When we try to predict how attractive people will find us, we are mostly better of just randomly guessing. Because our predictions are not any better.
Even after a long time (even a lifetime) together we grosly overestimate the amount of insight we have about the other.
“The problem is that the confidence we have in this sense far outstrips our actual ability, and the confidence we have in our judgment rarely gives us a good sense of how accurate we actually are.”
We dont understand how people think as good as the think we do.
Its often a huge difference between what people say the will do and what they will actually do. Example: Outspoken racist often dont act remotly racist.
People so habitually underestimate how long it will take to get tasks done that psychologists have come up with a name for it: the planning fallacy. We think a task is much easier/ faster then it actually is.
“…interesting thing about the planning fallacy is that despite having so much experience committing it ourselves, we so consistently think that our own mistakes are things of the past rather than the present. This only ensures that we’ll keep making the same mistake over and over again.”
We only see the fnished product but never the process behind it. We know all about the fnished thing but nothing about how it came to be.
“… we can only guess at what’s going on inside our heads to construct those conscious experiences. We can report feeling happy but are only guessing when explaining why”
Unconsiously we find symetry in people the most attractive. But we dont really know about it.
“Have you ever noticed that everyone driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?”
Others are mindless?
We see other people as mindless, we dont realise that they have feelings too. We dont give a shit about them. We see them as objects not much more often. We fail to imagine that they feel too.
(Until the early 1990s doctors operated on infants without numbing them because they did not saw them as full Humans beings.
Soldiers find it very difficult to kill people at close range because now they see them as actual Humans like themselve (much less acurate) Thereby physical distance it a huge factor in how well we can relate to others.
“This link from imitating another person’s actions to experiencing the other person’s emotions is a critical link for understanding the minds of others.”
“Those who are close to us are considered mindful human beings, “like me.” As people become more and more different from us, or more distant from our immediate social networks, they become less and less likely to engage our MPFC (interest in them). When we don’t engage this region, others appear relatively mindless, something less than fully human”.
When talking about other people outside our circle we often use animalistic terms showing as how less we see them.
Eyes even when not human make us behave better. The more a thing malfunctions we think it has a mind of his own.
Unexpected events make us associate them with some form of a mind -> God?
“A normal, mundane, exactly-as-expected day does not trigger thoughts of a divine mind”!
“The universal tendency to anthropomorphize nature stems from our nearly universal “ignorance of causes.”
“The more people in this survey liked their car, the more they reported it appearing to have a mind, beliefs, desires, and a personality.” Teddybears! Barby! …
Being lonely triggers us to see minds where there are none. And find religion much more interesting. We feel beings that dont actually exist. We also start seeing things as much more mindful like put pets or things around us. We go nuts!
Two different kinds of problems: failing to recognize a mind in something that actually has one, such as a human, or recognizing a mind in something that is actually mindless.
What is in the other mind?
“Your self not only provides a unique vantage point on the world; it also provides a lens made up of beliefs, attitudes, emotions, and knowledge that you interpret the world through. Your interpretive lens may differ from others…”
One consequence of being at the center of your own universe is that it’s easy to overestimate your importance in it, both for better and for worse.
A bad sign of a ego-centric approach is when you think others are contstantly talking about you, while the are not.
The fear that others will laugh about us are mostly over estimated by our self centered thinking. Thats why many fear public speaking. Spottlight Effect.
In all of the cases we ever studied, those in the throes of an embarrassing moment consistently overestimated how harshly others were evaluating them. Even once the social spotlight was on them, it did not burn as hot as those in its glare expected it to. The audience will forget it much faster then I will I am my worst critic by far.
“Relax. Others likely won’t notice, and if they do, they likely won’t mind”
The most natural consequence of the lens problem is assuming that others will interpret the world as you do, because you can’t identify exactly how your own interpretation is being influenced by the lens you view it through.
Curse of Knowledge; Knowledge is a curse because once you have it, you can’t imagine what it’s like not to possess it.
A reason why we dont feel understood by others, because we are experts of ourselfs. We use a microscope on ourselfs we see/ judge on things others would never even see.
“You have to think about how this person would evaluate you compared to others in general and overall, not how this person would evaluate you compared to your past or based on your fine-grained features.”
Missunderstanding in Email:
“People using ambiguous mediums think they are communicating clearly because they know what they mean to say, receivers are unable to get this meaning accurately but are certain that they have interpreted the message accurately, and both are amazed that the other side can be so stupid”
… two different versions of egocentric biases, one produced by differences in attention (the neck problem) and the other produced by differences in interpretation (the lens problem two people percieve the same thing much different). Of these two, I believe the existing evidence suggests that the neck problem is easier to overcome than the lens problem.
You cannot simply try harder to view the world through the eyes of another and hope to do so more accurately, because the lens that biases your perceptions is often invisible to you.
Individuals within large groups are almost invisible to us.
Judging a mind based only on a person’s behavior can resemble flat earth thinking because understanding the mind of any person requires a broader perspective than our experience routinely provides.
The tools at our intuitive disposal—our own mind, stereotypes about the minds of others, and others’ observed actions—are simplifying heuristics that give imperfect insight into the minds of others.
How to really mind read then:
Gesture and perspective talking are no appropriate tools for that.
“We’ve now looked many times for evidence that perspective taking—actively trying to imagine being in another person’s circumstances—systematically increases mind reading and have yet to find any supportive evidence”
You get your PhD in mind reading, according to Darwin, by learning to compare what a person shows quickly with what they say slowly.
“Trying harder to get another person’s perspective instead of trying to take it.”
Just ask them about it.
First, the main barrier to getting perspective is that others won’t tell you what you’d like to know. They lie, mislead, misdirect, avoid, or simply refuse to divulge the truth. It’s important, however, to keep the magnitude of this barrier in perspective.
But, rather, through the hard relational work of putting people in a position where they can tell you their minds openly and honestly.