Building an Accurate Model of Another Person

Full Reading

You Are Not the Model for Another Person

We all develop understandings of the people around us.

Over time, we learn how someone thinks, what they value, how they communicate, what tends to upset them, what makes them happy, how they respond under stress, what they believe, how they treat other people, what they are likely to do in particular situations, and countless other things.

In effect, we develop an internal model of the person.

The problem is not that we build these models.

The problem is that we often build them incorrectly.

If you want to understand another person accurately, you cannot build that person primarily from your own thoughts, experiences, expectations, categories, or assumptions.

You have to allow the person to teach you who they are.

And this begins with one of the most important principles in understanding another human being:

You cannot learn another person by using yourself as the model.

You Are Not the Model for Another Person

One of the most common mistakes we make when trying to understand other people is assuming that they think, feel, value, interpret, or respond approximately as we would.

We ask ourselves:

“What would I mean if I said that?”

“How would I feel if I did that?”

“Why would I behave that way?”

“What would make me make that decision?”

Those questions may tell us something about ourselves.

They do not necessarily tell us anything about the other person.

If you use yourself to understand another person, you may learn a great deal—about yourself.

That can be extremely valuable.

It simply does not tell you who the other person is.

Another person may have different motivations, values, experiences, emotional responses, defenses, priorities, beliefs, levels of empathy, levels of self-awareness, moral boundaries, and ways of interpreting the world.

If you use yourself to fill in those differences, you are no longer learning the other person.

You are constructing a version of them from yourself.

Your mind is evidence about you. It is not evidence about everyone else.

Full Reading

Stop Projecting Yourself Onto Other People

Projection can occur in more than one direction.

People can project qualities they value in themselves onto others.

They can also project their own fears, motives, weaknesses, suspicions, behaviors, or ways of thinking onto other people.

In either direction, the underlying problem is the same:

You are using information about yourself to fill in information about someone else.

If you are honest, you may expect honesty.

If you are loyal, you may assume loyalty.

If you have strong empathy, you may assume another person experiences another’s suffering similarly.

If you feel remorse when you hurt someone, you may assume another person’s apology represents the remorse you would experience.

If you would never intentionally harm someone you love, you may have difficulty accepting that another person could intentionally harm someone they claim to love.

If certain actions violate your conscience, you may assume those same actions would violate another person’s conscience.

But projection can work in the opposite direction as well.

If you would lie in a particular situation, you may assume another person is lying.

If you would become jealous, you may assume they are jealous.

If you would have an ulterior motive, you may search for theirs.

If you would retaliate after being hurt, you may assume they are planning retaliation.

If you struggle to trust people, you may interpret another person’s behavior through your own suspicion.

If you would behave selfishly under certain circumstances, you may assume selfishness explains their behavior too.

Neither positive nor negative projection tells you who the other person is.

Both tell you something about yourself.

This can create profound blind spots.

The reasoning may sound like:

“I would never do that to someone I loved.”

Therefore:

“There must be another explanation for what they did.”

Or it may sound like:

“I know what I would be doing if I were in their position.”

Therefore:

“That must be what they are doing.”

But your inability to imagine yourself doing something does not establish another person’s inability to do it.

And your ability to imagine yourself doing something does not establish that another person is doing it for the same reason.

Both conclusions use you as the reference point.

Never use your own conscience to predict the limits of someone else’s behavior.

And never use your own motives to assign motives to someone else.

Let another person’s conscience be demonstrated by their choices.

Let their empathy be demonstrated by their behavior.

Let their honesty be demonstrated by their honesty.

Let their loyalty be demonstrated by their loyalty.

Let their motives be learned from their words, behavior, patterns, and evidence.

Let their character be demonstrated by the person themselves.

Do not supply qualities, motives, intentions, or limitations for another person simply because they exist within you.

If you want to understand another person accurately, stop projecting and start observing.

Full Reading

Start With the Person, Not a Template

Every person is an individual.

This sounds obvious, but much of human misunderstanding begins when we forget it.

We meet someone and immediately begin connecting them to things we already know.

They remind us of someone.

They belong to a particular group.

They have a particular diagnosis.

They work in a certain profession.

They come from a particular family background.

They have certain beliefs.

They behave in a way we have encountered before.

Any of these things may provide useful information.

None of them is the person.

The moment we decide that we already understand someone because we recognize a few characteristics, we stop learning the individual and begin applying a template.

A useful internal model must therefore begin with:

Who is this particular person?

Not:

What are people like this usually like?

And not:

What would I be like if I were in their position?

Let the Person Supply the Information

If you want to know another person, pay attention to what the person actually gives you.

Listen to their words.

Observe their behavior.

Notice their choices.

Learn their values.

Watch what remains consistent across time.

Notice what changes across circumstances.

Observe how they treat people when they have nothing to gain.

Notice how they respond to disagreement.

Listen to how they describe their experiences.

Pay attention to what they repeatedly demonstrate.

And when information is missing and the relationship allows it, ask.

This sounds remarkably simple.

Yet people frequently do something entirely different.

They fill in the missing information themselves.

Full Reading

A Category Is Information, Not a Person

Categories can provide useful information.

A person’s profession, diagnosis, culture, religion, political affiliation, personality characteristics, education, family background, or other group memberships may tell us something relevant about them.

But categories must remain variables within the model.

They must never become substitutes for the person.

Knowing one category does not tell us how every other part of that person’s architecture is organized.

Human beings compartmentalize.

They contain contradictions.

They may apply a value strongly in one area and poorly in another.

They may be extraordinarily developed in one domain and immature in another.

They may behave differently in different environments.

They may possess characteristics that appear inconsistent with the categories to which they belong.

When the individual contradicts your expectations of the category, the individual is not required to change.

Your model is.

Full Reading

Observation Is Not Interpretation

One of the most important skills in understanding another person is learning to distinguish what you observed from what you concluded.

Consider:

“She stopped responding to my messages.”

That is an observation.

“She stopped responding because she doesn’t respect me.”

That is an interpretation.

The interpretation may eventually prove correct.

But the observation alone did not establish it.

Perhaps she is overwhelmed.

Perhaps she is angry.

Perhaps she needs distance.

Perhaps something happened in her life.

Perhaps she misunderstood something.

Perhaps she intends to end the relationship.

Perhaps she simply does not know what to say.

Until additional information becomes available, some of those variables remain unknown.

Accurate understanding requires the discipline to leave unknown information unknown.

Assumptions Contaminate the Model

An assumption occurs when we place information into the model without sufficient evidence that it belongs there.

Someone looks a certain way, so we assume what they believe.

Someone belongs to a particular group, so we assume how they behave.

Someone reminds us of a former partner, so we assume how the new person will eventually treat us.

Someone has a particular diagnosis, so we assume which characteristics they possess.

Someone fails to greet us, so we assume they are angry.

The problem becomes larger once the assumption enters the model.

Suppose I assume:

“She doesn’t like me.”

The next morning she walks past without saying hello.

Now I think:

“I knew it.”

But what actually happened?

I began with an assumption.

I interpreted an ambiguous event through that assumption.

Then I treated my interpretation as confirmation of the original assumption.

The process becomes:

Assumption → Interpretation → Apparent Confirmation → Increased Confidence

At no point did I necessarily discover what the other person was actually thinking.

I may have constructed the entire explanation myself.

Full Reading

Do Not Learn Someone Else Through Yourself

One of the easiest mistakes to make when interpreting another person is asking:

“What would it mean if I did that?”

That question can teach you something about yourself.

It does not necessarily teach you anything about them.

If I withdraw when I am angry, I may assume another person withdrew because they were angry.

But perhaps they withdraw when overwhelmed.

Perhaps they need time to think.

Perhaps they were exhausted.

Perhaps they were afraid.

Perhaps their reason has nothing whatsoever to do with mine.

Your internal architecture is not the universal reference model for humanity.

Another person’s behavior must be understood within their architecture.

If you want to know why someone did something, their own history, motivations, values, experiences, cognition, emotions, circumstances, and explanations matter more than what the same behavior would mean if you performed it.

Full Reading

When Your Own Goodness Makes Someone Harder to See

Using yourself as the model can become particularly consequential in close relationships.

Suppose you repeatedly encounter behavior from someone you love that makes no sense to you.

You may unconsciously keep translating that behavior through yourself:

“They couldn’t have meant to hurt me.”

“Surely they didn’t realize what they were doing.”

“They must feel terrible about this.”

“There has to be another explanation.”

“They wouldn’t knowingly do that to someone they love.”

But underneath those statements may be something very different:

I wouldn’t knowingly do that.

I would feel terrible.

I wouldn’t treat someone I loved that way.

Without realizing it, you may be using your own character to explain theirs.

This can continue for years.

Contradictory behavior arrives, but instead of allowing that behavior to change the model, you search for explanations that preserve the person you already believe them to be.

The result can be an internal model based partly upon who the person actually is and partly upon who you assumed they must be because of who you are.

That model can make harmful behavior extremely difficult to understand.

The behavior seems incomprehensible because you are trying to make it make sense inside the wrong person.

Full Reading

Familiarity Can Create False Confidence

Personal Experience Can Help—and Mislead

Experience gives us valuable information.

If you have encountered manipulation before, you may recognize it more quickly.

If you have lived with a particular behavioral pattern, you may become sensitive to early indications of it.

If you have studied something extensively, you may recognize variables other people overlook.

Use that knowledge.

But do not allow the previous person to become the template for the next person.

“This reminds me of something I have seen before” is information.

“Therefore, I know who this person is” is a conclusion requiring much more evidence.

The new person deserves their own model.

Learn the Difference Between Assumption and Deduction

Avoiding assumptions does not mean refusing to make judgments.

We have to make judgments constantly.

The difference is whether the conclusion is reasonably supported by the information available.

An assumption might say:

“This person looks a certain way, so I know what they believe.”

A reasonable deduction might say:

“I have repeatedly watched this person violate boundaries, humiliate others, retaliate when challenged, and behave aggressively. I do not believe becoming closely involved with this person would be healthy for me.”

You do not need complete knowledge of another human being before making a reasonable decision about your relationship with them.

But the scope of your conclusion should not exceed the scope of your evidence.

You may have enough evidence to conclude:

“I don’t trust this person with confidential information.”

That does not automatically establish:

“This person cannot be trusted about anything.”

You may know:

“This person treated me cruelly.”

That does not automatically establish:

“This person behaves cruelly toward everyone.”

You may know:

“I do not want a relationship with this person.”

That does not mean:

“I completely understand this person.”

Accuracy requires knowing how far the evidence allows you to go—and stopping there.

Full Reading

Look for Patterns Across Time

One event provides information.

Repeated behavior provides different information.

When building an accurate model of another person, pay attention to what persists.

Does the person’s behavior match their words?

Does a particular response occur repeatedly?

Does the behavior appear across different relationships?

Does it occur only under certain conditions?

What happens under stress?

What happens when the person feels safe?

How do they respond when they are wrong?

How do they behave when nobody is rewarding them?

How do they treat people who have less power?

What changes?

What remains?

Patterns across time generally tell us more than isolated moments.

But even patterns must be interpreted within the whole person.

Contradictions Are Information

When someone behaves in a way that contradicts your existing model, do not automatically discard the contradiction.

Investigate it.

Perhaps the behavior was unusual.

Perhaps the circumstances were unusual.

Perhaps the person has changed.

Perhaps two seemingly contradictory characteristics genuinely coexist.

Or perhaps your model was wrong.

People frequently protect their internal models by explaining away information that does not fit.

Accurate understanding requires the opposite.

When reliable information contradicts the model, examine the model.

The person does not exist to prove your interpretation correct.

Your interpretation exists to help you understand the person.

Full Reading

Listen to Understand

One of the most important sources of information about another human being is the person themselves.

That requires listening.

Many people do not listen primarily to understand. They listen while preparing their response.

While the other person is still speaking, they are constructing arguments, explanations, comparisons, defenses, advice, or conclusions.

Part of their attention has already left the speaker.

Effective listening requires allowing the person’s information to arrive before deciding what it means.

And when someone tells you:

“That isn’t what I meant.”

that is additional information.

Do not defend your interpretation against the person whose thoughts you were supposedly attempting to understand.

Listen again.

Ask.

Clarify.

Update.

Full Reading

When the Model Changes

When the Model Finally Changes

Sometimes enough information accumulates that an old model can no longer survive.

A person finally realizes:

“This person was not who I thought they were.”

That realization can be deeply confronting, particularly when the relationship has lasted for years.

Events that previously seemed confusing may suddenly make sense.

Old conversations may look different.

Repeated behaviors that once appeared disconnected may become recognizable as patterns.

Explanations once accepted may no longer seem credible.

The past itself has not changed.

The model through which the past is being understood has changed.

This can require a substantial psychological adjustment.

The person is not merely learning something new about someone else.

They may be reconstructing years of understanding through a more accurate model.

Do Not Turn New Understanding Into Old Self-Blame

When an inaccurate model finally changes, people often look backward and attack themselves.

“How could I have been so stupid?”

“How did I not see it?”

“Why did I believe that?”

“It was right in front of me.”

But there is a problem with this retrospective judgment.

You are looking at the past with information and understanding you possess now.

Once you understand the pattern, earlier events can appear obvious because you are interpreting them through the corrected model.

They may not have been obvious from the model you possessed at the time.

There is a meaningful difference between knowing better and deliberately ignoring what you know, and genuinely not yet understanding what you are seeing.

If you did not know how to distinguish another person’s architecture from your own, you cannot go backward and pretend that you possessed that understanding all along.

The productive response is not:

“I was stupid.”

It is:

“I understand something now that I did not understand then.”

Then use it.

Learn from it.

Build differently next time.

Recognition Is Not Yet Acceptance

Understanding something intellectually does not mean it has been fully accepted.

A person may say:

“I know they are different from me.”

and then immediately return to:

“But surely they couldn’t have meant that.”

“Surely they must feel bad.”

“Surely they wouldn’t knowingly do that.”

The person has understood the distinction conceptually but is still interpreting the other person through themselves.

Acceptance requires something deeper:

They are not me.

Their conscience is not necessarily mine.

Their empathy is not necessarily mine.

Their motivations are not mine.

Their emotional responses are not mine.

Their boundaries are not mine.

Their values are not automatically mine.

Their capacity for remorse is not mine.

Their way of loving is not necessarily mine.

Their limitations are not mine.

Their choices belong to them.

You do not have to be able to imagine yourself doing something in order to accept that another person did it.

You do not have to make their behavior psychologically possible for you before it can be psychologically possible for them.

Sometimes acceptance is simply allowing the evidence another person has provided to outweigh the person you constructed in your own mind.

Full Reading

Keep Updating Your Model

Your Model Must Remain Correctable

An accurate internal model of another person is never protected from new evidence.

As you learn more, you update it.

Some conclusions become stronger.

Others weaken.

Some disappear entirely.

New variables emerge.

Old interpretations change.

Sometimes you discover that something you believed about someone for years was incorrect.

Correct it.

There is no intellectual victory in preserving an inaccurate model simply because you were emotionally invested in being right.

The objective is not to prove that your interpretation was correct.

The objective is to understand the person accurately.

Full Reading

Practical Exercise: Build the Model From Evidence

Choose one person you want to understand more accurately.

This can be a partner, family member, friend, coworker, or anyone with whom you regularly interact.

The purpose of this exercise is not to diagnose the person, judge them, or decide whether they are good or bad.

The purpose is to practice building your understanding from information the person has actually provided rather than information supplied by your own mind.

Step 1: Write Down What You Know

Begin with several things you believe you know about the person.

For example:

“She becomes quiet during conflict.”

“He is extremely generous with his family.”

“She rarely asks for help.”

“He becomes defensive when someone corrects him.”

“She checks on people when she knows they are struggling.”

Now examine each statement.

Ask:

How do I know this?

What did I actually observe?

Did the person tell me?

Have I seen the behavior repeatedly?

Did someone else tell me?

Or did I infer it?

Separate direct information from interpretation.

Step 2: Separate Observation From Explanation

Take one behavior you have observed.

Write only what happened.

For example:

Observation:

“He stopped talking and left the room during an argument.”

Now write your interpretation:

Interpretation:

“He left because he didn’t care what I had to say.”

Then stop.

Ask yourself:

Do I actually know that?

Perhaps you do.

Perhaps previous conversations or repeated behavior support that conclusion.

But perhaps you do not.

Other possibilities might include:

“He was angry.”

“He was overwhelmed.”

“He was afraid he would say something harmful.”

“He wanted to avoid the conversation.”

“He needed time to think.”

“He was attempting to punish me with silence.”

“He believed continuing the conversation would make things worse.”

Do not select an explanation merely because you can imagine one.

Mark the motivation:

Unknown

until sufficient evidence allows you to determine more.

Step 3: Find Yourself in the Model

Now ask one of the most important questions in this exercise:

What have I put into this person’s model that actually came from me?

Look particularly at statements such as:

“I know they would never…”

“Surely they must feel…”

“Anyone would…”

“If they really loved me, they would…”

“If I did that, it would mean…”

“I know what they were thinking.”

Now translate each statement back to its actual source.

For example:

“I would feel terrible if I did that.”

That is information about you.

It does not establish:

“They feel terrible about doing it.”

You have now learned something useful.

You simply learned it about the wrong person for the question you were trying to answer.

Step 4: Identify Your Assumptions

Look through your model for information you cannot trace to evidence.

Ask:

Did the person demonstrate this, or did I supply it?

Perhaps you believe:

“They are loyal.”

Why?

“They would never intentionally hurt someone.”

How do you know?

“They don’t care about what other people think.”

Did they tell you that? Have their choices demonstrated it consistently? Or is that your interpretation?

“They are confident.”

What observable information supports that conclusion?

Do not be afraid to replace an assumption with:

Unknown

Unknown is not a failure.

An acknowledged unknown is more accurate than an invented certainty.

Step 5: Look for Repetition

Now examine behavior across time.

What happens repeatedly?

What remains consistent?

What changes?

Does the person’s behavior match their words?

How do they respond when they are frustrated?

How do they respond when they are wrong?

How do they treat people when they want something?

How do they treat people when they have nothing to gain?

How do they behave when they have power?

How do they behave when they do not?

What happens during conflict?

What happens after conflict?

One event can matter.

Repeated patterns usually provide more information.

Step 6: Look for Contradictions

Now deliberately search for information that does not fit your current model.

If you believe the person is selfish, when have they behaved generously?

If you believe they are generous, when have they behaved selfishly?

If you believe they avoid confrontation, when have they confronted something directly?

If you believe they are honest, when have they been dishonest?

Do not search for contradictions merely to disprove your model.

Search for them because a whole person contains more information than the characteristics that first caught your attention.

Ask:

Can my current model account for both?

If not, the model needs more information.

Step 7: Ask Instead of Filling the Blank

When appropriate, take something you do not understand and ask the person.

Instead of:

“You did that because you were angry with me.”

try:

“What was happening for you when you did that?”

Then listen.

Do not ask the question merely to obtain an opportunity to tell them why their answer is wrong.

Let their answer become data.

You may eventually determine that someone’s explanation does not align with their repeated behavior.

That is also information.

But first, allow them to provide their own explanation.

Step 8: Make Only the Deduction the Evidence Supports

Now ask:

What can I reasonably conclude from the information I actually have?

Perhaps the evidence supports:

“This person repeatedly violates my boundaries.”

It may not support:

“This person violates everyone’s boundaries.”

Perhaps it supports:

“I do not feel emotionally safe discussing certain things with this person.”

It may not support:

“This person is emotionally unsafe in every relationship.”

Perhaps it supports:

“I don’t want this person in my life.”

You do not need a diagnosis, complete psychological explanation, or total understanding of the person’s character to make that decision.

Make the conclusion as large as the evidence allows.

No larger.

Step 9: Build the Model

Now organize what you have learned into four categories:

Observed

What have I directly seen or heard?

Supported

What conclusions are reasonably supported by repeated evidence?

Possible

What interpretations might explain what I have observed but are not yet established?

Unknown

What do I simply not know?

That last category matters.

A good model contains uncertainty.

Step 10: Keep the Model Open

Finally, remind yourself:

This model is not the person.

It is your current understanding of the person based upon the information available to you.

New information may strengthen it.

New information may complicate it.

New information may prove part of it wrong.

Let that happen.

The purpose of building a model is not to become certain.

The purpose is to become more accurate.

And periodically ask yourself the question that keeps the entire process honest:

Am I still learning this person—or have I started defending the person I already decided they were?

Full Reading

The Person Outranks Your Model of the Person

This may be the most important principle of all:

The person outranks your model of the person.

Your model is a representation.

They are the human being.

Your assumptions are not their motives.

Your previous experiences are not their history.

Your categories are not their personality.

Your interpretation is not automatically their intention.

Your conscience is not their conscience.

Your empathy is not their empathy.

Your boundaries are not their boundaries.

Your expectations are not their obligations.

And your understanding of someone must remain responsive to what that person actually demonstrates.

Learn to observe.

Learn to listen.

Learn to ask.

Learn to distinguish evidence from interpretation.

Learn to leave unknown variables unknown.

Learn to make deductions without turning them into absolutes.

Learn to recognize patterns without allowing those patterns to erase individuality.

Learn not to supply another person with qualities, motives, thoughts, feelings, or intentions simply because they exist within you.

And when new information arrives, be willing to change your mind.

If you want to learn another person, you cannot simply look inside yourself and decide who they are.

You have to let them show you.

Master Reading Index

Explore the Sections

Select any reading below to open it.

Key Takeaways

Key Principles at a Glance

A more accurate model begins with better questions. The complete readings are available in each section.

Observe

Start with what the person actually gives you.

Do Not Project

Your mind is evidence about you, not about everyone else.

Avoid Assumptions

Leave unknown information unknown.

Consider Context

Look at the whole picture, not just a few variables.

Look for Patterns

Pay attention to what persists across time and situations.

Stay Open

Update your model as new information becomes available.

The Governing Distinctions

Observation ≠ Interpretation
Interpretation ≠ Established Motive
Assumption ≠ Evidence
Category ≠ Person
Similarity ≠ Identity
Your motives ≠ Their motives
Your conscience ≠ Their conscience
Your emotional response ≠ Their emotional response
A reasonable deduction ≠ complete understanding
A model ≠ the person

The person outranks your model of the person.

Building an AccurateModel of Another Person

See the Person. Not a Projection.

Key Principles at a Glance

Observe

Do Not Project

Avoid Assumptions

Consider Context

Look for Patterns

Stay Open

Explore the Sections

1. You Are Not the Model for Another Person

2. Stop Projecting Yourself Onto Other People

3. Start With the Person, Not a Template

4. A Category Is Information, Not a Person

5. Observation Is Not Interpretation

6. Do Not Learn Someone Else Through Yourself

7. When Your Own Goodness Makes Someone Harder to See

8. Familiarity Can Create False Confidence

9. Look for Patterns Across Time

10. Listen to Understand

11. When the Model Changes

12. Keep Updating Your Model

13. A Practical Exercise

The Person Outranks Your Model of the Person

Building an Accurate
Model of Another Person