Here’s a fact about human nature that just isn’t appreciated enough. Remembering this while you work will help you make your clients fall in love with you:
One of the flaws of human nature is that humans vastly overestimate how good they are at logic, concluding they come to the correct conclusions far more often than they actually do.
Let’s unpack that.
In short, everyone seems to think they’re right, all the time. The truly humble are hard to find and when you do find them, they are often not in positions of power like being your boss or client. So, the people you’re likely to interact with are already selected as least likely to be humble.
But it’s more than that. Even the most logical, rational, clear-thinking people, even they believe they are even more logical, even more rational, even more clear-thinking than they actually are. And those who define themselves as the logical types—like software developers—fall into this category front and center. Not all, of course, there are exceptions.
Let me relay a story of what happened yesterday.
I was talking to one of the partners of a company I work with. I told him that if he ever thinks I’m making a bad decision, he should tell me clearly and directly. He’s a soft-spoken software developer who, I had just realized, never states it directly when he disagrees with people but instead, he always just lays out lots of facts.
He responded to my request by stating (a slight paraphrase from memory) “I don’t need to tell anyone that they’re wrong because instead I always just present the logical argument, and the logic speaks for itself.”
Here is how I responded to him, almost verbatim from memory, making the same argument that I’m making in this piece now (and to make it even stronger, I put it into the meeting notes):
Every single human being truly thinks he has logic on their side! So, it is seldom one side who is being logical. Rather, what is almost always the case is one participant may be better at logic than the other participant; one participant may have different assumptions than the other participant; one participant may have better knowledge/facts than the other side; one participant may have more or less accurate models of human behavior than the other participant; each participant may have a different communication style (certain words may imply certain things to one person but not to someone else, for example); and so forth.
I then told him that my action-item based on this was the following: going forward, whenever he makes a point to me about any topic, even if it’s not a disagreement, then in my mind I will amp up the intensity—pretend what he was saying stronger and more forceful words than he is using—to get at any hesitations he may have in mind and may be subtly implying. He agreed with that action item and (of course!) didn’t volunteer to change his communication style because few humans have enough of the introspection and the discipline needed to be able to do that.
So, a few things are notable about this exchange:
First, note that I didn’t ask him to change his behavior, although I offered to change my behavior. That may be a good lesson for another chapter, asking bosses or clients to change their behavior is very hard to do right, and usually, it’s best if it’s avoided. I did also point out that I believe all communication is 50/50: the responsibility of the speaker to say what he wants to in a way most likely to be understood by the listener, and the responsibility of the listener to interpret what was said in the way most likely to be intended by the speaker. Articulating that general principle was my way of suggesting a change without aggressively telling my boss or client he should change.
Second, note that this made it into the meeting notes, including the 50/50 points. I then proactively shared with the other partners. In 6 months, everyone will have forgotten the “he said/she said” but when they go look it up, my retelling will be the only one.
Third, look at the list of reasons I gave this partner why logic doesn’t always win. Even when someone has great logic, there are other factors—faulty assumptions, faulty knowledge, or faulty models of human behavior—that lead to different conclusions.
Fourth, and what I purposefully didn’t say, is that even if you think you’re the most logical one, you’re also deeply influenced by your emotions. We use logic in service of emotions, not the other way around. That’s part of the human condition. Thinking we’re logical first is just a narrative we tell ourselves and like any other self-narrative, it’s just a story.
