The Unsettling Effects of Set

Summary: An inability to step outside of one's own head may be behind e-mail miscommunication, according to recent research

Psychologist Justin Kruger, PhD, has seen plenty of e-mails gone awry. Now, Kruger and his colleague Nicholas Epley, PhD, of the University of Chicago, have published research that helps explain why these electronic misunderstandings occur so frequently. In a study in the December Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 89, No. 5, pages 925–936), they find that people overestimate both their ability to convey their intended tone–be it sarcastic, serious or funny–when they send an e-mail, as well as their ability to correctly interpret the tone of messages others send to them.

The reason for this communication disconnect, the researchers find, is egocentrism–the well-established social psychological phenomenon whereby people have a difficult time detaching themselves from their own perspectives and understanding how other people will interpret them.
--------------

Egocentrism? Well, yes, in the technical sense used by psychologists. But not a good choice of terms in a non-technical report. Too susceptible to misinterpretation. Open to other interpretations by people who do not share the perspective and understanding of psychologists. I suppose psychologists “have a difficult time detaching themselves from their own perspectives and understanding how other people will interpret them. “

Is egocentrism an explanation for miscommunication? Not really. It is just another name for the phenomenon. Psychology works just like medicine. Give something an impressive name and it sounds like you know what you are talking about.

I’ll use a simpler name: psychological set. And a more familiar example: proofreading.

(Vulcan logic here. Seek the superset. Find sibling classes. See if they have useful ideas for your problem.)

When you write for publication, you know what you intended to say. You will leave out words, misspell, write the wrong word, and omit essential punctuation. You will also use pronouns with ambiguous reference and phrases that can easily be misread.

You will find that you can read over what you wrote and see none of these defects. Psychologists will attribute this effect to psychological set or expectancy. If you know what to expect, you often see what you expect rather than what is there.

Now take another example, this from the beginning of the story: “An inability to step outside of one's own head…” Inability. Can’t do it. This language expresses an expectancy of helplessness. The an ineffective psychological set. Makes me think of “learned helplessness,” once a popular topic in psychological research.

Proofreading has long been a problem. But nobody talks about an inability to proofread. Instead, people found standard solutions for breaking set.

Here are a few set-breakers (courtesy of Vulcan logic) suggested by proofreading:

Leave it for a few days so it will be newer to you. Read it aloud. Read it word for word while ignoring the meaning. Use a text-to-speech program to read it aloud while you look at the text. Have someone else read it and mention what they find confusing. Call up someone on your head team and read it in their style. If you are trying to be funny, call up the Vulcan or the Canter. See how they would interpret it. (The Thinkerer uses these mythical characters to help people break out of an ineffective set and choose another set that may be more appropriate.)

The researchers tested one such method and found it useful. The researchers know the difference between inability and difficulty. The difficult calls for a problem-solving set. At least for problem-solvers.