To answer this question, psychologists often use David Funder’s realistic accuracy , which is an expanded version of Egon Brunswik’s older, more general lens , which was described in the 1950s. These models provide a framework for understanding how we infer the personal qualities that drive people’s behavior based on cues — visible manifestations of a person’s character or actions.
For example, if someone insults you at a party, you might conclude from that behavior that he or she is not a very nice person in general. But if he or she stays to help the landlord with the cleaning, you might think that he or she is, on the contrary, quite nice. These seem like logical examples, but the path from signal to accurate judgment is fraught with danger.
According to Funder’s model, in order to make an accurate judgment about a particular personality trait, four conditions must be met: congruence, availability, detection, and exploitation. First, there must be something in the signal that is being assessed that corresponds to the personality trait we are judging. That is, there must be a way to observe manifestations of this quality. This can be difficult if we want to learn something about a person’s emotional stability or hidden malevolence.
Most character traits have corresponding manifestations, so another question arises – degrees. That is, how accurately the manifestation of a personal quality corresponds to a person’s character. But we cannot always observe how this or that property manifests itself, and then such conditions as availability and detection are violated. For example, when a person is nervous, he may fidget and tremble, but we must notice this in order to make a judgment.
Finally, it is important to use our observations correctly. This means that we must have a precise idea of how the signals we have detected relate to the person’s character. For example, if we saw that a person was fidgeting but assumed that this was a sign of boredom rather than anxiety, then we have failed at the realistic accuracy stage of the model.
So, to accurately assess another person, we must be able to see their personality traits, notice them, and use them correctly. The key to seeing through people is likely to lie somewhere in this chain.
What helps you understand people better
Research suggests that people who are good at judging one person are also good at judging others. Early hypotheses that explained why some people are good at this and others are not were called the Sherlock Holmes metatheoretical view . The authors of these hypotheses looked for individual differences that would provide advantages when it came to judging others. For example, someone might make mistakes because they were not very attentive or perceptive.
Indeed, some older studies that intelligence or some general judgmental ability predicts the accuracy of personality judgments. This might make sense, since intelligent people are good at using information efficiently, and conscientious people pay more attention to detail and therefore notice things that others miss. However, many more recent studies such links, and overall the search for reliable specific parameters that predict judgmental accuracy has been rather fruitless.
However, modern researchers have found one set of individual differences that are fairly reliable predictors of judgment accuracy: traits associated with good overall psychological adjustment. Psychologically healthy people, which often means they are also happy, nice, and pleasant, fairly good at assessing others. This doesn’t quite fit with the Sherlock Holmes perspective, since this quality may or may not be related to individual differences that provide advantages in finding and using information.
In one interesting on this topic, experts asked three random people to get to know each other. Then each of them rated their own character and the characters of the other participants in the group. This allowed them to determine the accuracy of their judgments: the participants’ impressions of a particular person were compared with their actual personal qualities, which were a combination of their own views and the views of people who knew them. The authors of the study concluded that people who are good at evaluating others do exist. These are those who give more accurate assessments of more than one person.
To understand what might explain this ability, the scientists videotaped interactions in groups of three people and conducted two analyses. First, they showed the videos to independent observers to see how people who made accurate judgments behaved. They found that they tended to make eye contact , praised their accomplishments, expressed warmth toward them, and generally seemed to enjoy the process. Not very Sherlock Holmes-like.
Second, the study’s authors asked other people to observe the same interaction and rate the personalities of all three people in the group. They found that those who interacted with participants who made more accurate judgments were also rated correctly by independent observers.
Thus, it can be suggested that some people see through others not because they are deeply insightful or attentive to detail, but because they create a positive atmosphere that allows them to feel comfortable and openly express their true selves. That is, the conditions of the realistic accuracy model, such as relevance and availability, are met, rather than detection and exploitation.
However, recent research that the prerequisite for us to be able to accurately judge other people’s personal qualities is probably having suitable “targets” – people who are amenable to evaluation. Because obviously you can’t just read a closed book.
In any case, the conclusion suggests itself: instead of looking with a magnifying glass for what is hidden, perhaps it is worth using your charisma and kindness so that the other person himself shows us everything.
