Overestimating People

[sleepyop]

Many times I have overestimated people, which is caused by the way I view their characters. I see a few good premises and values in a person who I don't know too well, and then I end up projecting the rest of their character. I usually fill in the gaps with my own premises and values because I assume that if they have a few good fundamentals then they should be consistent. However, as much as I am right about someone, I'm usually just as wrong about them. Once I get to know them better, I begin to see the discrepancies between the way I've viewed them and the way they actually are. Unfortunately, a couple of times, I've become overly enthusiastic about someone, and it takes me many months before I begin to see their true character. Thus, I've become very cautious nowadays about the way I evaluate other people, but accurately evaluating someone is a difficult process. Do you or someone you know have a similar problem as my own? How do you deal with it?

[RationalBiker]

Many times I have overestimated people, which is caused by the way I view their characters. I see a few good premises and values in a person who I don't know too well, and then I end up projecting the rest of their character.

This is actually a more common "cognitive bias" than perhaps you realize. In management/leadership terms it's referred to as the "Halo Effect". I think the first step in preventing yourself from doing is knowing that you are doing, which apparently you do.

You might try some web searching on the term for more detailed information and how to avoid it.

[Ifat Glassman]

Interesting problem, sleepyop .

I have it too, but much less than in the past. I think it's because practice brings perfection.

The best way to overcome this problem is to gain experience by knowing more people (who are close to your ideal), and then you learn to distinguish the subtleties.

Another interesting thing that I discovered though, is that I can use different people to create contrast to one another.

For example, suppose I knew someone and thought they were great (but there were gaps in my knowledge about their personality which I didn't verify yet), and then I know another person which is easy to acquire knowledge about his/her traits which are associated to those gaps, then I have a better ability to learn about the first person in these areas.

• To make this clearer: Suppose you meet someone with a benevolent sense of life. You assume that they are also great thinkers, with a commitment for the truth (a gap in your knowledge about them). Then you meet someone else, and you can see that in discussions this other person is very persistent about straightening the facts, and analyzing the real problem. This makes you realize "hmm, how come the other person, who is also suppose to be a great thinker, does not do this?". And then you start examining the other person more instead of assuming (that it is there but you just don't see it).
  

For some reason, it is harder to use yourself (for me) as a contrast than to use someone else that I interact with.

But maybe it is possible to observe your own behavior and to compare it to their behavior as means of learning.

Also, catch yourself as you "fill in the gaps": ask yourself, what reason do you have to believe that trait X exists. Rely on positive evidence and not on the lack of negative evidence (that refutes the possibility of existence of good).

[tps_fan]

To answer the question of whether Objectivists normally have your experience, I would have to figure that every Objectivist has had the experience to some degree (or at least they likely will eventually!) Based on what Dr. Leonard Peikoff has said over the years, both he and Ayn Rand were disappointed by what they found when they each came to America. (The country's reputation precedes the nation.) I think for Objectivists, they are more aware of the related issues _and_ the importance of the issues than other people normally would be. As evidence, I've _never_ heard a non-Objectivist ask your types of questions in that manner before, and I don't expect to either.

As far as method goes, as the other two indicated, I think you are generally on the right track. You just have to be more concerted about it as far as you are compelled to follow through. It's really a matter of building up a database of interpersonal experiences and being willing and able to draw from that information.

As a rule, as you are already finding, you shouldn't assume too much. You still can and should give people the benefit of the doubt, but as soon as there's evidence that something is awry with their respective characters, you owe it to yourself to note what you perceive. Still, you won't necessarily know the _motivation_ behind a person's behaviour... not without more context. To put it differently, I think it is good to be suspicious of people insofar that those early premises aren't taken as certain unless and until the needed evidence is summoned.

As was already said, it takes practice. Likewise, there's no guarantee that you won't be mistaken. I think I should mention another lecture as well. It just so happens that Dr. Peikoff lectured on the general issue. I believe the lecture is called something like, "How to Judge Without being Judgemental." Maybe the Ayn Rand Bookstore might have a copy?

[Chumley]

I think I should mention another lecture as well. It just so happens that Dr. Peikoff lectured on the general issue. I believe the lecture is called something like, "How to Judge Without being Judgemental." Maybe the Ayn Rand Bookstore might have a copy?

Do you mean Judging, Feeling, and Not Being Moralistic? It's available at the Ayn Rand Bookstore.I have the CD, and it's pretty good. Short and to the point.Also, if you ever read Dr. Michael Hurd, you might have caught a comment he made a few weeks ago. The essence was not to have "expectations" of what you want people to be, but have standards of judgment based on what they really are.