Latest / The You Project / #1906 Meta-Perception Explained (Kind Of) - Harps

Transcript

#1906 Meta-Perception Explained (Kind Of) - Harps · The You Project

0:00
Speaker 1: I get a team.
0:01
Speaker 2: I hope you bloody terrific happy, whatever day it is
0:04
Speaker 2: for you. So one of the things that I am
0:09
Speaker 2: constantly doing, or regularly doing, I guess I should say,
0:11
Speaker 2: is trying to understand, trying to explain and try to
0:15
Speaker 2: understand myself as well, but trying to explain my research,
0:19
Speaker 2: my PhD research to people in a way that's really
0:23
Speaker 2: accessible and understandable and helpful and practical and something that
0:27
Speaker 2: they can do something with. But it can be because
0:32
Speaker 2: of the language that's used in psychology and psychological research,
0:36
Speaker 2: and you know, this kind of academic jug and that
0:39
Speaker 2: people were out trying to explain what is really quite simple,
0:45
Speaker 2: fundamental things, but it can be explained in a way
0:49
Speaker 2: which all of a sudden is more complicated and more
0:53
Speaker 2: confusing than fucking ever. So I've been writing a bit
0:56
Speaker 2: of an article which I'm going to do something with.
0:58
Speaker 2: I don't know what I'm going to do exactly actly
1:00
Speaker 2: what I'm going to do with it, but it's still
1:02
Speaker 2: a little bit of a work in progress. But today,
1:05
Speaker 2: twice twice today I've been asked, could I explain my
1:11
Speaker 2: research in simple terms? And I thought, why don't I
1:15
Speaker 2: do that? A lot of you know kind of what
1:17
Speaker 2: it's about. But and before I kind of read share
1:24
Speaker 2: the you know what I've written, I guess I want
1:28
Speaker 2: to explain the genesis for this work. So I'm, as
1:34
Speaker 2: you know, I'm fascinated with human behavior. I'm fascinated with
1:37
Speaker 2: how people think and why they think the way they do.
1:39
Speaker 2: And I'm fascinated with how people see themselves in the
1:45
Speaker 2: world with kind of self awareness, with other awareness, understanding,
1:50
Speaker 2: having an insight into someone else's experience. What is this
1:57
Speaker 2: person's experience at the moment. We are in the same
2:00
Speaker 2: room at the same time, going through what seems to
2:03
Speaker 2: be the same thing, being exposed to the same stimuli.
2:08
Speaker 2: Yet I am having one experience and they're having another.
2:11
Speaker 1: What is that about? And where does that come from?
2:14
Speaker 2: And how does that eventuate versus mine? So not better
2:19
Speaker 2: or worse, not good or bad, just different. And it's
2:22
Speaker 2: all about trying to lean into the different, trying to
2:24
Speaker 2: lean into the understanding the different, not judging it, not
2:28
Speaker 2: evaluating it, not labeling it, just trying to get your
2:32
Speaker 2: head around it. And my very very firmly held belief
2:37
Speaker 2: based on more experience than research, but both experience and
2:41
Speaker 2: research is that if I can understand how other people
2:44
Speaker 2: think as a coach, as a mentor, as a teacher,
2:47
Speaker 2: as a writer, as an author, as a podcaster, or
2:49
Speaker 2: as an excise scientist, you know, as a communicator, if
2:52
Speaker 2: I can understand how other people think, not agree or
2:55
Speaker 2: align with, as I've said many times, but if I
2:57
Speaker 2: can understand how other people think, then i'stically increase my
3:01
Speaker 2: chances of building you know, trust and connection and rapport
3:05
Speaker 2: and having meaningful, positive exchanges and interactions. And for that reason,
3:16
Speaker 2: I'm really passionate about sharing this information and this kind
3:20
Speaker 2: of you know, these insights with the world because you know,
3:24
Speaker 2: we look at the world through our lens, and sometimes
3:26
Speaker 2: we forget that the only person looking through our lens
3:29
Speaker 2: or our window or whatever fucking metaphor you want to use,
3:33
Speaker 2: the only person seeing the world the way that we
3:36
Speaker 2: see the world is us. And because you only live
3:40
Speaker 2: in your head and I only live in my head,
3:43
Speaker 2: well it's of course you and I get shit wrong,
3:46
Speaker 2: of course, And of course I look at things through
3:50
Speaker 2: the Craig window. And the Craig window is my thinking,
3:53
Speaker 2: my beliefs, my values, my ideas, my background, my programming,
3:58
Speaker 2: my story, is my fear, my anxiety, my personality, my genetics,
4:03
Speaker 2: my bullshit right, and awareness kind of starts to arise
4:10
Speaker 2: when I recognize all of those things that shape my
4:15
Speaker 2: reality and I go, oh, this is not the reality.
4:17
Speaker 2: This is just my reality. This is not the universal, objective,
4:24
Speaker 2: big picture truth. This is just Craig's version of Craig's
4:29
Speaker 2: subjective experience of something bigger than him that he is
4:33
Speaker 2: giving a label to. Now, that objective subjective thing is omnipresent.
4:40
Speaker 2: It's always going on in every conversation, in every situation.
4:43
Speaker 2: There's the thing that's happening. There's you and me at
4:46
Speaker 2: a cafe, you and me sitting down in a conversation.
4:49
Speaker 2: What's the objective reality. Well, the objective reality is two
4:53
Speaker 2: humans in a cafe at a table talking, right, That's it.
4:58
Speaker 2: It's a bit more than that, but that's essentially what's
5:00
Speaker 2: going on too humans in a conversation. People around us
5:03
Speaker 2: can go, that's two humans over there at a table
5:05
Speaker 2: on chairs having a chat.
5:07
Speaker 1: Perfectly, that's what's going on.
5:09
Speaker 2: But then there's the other bit, which is my version
5:13
Speaker 2: of what's going on, my experience at the table, my
5:17
Speaker 2: personal reality, my understanding of what is and what isn't
5:22
Speaker 2: in that moment. And then you on the other side,
5:25
Speaker 2: who you are not in my head, You are not
5:26
Speaker 2: in my experience, you are not in my subjective reality.
5:30
Speaker 2: You are not in the middle of the same story
5:34
Speaker 2: that I'm in the middle of. And so connection and
5:37
Speaker 2: insight and harmony and all of these beautiful things that
5:41
Speaker 2: we want to happen on in its personal level begin
5:45
Speaker 2: to happen when we start to or seek to remember,
5:50
Speaker 2: seek first to understand, when we start to understand or
5:54
Speaker 2: seek to understand the person that we're engaged with presently.
5:59
Speaker 2: Now that's a person or a team that you're talking to,
6:05
Speaker 2: or your kids at dinner, or your spouse, your partner,
6:08
Speaker 2: your mum, your dad.
6:10
Speaker 1: It's the moment that.
6:12
Speaker 2: We try to look at whatever it is through their eyes.
6:16
Speaker 2: Is the moment that great shit starts to happen in
6:19
Speaker 2: terms of communication and problem solving and conflict resolution and
6:27
Speaker 2: building a healthier kind of interpersonal dynamic.
6:32
Speaker 1: Right now, the next.
6:35
Speaker 2: Level of this, you know, theory of mind, theory of
6:38
Speaker 2: mind understanding how others think. The next level on that,
6:41
Speaker 2: which I've spoken about a bit, but I'm going to
6:43
Speaker 2: do a deep dive today, is met a perception, which
6:48
Speaker 2: is having an insight into how other people see us,
6:53
Speaker 2: how other people see us. And then so my research
6:57
Speaker 2: is around that. It's you know in it. It's a
7:00
Speaker 2: bit more than what I'm going to share today, but
7:02
Speaker 2: I'm going to give you a really good, pretty comprehensive,
7:05
Speaker 2: easy to understand snapshot. And not just because I want
7:08
Speaker 2: you to get my research or I think, you know,
7:12
Speaker 2: like it's important that everyone knows what I'm doing, not
7:15
Speaker 2: at all. I think it's actually important just because understanding
7:19
Speaker 2: others really matters, even if you don't agree with them
7:23
Speaker 2: or even dare I say, like them. You know, there
7:26
Speaker 2: are going to be lots of people in your life
7:27
Speaker 2: over time, either close or not so close, so that
7:30
Speaker 2: at work or acquaintances or in your friendship circle or
7:34
Speaker 2: social circle that maybe you don't see eye to eye with,
7:40
Speaker 2: maybe sometimes you do, sometimes you don't, or there might
7:42
Speaker 2: be somebody who buys situation or circumstance is in your
7:46
Speaker 2: world that you really don't fucking like and that doesn't
7:50
Speaker 2: make you bad or flawed, that makes you human. Is
7:53
Speaker 2: there anyone that I ever bump into every now and
7:55
Speaker 2: then or on a regular, semi regular basis that I
7:58
Speaker 2: don't really have warm, fuzzy feelings about of course, of course,
8:02
Speaker 2: and probably many people about me. So that's not good
8:05
Speaker 2: or bad, that's human, but being able to understand them
8:11
Speaker 2: and then being able to understand how other people see you.
8:15
Speaker 2: So this particular long winded, fucking introduction is into this
8:22
Speaker 2: idea of understanding what we are and who we are
8:28
Speaker 2: for other people. So here we go. Do you ever
8:33
Speaker 2: walk out of a business meeting, a social encounter, or
8:36
Speaker 2: even just a quick chat with someone, a colleague perhaps,
8:38
Speaker 2: and immediately you start thinking about it in your head,
8:43
Speaker 2: like replaying it. You're thinking, what did they really think
8:46
Speaker 2: of me? Did I seem confident? Did I look like
8:50
Speaker 2: a dickhead? Am I likable? Did they think I'm competent? Incompetent?
8:55
Speaker 2: Did I overshare? Am I overthinking the shit out of
8:59
Speaker 2: this now? And it's that internal second guessing, you know that,
9:04
Speaker 2: and it's really common and what you're doing in that
9:08
Speaker 2: moment when you're thinking about how was I for them?
9:11
Speaker 2: What kind of impression did I make?
9:12
Speaker 1: Did they like me? Not like me?
9:15
Speaker 2: And of course sometimes that can come from a place
9:17
Speaker 2: of fear, But really what I'm talking about today is
9:20
Speaker 2: more and yes, I'm riffing now. It is really more
9:24
Speaker 2: about curiosity and a real inclination to be able to
9:30
Speaker 2: understand how you are for them. But what you're doing
9:33
Speaker 2: in that moment, whether you know it or not, is
9:34
Speaker 2: you're forming what psychologists call metaperceptions. Metaperceptions, which is just
9:41
Speaker 2: a fancy term for your beliefs about how you think
9:48
Speaker 2: other people see you. So I'll say that again. So
9:51
Speaker 2: metaperceptions is just a sciencey, academic y fancy word or
9:58
Speaker 2: term for your beliefs about how you think people see you.
10:04
Speaker 1: And I'm going to tell you that many people are
10:08
Speaker 1: pretty fucking terrible at this.
10:10
Speaker 2: It's like they think that people see them a certain
10:13
Speaker 2: way and they don't. And quite often it's a negative bias,
10:19
Speaker 2: as in they think that people think worse of them
10:22
Speaker 2: than is actually true. Sometimes it's a positive bias, where
10:27
Speaker 2: they think other people think they're shit hot in a
10:29
Speaker 2: particular way and they're not. But it's probably fair to
10:33
Speaker 2: say that while we can be quite accurate, we can
10:37
Speaker 2: also be wildly inaccurate, depending on you know, situation, circumstance, environment,
10:42
Speaker 2: and the group that we're in. So it sounds academic,
10:50
Speaker 2: but it's not that complicated. It's basically your internal map
10:54
Speaker 2: of your social reflection. And these I guess mental maps,
10:59
Speaker 2: these metapas sceptions are actually really important because they influence
11:03
Speaker 2: your behavior and relationships and even how you see you.
11:08
Speaker 2: It's they're like like blueprints that you use to navigate
11:13
Speaker 2: your social world at times. So the question is, for
11:17
Speaker 2: my research anyway, is how accurate are they, like, these
11:22
Speaker 2: metaperceptions that I have, these ideas, these beliefs that I
11:26
Speaker 2: have in my head about how other people see me.
11:31
Speaker 2: Are they wildly inaccurate or are they kind of on
11:35
Speaker 2: the money? Do we really know how other people see us?
11:39
Speaker 2: And so, as you can imagine, when it comes to humans,
11:43
Speaker 2: the answer is not predictable. It's not a constant, it's
11:48
Speaker 2: not a straightforward yes or no. It's kind of complex,
11:52
Speaker 2: and it's that complexity that I want to unpack with you.
11:57
Speaker 2: So let's start with how researchers even measure this kind
12:01
Speaker 2: of insight. So imagine Sarah forms an impression of David,
12:09
Speaker 2: and then David forms a belief about what Sarah thinks
12:13
Speaker 2: of him. So David's belief that's his metaperception. The question
12:21
Speaker 2: is does it match Sarah's actual impression? Is what Sarah
12:27
Speaker 2: really thinks about David aligned with what David thinks Sarah
12:34
Speaker 2: thinks of him. Oh Am, I getting confusing anyway. That
12:38
Speaker 2: overlap is what researchers called meta accuracy. So I think
12:43
Speaker 2: you are really reliable and really trustworthy. And if somebody said,
12:50
Speaker 2: what would you give insert your name right now, what
12:53
Speaker 2: would you give that person out of five for reliability
12:57
Speaker 2: and trustworthiness?
12:58
Speaker 1: And I'd say I would give them.
13:01
Speaker 2: I have no reason to not trust them, and they've
13:03
Speaker 2: always proven to be reliable, so I'm going to give
13:05
Speaker 2: them a five. Now, if you think that I would
13:12
Speaker 2: give you a five, then you've got very high metaaccuracy, right.
13:17
Speaker 2: So it's the gap or lack of gap, between how
13:20
Speaker 2: I see you and how you think I see you. Conversely,
13:26
Speaker 2: if you have a negative bias, you might think that
13:31
Speaker 2: I would score you a two because I don't think so.
13:34
Speaker 2: I actually think you're a five, But you think I
13:38
Speaker 2: would perceive you as a two, then your meta accuracy
13:42
Speaker 2: in this particular example is not great at all. In fact,
13:44
Speaker 2: it's bad, and you have what we would call a
13:48
Speaker 2: negative bias. It's usually measured statistically as a correlation better
13:54
Speaker 2: the alignment between what someone thinks about you and what
13:57
Speaker 2: they actually do think. Then, of course, the more meta
14:01
Speaker 2: accurate you are. So my research was really around so
14:05
Speaker 2: much around trying to understand who is more or less accurate,
14:10
Speaker 2: What are the variables and influencers around that can we
14:13
Speaker 2: measure it? A whole bunch of interesting stuff. But it
14:17
Speaker 2: doesn't stop there. So there's also another thing called metaperceptual bias,
14:21
Speaker 2: which is all about whether people tend to consistently overestimate
14:26
Speaker 2: or underestimate how they're seen as I said to you,
14:31
Speaker 2: positive or negative. For example, do you tend to believe
14:34
Speaker 2: that people see you as more competent than they actually do, Well,
14:38
Speaker 2: that's a positive bias.
14:41
Speaker 1: So here's something interesting from the research.
14:43
Speaker 2: Metaperceptions are often both somewhat accurate and slightly positively biased,
14:51
Speaker 2: especially when it comes to personality traits. You can know
14:55
Speaker 2: the relative order of how people see you, say, more
15:00
Speaker 2: extroverted than Mark, but less than Jess. So somebody might go,
15:04
Speaker 2: if we've got you and Mark and Jess, you are
15:07
Speaker 2: more extroverted than Mark, but you are less extroverted than Jess,
15:12
Speaker 2: while still slightly overestimating the overall impression you make. The
15:18
Speaker 2: research also makes a distinction between knowing how one specific
15:23
Speaker 2: person sees you and knowing your general reputation across the group.
15:29
Speaker 2: So I'll say that again. So the research that we
15:32
Speaker 2: looked at, it makes a clear distinction between knowing how
15:35
Speaker 2: an individual one person sally for example, sees you in
15:40
Speaker 2: contrast to knowing how a group of people see you.
15:43
Speaker 2: So you might be a basketball coach and you know
15:47
Speaker 2: that this individual player really has an issue with you,
15:51
Speaker 2: They maybe find you a bit intimidating, right, So you
15:55
Speaker 2: know that that's one specific we call that diadic that's
15:58
Speaker 2: one specific relationship. But when you zoom out to the
16:01
Speaker 2: totality of the group, your twelve players, you know that
16:04
Speaker 2: the general reputation or perception of the group is more
16:10
Speaker 2: positive than that. It's the rest are not so intimidated.
16:15
Speaker 2: And that one on one kind of one to one
16:19
Speaker 2: person accuracy. We call that diatic metaaccuracy or DMA.
16:23
Speaker 1: And the second one.
16:24
Speaker 2: Where we're referring to a bigger a collection of people
16:27
Speaker 2: or a group or a team, that's called generalized metaaccuracy
16:32
Speaker 2: or GMA.
16:34
Speaker 1: So how accurate are we? Well?
16:37
Speaker 2: In general, people have a reasonably good sense of their
16:41
Speaker 2: reputation or how they're seen by a group their GMA
16:46
Speaker 2: generalized metaaccuracy for things like personality traits.
16:51
Speaker 1: So there's a thing in.
16:56
Speaker 2: A framework in psychology called the Big Five, which is
16:59
Speaker 2: five different dimensions of personality or five different personality traits.
17:04
Speaker 2: So they are extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness. People
17:12
Speaker 2: also tend to have insight into how they're seen in
17:15
Speaker 2: terms of leadership, abilities, competence, or attractiveness, and all of
17:20
Speaker 2: these measures, all of these kind of individual traits or
17:25
Speaker 2: factors are used when assessing meta accuracy. And so say,
17:32
Speaker 2: for example, with the Big five, we might pick extraversion,
17:37
Speaker 2: and I would get five people who know me well,
17:39
Speaker 2: and I've got to rate myself one to five on
17:42
Speaker 2: a like art scale. Let's say one seven on a
17:44
Speaker 2: like art scale, one to seven, one being very very
17:49
Speaker 2: low on the extraversion scale, number seven being a complete
17:54
Speaker 2: freak of an extrovert.
17:56
Speaker 1: Seven.
17:57
Speaker 2: I see myself as a seven, and the other five
18:00
Speaker 2: all see me as a seven. So what we're doing
18:04
Speaker 2: is where we're using extra version as the trait or
18:09
Speaker 2: as the factor to assess meta accuracy in this particular instance.
18:17
Speaker 2: So it's specific to in the measurement. It's always specific
18:22
Speaker 2: to something a trait, might be a skill, it might
18:26
Speaker 2: be a personality factor. So it's not generally general, so
18:34
Speaker 2: we don't go, oh, yeah, she is a seven, well
18:38
Speaker 2: seven on what because I might be On one scale,
18:43
Speaker 2: I might be I might rate highly, and on another scale,
18:46
Speaker 2: I rate poorly, depending on the measure, of course, and
18:49
Speaker 2: this kind of insight into your general vibe kind of
18:54
Speaker 2: holds up across all sorts of social settings, from first
18:59
Speaker 2: impression like when you first meet someone, to online stuff,
19:06
Speaker 2: to intimate relationships, personal relationships people that you've known for
19:11
Speaker 2: a whole bunch of years.
19:12
Speaker 1: But here's where it gets weird.
19:13
Speaker 2: Right when it comes to the more affective stuff like
19:16
Speaker 2: how much people like you or your popularity, our insight
19:22
Speaker 2: tends to be worse.
19:23
Speaker 1: We seem to be more inaccurate.
19:25
Speaker 2: You might not really know whether people find you likable
19:30
Speaker 2: or not. And that's because those impressions are often more
19:35
Speaker 2: personal and inconsistent, because, for example, one person might love
19:41
Speaker 2: and I truly know this you're weird shitty humor, and
19:46
Speaker 2: someone else will find it completely inappropriate and off putting,
19:50
Speaker 2: and so there's less consensus.
19:53
Speaker 1: So it's much harder in that instance.
19:55
Speaker 2: To guess the average so like I know with people
20:01
Speaker 2: they absolutely love what I write, I might put something
20:04
Speaker 2: on social media and literally on the same post, there
20:09
Speaker 2: will be a group of people who love it, who
20:12
Speaker 2: give it likes and loves and comments and thumbs up
20:15
Speaker 2: and all of that positive reinforcement. But there might also
20:18
Speaker 2: be usually a smaller group, thankfully, but a smaller group.
20:20
Speaker 1: Who go, you're a fucking idiot, this is bullshit.
20:23
Speaker 2: So trying to ascertain, you know, the global kind of
20:30
Speaker 2: score is hard because it's going to vary across domains
20:35
Speaker 2: and dimensions and groups of people. Interestingly, while we often
20:40
Speaker 2: underestimate how people like us, remember that's a negative bias.
20:46
Speaker 2: In some situations, like first impressions, we might overestimate it. So,
20:52
Speaker 2: as I said, context situation really matters. So now when
20:57
Speaker 2: it comes to knowing how an individual sees us, like
21:00
Speaker 2: one specific person, remember DMA dietic meta accuracy, it's a
21:04
Speaker 2: bit trickier. So for personality traits, people tend to be
21:08
Speaker 2: less accurate than.
21:10
Speaker 1: They are with general reputation.
21:16
Speaker 2: But for liking, like on the likability scale, how much
21:20
Speaker 2: do they like me, it's actually the opposite.
21:22
Speaker 1: We're better at knowing whether a.
21:23
Speaker 2: Specific person likes us than we are at estimating our
21:29
Speaker 2: general popularity with a group. So, in other words, we
21:34
Speaker 2: seem to be pretty good at knowing if an individual.
21:37
Speaker 1: Likes us, quite accurate at that.
21:40
Speaker 2: But when we zoom out to a whole group, does
21:44
Speaker 2: the group like me? Or am I popular? Am I
21:47
Speaker 2: well thought of? In the context of this group, we
21:50
Speaker 2: are less accurate less accurate.
21:55
Speaker 1: And so why is that?
21:56
Speaker 2: Well, we don't exactly know, but it could be because
22:02
Speaker 2: liking is.
22:03
Speaker 1: How much we like someone.
22:04
Speaker 2: The likability is more about the chemistry between two people.
22:11
Speaker 2: It's more personal, and that makes the cues more noticeable
22:14
Speaker 2: and potentially easier to interpret, even if we can't read
22:19
Speaker 2: the room at large. So all right, let's talk about
22:23
Speaker 2: where these meta perceptions come from. So you might think
22:27
Speaker 2: the answer is obvious feedback, but as I've said many
22:34
Speaker 2: times before, direct, honest, real feedback is surprisingly rare in
22:39
Speaker 2: our day to day life because people tend to say
22:44
Speaker 2: what they think people want them to say, and truthfully,
22:48
Speaker 2: you know, like when people ask for feedback, often they
22:51
Speaker 2: don't want feedback. They want praise, they want accolades, they
22:53
Speaker 2: want endorsement, they want to cuddle, they want to pad
22:56
Speaker 2: on the back and everyone you know, wants feedback till
22:59
Speaker 2: they get feed back they don't want. So people are
23:01
Speaker 2: often going to sugarcoat, they're going to avoid conflict or
23:05
Speaker 2: say not much at all. And even when the feedback
23:10
Speaker 2: is there, sometimes we miss it, or we misinterpret it,
23:16
Speaker 2: or we filter it through our own biases. So a
23:20
Speaker 2: big part of metaperception actually comes from observing our own behavior.
23:26
Speaker 2: And the logic is if I noticed myself talking a lot,
23:31
Speaker 2: others probably saw that to and think I'm extroverted. And
23:35
Speaker 2: that can be valuable, especially for visible traits. But the
23:38
Speaker 2: problem is we often judge ourselves based on intentions, not
23:44
Speaker 2: just what.
23:44
Speaker 1: Others actually saw.
23:47
Speaker 2: So there's something called the illusion of transparency, and it
23:51
Speaker 2: just means we assume that others can see our internal states,
23:55
Speaker 2: but they usually can't. And as I've said many times,
24:00
Speaker 2: for probably ten times on this show, there's a thing called,
24:03
Speaker 2: you know, the false consensus effect, and that being this
24:06
Speaker 2: kind of idea that we think that other people think
24:10
Speaker 2: like us. And this is really the it's almost the
24:13
Speaker 2: starting point for leaning into that curiosity around you know,
24:17
Speaker 2: metacognition why we think the way we do, and theory
24:20
Speaker 2: of mind, why we you know, understanding how others think
24:22
Speaker 2: and what we're talking about right now, which is metaperception
24:25
Speaker 2: and meta accuracy. And I think we're better to operate
24:28
Speaker 2: on the assumption generally that however I see this thing
24:32
Speaker 2: in front of me, is not how the person next
24:35
Speaker 2: to me sees it. That's more likely to be true
24:38
Speaker 2: than yes, they think exactly like me. But a huge
24:43
Speaker 2: influence on metaperceptions is just our self view.
24:50
Speaker 1: So we tend to, or we.
24:52
Speaker 2: Can tend to assume that other people see us the
24:56
Speaker 2: way that we see us, and that helps when your
25:00
Speaker 2: self use and others' perceptions aligned. But when they don't
25:05
Speaker 2: like when you think you're hilarious and they don't think
25:09
Speaker 2: you're hilarious, well then we've got an accuracy problem. And
25:12
Speaker 2: that accuracy problem, that gap between what you think you
25:15
Speaker 2: are for them and what you actually are for them,
25:18
Speaker 2: is going to create or potentially going to create, all
25:20
Speaker 2: kinds of interpersonal problems. And I think it's more guys
25:25
Speaker 2: that think they're hilarious than girls guys that think they're
25:29
Speaker 2: hilarious and aren't anyway. And when it comes to all
25:32
Speaker 2: this stuff, we also use shortcuts, or we call them heuristics.
25:37
Speaker 2: One is reciprocity. If I like you, I assume you
25:43
Speaker 2: like me, and that can help things like liking, but
25:46
Speaker 2: not so much for personality traits.
25:50
Speaker 1: Another is.
25:52
Speaker 2: Normative knowledge, which is assuming people see you like they
25:58
Speaker 2: see the average per and that kind of gives us
26:02
Speaker 2: an okay starting point, but we can do better. And
26:06
Speaker 2: one thing that really doesn't work in this space. One
26:09
Speaker 2: thing that tends to backfires is stereotypes. So when we
26:13
Speaker 2: assume that someone sees you a certain way or they
26:17
Speaker 2: perceive you in a certain light because of you know,
26:21
Speaker 2: stereotypical things like your age, or your gender, or your
26:24
Speaker 2: background or stuff that might not reflect actually who you are,
26:31
Speaker 2: we tend to be more inaccurate.
26:33
Speaker 1: And so.
26:35
Speaker 2: You know, even me, as a sixty one year old dude,
26:38
Speaker 2: sixty one year old white male traversing suburbia, there are
26:43
Speaker 2: understandably I'm not mad about this, I'm not upset about this,
26:48
Speaker 2: but because I look the way that I look, and
26:51
Speaker 2: I fill in the blank all of the things that
26:54
Speaker 2: I appear to be, so there are stereotypical assumptions made
26:59
Speaker 2: about I am based on my appearance. Now, in an
27:04
Speaker 2: ideal world, that wouldn't happen. We don't live in that
27:06
Speaker 2: ideal world, so we all assume things, you and me both,
27:11
Speaker 2: And research tells us that these meta stereotypes tend to
27:18
Speaker 2: reduce accuracy, No surprise there, especially in diadic situations or
27:24
Speaker 2: one on one situations.
27:27
Speaker 1: So what else.
27:28
Speaker 2: Makes somebody better or worse at understanding how they're seen?
27:38
Speaker 2: So researchers refer to a thing called the Realistic Accuracy
27:41
Speaker 2: Model or RAM. RAM It says that meta accuracy depends
27:46
Speaker 2: on four things. So let's whip through those. So one
27:49
Speaker 2: is the information available more cues, more context, more interaction
27:54
Speaker 2: means you've got more data, more information to work with.
27:58
Speaker 2: And because you've got more context, more cues, interaction insight,
28:04
Speaker 2: you're probably going to make more accurate judgments about how
28:09
Speaker 2: people are than say, a stranger a stranger, so you'll
28:17
Speaker 2: make more accurate assessments with people you know well. In
28:23
Speaker 2: other words, so close friends. Number two the trait being judged,
28:28
Speaker 2: So observable traits like extraversion are generally easier to track
28:33
Speaker 2: than internal. For one of better terms, internal traits like anxiety.
28:40
Speaker 2: Number three the target. So the truth is that some
28:44
Speaker 2: people are just easier to read, they're more expressive, they're
28:50
Speaker 2: more consistent with how they are, and they're more they're
28:55
Speaker 2: more vulnerable, they're more transparent, they're more open, and they're
28:59
Speaker 2: more you know, this is not the right term, but
29:01
Speaker 2: they're more themselves. So behind closed doors and in front
29:05
Speaker 2: of the door, they're kind of the same persons. So
29:07
Speaker 2: it gives us a better chance of being able to
29:10
Speaker 2: truly understand the person that's in front of us. And
29:13
Speaker 2: number four is the judge. And the judge is not
29:17
Speaker 2: the court judge, but the judge in this particular conversation.
29:21
Speaker 2: Is you the meta perceiver in other words, the one
29:25
Speaker 2: who's doing the judging the perceiving.
29:28
Speaker 1: Some people are just better at this stuff.
29:32
Speaker 2: Some people have better self awareness, better memories, stronger social skills,
29:38
Speaker 2: I guess, a bigger cognitive bandwidth to understand and discern
29:45
Speaker 2: and process all of these social subtleties, all of these cues,
29:51
Speaker 2: all of these things that are happening. I used to
29:54
Speaker 2: be terrible at this, but well, I would say probably
29:59
Speaker 2: tip or maybe not terrible, but maybe typical. And since
30:03
Speaker 2: you know, trying to do my research, but also understanding
30:06
Speaker 2: before I even started my PhD, how much information there
30:10
Speaker 2: is that's not coming out of someone's mouth. So I'm
30:14
Speaker 2: fascinated by what they're telling me when they're not telling
30:17
Speaker 2: me anything. So when their lips are not moving, or
30:19
Speaker 2: even when their lips are moving, what is the actual information?
30:23
Speaker 2: What is the beyond the words, beyond the verbal audible
30:28
Speaker 2: kind of stuff, what's the real message? Because sometimes the
30:32
Speaker 2: thing that they're not telling you is more insightful, powerful
30:36
Speaker 2: and valuable than the thing that they are telling you.
30:41
Speaker 2: So some people are just going to have better self awareness, memory,
30:45
Speaker 2: stronger social skills, and like I said, cognitive bandwidth. And conversely,
30:49
Speaker 2: things like social anxiety or certain personality disorders for some
30:55
Speaker 2: people really reduce their accuracy, either through biased filtering or behavior.
31:00
Speaker 2: Is that illicit negative feedback that gets misread or ignored,
31:05
Speaker 2: And all of these factors interact. So you might be
31:08
Speaker 2: great at reading your partner but terrible with your boss.
31:13
Speaker 2: You might accurately engauge how you're seen in terms of
31:16
Speaker 2: by others in terms of competence, but not for warmth.
31:21
Speaker 1: So what's the takeaway?
31:24
Speaker 2: So we do have some real insight into how others
31:27
Speaker 2: see us, especially when it comes to stable observable traits,
31:31
Speaker 2: but that insight comes with a dose of bias. Quite
31:35
Speaker 2: often a positive bias for personality. We think we're seen
31:38
Speaker 2: a little better than we are, and sometimes a negative
31:42
Speaker 2: one when it comes to things like things like liking.
31:46
Speaker 2: That is, we don't think we're liked as much as
31:50
Speaker 2: we actually are liked.
31:51
Speaker 1: But again, context matters, so that can change.
31:54
Speaker 2: And weirdly, it's easier to know who specifically likes you
31:59
Speaker 2: than it is to know how generally well liked you
32:04
Speaker 2: are or how popular you are in terms of a group.
32:09
Speaker 2: So here's the final thought. Is perfect insight really the
32:14
Speaker 2: goal for us to absolutely, categorically, unequivocally, accurately understand how
32:22
Speaker 2: others see us know there's evidence suggesting that a slight
32:28
Speaker 2: positive illusion, like believing your partner sees you a little
32:34
Speaker 2: more positive than they positively than they actually do, can
32:37
Speaker 2: actually strengthen relationships.
32:40
Speaker 1: So maybe a.
32:42
Speaker 2: Tiny glow a soft filter isn't a bug in the system.
32:45
Speaker 1: Maybe it's a feature something to think about. See next time,
32:50
Speaker 1: team