Are you any good at 'reading people?'

[rectorofstiffkey]

what's the story there?

A lengthy prison sentence ensued for serious offences against the vulnerable (excuse me not going into details, let's just say 'horrible').  I thought I knew him well but I had no idea whatsoever.  No gut feeling, no uneasiness, nothing.  It was shocking; I never had any idea that I was good at reading people, but to be that bad at reading them....

[Cloud]

If it's that type of wrongun (a test of being able to read between the lines, I suppose), it's said to often be like that.  It's not your dodgy looking priest, or the weird old bloke in a trenchcoat who sits by the play park all day.  No no no... it's your married mate Joe with 3 kids of his own who's in a respectable position at your local Acme Corp and seems a lovely chap who'd never hurt a fly.   People become experts at hiding that sort of thing.

[idunnosomename]

no but I'm not too bad at Basingstoke people

[greenman]

I'm guessing CaB would do well at...

https://s3.amazonaws.com/he-assets-prod/interactives/233_reading_the_mind_through_eyes/Launch.html

[rectorofstiffkey]

If it's that type of wrongun (a test of being able to read between the lines, I suppose), it's said to often be like that.  It's not your dodgy looking priest, or the weird old bloke in a trenchcoat who sits by the play park all day.  No no no... it's your married mate Joe with 3 kids of his own who's in a respectable position at your local Acme Corp and seems a lovely chap who'd never hurt a fly.   People become experts at hiding that sort of thing.

Agree with all that, and I think your last sentence particularly sums it up!  People are, generally, averse to going to prison, so I can see that if you are drawn towards doing a very bad thing, you're going to put serious effort into making it look like you're not.

It made me think about people who do things that society find repugnant; did they always think that behaviour was okay, or was it a slow move towards transgression, a bit at a time?  Do we all have the capacity to do terrible things, if we find ourselves wanting to badly enough?  I like to think not, but then I'd have said that about the guy I knew.

[the science eel]

No one is as good at it as they think they are. Human behaviour is way more unpredictable than the notion that it can be "read" accounts for.

Exactly right.

[gib]

I'm guessing CaB would do well at...

https://s3.amazonaws.com/he-assets-prod/interactives/233_reading_the_mind_through_eyes/Launch.html

i got 29

found it easier if i first covered up the options and considered the picture without them

[touchingcloth]

I'm generally hopeless - to the point that when I met my current partner I spent hours and hours wondering if the feeling was mutual when apparently she had spent those same hours giving me, according to her, extremely blatant come-ons - however Nick Clegg struck me as a bad un in those debates before the 2010 elections so the Lib Dem's didn't get my vote. I can't remember if I went for Reality or BNP in the end.

[chveik]

I'm guessing CaB would do well at...

https://s3.amazonaws.com/he-assets-prod/interactives/233_reading_the_mind_through_eyes/Launch.html

33

i'm still fucking useless when it comes to social interactions

[Endicott]

Also got 33.

[Paul Calf]

34

[Paul Calf]

It seemed like a test of empathy rather than a puzzle.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

It's not trying to be a puzzle.

I also got 33, however I got the first 3 wrong and the rest right so might have just not been paying attention / trying hard enough early doors.

They shouldn't be multiple choice, you should have to describe the expression. That would sort out the people ACE AT FACE from the dregs who quite frankly need binning pronto.

[touchingcloth]

98. Beat that.

[Zetetic]

It seemed like a test of empathy rather than a puzzle.

For context, the "Reading the Mind in the Eyes" test comes Baron-Cohen[nb]No, the relation isn't interesting. This doesn't need further comment.[/nb] and others' attempts to describe the nature of autism. Their views are not uncontroversial.

There are important distinctions to be drawn between:
1. Accurate perception and recognition of emotions in someone else from limited cues.
2. The broad ability to think about what other people are thinking and why they're feeling how they do, and to be able to "take their position".
3. Empathy, in the sense of sharing in someone's broad feelings/affect.

We should be careful about dismissing some one as incapable of empathy because they struggle with 1 or 2. Indeed, one possible understanding of the struggles of some autistic people is that it's very distressing to recognise that someone else is upset (and feel that upset?) without being able to understand why.

The above post obviously written by a shamed 28-er. (Probably not via any kind of autism, but social anxiety and hypersensitivity to cues indicating negative emotions.)

[Paul Calf]

For context, the "Reading the Mind in the Eyes" test comes Baron-Cohen[nb]No, the relation isn't interesting. This doesn't need further comment.[/nb] and others attempts to describe the nature of autism. Their views are not uncontroversial.

There are important distinctions to be drawn between:
1. Accurate perception and recognition of emotions in someone else from limited cues.
2. The broad ability to think about what other people are thinking and why they're feeling how they do, and to be able to "take their position".
3. Empathy, in the sense of sharing in someone's broad feelings/affect.

We should be careful about dismissing some one as incapable of empathy because they struggle with 1 or 2. Indeed, one possible understanding of the struggles of some autistic people is that it's very distressing to recognise that someone is upset without being able to understand why.

The above post obviously written by a shamed 28-er. (Probably not via any kind of autism, but social anxiety and hypersensitivity to cues indicating negative emotions.)

Oh, no. Sorry if it appeared that I was doing that. What I meant was that when I started approaching it empathetically rather than as a puzzle to be solved, I found it much easier.

[Zetetic]

I didn't think you really were, but I still thought it was worth teasing apart.

[sevendaughters]

I dunno if I'm good at reading people. People tend to remember their big wins and discard their losses. I've taken a quick dislike to someone only for them to patiently chip at my suspicion with constant goodness, and I feel like a total tit.

I've had a couple of moments where I was bang on about someone. A friend who works in telly brought this guy to the pub with him. Something about him was incredibly oily and off, but as we left everyone was like "oh, Bob's mate was nice". I'd been nice to them through the interactions - funny and voluble even - figuring I'll never see him again and surely everyone can see this guy is notright. I get home and he's FB requested me. Fine, I'll add, never meet him again, and delete 6 months on. 2hrs later he asks if I want to go to an art opening as his wingman (there was something else obviously predatory in his message, I am not missing a joke, I don't think). Fucking shit you not. You never forget being that kind of right.

[Retinend]

I dunno if I'm good at reading people. People tend to remember their big wins and discard their losses.

Exactly. And whenever you didn't read someone right, it's easy and natural to say to yourself that they were just an arsehole and you saw them a mile off, therefore you're a good judge of character. How would you know? To put it another way, think of the most oblivious and obnoxious personality you can think of: they would probably be the first to call themselves a good judge of character, because they are constantly clocking stupid people everywhere, and know that a good friend is hard to find.

I have an objective standard: I have clients for business English that take one on one lessons with me, and the continuation of this income stream is completely dependent on my personal rapport with them. If I alienate a student - or merely bore them -  they will sooner, rather than later, quit the course and go elsewhere. If it's feasible, I recommend this incentive, or something similar, to people as a means of tracking how well you can read people: if people are paying to spend time with you, you have to be doing something right.

[Kankurette]

Is it some kind of primitive instinct that enables us to tell whether a person is bad news or not?

[TrenterPercenter]

Been keeping out of this but from a professional perspective most people that think they are good at reading people are actually just very good at projecting their interpretations and internal states on to other people i.e. they pick on things other people do that they do.

Reading general broad emotions isn't a particularly difficult (well apart from a few conditions people have) thing to do; body language is most of communication because it sets an emotional context for communication (actors learn this as 101) alongside intonation (which is often forgotten in terms of news reportage; you can say the same words in two different ways and imply two different things and therefore create 'on paper' a sense of balance); we learn this when we are babies and toddlers.

What does "reading" people mean anyway?  Knowing another's thoughts? this is very different to being an empath who is hyper-vigilant/observant to the signals of others (with varying degrees of accuracy due to stresses distorting effects on the brain).

[colacentral]

I am exceptionally good at it, and I won't let anyone take that away from me! And I say that as someone who doesn't claim to have any outstanding talent for anything, but of this, I am world class.

Been keeping out of this but from a professional perspective most people that think they are good at reading people are actually just very good at projecting their interpretations and internal states on to other people i.e. they pick on things other people do that they do.

Reading general broad emotions isn't a particularly difficult (well apart from a few conditions people have) thing to do; body language is most of communication because it sets an emotional context for communication (actors learn this as 101) alongside intonation (which is often forgotten in terms of news reportage; you can say the same words in two different ways and imply two different things and therefore create 'on paper' a sense of balance); we learn this when we are babies and toddlers.

What does "reading" people mean anyway?  Knowing another's thoughts? this is very different to being an empath who is hyper-vigilant/observant to the signals of others (with varying degrees of accuracy due to stresses distorting effects on the brain).

I think it's more the case that having this "skill" makes people better able to mimic the behaviours of others. It stands to reason that if you pick up on the behaviours of a liar better than most, you can deploy that behaviour yourself, ie "don't bullshit a bullshitter."

Again, I was raised with a sister who was a serial liar and sociopath, someone who lied about absolutely anything and everything, and would continue to deny the truth even when confronted with evidence. (Very much a Janice Soprano, and I think that character is masterful for how it nails that type). On the other hand, I was having a conversation with my partner just yesterday where, without getting into the boring details, she was asking me to lie to someone about something (a totally harmless little white lie), just to avoid having the inevitable annoying conversation about it, and I agreed with her, but I know that I'm physically incapable of not just blurting out the truth. It's not in my nature to be dishonest like that, but I maintain that I am a master at spotting dishonesty in other people, much more than most. I've often regretted not going into the police or another career where it would be beneficial. I've been told by my partner and close friends that I have the knack for it too.

And I do think there's some cross over in that mind set, the detective mind set if you will, and a creative mind set. Again, it's not surprising that so many people on this forum, which is comedy focused and also a more literary cross section of people than most communities, would think of themselves at being good at this. It's noticing small details, forming them into patterns, and storing them for later use.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

if people are paying to spend time with you, you have to be doing something right.

People with mental illness everywhere coughing and pointing to their terrible therapists, counsellors and GPs.

If people are paying to spend time with you (the wider you, not you specifically) then sometimes it is because that's all they can afford, or because it's convenient for other reasons (location being one) and/or are desperate and short of alternatives.

[Icehaven]

It's interesting that every single post (I think, cmiiw) from someone saying they're good at reading people have cited examples of being able to tell when someone is dodgy or unpleasant, and there's not a single case of anyone saying "I'm great at reading people, I just immediately know when someone's really decent and kind and have been proved right many times." Mind you being able to suss out kind hearted/sympathetic/gentle people is what abusers and con artists are often exceptionally good at, so make of that what you will.
Are we just evolutionarily more likely to be suspicious and pick up on cues for suspicions to be confirmed, or is it the opposite and most people subconsciously assume everyone is OK unless they get the cues otherwise?

[colacentral]

It's interesting that every single post (I think, cmiiw) from someone saying they're good at reading people have cited examples of being able to tell when someone is dodgy or unpleasant, and there's not a single case of anyone saying "I'm great at reading people, I just immediately know when someone's really decent and kind and have been proved right many times." Mind you being able to suss out kind hearted/sympathetic/gentle people is what abusers and con artists are exceptionally good at so make of that what you will. Are we just evolutionarily more likely to be suspicious and pick up on cues for suspicions to be confirmed, or is it the opposite and most people subconsciously assume everyone is OK unless they get the cues otherwise?

Because being "nice" is default behaviour, so what stands out are exceptions. It's not something people hide.

For what it's worth though, I almost went on a tangent about how subtle actors are often overlooked as "wooden," and that actors that are broad and OTT tend to get rewarded more, eg Jack Nicholson, Pacino etc.

I've also written in the thread about Bob Dylan a few months ago that I think him and others are misunderstood to be assholes (I used Jose Mourinho as another example of someone who 99% of people think is a cunt but who I think is misunderstood and just has an incredibly dry sense of humour and total lack of desire to perform the character expected of him). It's just easier to point to "spotting a liar" as evidence when it's more quantifiable and less easy to write off as subjective (like interpreting acting ability or some non-defined "niceness").

[touchingcloth]

I will read a bitch. I'll read you to filth.

[Mobbd]

Might have done this before, because although I might be good at 'reading people', I'm absolutely terrible at remembering things.

I do a bit of voluntary work in finance and have been told that I'm particularly good at 'reading people'.  Spotting a bullshitter, or someone in genuine hardship who wants to put up a front to maintain dignity, that kind of thing.  Thing is, if I reckon someone is talking out of their arse, there's not some kind of mental checklist I go through for obvious tells.  It's just this weird kind of psychic tingle.  And I don't believe in any of that bollocks, before you start.

I wouldn't count this as some sort of superpower had I not been told it by other people quite a few times, so are you like that?

How interesting! It's the sort of thing I used to be shit at but seem to be getting better at with age.

It's like I've built up something like that checklist only it's more visceral, instinctual.

Not dissimilar to the Blink[nb]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blink:_The_Power_of_Thinking_Without_Thinking[/nb] thing, right? But applied to people.

[pancreas]

I will read a bitch. I'll read you to filth.

The library is open ...

[Blue Jam]

^^^ Heheheheh.

For what it's worth though, I almost went on a tangent about how subtle actors are often overlooked as "wooden," and that actors that are broad and OTT tend to get rewarded more, eg Jack Nicholson, Pacino etc.

Oh that's a great point. I'm wondering if David Mitchell and Robert Webb are an example of this. Mitchell is the popular one who gets invited on all the panel shows but Webb is the better and more subtle actor.

[TrenterPercenter]

I think it's more the case that having this "skill" makes people better able to mimic the behaviours of others. It stands to reason that if you pick up on the behaviours of a liar better than most, you can deploy that behaviour yourself, ie "don't bullshit a bullshitter."

I like the insight here (I don't think this is what other people are saying though) mimicry is a early behaviour by babies whose parents literally regulate their inner worlds through their interactions; as we develop into toddlerhood we begin to co-regulate with our care givers reducing our reliance on mimicry and developing a theory of mind (an base level for empathetic reasoning). 

Where your theory falls down is that mimicry is not the same as reading people; a lot of neurodiverse individuals are very good at mimicry but have very poor theory of mind.  Not saying you are wrong just saying there is, to my mind, an big component between mimicry and conscious empathetic reasoning that is essential for "reading people" which is more pressing than aspects of mimicry.  I think, if I can just flesh it out a bit more, you are proposing "suggestibility" in that a person that is highly suggestible will pick up behaviours of others more easily giving them a wider empathetic experience; and for want of a better term understand from the inside what a behaviour is composed of and therefore looks and feels like on another person (this is very similar to what I was saying - I'm just adding in that personal interference occurs here; once you incorporate outside behaviours and states you inhabit them and they shape and direct your empathetic reasoning).