The Sentence
Every sentence here is one of mine, said out loud or thought loudly enough to count, about what was going on inside somebody else’s head. Underneath each clause is what I actually had at the time, usually a glance, a text or nothing whatsoever, together with the study that put the same claim to a room of people and measured it. The sentences about people I love are the ones I’d still defend if you asked me about them today.
I wrote each of these out of the kind of thing I catch myself thinking often enough to recognise, which is why no café, carriage or third slide in them belongs to a day I could name.
CLAIM 1 OF 6 · 3 CLAUSES · 2 MEASURED
Everybody in that café had clocked the chair, the two women by the window were still thinking about it when the food came and he must have spent the whole hour wishing we’d gone somewhere else.
Move the tracing paper onto any clause and I’ll put up what I actually had when I said it, with the study that measured the same claim underneath.
Everybody in that café had clocked the chair,
One woman looked up while we were getting the chair past her table, and that single glance is the entire count behind the word everybody.
over-reads other minds they are watching me, in appearance. Gilovich, Medvec & Savitsky 2000, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: 46% predicted against 23% measured, n = 15, replicated directly.
THE SENTENCE THE FIGURES CAME FROM
The mean estimate made by the targets in this study (48%) was virtually identical to that made by the targets in the previous study who were wearing an embarrassing T-shirt (46%). The actual accuracy of the observers, in contrast, was dramatically different (8% vs. 23% in the present and previous studies, respectively).
Study 1, the Barry Manilow T-shirt. The running text of Study 1 puts both figures in Figure 1 alone, so the quote comes from footnote 3 of Study 2, where 46% is the Study 1 estimate and 23% the Study 1 observer accuracy. The 48% and 8% in the same footnote belong to Study 2. Fifteen of the 109 participants were targets, 64 were observers and 30 were controls. Anyone re-checking Study 1 meets 23% a second time in its own results section, where the figure names the mean discrepancy between each target's estimate and the accuracy of the observers in that session, a quantity that coincides with observer accuracy here only because the average estimate came to exactly twice it.
the two women by the window were still thinking about it when the food came
Nobody in that café was ever asked what they were thinking about, so the ten minutes and the second woman are both mine.
NO STUDY BEHIND THIS SITE MEASURED THIS CLAUSE
and he must have spent the whole hour wishing we’d gone somewhere else.
I never asked him, and his face across the table is the whole of my evidence, a face I looked at for a fraction of the time I gave the rest of the room.
under-reads other minds they are suffering more than they say, in illness and disability. Lacey, Fagerlin, Loewenstein, Smith, Riis & Ubel 2008, Health Psychology: 54.4 of 100 predicted against 72.3 of 100 measured, n = 571, a single study so far.
THE SENTENCE THE FIGURES CAME FROM
However, nonpatients’ ratings for the lung disease scenario (M = 54.4, SD = 23.9) were significantly lower than the self-reported QoL for the lung disease group as a whole, t(1,087) = 10.20, p < .001, and for the 115 lung disease patients who indicated that their own health condition was similar to the lung scenario (M = 72.3, SD = 21.0), t(569) = 7.32, p < .001.
456 nonpatients rated a scenario describing a lung condition on the same 0 to 100 scale every participant used for their own quality of life, anchored at 0 for a quality of life no better than death and 100 for an ideal one. The 72.3 is what the 115 lung disease patients who judged their own condition similar to that scenario reported about themselves, and the 569 degrees of freedom are those two groups together, which is where n comes from. What the paper sets out to compare is patients' and nonpatients' ratings and rankings of the patients' own disease, which is the comparison the stored pair makes for the lung group. Anyone re-checking 54.4 meets it first as the mean age of the patients in the same paper, 54.4 years against the nonpatients' 49.3, a collision of the same kind the spotlight row's note describes. The scenario is written in the second person and describes becoming short of breath after walking briskly for two blocks or up one flight of stairs, so the 54.4 stored here is a rating of life under a described condition. Riis and colleagues found the same divergence in 2005 by sampling dialysis patients' mood as they lived it.
CLAIM 2 OF 6 · 3 CLAUSES · 3 MEASURED
I’d have given up the seat before the second stop, I’d have carried the bags up the stairs as well and that’s more than anybody else in that carriage was ever going to do.
Move the tracing paper onto any clause and I’ll put up what I actually had when I said it, with the study that measured the same claim underneath.
I’d have given up the seat before the second stop,
Nobody asked me for the seat, so what I have is a forecast about myself, made afterwards, on an occasion that never came.
over-rates the self they are worse than I am, in morality. Epley & Dunning 2000, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: 83% predicted against 43% measured, n = 251, a single study so far.
THE SENTENCE THE FIGURES CAME FROM
Despite the fact that 83% of students predicted they would buy at least one daffodil, only 43% actually did so.
Study 1, Daffodil Days at Cornell. The same students predicted that 56% of their peers would buy one, which came far closer to the 43% than their reading of themselves did. The 43% is self-reported purchase, collected on a second questionnaire attached to a course examination three days after the four-day charity drive ended, and no sales record was consulted.
I’d have carried the bags up the stairs as well
This is a second forecast about myself, and I have never yet stood at the bottom of a set of stairs with somebody waiting at the top of them.
over-rates the self they are worse than I am, in morality. Epley & Dunning 2000, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: 84% predicted against 61% measured, n = 97, a single study so far.
THE SENTENCE THE FIGURES CAME FROM
In fact, the vast majority predicted they would cooperate (84%) but thought only a moderate majority of their peers would do likewise (M = 64%) … In actuality only 61% chose to cooperate
Study 2, "A Saint's Dilemma", a two-player prisoners' dilemma played for money. The design brief called this Study 4, which in the paper is a different experiment about giving up time. Of the 97 participants, 51 predicted and 46 played.
and that’s more than anybody else in that carriage was ever going to do.
I gave the carriage about four seconds of quiet before settling that, and I asked nobody in it for anything.
under-reads other minds they are worse than I am, in morality. Flynn & Lake 2008, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: 20.5 strangers predicted against 10.5 strangers measured, on a metric where the larger figure means less of what the claim is about, n = 23, a single study so far.
THE SENTENCE THE FIGURES CAME FROM
participants overestimated the number of people they thought they would have to approach by approximately twice the number of people they actually needed to approach to complete the task (predicted: M = 20.5, SD = 12.3; actual: M = 10.5, SD = 3.9)
Study 1. Participants asked strangers on campus to fill in a questionnaire until five agreed, and the 23 who first predicted how many they would have to ask expected twice the number they needed. Quote taken from the author manuscript in Cornell eCommons, whose pagination differs from the published article.
CLAIM 3 OF 6 · 3 CLAUSES · 3 MEASURED
They could all see I was floundering by the third slide, the man in the back row had decided what I was worth about a minute in and the two who came up afterwards were being polite about it.
Move the tracing paper onto any clause and I’ll put up what I actually had when I said it, with the study that measured the same claim underneath.
They could all see I was floundering by the third slide,
Nobody in that room was asked about it, and whatever there was to hear in that third slide was audible mostly from inside my own head.
over-reads other minds they are watching me, in appearance. Gilovich, Savitsky & Medvec 1998, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: 4.91 observers of 10 predicted against 3.56 observers of 10 measured, n = 15, replicated directly.
THE SENTENCE THE FIGURES CAME FROM
Tasters estimated that an average of 4.91 observers would correctly identify the foul-tasting drinks, which was significantly higher than the average of 3.56 observers who actually did make correct identifications on these trials, t(14) = 3.63, p < .005.
Study 2a. Fifteen tasters sampled 15 cups, 5 of them containing vinegar brine, while trying to keep a neutral face for a videotape later shown to 10 observers. The figures count observers out of 10, against a chance rate of 3.33. Study 2b repeated the procedure with a yoked partner.
the man in the back row had decided what I was worth about a minute in
I never spoke to him, and I was reading a face at the far end of a long room while I was reading my own notes.
under-reads other minds they are judging me, in appearance. Savitsky, Epley & Gilovich 2001, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: 55 of 100 predicted against 62.5 of 100 measured, n = 120, a single study so far.
THE SENTENCE THE FIGURES CAME FROM
targets expected to be judged more harshly (M = 55.0) than they actually were (M = 62.5)
Study 4. Each target read a computer-generated introduction of themselves that mentioned occasional difficulties with bedwetting, then predicted the impression an observer would form on a 101-point scale where 50 is the average student. The 120 participants worked in target and observer pairs. What the scale measured is a global favourability impression formed after an embarrassing disclosure, and the row is filed under appearance only because the taxonomy has no domain for self-presentation.
and the two who came up afterwards were being polite about it.
Both of them told me to my face that it had been useful, and I discounted that on the spot for no reason I could name.
under-reads other minds they dislike me, in intimacy. Boothby, Cooney, Sandstrom & Clark 2018, Psychological Science: 5.17 of 7 predicted against 5.82 of 7 measured, n = 34, replicated directly.
THE SENTENCE THE FIGURES CAME FROM
with participants reporting liking their conversation partner (actual: M = 5.82, 95% CI = [5.49, 6.14]) significantly more than they perceived their conversation partner to like them (perceived: M = 5.17, 95% CI = [4.85, 5.49])
Study 1a, strangers paired for a getting-acquainted conversation. Because liking given and liking received are the same quantity across a set of dyads, the 5.82 is the measured half. Both figures are predicted marginal means from a linear mixed model taking rating type as its fixed effect, with an intercept for each participant and each dyad, a note the paper attaches to every mean it reports. Thirty-six people took part and one dyad was excluded as close friends. Studies 3 and 5 found the gap again in conversations running from 2 to 45 minutes and among suite mates followed across an academic year. Study 4 is a weaker parallel, since it operationalised liking as how interesting partners found each other on a 5-point scale at public workshops on talking to strangers.
CLAIM 4 OF 6 · 3 CLAUSES · 1 MEASURED
The people on the other side of this would be quite happy to watch somebody get hurt over it, or a good third of them would, and there’s no version of the conversation where they’d hear me out.
Move the tracing paper onto any clause and I’ll put up what I actually had when I said it, with the study that measured the same claim underneath.
The people on the other side of this would be quite happy to watch somebody get hurt over it,
What I have is a feed that selects for the worst thing anybody on that side said all week, and I have never had this conversation with one of them in a room.
over-reads other minds they are worse than I am, in politics. Mernyk, Pink, Druckman & Willer 2022, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 35.5 of 100 predicted against 10.3 of 100 measured, n = 702, a single study so far.
THE SENTENCE THE FIGURES CAME FROM
As shown in Fig. 1, average SPV was approximately 10 on a 100-point scale among both Democrats (M = 9.3, SD = 17.2) and Republicans (M = 10.3, SD = 21.7). Importantly, 4.5% of Democrats and 9.8% of Republicans responses to the SPV composite fell above the midpoint of the scale, indicating a small—yet concerning—proportion of participants supporting violence at a relatively high level. We next tested whether partisans’ metaperceptions of out-partisans’ support for violence were accurate. Democrats’ estimates of Republicans’ SPV (M = 35.5, SD = 32.2) significantly exceeded actual levels of support for violence among Republicans (t[620] = 12.2, P < 0.001), constituting a 245% overestimate.
Study 1, a preregistered nationally representative survey run in October 2020. SPV is support for partisan violence, measured on four slider items from 0 to 100. The quote runs contiguously from the sentence introducing Figure 1 to the end of the accuracy test, with nothing elided, so the stored pair spans the four sentences the paper needs to reach it. Republicans made the mirror error, putting Democrats at 37.1 against an actual 9.3.
or a good third of them would,
The third came from nowhere I can point to, and I said it because a fraction sounded more careful than all of them.
NO STUDY BEHIND THIS SITE MEASURED THIS CLAUSE
and there’s no version of the conversation where they’d hear me out.
The conversation this rules out is one I have never attempted, and I decided how it would go without ever having had it.
NO STUDY BEHIND THIS SITE MEASURED THIS CLAUSE
CLAIM 5 OF 6 · 4 CLAUSES · 2 MEASURED
She’s fine, she’s always been the steady one, if anything had actually gone wrong I’d have heard about it by now and anyway she can tell when I’m holding something back.
Move the tracing paper onto any clause and I’ll put up what I actually had when I said it, with the study that measured the same claim underneath.
She’s fine,
What I had was two texts about something else, a photograph of a dog and no answer to a question I had not asked.
under-reads other minds they are coping better than they are, in intimacy. Jordan, Monin, Dweck, Lovett, John & Gross 2011, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin: 54% predicted against 68% measured, n = 225, replicated directly.
THE SENTENCE THE FIGURES CAME FROM
at the other university, the figures for estimated and actual (reported) prevalence were 54% and 68% for feeling depressed, 42% and 62% for feeling lonely, 41% and 59% for crying, and 82% and 92% for feeling overwhelmed.
Pilot study, the East Coast sample of 225 introductory psychology students. The stored pair is the first item, feeling really depressed for a day. The same procedure run on 122 students at a West Coast university gave 52% estimated against 78% reported, and Studies 1B and 3 found the same shortfall on a different set of experiences.
she’s always been the steady one,
The steadiness is years of my own impression of her, never once put to her, and it may be no more than the part she shows me.
NO STUDY BEHIND THIS SITE MEASURED THIS CLAUSE
if anything had actually gone wrong I’d have heard about it by now
The whole of the reasoning is that I am the person she would have to tell, and I have never asked her a direct question about any of it.
NO STUDY BEHIND THIS SITE MEASURED THIS CLAUSE
and anyway she can tell when I’m holding something back.
She has told me twice that she cannot, and I have gone on believing it anyway.
over-reads other minds they are watching me, in morality. Gilovich, Savitsky & Medvec 1998, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: 48.8% predicted against 25.6% measured, n = 39, replicated directly.
THE SENTENCE THE FIGURES CAME FROM
Across the eight sessions, liars estimated that an average of 48.8% of the participants would correctly peg them as the liar when, in fact, only 25.6% did so—an accuracy rate indistinguishable from chance.
Study 1a, a round-robin lie detection game. Analyses were run at the level of the eight sessions rather than the individual. Studies 1b and 1c repeated the procedure to rule out alternative readings.
CLAIM 6 OF 6 · 3 CLAUSES · 2 MEASURED
I’d have caught that bug in review, I can tell you now which of the two designs is the better one and anybody who’d read the same papers I have would land exactly where I’ve landed.
Move the tracing paper onto any clause and I’ll put up what I actually had when I said it, with the study that measured the same claim underneath.
I’d have caught that bug in review,
I was looking at it with the fix already open beside it, which is the condition under which anything looks obvious.
over-rates the self they are worse than I am, in competence. Epley, Keysar, Van Boven & Gilovich 2004, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: 85% predicted against 50% measured, n = 59, a single study so far.
THE SENTENCE THE FIGURES CAME FROM
85% of students in the condition informed of the drinks’ identities (N = 27) believed they could have correctly distinguished between the drinks even if they had not been informed—a figure that differed substantially from the 50% accuracy rate actually obtained from a sample of uninformed participants (N = 32)
Pilot test reported inside Study 3, a Coke and Pepsi taste test. Students told which cup was which believed the difference would have been obvious to them anyway, and the 50% is the rate uninformed tasters actually managed. The n combines the 27 informed students with the 32 uninformed ones, which is to say the two figures come from two different samples rather than from a calibration measured within the same people.
I can tell you now which of the two designs is the better one
The rating here is mine, of my own judgement, on a question nobody has ever measured me on.
over-rates the self they are worse than I am, in competence. Kruger & Dunning 1999, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: 62 of 100 predicted against 12 of 100 measured, n = 11, contested in the literature.
THE SENTENCE THE FIGURES CAME FROM
Although these individuals scored at the 12th percentile on average, they nevertheless believed that their general logical reasoning ability fell at the 68th percentile and their score on the test fell at the 62nd percentile.
Study 2, logical reasoning. The figures describe the 11 participants in the bottom quartile of the 45 tested. Both are percentile ranks exactly as printed, positions in a distribution rather than points on a rating scale, and they are stored under scale-0-100 because the unit enum has no percentile key. Marked contested because the reading of the pattern is disputed: Krueger and Mueller argued in 2002 that regression to the mean and the better-than-average effect account for it, and later reanalyses have pressed the same case. Kruger and Dunning replied in the same issue, 10.1037/0022-3514.82.2.189, granting that Krueger and Mueller replicated the basic findings and interpreted them differently.
and anybody who’d read the same papers I have would land exactly where I’ve landed.
Nothing behind this site tested whether people agree as widely as they assume, and my own sense of how obvious the reading is stands in for the measurement.
NO STUDY BEHIND THIS SITE MEASURED THIS CLAUSE
13 GAPS ON THIS SHEET OF 23 IN THE CORPUS · 6 CLAUSES WITH NOTHING BEHIND THEM · 7 SINGLE-SOURCE · 1 CONTESTED · 6 MEASURED ONE SIDE ONLY, NOT CITABLE HERE