One of the biggest barriers to interpersonal communication is our concern that people aren't interested in what we have to say.
If we're just a little bit more social, we can dramatically change the impact of our communication.
My name is Matt Abrahams and I teach strategic communication at Stanford Graduate School of Business.
Welcome to Think Fast, Talk Smart, the podcast.
Today I look forward to learning from Nick Epley.
Nick is a professor of behavioral science at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, where he also directs the Roman Family Center for Decision Research.
Nick's research focuses on how people make inferences about the minds of others and why we routinely misunderstand each other.
His first book is called Mind Wise, how we understand what others think, believe, feel, and want.
And his latest book is a little more social how small choices create unexpected happiness, health and connection.
Well, welcome, Nick.
I am so excited to chat with you.
You have the distinction of being the person most cited by other guests, from Charles Duhigg to Katie Milkman to Laurie Santos.
And I am so glad to finally get a chance to talk to you.
Thanks for being here.
Yeah, thank you.
That is very flattering.
And you should be flattered to know that one of your recent guests, Sonia Lubomirsky, also said who she does a lot of podcasts said this is one of the favorite that she'd done in a long, long while.
Well, that's very kind of Sonia.
We've known each other a long time and we had a great conversation.
So shall we get started?
Yes, absolutely.
Okay.
So in your book MindWise you discuss how we are fundamentally overconfident in our ability to read other people's minds.
We often rely on what you call outside perspective things like the way people use their bodies, facial expressions, to really figure out what someone is thinking why.
Why is this the wrong approach?
Why are we ineffective?
And how can we get better using what you call the inside perspective?
So the thing that really makes us stand out on the planet as a species, at least from a psychologist's perspective, is our ability to think about other people.
Much of our neural capacity here, this fat part of our brain up above our eyes, is dedicated to social cognition, thinking about other thinking people.
The problem is that other people's minds are the most complicated things you will ever think about, and so we're imperfect.
We're imperfect though in predictable ways.
There are a handful of reliable biases that we commit.
One question we can then ask is how do we overcome these mistakes that we make?
One common approach is to just try to pay attention to other people's body language.
The problem we find with that, or that many psychologists find with that, is that bodies can often mislead.
It's easy to lie to people or deceive other people in ways that are hard to detect.
We're often barely above chance, for instance, of being able to detect whether somebody is telling us the truth or lying to us.
Body language doesn't work actually that well or reading body language.
Sometimes we can try to put ourselves in other people's shoes.
We find in our research that doesn't actually increase accuracy a whole bunch.
You're still playing with things that are in your own head, you're not gaining new insight.
Perspective taking isn't quite the magical elixir for understanding that we might imagine.
The only way that we have found for people to understand the minds of other people better is to wait for it.
Ask them what they are thinking.
Now, I remember when we started running these experiments.
I actually have to get on your inside.
I have to ask you what you're thinking.
To be good at understanding another person, you have to become a good journalist.
It turns out, a good interrogator.
When we first started running these experiments in my lab, we referred to these as the stupid studies that obviously asking somebody what they think is gonna give you more insight into what's on their mind.
But what was interesting to us was that people didn't seem to know that they were actually using a good strategy when they were using it.
So we had people engaging in perspective, taking thought.
They were doing just as well, just as accurate understanding the mind of another person as people who were directly asking another person what they thought about something.
And that was what was interesting to us.
Using this most effective strategy from people's own perspectives didn't seem to be something that they were aware was actually helping them out as much as it was.
I want to dive deeper into this notion of you said perspective taking doesn't really work.
And I know you've done a lot of work on what you call perspective getting.
Yes.
Clearly asking is one way to get another person's perspective.
Can you define what you mean by perspective getting and what are some tools that we can use, especially now in high stakes situations where reading the room and understanding somebody else's likely response could be really helpful to us?
All we mean by perspective getting is just an analog to the psychological process of perspective taking.
And we didn't mean anything magical by it when we came up with the term.
In fact, it's hardly the kind of thing that even needs a term.
Psychologists for decades have been studying what happens when we do this little bit of mental gymnastics to move from my perspective to yours, to try to see things from your point of view, try to understand things from your perspective, recognizing that you might see the world differently than I do.
To be clear, doing that does a lot of things psychologically for us.
It makes me feel more similar to you.
It makes me feel more empathy towards you.
It makes me feel like I understand you better when I do this.
The problem is when I actually understand.
Ask people to predict what you're thinking and you write down what you're actually thinking.
People perspective taking doesn't actually make people we found in a series of 25 experiments doesn't actually make people more accurate.
If anything, it made people a little bit worse.
So by perspective getting, all we mean is simply asking other people questions directly about what they might think about something in a negotiation.
You could ask somebody directly look, I really want to understand what you want in this situation, what your position is.
You might be worried that they might not tell you, but you can ask.
You might want to know, for instance, what your spouse wants from you.
Christmas or for birthday, right?
Instead of guessing, it turns out the best way to know is to ask them.
And they tend to be just as happy getting the gift that they wanted when you asked them as when you guessed and got the wrong one.
They're not so happy about that.
So what can you do in a high-stakes situation?
I think the big thing, one thing we're finding out in recent research, is that people are often reluctant to ask direct questions.
They feel like it's being too nosy.
It's being impolite, it's being intrusive.
And so they're reluctant to ask the questions they would need to actually understand another person.
In our research we find that people think it's gonna be awkward to ask somebody a direct question about what they believe about some topic, particularly if it's a personally relevant or meaningful topic.
But people who are asked those questions even sensitive ones.
So this is work by Enav Hart and Maurice Schweitzer, for instance.
They find that people think it's going to be much more awkward to ask somebody direct questions than the person actually finds it to be.
When you ask somebody a direct question, They typically don't mind as much as you would guess.
So I think that's the big thing.
In a high stakes situation, just ask the question you want to know the answer to.
I'm hearing a theme that asking is very important.
So my question for you is, what makes for a good question?
You know, on the show, people have said open questions better than closed questions.
Do you have recommendations for what are questions that can give you insight, perhaps over other questions?
So one of the things that I'm most interested about in my work is trying to understand why we don't do the social things that are necessarily good for us.
Why we don't communicate in the ways that would otherwise be good for us creating connections with other people, allowing us to understand them better, and so on.
What are the barriers that keep us from doing it?
And a big one, a big one is just misunderstanding how other people will respond.
So for me, the best kinds of questions to ask somebody are the meaningful ones.
Meaningful questions, deep questions that ask about somebody's thoughts or their beliefs or their attitudes.
Were there feelings in conversation?
These are the kinds of things we often want to be talking about with somebody.
And yet these are also the things that we're often reluctant to ask people about.
And so we spend a lot of time in conversation say, or even when communicating with other people, talking about kind of shallow things, superficial things, that don't really enable understanding, don't really enable as much understanding as it could and don't allow us to connect with other people as meaningfully as we otherwise could.
So for me, the questions that are of most interest to ask are the deep ones and the ones that we're often overly reluctant to ask people about.
Absolutely.
And you can think about some of those in advance, right?
You can stockpile some questions.
And you know, we've talked with Alison Wood Brooks and others about how we can leverage questions to build more connection, trust and intimacy with people.
Do you have advice or guidance on how to move from those shallow conversations into more meaningful ones?
I might feel very uncomfortable starting by asking you a very deep question right off the bat.
It might be easier.
How do we migrate from the more shallow to the deeper questions?
Much faster than you think you can.
You might not ask that your first question, but I usually can get to something meaningful by question number two.
If I'm trying.
And I think that's a thing that people really must misunderstand in conversation.
Usually that transition for me moves from talking about something or asking about something early on.
That's kind of on the outside of a person.
What do you do for a living?
Where do you live?
To something that's very quickly on the inside of a person.
And that often involves a shift from asking about what might be happening to asking about why or some deeper, deeper meaning.
So once I find out what you do for a living, I ask you, why do you do that and not something else?
Right.
Or I can ask you something.
You know, I ask you what you do for a living and I can ask, as a follow up question is that always what you wanted to do?
Right.
This your dream job?
Do you have your dream job right now?
Right.
And if they say yes, then you can ask, well, why is that your dream job?
And if they say no, you can ask, well, what is your dream job?
And already there, I'm like the third question I've gotten to somebody's dreams.
Yeah.
It just doesn't take that long.
I like that distinction of going from what to why.
And it's really important to put an exclamation point at the end of what you said is that while we feel it might be awkward, in actuality it's not that awkward.
What we found was creating the barrier.
Why people didn't want to talk was that people didn't think that others were interested in talking to them.
Oh, interesting.
And that's also what keeps people from having the deep, meaningful kind of conversations we'd like to be having with each other too.
We find that people think that others aren't going to care.
About the stuff that they have to share, the meaningful things that they would have to share in conversation, the sense that other people don't want to be bothered with this or wouldn't be interested in having this conversation.
And it turns out we're off about that.
Wow.
So it's our fear that the other person just doesn't care or want to be burdened with our stuff is what gets in the way.
It's not that we misunderstand ourselves.
We know I mean in our experiments people recognize that if you had a conversation with somebody, if you shared something meaningful about yourself, people would enjoy Their experience more if they were in a conversation than if they were being ignored by other people.
But what keeps them from doing it is a social cognition error.
A mind reading mistake is that I think you don't want to talk to me.
And of course, if I don't think you want to talk to me, I won't try.
And I'll never find out that I'm wrong about that.
Right.
And your research shows that when you do actually initiate the conversation, there are wonderful benefits from it.
Is...
People vary.
A lot of the work I have done is with people who are highly anxious and communicating introverts, extroverts.
How can somebody who might be nervous, a non-native speaker, for example, or somebody who who's just extremely shy or introverted, how do you encourage them to take advantage of that, this wonderful benefit of talking to people?
So I empathize with this very much because I was one time there.
That is, I now can stand up in front of a thousand people without any trouble and give a speech and teach.
I mean, we're academics, we do this for a living.
When I was in graduate school, I was horrified by the thought of standing up and presenting in public.
I was horrified about the thought of taking questions.
So I very much can empathize with the challenges that come from opening up and reaching out.
The long run answer is that you overcome mistaken fears through practice.
That's it.
Is you learn that these are mistaken by exposing yourself to them and learning the truth of the matter?
In fact, cognitive behavioral therapists, psychologists who treat clinical levels of anxiety.
The way they do this is through what's known as exposure therapy.
Right. where they put you in the very situation that you were anxious about.
Now, exposure therapy doesn't work for everything.
But if your concern is about talking to people, social stuff, those anxieties tend to be misplaced.
So putting yourself in those situations is the step that you need to calibrate your beliefs.
Now, how do you do that?
What I recommend to people is doing a choice audit of your day.
Just just think over the course of your day, like your day tomorrow.
You know, you might think about a moment where you could engage with somebody.
Be easy.
Wouldn't be hard.
Right.
Where you could reach out and engage with somebody.
Wouldn't take a lot of time.
Wouldn't take a lot of effort.
Wouldn't take a lot of energy and start there.
Sometimes these can be really simple things.
Like when I enter the University of Chicago Business School where I work, the Harper Center here in Hyde Park on the University of Chicago campus I've got about a 200-yard walk up to my office where I'm standing right now.
And I have taken on as a habit making that a hello walk.
And I've done this very deliberately.
I had this realization one morning that I kind of walk into the office head down on my way, not wanting to bother anybody.
And I decided to do something different.
There was a moment where I was choosing to ignore people.
And I could do something different.
So now when I come in, I have my head up.
I'm smiling.
Now, that seems small.
It is small.
A lot of these things are small.
Saying hello to somebody on the train one morning.
You're there.
You're not doing anything anyway.
It's easy.
Relatively speaking, it's not particularly hard.
It's not risky.
And that's the place to start.
What we're talking about here is the way you change behavior over the long run is you don't do it all at once.
You're not going to overcome anxiety all at once.
You don't move a mountain by pushing the whole thing at one time.
Right.
You move a mountain, you know, shovel by shovel, bit by bit.
And so my advice to folks who are nervous about this is you don't have to believe me.
You don't have to believe our data.
You can go out and test this yourself.
And my suggestion is start small.
Pick a little thing you can do that's pretty easy.
Give somebody a compliment.
Say hello to somebody in the morning.
Do it multiple times so you get some data and that's where you start.
So many things there that you said are so valuable and insightful.
One, I would never have believed that you were shy and nervous about speaking.
You come off as quite the extrovert and very comfortable.
This idea of doing a choice audit to think about where those opportunities are for those little experiments that you're talking about.
And I am certainly going to try and I encourage everybody listening to try a hello walk and see what happens as we go.
Your new book is called A Little More Social.
It's not be social.
It's not jump into the deep end of social.
Talk to me about the thesis of a little more social.
Tell me a little bit more about why you use a little bit more and what it's about.
The book is trying to reconcile what seems like a fundamental paradox that sits right at the core of human life to me, which is that we're highly social animals.
We're made happier and healthier by reaching out and connecting with other people.
And yet that choice to reach out and engage with somebody, to approach them, or to hold back and avoid them, Right.
That dynamic shows up.
That choice shows up in so many different parts of our lives.
Right.
So do I talk with a stranger?
Do I type to them or pick up the phone and call them?
Right.
Once I'm talking, do I go deep or do I stay in the shallow end of the pool?
I've got a kind thought.
Do I share it?
I feel grateful to somebody.
Do I express it?
I need help.
Do I ask for it?
I've got this thing about myself that I'd like to share with my partner, but I'm a little nervous about being honest, so I keep my true self to myself over and over again.
There are these opportunities we have to reach out and engage with others in positive, meaningful ways that make our lives better, that we're often nervous about doing.
And what we find just over and over and over and over and over again is that avoidance voice, that voice we have on our shoulder, that's telling us they're not gonna like that this is gonna be bad, this is a little too strong.
People consistently underestimate how positively these interactions are going to go.
As a result, I think, are overly reluctant to reach out and engage with other people.
Now, we're not idiots.
Yeah.
We're not – nobody is confused that reaching out and expressing gratitude to your old high school band director, which I did not long ago,
Craig Ani is his name best teacher – one of the best teachers I've ever seen in my life.
Nobody's confused that doing that is going to be negative.
Right, we can distinguish between a pat on the back and a punch in the face.
We're not confused about this right right, but what we do find is that, even when we think it's going to be a little good, we still underestimate how positive these things are likely to be.
We're a little bit off, so our data don't suggest you should go out to talk to everybody all the time.
I mean, you got things to do, right?
You got things to do.
They don't suggest you should dive into the deep end of the conversation, pool with everybody all the time or spend your life writing gratitude letters.
That's not what it suggests.
It suggests that your estimate your belief about how this social interaction, this attempt to reach out and engage with somebody, is going to go, is off a bit.
And all of life is a gamble.
All of life is a gamble on the outcomes of our decisions and our choices.
And our data suggests that we're a little off about that.
And, as a result, there are probably lots of social interactions that you could have, but you're mistakenly choosing not to have.
And finding those decision points where you know that avoidance voice is just a little too strong in your life.
That's the margin you have for improving it, for making your life better.
And again, the title of the book comes from what I think is the real implication of our work.
Not that you should be, you know, a nonstop extrovert talking to other people all the but that there are choices you're making to avoid people that are often mistaken, and that you could be a little bit more social, and it would make your life probably considerably better.
I am absolutely convinced, and as somebody who's read the book, you do a great job of helping articulate that point of view.
We'll be right back to finish our conversation.
But first, a quick word from one of our sponsors.
Their support allows us to bring you this show free of charge.
One of my favorite things about this show is hearing from listeners all over the world.
Communication connects us, and the more people you can communicate with, the bigger your world becomes.
That's one reason I've been thinking more and more about language learning.
What I appreciate about Babbel is that it focuses on helping you have real conversations with real people, not just memorized vocabulary.
Their lessons are designed by more than 200 language experts and built around practical communication skills you can actually use in everyday life.
And because the lessons are short and approachable, it's easy to fit them in a busy schedule.
Just 10 minutes a day can help you make meaningful progress.
I think this is especially relevant for our audience, because so many of you are collaborating internationally, working across cultures or simply trying to connect more deeply with people around the world.
If you've ever thought about learning a new language, this is the perfect opportunity to start.
Right now, Babbel is offering up to 60% off your subscription at babbel.com forward slash tfts.
That's B-A-B-B-E-L dot com forward slash tfts for up to 60% off. rules and restrictions may apply.
If you enjoyed my recent conversation with Jean and Cherie from the Tiger Sisters, I think you'll really love their show.
Jean and Cherie are known as the internet's Wall Street and Silicon Valley big sisters.
And together they've built Tiger Sisters into a top ranked business podcast, reaching number one in business and top three overall in Spotify in the US.
They take big and sometimes complicated ideas around money, power and love and turn them into clear, practical tools you can apply right away.
Two fun facts.
I coached Cherie for her TEDx talk, And I had the chance to join them on their show.
And I have to say, it was a really thoughtful and engaging conversation.
They ask great questions and bring a perspective you don't always hear.
New episodes drop every Monday on their YouTube channel and across all audio platforms at Tiger Sisters Podcast.
You know Nick, I knew this was going to be wonderful because everybody your resume came to me as oh my goodness, it's going to be a great conversation.
It is.
I don't want to bring it to an end, but we will.
Before we end, as you know, I asked three questions, two questions.
I ask everybody when I come up with just for you.
Are you ready for these?
I'm ready.
I'm ready for the speed round.
All right.
Uh, you teach an MBA course called designing a good life.
Yep.
What is one communication based design flaw you see most high achieving people make, and how can we change it to to be better?
I think a big design flaw is people focus too much on their competency and too little on their warmth.
What other people care about when they interact with us is, is this person trustworthy?
Is this person honest?
Are they kind?
Are they a friend or are they somebody I should avoid?
We spend a lot of time thinking about what exactly should I say to communicate with to this person.
That's a good second thing to pay attention to, because that's what they're paying attention to.
Second,
But the first thing they're paying attention to is, is this person warm?
Are they a friend?
And I think that's a mistake.
We overestimate the importance of competency, exactly what we're communicating when we're communicating when really what matters a lot, first and foremost, is this person, warm.
Is this person trustworthy?
That's the thing to start with.
Thank you for echoing that.
In the strategic communication class I teach, that is the very first topic we discuss.
And we talk about lead with warmth, follow with competence.
That's exactly it.
And that can make a big difference.
Thank you for sharing.
Who's a communicator that you admire and why?
The person who popped into my mind and it's possible that it's because I was just listening to a podcast from him is Michael Lewis.
I think Michael Lewis is amazing as a communicator because he has this stroke of genius that makes him seem not like a genius.
I think that's where a true genius sits, so a really good communicator.
I think this is true in academia as well.
Somebody who can take really complicated topics like the financial sector or Kahneman and Tversky's research in the behavioral sciences and make it so simple that it feels like you understood it already.
Like not very hard.
Right.
And Lewis, as well as almost anybody I can think of, is just a master at that, both in writing as well as in speaking.
So he's just as good on his podcast as he is with his books.
The other thing that Lewis does, which is great as a communicator is extremely good at asking questions.
Yeah.
He's really good about not imposing what he thinks on somebody else, but rather letting the other person share their wisdom and pulling that out of him.
He's a good perspective getter, really good perspective getter.
And so he's, that's why he gets the nod from me today.
Not surprising that you would pick somebody who asks good questions, given what you do in your research.
And the other notion that you started with I call accessibility, how you make complex ideas accessible to somebody.
And I like that you added so that they feel like they already knew it.
And I know exactly what you're talking about.
And really effective communicators do that.
All right, Nick, final question.
Question three.
What are the first three ingredients that go into a successful communication recipe?
I think the first big one is to take an interest.
A lot of good communication is about the mindset you take to it.
In a conversation.
This is particularly true, I think, if you're communicating in conversation is you've got to take an interest in the other person, in getting to know them.
People spend a lot of time focusing on specific words to use or specific sentences or phrases.
I think that will get you potentially over the hump to start something.
But what makes for a really good conversation is for you to be flexible in the moment.
If I take an interest in getting to know you, The stuff to talk about is just going to come up.
I'm going to think about it often if I start with that.
So I think, being in the right mindset, taking an interest in understand somebody, getting to know them, making sure they understand you, I think is critical.
If you're not interested, you're not going to teach them.
You're not going to reach them.
Second one is warmth.
We already talked about this a little bit.
Again, I think this is one thing that people underemphasize, because we're agents and this is suggested by the research.
That what we tend to think about when we think about ourselves is our competency.
I'm going to stand up and I'm going to give a speech.
Or I'm going to speak in class.
Or I'm going to have a conversation with you.
Or I'm going to write a gratitude letter to you.
What I'm worried about, I'm not concerned about whether I'm trustworthy or not.
I take that for granted with myself.
What I'm worried about is what the heck am I going to say?
That's what I'm really focused on.
But what other people focus on when they see us is, is this somebody trustworthy?
So warmth is a big one.
I think that's the second.
And then the third one I think is openness.
People who are willing to share things about themselves.
Be open about themselves.
That builds trust very quickly.
So a good way to really have a deep, meaningful conversation with somebody isn't just about asking them meaningful questions.
It's also about being willing to be open and share information.
Meaningful things about yourself, right?
The fact that I was not all that long ago you know, 20 years or so ago, when I started my career was a terrified introvert, at least when it came to standing up and speaking, sharing that story.
I lost 20 pounds before my first job interview.
I was so nervous.
I didn't sleep.
I didn't eat for weeks.
I was terrified by this, right?
Being willing to be open and share those meaningful stories allows other people to open up with you too.
And that's what makes for a really good conversation and communication.
Yeah, that reciprocity there is really important in building trust.
So the three I hear you talk about are mindset which drives interest, and the flexibility needed to engage.
To take an interest.
Right.
And then that warmth, rather than over-indexing on competency, and then finally, being open and divulge and share information.
Nick, this was fantastic.
You were so helpful in illuminating the good work that you're doing and helping all of us to feel better in our communication and the challenge that you bring to us, which is to take that step.
Initiate the conversation, be a little bit more social and you can see the benefits.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you so much, Matt.
Thank you for joining us for another episode of Think Fast, Talk Smart, the podcast.
To learn more about how to leverage communication for deeper relationships, listen to episode 133 with Charles Duhigg.
This episode was produced by Catherine Reed, Ryan Campos, and me, Matt Abrahams.
Our music is from Floyd Wonder, with special thanks to the Podium Podcast Company.
Please find us on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts.
Be sure to subscribe and rate us.
Also, follow us on LinkedIn, TikTok, and Instagram.
And check out faster smarterio for deep dive videos, English language learning content and our newsletter.
Please consider joining our Think Fast Talk Smart learning community at faster smarterio, slash learning.
You'll find video lessons, learning quests, discussion boards, my AI coach and book club opportunities.
Again, that's faster, smarterio slash learning to become part of our Think Fast Talk Smart learning community.
