"I owe you an apology, I wasn't really familiar with your game" - NBA Analyst Shaquille O'Neal to Houston Rockets player Christian Wood during a post-game interview. Shaq assumed because he didn't know who Wood was, that he couldn't drop 27 and 15.
Here's the uncomfortable truth: it ain't just Shaq. We rarely know what people are thinking, what they're going to do, or why they're going to do it, yet we make conclusions like we do. We think we're familiar with peoples' games because this mental shortcut helps us make sense of the world around us; It helps us tell a coherent story. The problem is we often have the wrong story.
From strangers to our inner circles, when deciphering interactions, we should ask people about their intentions directly to avoid harm or missed opportunities and develop a more positive and hopeful approach to interaction.
Being familiar with someone's game means understanding enough of people's thoughts, intentions, beliefs, attitudes, and behavior to make accurate judgments about interactions with them.
Here's an example:
My trusty iPhone XS, a rocky foundation, and an educated guess almost cost me a friendship.
This year, I've been working on renewing a friendship with someone from undergrad. Back in May, however, things were down bad. They pointed out that I wasn't making the effort I could've to rekindle the relationship (true). But they also told me something that made my jaw drop: They said I hadn't returned or acknowledged several calls they had made months prior.
Trust me when I tell you I do not remember receiving those calls, nor did my phone have a record of them. No lie. That trusty iPhone XS? I've recently confirmed with another friend that this phone has let me down like this multiple times. It just fails to ring or record that it was called sometimes.
My friend, bless them, made a reasonable conclusion that I ducked the calls and rudely failed to address them. It was consistent with my lack of effort in reforming the relationship and helped tell a cohesive story: Jared talked about rekindling, but he doesn't really want to. Looks like a duck and walks like a duck.
What's the problem with this? We're friends now, but we just as easily could have been estranged. We are only friends because we were both willing to talk, they were willing to be open, and I was given a chance to share my truth. The less obvious problem is they moved with resentment for months. The most pernicious problem is that their conclusion made sense.
Even when you make a reasonable conclusion without going to the source, you can still end up with the same damage to your relationships as when you jump to an irrational conclusion.
The only thing close to certainty in judgments about interactions with people is an express verbal or written explanation. Not your extrapolations from personal experience with a handful of people. Not your IG 'detective' skills. And certainly not the quantum emotional computing you think you're doing, piecing together and projecting your biases onto what you think is happening in someone's head. If you want to get it right, you need to go to the source.
Think about it: the only way to even get close to confirming what someone was thinking, what they intended to do, or what they're going to do next is to ask them. That still doesn't guarantee you'll get the truth, but it does guarantee you did all you could to get it.
You might be saying, "But Jared. I just knew there was something up with this person and boom, I find out afterward that there was something up with them." Hold up there, reader. Mind that confirmation bias. When we have a suspicion about someone, we tend to look for evidence that supports our belief while ignoring information that contradicts it. More often than not, this leads us to find confirmation where it may not exist. Approach judgments with a critical and open mind, gathering as much information as possible before jumping to conclusions. Taking the time to consider alternative perspectives and carefully assess the available evidence can prevent us from being sent off by our biases and ensure a more accurate understanding of others.
You might be saying, "Not me, Jared. I've been on the IG detective force for years and usually make the right read." Hold up there, reader. Mind that outcome bias. If we're evaluating if making assumptions is a good process based on whether we're right, we're putting ourselves at risk for outcome bias. Instead, gauge the process, not just the outcome. Sometimes, we may have a bad process (making assumptions) but still have a good result (the correct answer) by coincidence. We have to gather information from all sides to maintain an objective and well-informed understanding of others.
You might be saying, "But Jared, Maya Angelou said to believe people the first time they show you." Hold up there, reader. Showing and telling are two different things; they're not interchangeable. Depending on what people show you almost always requires you to assume what a behavior means. My friend could've believed me the first time I didn't return their call. But without my first-hand account, whatever they believed about me would have come from them, not me. Instead, believe people the first time they tell you.
Making assumptions has incredible consequences for our people and our relationships.
When we make quick judgments about others without understanding, we end up damaging relationships. No healthy relationship just eroded trust and barriers to effective communication.
Humans are not a simple game. People are multifaceted beings with many thoughts, beliefs, and behaviors. Understanding someone's intentions and motivations requires understanding the many parts that make up a person, the situation, and the interactions between them. Because people are among the most complex things we judge, you'll be in bad shape if you assume haphazardly.
You rarely have the whole story. On top of deciphering human interaction, we rarely have all the context to accurately judge people. You may clock that someone was late, but you didn't know about the drunk driver who clipped them on the way over. You may notice they haven't responded to your message in a long time, but you didn't know about the death in their family that has left them unable to engage in conversation. We feel like it's too time-consuming to get more context, but judgments made with limited information often lead to misunderstandings.
You don't watch enough relevant film. Understanding someone enough to accurately judge them requires hella relevant observations. Not "I've seen them do it twice, so it's their nature." Predicting what people will do requires more observations under comparable conditions than we usually have made.
.svg)
