:17.199 starting point for leaning into that curiosity around you know, 0:24:17.320 --> 0:24:20.080 metacognition why we think the way we do, and theory 0:24:20.080 --> 0:24:22.520 of mind, why we you know, understanding how others think 0:24:22.800 --> 0:24:25.199 and what we're talking about right now, which is metaperception 0:24:25.320 --> 0:24:28.280 and meta accuracy. And I think we're better to operate 0:24:28.320 --> 0:24:32.400 on the assumption generally that however I see this thing 0:24:32.480 --> 0:24:35.840 in front of me, is not how the person next 0:24:35.840 --> 0:24:38.600 to me sees it. That's more likely to be true 0:24:38.720 --> 0:24:43.280 than yes, they think exactly like me. But a huge 0:24:43.320 --> 0:24:50.240 influence on metaperceptions is just our self view. 0:24:50.400 --> 0:24:52.440 So we tend to, or we. 0:24:52.400 --> 0:24:56.280 Can tend to assume that other people see us the 0:24:56.320 --> 0:25:00.440 way that we see us, and that helps when your 0:25:00.480 --> 0:25:04.320 self use and others' perceptions aligned. But when they don't 0:25:05.080 --> 0:25:09.400 like when you think you're hilarious and they don't think 0:25:09.400 --> 0:25:12.399 you're hilarious, well then we've got an accuracy problem. And 0:25:12.440 --> 0:25:15.240 that accuracy problem, that gap between what you think you 0:25:15.359 --> 0:25:17.800 are for them and what you actually are for them, 0:25:18.200 --> 0:25:20.520 is going to create or potentially going to create, all 0:25:20.600 --> 0:25:25.760 kinds of interpersonal problems. And I think it's more guys 0:25:25.760 --> 0:25:29.280 that think they're hilarious than girls guys that think they're 0:25:29.359 --> 0:25:32.639 hilarious and aren't anyway. And when it comes to all 0:25:32.640 --> 0:25:37.440 this stuff, we also use shortcuts, or we call them heuristics. 0:25:37.760 --> 0:25:42.920 One is reciprocity. If I like you, I assume you 0:25:43.080 --> 0:25:46.320 like me, and that can help things like liking, but 0:25:46.400 --> 0:25:49.280 not so much for personality traits. 0:25:50.480 --> 0:25:51.200 Another is. 0:25:52.920 --> 0:25:58.920 Normative knowledge, which is assuming people see you like they 0:25:58.960 --> 0:26:02.439 see the average per and that kind of gives us 0:26:02.440 --> 0:26:06.720 an okay starting point, but we can do better. And 0:26:06.760 --> 0:26:09.000 one thing that really doesn't work in this space. One 0:26:09.040 --> 0:26:13.520 thing that tends to backfires is stereotypes. So when we 0:26:13.600 --> 0:26:17.440 assume that someone sees you a certain way or they 0:26:17.480 --> 0:26:21.040 perceive you in a certain light because of you know, 0:26:21.640 --> 0:26:24.399 stereotypical things like your age, or your gender, or your 0:26:24.440 --> 0:26:30.520 background or stuff that might not reflect actually who you are, 0:26:31.480 --> 0:26:33.119