Now you may be asking yourself, if even married couples can’t understand each other – and if even the President of the United States, with his
team of communications professionals, doesn’t come across the way he intends to—what hope do I have of ever getting my boss to see my potential, or my colleague to see how hard I work?
Heidi Grant Halverson, No One Understands You and What to Do About It
As I presented my synopsis of No One Understands You and What to Do About It by Heidi Grant Halverson, I asked everyone to take out a pen, and write this prominently on their handout:
Misunderstanding comes naturally.
Understanding takes work.
I think Why No One Understands You is one of the more important books I have presented lately. Because, everyone – everyone I know, in every arena, including… me – has trouble communicating their thoughts and intentions clearly, and has equal trouble understanding communications from others.
And, this difficulty leads to far more than hurt feelings (although, it does lead to that) – it leads to lost business, lost productivity, lost opportunity.
Why so much misunderstanding? Here are some of the reasons identified in the book:
- You really are hard to understand.
- The Transparency Illusion – we assume we made our intentions clear when we spoke. We did not.
- Your actions are a matter of interpretation.
- People do not give enough attention to the task of understanding the other person.
- Confirmation Bias — when other people look at you, they see what they expect to see. Psychologists call this confirmation bias (for more on this topic, read this 16% post from April—Ditching the Dissonance).
- The Primacy Effect — our early impressions of a person can hold far too much weight and can lead us astray when they paint an inaccurate picture. Psychologists refer to this as the primacy effect; a perceiver’s first impression of you is likely to be a lasting impression and to influence how he or she interprets everything else about you.
- Stereotypes — At its most basic, stereotyping is a form of categorization—something human brains have evolved to do swiftly and automatically.
- The Halo Effect — The tendency to assume that someone possesses other positive qualities from the presence of a single, powerful positive quality is called the halo effect.
- The False-Consensus Effect — Other people think and feel what I think and feel. …It takes a lot of work to get it right. But a lot of work is the last thing the cognitive miser wants to do.
- We are all “Cognitive Misers” — spending as little of our mental energy as we have to in order to get the job done.
In her book, Ms. Halverson identifies two kinds of people:
#1 – The “Promotion-focused” People — eagerness
#2 – The “Prevention-focused” People – caution
And, she recommends how to “undo” a “bad” first impression – over-perform in the unexpected way!
- e.g., If you’re always late, arrive one-hour early, consistently, for an extended period of time
And here are my lessons and takeaways from the book:
#1 — People will not understand you. Accept this – and work at being more “understandable.”
#2 — You will not understand other people. Accept this – and work at understanding other people much more accurately and effectively.
#3 — Every interaction carries baggage, requires understanding of context, and understanding of intent and purpose.
#4 — We really are perpetually comparing ourselves to others – accept this.
#5 — You really need to excel at communicating this: “You can trust me because: I am a person of empathy; and I am competent and can get things done.”
#6 — Learn to apologize well. (You will make mistakes – even big ones).
#7 — Show some modesty (avoid arrogance; aim for humility, yet with appropriate self-confidence).
#8 — And, don’t forget/neglect the challenge of self-discovery and arriving at genuine (relatively accurate) self-knowledge.
If you interact with others, at home, at work, or anywhere else (and, obviously, you do), then this is the book you probably need at the top of your reading stack!
Or, to put it another way, this wasn’t just a book worthy of presenting at our First Friday Book Synopsis. I needed to read it. And now, if only I can put it into practice…
Professional Speaker & Writer
Co-founder, First Friday Book Synopsis
Last week, in Ditching the Dissonance II, we discussed rabid, info-seeking wolves and thoughtful, information-foraging caribou, considered how confirmation bias can influence our information seeking habits, and how bad information causes breakdowns in communication. Today, we will look at information seeking strategies that will help you get in touch with your inner evidence-based-information-seeking caribou.
As you read last week’s blog, did you consider which category of information seeker you fall into: wolf or caribou? Do you do diligent research and consider even the information that doesn’t support your hypothesis? Or do you seek only the evidence that confirms your views…and are you so in denial that you are a poor researcher that you decided to just disregard all the information in the blog that supported this conclusion?
“I really want to be an evidence-based-information-seeking caribou!” I hear you say, “But how???”
If you found yourself in the latter category and weren’t in denial about it, you may have been greatly disappointed with this state of affairs, but never fear—caribou status is within your reach.
The first step is to think about how you typically seek out information. Determine where your weak spots are. Are you a lazy researcher who takes frequent shortcuts to avoid sifting through large amounts of information? Are you afraid to find information that will force you to reevaluate your opinions? Have you ever stepped foot inside a library? Have you ever found yourself utilizing Boolean operators in a bibliographic database search? Now, you may be thinking at this point: Who are you and why are you asking me complicated questions that I don’t want to answer??? But you need to answer these questions before you can achieve caribou status. Consider where you are as a researcher and where you can improve your skill set if you want to be a better information seeker.
The second step is to determine your information needs. This may mean admitting to yourself that there is a gap in knowledge or understanding of an idea, concept, or phenomenon that you are looking to fill (I.e., admit that you don’t know everything). This will likely require examining your own motives. Determine what you need to know, and why, and look for the best answer. In other words, don’t Google what you are convinced is the only possible answer to the question or seek out only the information that confirms your stance on an issue. This leads to confirmation bias. The information Google will give to you will likely confirm your opinion (no matter how far-fetched), but it may be grossly inaccurate. Recall those instructions that your English teacher gave you when you had to write an expository essay in high school: start with a good question and work toward an answer based on reliable sources.
The third step: choose your sources wisely. The information need will determine the sources you use. Though they are easy to access, Google, Wikipedia, and the like are not the best sources for many types of information. However, I will be the first to admit that I use them. When I wake up at 2 in the morning desperately trying to remember who directed the movie Paris, Texas (it was Wim Wenders!!!), Google provides a quick resolution to this dilemma. Google and Wikipedia can, at times, be a good starting place for finding resources (those “References” sections can be useful). But if I want to understand the conceptual underpinnings of string theory I’m not going to rely on a Wikipedia article or the random blog posts churned up by a Google search—I’m going to look for information compiled by experts in the field.
For some subjects, you need an expert. Not everyone on the Internet is an expert but anyone on the Internet can claim to be an expert. Depending on your information needs, you may need to seek out information in peer-reviewed journals. Don’t be afraid to wade into scholarly waters if your information need necessitates it. If you feel that your information need is basic enough that you can trust Google to answer it, you should still apply certain criteria to your search results. Check the credentials of the content creator, review their other work (if available), the date of the material, and look for retractions.
One of the most important but often overlooked steps in the information seeking process is evaluating the results and, if you’ve been following the previous steps, it should make your job easier. To evaluate your results for validity and relevance, ask the following questions: Do they help you answer (or at least work toward an answer) to your question? Do they meet your information needs? Are they the best results you could get under the circumstances? Is the information they provide useful, reliable, up-to-date, and unbiased? If you don’t feel comfortable with the answers to these questions, it may be time to move on to the secret 5th step: repeat the process if you aren’t satisfied with your results.
How you choose to interpret the information you find on an information foraging expedition and how you use what you find is up to you but, at the very least, always try to be open to new information you find along the way, not just the stuff that confirms a previously held opinion. While this is helpful advice for any information seeker, it is vital for anyone in a position of authority in the public or private sector, or any position where the information you disseminate will have a far reach, because of the amount of influence you wield. Any bad information you provide will travel far. Learn to recognize confirmation bias and avoid it before it leads you to spread bad information. Continually hone your information seeking skills and improve your information seeking strategy. Learn the ways of the diligent, evidence-based-information-seeking caribou!
And for my fellow Pixies fans, this…
Back in mid-March, I wrote a blog post called “Ditching the Dissonance.” In this blog, I discussed how quickly bad information gets around, and how we become complicit in spreading it across the Internet via social media. I discussed the term “cognitive dissonance”, the theory that we “seek consistency in our beliefs and attitudes in any situation where two cognitions are inconsistent.” Today I want to consider how confirmation bias can influence our information seeking habits and how it can be detrimental to rational debate.
Foraging in the vast information fields of the Interwebs
Here’s a thought-provoking analogy from an old Library Quarterly article, cited in a paper presented by the Faculty of Information Studies of the University of Toronto:
Just as animals evolve different methods of gathering and hunting food or prey in order to increase their intake of nutrition, humans also adopt different strategies of seeking information in order to increase their intake of knowledge. Foraging for information on the Web and foraging for food share common features: both resources tend to be unevenly distributed in the environment, uncertainty and risk characterize resource procurement, and all foragers are limited by time and opportunity costs as they choose to exploit one resource over another (Sandstrom 1994).
Librarians are great foragers and can help us find the best information to meet our needs but not everyone has librarian-level information foraging skills. Some of us are poor information foragers because we lack the skills OR we have the skills but aren’t always willing to utilize them. Sometimes we are short on time and need to take shortcuts on our information seeking journey. Sometimes we can’t be bothered to sift through the huge amount of information available to us so we choose the top results that Google returns. Sometimes we just want the information that will help us make the point we are trying to make in the heat of a debate and we don’t want the information that doesn’t support it. This is where confirmation bias comes in.
Confirmation bias, as defined by Science Daily is “a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis.”
Even on a good day, confirmation bias can be a bad thing. When you are angry, it can be a disaster.
You mad, bro?
There’s a quote from one of my favorite novels, Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen: “Angry people are not always wise.” (Tweet This) While this is usually true, never is it truer than when we apply it to our information seeking behaviors. Have you ever gotten into a debate on Facebook or Reddit, or observed other people engaged in debate, and watched the debate deteriorate to the level of name-calling and—even worse—the posting of links to hastily Googled, poorly sourced “articles” (as spurious blog posts are sometimes called)? I have seen debates like this end friendships.
I’ve always thought that the most amazing thing about Facebook, and the Internet in general, is its power to unite people who are separated by distance—people who haven’t seen each other for decades, relatives, etc.—or people who wouldn’t have met in real life but find each other on the Internet through shared interests and experiences. Yet, just as easily, it can tear these relationships apart and create enemies of people we’ve never even met because of the anonymity it provides. We can say things behind a computer screen that we’d never say to another human’s face. This is dangerous stuff.
When you are angry, you are not a good decision-maker, nor are you a good information-seeker. (Tweet This) You think you are, in the heat of the moment, but you aren’t. You are the worst information seeker you can possibly be when you are angry because you are looking for only the information that confirms your opinion, are incapable of viewing information in an unbiased way, and do not take the time to filter bad information. At that point, you are not a peaceful caribou, foraging serenely in a field of bibliographic database search results, selecting only the best, most reliable information to meet your information needs; you are a rabid wolf, stalking any shred of information, reliable or not, to validate your righteous anger! You may even attack the peaceful caribou who tries to get you to consider evidence-based information compiled by experts! Hyperbole and analogies aside, you DO NOT want to be the rabid wolf in this scenario. Rabid info-seeking wolves often succumb to confirmation bias. (Tweet This)
Real leadership requires that we rise above our own biases. (Tweet This) How we seek information affects how we interpret and present information and, if you are in a position of leadership, it is particularly important to maintain a high level of integrity when collecting and disseminating information. As a leader, you want to be fearless like a wolf; when it comes to foraging for information, you want to resemble the thoughtful caribou. Next week, we’ll talk about information seeking strategies and how to be an evidence-based-information-seeking caribou.