There was a very talented designer who gave up his design work and switched to technical work. He said that the same work he designed, some people said it was a stroke of God, and it was highly rated. But some people say that the work is not very good!
He knows that other people's evaluations are subjective. In contrast, when doing technical work, the evaluation will be more objective. His family felt that it was a pity that he had studied painting for more than ten years and did not do design work.
Fortunately, after hard work, he has made achievements in technology. Not long ago, he interned at a world-renowned research institute, and after the guidance of his mentor, he was able to publish professional papers at the top meetings of the industry. It made his family happy for him.
After watching the same movie together, the couple may also have different evaluations. Maybe one person loves the movie very much and the other person hates it to the bone. It was as if they weren't watching the same movie.
Similarly, when two people look at the same newspaper, two people focus on completely different content; in a company meeting, some people will feel that the same business opportunity is a great opportunity, and some people will feel that it is not worth doing. For the same employee, the leadership is also different.
In addition to the situation that occurs in daily life and work, there may also be different evaluations of great works. For example:
Most classical musicians consider Beethoven's Ninth Symphony to be a great work, which is hailed as the most outstanding art in western traditional music. But in 1842, when the work was born, there were many negative reviews.
John Ruskin, a famous British critic in the Victorian era, said: I look at Beethoven like a bag of disorderly nails and a hammer thrown next to it.
Atlas of the Boston Daily said: If the best critics and orchestras can't discover the beauty of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, then forgive us for not being able to find it. The Ninth Symphony's jutsu movement is beautiful, but the other movements are lackluster, especially the ending, which is incomprehensible and discordant, and Beethoven's hearing problems when composing the Ninth Symphony.
In Providence, the capital of Rhode Island, the local newspaper commented that the orchestral part of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony was tiring, and that the musical composition seemed to be a mixture of elements: strange, absurd, abrupt, ferocious and sharp, elements that could be found throughout the movement, melodies that the audience could understand... The musical composition gives the impression of the sounds of the Indian War battlefields or the angry roar of wildcats.
The "truth" of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is understood differently.
In Speaking with Facts, the author says:
Some people may have grown up listening to Mozart's early simple and crisp style music, and liked to be beautiful, distinct and balanced. There may also be people who have been listening to Rammons music, black flag punk and other rock music for a long time. To them, Beethoven's music was like cotton candy floating on a white cloud, like a bluebird standing on their shoulders chirping softly.
Because each person has a different experience, the reference objects used for comparison are completely different, so the Ninth Symphony is selectively perceived.
People will form unique judgment standards and bases based on their own cognition. Therefore, everyone's evaluation of the same thing will have very different results.
When people who like Beethoven hear other people say that Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is not good, there will be strong resistance.
There are psychologists who have studied selective perception. Their initial research was based on a football game between Princeton and Dartmouth on November 23, 1951.
This match was the last game of Dick Katzmaier, a player who had just appeared in Time Magazine. A few minutes after the start of the match, the referee blew off the players on both sides.
In the second quarter-game, Princeton's star left the game with a broken nose;
In the third quarter-game, dartmouth players were carried off the field with a large thigh injury;
Both sides were furious during and after the match. In the end, the Princetons won;
After the game, the university where the two teams were located engaged in a weeks of debate: Which team is more despicable?
The Princeton Student Newspaper commented that observers had never seen a disgusting exhibit known as "sports." Both teams have fouls, but Dartmouth is more to blame. The Princetons are clearly a good team, and there's no reason for it to hurt Dartmouth. Looking rationally at the situation, we don't know why the opponent would deliberately hurt Katzmayer and his players and disable them, and the Dartmouth players may be irrational.
Dartmouth newspapers argue: Not so! The Dartmouth-Princeton battle gave a platform for dirty football games, and a claim known as "unjust accusations" was born... By the third quarter of the game, it was out of control. Most of the harsh penalties were given to the Princetons, and the Dartmouths were punished for multiple "illegal hand moves."
Psychologists Albert Hastov and Hadley Kantril have found that different people have completely different perceptions of the same game! They did an in-depth study of this. This story became a classic case study in psychology.
At both universities, they show students video footage of the game and ask students to record the player's foul action and its severity, is it a minor foul or a serious foul?
Although all students watched the same video, students from the two schools found different discoveries.
Princeton university students found:
Dartmouth has twice as many fouls as recorded.
When they characterized the severity of the fouls, they thought dartmouth had 2 "serious" fouls and 1 "minor" foul
But Princeton had just 1 "serious" foul and 3 "minor" fouls.
They are victims of the brutal game of their opponents,
Dartmouth students see:
The number of fouls per team is the same.
Their assessment of the severity of their team's fouls was, 1 "serious" and 1 "mild",
But in assessing Princeton's penalty, it was 1 "serious" and 2 "minor."
They see the game as a fair confrontation.
The point here is that while students at both universities watch the same game, their views are inconsistent. The truth about the game is different from all sides.
Students at the two universities have different psychological states, expectations, histories, and social identities, and each has a different mentality. As a result, their evaluation of the match footage varies widely. Differences in thinking backgrounds make them think differently about this game.
The different experiences of each person, according to different experiences or habits, make each person's views and judgments on the same thing different, and it is more likely to be biased.
Perception differences do occur in a variety of different places.
Someone, in a hotel chain, tested employees and managers and also found that there was a difference in perception.
Those who do service industries will know: in some hotels or retail stores, managers will arrange professionals, dressed as customers to come to the store to spend, and record their communications with the clerks.
Later, review the video and analyze the service quality level of the clerk to find out how to improve the service level. These videos can well reflect the existence of selective perception.
The man, together with the hotel manager, chose a surveillance video of the mystery customer staying at the hotel: the mystery customer entered the front desk, the front desk service staff asked the customer some questions, the customer answered, the customer got the room card after paying, and then left.
They invited 50 managers to watch the video. After reading each paragraph, a score is required, 1 represents a very poor, 5 means very good. Because their scores are influenced by selective perception, these scores are not used to evaluate employee performance.
In the video, it is a customer who checks in late. The sleepy guest who couldn't open his eyes came to the front desk and said, "I booked the room in Joe Smith's name." ”
The front desk employee smiled and replied, "No problem, sir, I'll look for your reservation information from the computer." Did it go well along the way? Are you drenched in rain? Do you like the season? The guest was impatient, sometimes simply answering with "um".
The clerk did not notice that the customer was tired and the clerk continued to chat, and this situation lasted for several minutes. After check-in is complete, guests leave with their room key cards.
Everyone is watching the same video, the content is a simple interpersonal scene, and there is no card swipe failure, room overbooking and so on. After watching the video, more than a dozen managers gave high scores, 5 of which were full marks. A dozen other managers gave low scores.
People who scored high scores thought: 1) The clerk was friendly. 2) The clerk works very hard to establish a harmonious customer relationship. 3) Although the customer is impatient, the clerk is treating the matter head-on from beginning to end.
The person who scored the low score said: 1) The clerk did not notice the customer's psychological state, and only operated according to the requirements in the customer service manual, without knowing how to work around. 2) Customers want the clerk to speed up and improve efficiency, but they encounter a warm, rambling and endless chat. 3) The stupid clerk was still nagging at 11 p.m., and the customers were all dying.
It is a clear fact that while these managers all work in the same hotel and have the same ostensible goals, they lack a common definition of the "truth" of excellent hotel service.
Their worldview and the frame of reference frame they already have, etc., give them a selective perception of simple customer reception events, resulting in a huge divergence, which is only a customer check-in event.
Perceive differences like a blind man touching an elephant! Everyone's feelings are different because the mind already has a clear framework, defines it, and is the most obvious selective perception.
For the selective perception that often exists around us, what we can do is:
First, at work, we must remind ourselves to be less obsessive and paranoid. Teamwork requires the exchange of ideas and ideas. Because what you think is only what you think. We need to listen to different voices and let ourselves have a comprehensive and multi-angle understanding of the same event.
Second, you know, when people's perceptions of the truth are completely different, it will be very difficult to explain the truth. Consensus cannot be reached automatically, and we need to work to that end.
People from different perception perspectives, seeing different truths, we are difficult to simply judge who is right and who is wrong.
In work, it is not necessary to unify the truth and perception, but more importantly, let both sides be results-oriented, have common goals, unified actions, and seek common ground while reserving differences in ideas. Before common goals, we must first unify in action.
When cognition is not coordinated, you can change your cognition and then change your behavior, or you can change your behavior and then your cognition. Some truths are indeed not easy to explain, and at that time, it takes a little patience, and maybe time can solve the problem.