I came up with the below post on human interactions and how brain
works during such interactions. Hopefully, it is not a waste of time.
Our brain assigns ratings to ourselves on our expertise
level in various fields and the list is constantly updated as and when we increase our knowledge in that field. Now, we meet another person and the brain perceives/assigns
a rating to their expertise level in different fields based on our past
interactions. If we are meeting a person for the first time, brain
assigns ratings based on some in/tangibles (So much stress on our outlook
for placements – now we understand :) ). The rating list of
newly met person is updated more than rating list of the person with whom we
already have had many interactions.
Now let’s get into how interactions go. Now each one of us have
two lists (one for our expertise and the other for counterparty’s expertise).
Using the two lists, our brain does a relative scoring. For the sake of understanding,
let’s assume it to be between 0 to 10 (0- our brain thinks the other guy is
completely an expert and we don’t have any opinions to offer, 10 –our brain
thinks we are completely an expert and the other guy should not have an opinion
to offer) Likewise, Counterparty also has two lists and a relative rating. Now,
let us try and understand how an interaction goes.
Take a scenario where a guy who thinks his relative score over other guy is 0 meets a guy who thinks his relative score over the first person is 10. In this scenario,
there is absolutely no problem because both of them are on the same page with
their perceptions. Now, as long as the sum doesn't go above 10 (in this case, 0
+10), there is relatively less problem. Now, consider a scenario where both party consider 10. Here we have a sum of 20 (10 +10). This a very special scenario. Here,
our brain thinks we are the best and the other person is dumb in this subject. Unfortunately, the other person’s brain also
thinks he is the best in the subject and the first person is dumb.
There is an important point to be noted. In all the cases we
are discussing, we don’t have objective opinion of expertise level. It is all
ego at play. We perceive the other guy is not good in this subject and the
other guy perceives the same about us. Now we have an interaction and
everything goes haywire. It is all important to manage these interactions. How
do we do this? Be aware of our perception and satisfy the other person’s ego. When
we can sense that the other guy strongly believes that he is an expert and
thinks we are dumb, acknowledge his perception and move on (We are not going to
lose anything because of it). This is where we find it hard to do because of
our ego and perception. This is where we
need to train ourselves.
By the above, I don’t mean ego massaging. Once we
acknowledge his perception, we invariably put them in a moral high position and
we give them a sense of respect. Now his aggression tones down and he starts
listening to us (at least a bit). This is the time where we should present
facts but no direct contradictions. Over the course of time, we have multiple
interactions with other guy and we keep presenting our ability in the subject
and eventually the other person’s rank list gets updated. Now the sum goes
below 10 J
. Ideal rankings would have to be (5, 5) where both perceive each other in equal
terms. A sum of 0 will also lead to a useless interaction as both will not be
pushing things ahead. A Sum of 10 with values around the region of 5 for both
parties would make conversations interesting.
The above blog post is not a case study or an experiment J
. The above opinions were formed due to listening
to the talks of Daniel Khaneman, Dan Ariely and reading few blogs in brainpickings.org(Benjamin
Franklin – how to handle haters). If you have a contradicting opinion, do let
me know.
