Reading focus
Syllabus: How Do We Understand Ourselves and Other People?
Compare the information available under each strategy and the criterion used to assess predictions, especially when partners can discuss their opinions.
Why you’re reading it. Test an appealing way to improve understanding without confusing good intentions, confidence, and accuracy.
A question to consider. How could a conversation improve prediction on the discussed questions without revealing a general ability to understand the other person?
Why this reading
Trying to imagine another person's perspective and obtaining information from that person are different strategies. This program of 25 experiments tests their implications for accuracy rather than assuming that less projection means better understanding.
Before you read
Egocentric projection uses one's own response to predict someone else's. Accuracy compares a prediction with a specified criterion; confidence reports how certain the predictor feels. Less projection can still produce a wrong answer.
Read for
- Identify what counts as a correct response in each kind of task.
- Compare the effects on accuracy, projection, and confidence without treating them as interchangeable.
- Examine what partners discussed in the final experiment and which predictions that information could improve.
Consider afterwards
- You want to choose an activity a friend will enjoy. How would you compare imagining their preference with asking them, while measuring accuracy separately from your confidence?
Editorial context
The experiments test particular instructions and tasks, not every form or benefit of perspective-taking. The conversation experiment involved 104 heterosexual couples and predictions about stated opinions; it does not establish a universal communication remedy. The authors acknowledge that people may misreport or misunderstand their own states. Improved prediction on discussed topics does not guarantee insight into unrelated preferences or enduring behavior.