Plays Well with Others: The Surprising Science Behind Why Everything You Know About Relationships Is (Mostly) Wrong

by Eric Barker

same way he has to all the others, referring the person to a clinic where they can be tested if they’re really concerned there’s a problem.

they aren’t better at remembering. They’re just bad at forgetting.

Over a lifetime there are many, many things it is good to forget.

We forget details, reconstruct things, or change the narrative so we’re the righteous hero or the innocent victim.

They’re likely correct, you’re likely wrong. But human relationships don’t work like that. Nobody wants to be wrong all the time—especially

We naturally expect reciprocity, shared blame, some balance, even if, strictly speaking, we don’t deserve it.

there’s a solid correlation between recruiters’ pre-interview and post-interview impressions of job applicants,

And, like mind reading, more time doesn’t noticeably change our opinions, it just increases our confidence.

The kicker? Our first impressions are often surprisingly accurate.

That means you’re actually more accurate when you think less.

Evolution has optimized our brains for speed or fuel efficiency over accuracy.

Studies show baby-faced people are more likely to triumph in legal cases where they’re accused of deliberate harm—but more likely to lose when the accusation is negligence.

Numerous studies have shown we have a bias against noticing our biases. Even if you explain them and point them out (as I’m doing right now), people will see them more often in others but become convinced that they themselves are objective.

We don’t test theories; we look for information to reinforce the position we’ve already decided on.

First impressions are generally accurate. But once they’re set, they’re extremely hard to change.

showing how getting some distance helps us be more rational and objective:

step back and imagine a situation from a more general

have better self-assessments and lower emotio...

beat the test, with the funniest effective method being the well-timed clenching of one’s anus.

when attempting to detect lies: being nice. We’ll call our new system The Friendly Journalist Method™.

Never be a “bad cop.” Be a “friendly journalist.” You have to get them to like you.

Everybody wants to be treated with respect.

Ask lots of open-ended questions that start with “What” or “How,”

If I lie and don’t get caught, I see what works. If I lie and get caught, I see what doesn’t work.

On the other hand, the vast majority of the time you don’t get feedback on whether someone was honest with you. So liars are always improving.

The Friendly Journalist Method™ doesn’t focus on making your lie detection skills better; it focuses on making their lie-telling skills worse.

The old polygraph model looked for emotional stress as a sign of lying.

That doesn’t work. What does work is applying “cognitive load”—mak...

And this model needs to be safely updated in real time as they are asked more questions.

What it will do is create a stark contrast between how a truth teller would respond and how a liar would respond.

Just like when your computer is chewing on a complex problem, a liar’s performance will slow down and get wonky.

Instead of asking yourself, Is this person lying?, ask yourself, Do th...

what if you asked them, “What’s your date of birth?” That’s an exceedingly easy question for someone telling the truth, but a liar’s likely going to have to pause to do some math.

Start off with expected questions. This is unintimidating and gets you info—but more important, it gets you a baseline

(I’d love to use a metaphor to convey the magnitude of that number,

remember hits and forget the misses,

being unaware of these momentary issues is preferable.

Empathic accuracy isn’t a universal good; it’s a double-edged sword.

“People often want to learn how to improve the accuracy of their social judgments . . . but it is unclear if seeing social reality is a healthy goal.”

T. S. Eliot said, “Humankind cannot bear very much reality.”

Income was highest among those who responded with the number eight.

Instead of focusing on not judging a book by its cover, it would be more useful to say we would be better off putting more effort into revising the judgments we will undoubtedly make.

He didn’t know how he did it, but he knew why.

And Hector was a friend “in deed” and “indeed.”

other mammals also have buddies.

But being friends means ignoring the strict accounting of favors.

Being in a hurry to repay a debt is often seen as an insult.

With buddies we act like costs and benefits don’t matter (or at least...

“very happy”? Those who have five or more friends they can talk about their troubles with.

Unsurprisingly, we have the most friends when we’re young (teens average about nine), and the number generally declines as we age.