Why You Should Talk to Strangers!

Why should you care about understanding strangers? Let’s start with a story that explain the profound consequences of misjudging someone you don’t know well.

Imagine you’re in the shoes of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in 1938. He traveled to Munich to meet with Adolf Hitler, a man whose intentions were shrouded in uncertainty. At that moment, Chamberlain faced the daunting task of sizing up a stranger, a leader with immense power and potential global impact. Initially fearful of sparking another devastating world war, Chamberlain left Germany with a sense of reassurance. He believed he had accurately assessed Hitler and concluded that this formidable figure was someone he could trust. But history, as we know, proved Chamberlain catastrophically wrong.

While few of us will ever grapple with character judgments of such magnitude, we constantly encounter situations where we must assess strangers. Whether at work, social gatherings, or even in passing on the street, we find ourselves in interactions with people who possess diverse backgrounds, perspectives, and intentions. These moments challenge our ability to interpret words, motivations, and characters of individuals we barely know.

Here’s the reality: we are remarkably ill-equipped to understand strangers effectively. This article is here to shed light on this inherent human challenge. Throughout these pages, we’ll explore why we tend to be overly trusting and yet struggle to spot deception accurately. By the end, you’ll gain valuable insights into the complexities of making character judgments about those we encounter regularly.

Before we delve in, a brief note of caution: This article, particularly sections 5 to 7, addresses sensitive topics such as murder and sexual violence, which may be emotionally challenging for some readers.

1. The Illusion of Expert Judgment in Assessing Strangers

We consistently overestimate our ability to judge strangers.

Meet Solomon, a bail judge in New York State, tasked with making crucial decisions about defendants’ bail. Solomon diligently reviews their files and believes in the importance of personal interactions to gauge their mental state. However, a surprising revelation emerged when a study compared human judgment to artificial intelligence.

In 2017, Harvard economist Sendhil Mullainathan conducted a study on bail decisions in New York. He provided an AI program with the same information available to judges — the defendants’ age and criminal record — and tasked it with selecting who should receive bail. The outcome was startling: defendants released by judges were 25 percent more likely to commit crimes while out on bail compared to those selected by the computer.

This study highlights a common human fallacy: the belief that we can accurately assess strangers based on eye contact and conversation. Judges and the general population alike often overestimate their ability to make character judgments using such flimsy evidence.

Psychologist Emily Pronin conducted an experiment in 2001 to delve deeper into this phenomenon. She had participants fill in missing letters in words and then asked them to analyze what their word choices revealed about their personalities. Most participants deemed their choices meaningless. However, when shown lists completed by others, they effortlessly interpreted personality traits based on word choices.

Pronin’s research underscores a fundamental truth — we tend to judge strangers hastily with minimal information. While we perceive ourselves as complex beings, we readily make assumptions about others we know nothing about. These insights challenge the notion that assessing strangers is as straightforward as it seems.

2. The Default to Truth: Our Inherent Inability to Detect Deception

We are incapable of mocking deception — it’s human nature to default to the truth.

Meet Ana Montes, an intelligence analyst at the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) who also happened to be a Cuban spy. She successfully passed critical US defense and intelligence secrets to Havana while maintaining an impeccable image as a model employee. In retrospect, there were subtle signs that might have raised suspicion among her colleagues, such as her reports echoing Cuban viewpoints or occasional phone calls during crises. However, these hints were insufficient to overcome the prevailing sense of doubt. After all, what’s more plausible — that your coworker is one of the most damaging spies in US history or merely an eccentric individual?

The challenge faced by internal investigators at the DIA resonates with us all. As humans, we naturally default to the truth, presuming honesty unless faced with overwhelmingly convincing evidence of deception. Psychologist Tim Levine conducted an experiment that sheds light on this phenomenon. Subjects were shown videos of students interviewed about their participation in a trivia test. Some students, working with Levine, encouraged cheating during the test. In the videos, Levine questioned the students, asking, “Did you cheat? Are you sure you’re telling the truth? If I ask your partner, will she tell me the same?”

The results of Levine’s experiment are disconcerting. On average, people could correctly identify liars only 54 percent of the time. This trend held true for a variety of professionals, including therapists, police officers, judges, and even CIA officers — all of whom proved to be remarkably inept at discerning lies.

The fundamental reason behind our ineffectiveness in detecting deception is straightforward. By default, we believe that most people are telling the truth. To shift from suspicion to disbelief, we require an unequivocal trigger — clear signs like extreme agitation, complete avoidance of eye contact, or difficulty responding when directly accused of deceit. In the absence of such triggers, our suspicions remain nebulous, and we continue to assume truthfulness.

3. The Importance of Defaulting to Truth in Society

Some people are better at detecting deception, but assuming the truth is crucial for society to function.

In the early 21st century, a New York financier named Bernie Madoff orchestrated a massive fraud scheme, swindling thousands of investors out of over $60 billion while falsely promising them substantial profits. Astonishingly, he managed to evade detection for an extended period. Many wondered how such a colossal deception could go unnoticed. The answer lies in the pervasive assumption that someone else is responsible for scrutinizing the situation.

However, not everyone fell for Madoff’s deceit. Harry Markopolos, an independent fraud investigator, possessed a unique ability to see through the facade. Markopolos’ upbringing, marked by firsthand experiences of small-scale fraud and theft affecting his parents’ restaurant business, shaped his skepticism. When he examined Madoff’s financial models, he immediately recognized the impossibility of the reported profits. He went a step further, contacting Wall Street traders dealing in derivatives, the same market Madoff claimed to be operating in, only to find that none of them had any dealings with Madoff. Markopolos repeatedly sounded the alarm, alerting the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) about Madoff’s fraudulent activities as early as 2000, with subsequent warnings in 2001, 2005, 2007, and 2008. Regrettably, his efforts fell on deaf ears.

While individuals like Harry Markopolos serve a vital role in society by scrutinizing the truth, the broader population benefits from the default assumption of honesty. Psychologist Tim Levine emphasizes that falsehoods are relatively rare in everyday life. Most interactions are characterized by honesty, and treating them as potentially deceptive would be overly disruptive. For instance, when a barista at your local coffee shop informs you that your muffin and latte total $5.74 with tax, you can verify the calculation with your smartphone. However, such behavior would not only hold up the line but also consume your time and inconvenience others.

In essence, while individuals like Markopolos play a crucial role in detecting deception, the default to truth is essential for the smooth functioning of society. Notable cases involving individuals like Bernie Madoff and Ana Montes are exceptions rather than the rule.

4. The Illusion of Facial Transparency

Life isn’t like an episode of Friends — what you see on people’s faces doesn’t tell the whole story.

If you were to watch an episode of Friends with the sound turned off, you’d still be able to follow the plot quite easily. The emotions and reactions of the characters are vividly expressed through their facial expressions. When Joey is shocked, his jaw drops, and his eyes widen. An angry Ross furrows his brow and narrows his eyes. Likewise, the characters wear broad, genuine smiles — often showcasing perfect teeth — when they’re happy. Their emotions are on full display, making it easy to interpret their feelings.

In the context of Friends, these performances are transparent, meaning that the actors’ demeanor authentically represents their emotions. Such transparency is one of our fundamental expectations when assessing strangers. However, the transparency issue is that it can be highly misleading.

Consider an intriguing scenario: You’re led down a long hallway into a dark room, where you take a seat and listen to a recording of a surreal short story by Franz Kafka. Unbeknownst to you, a team of individuals has been diligently at work, transforming the space you traversed earlier. What was once a dark and narrow corridor has now become an open area with bright green walls. Suspended above a red chair is a single light, and seated in that chair, fixated on you like a character from a horror film, is your best friend.

In this peculiar moment, what emotions do you think would be displayed on your face? When two German psychologists orchestrated this exact scenario for 60 participants, they posed this question afterward. Interestingly, most participants believed they would appear surprised. However, when the results, captured on camera, were analyzed, only a mere five percent of participants exhibited the typical wide eyes, dropped jaws, and raised eyebrows that we associate with surprise. In an additional 17 percent, only two of these expressions were found. Astonishingly, the vast majority showed no clear signs of surprise.

The psychologists concluded that participants’ expectations regarding their facial expressions were significantly influenced by “folk psychology” — the ideas and assumptions we absorb from popular culture, such as watching Friends or reading novels where characters display easily recognizable reactions, like wide-eyed shock.

In essence, we often believe that we can interpret a stranger’s thoughts and emotions by studying their facial expressions, similar to how we perceive characters like Ross in Friends. However, life is not an episode of Friends, and our interpretations of a stranger’s emotions can be completely off the mark. As we’ll soon discover, these misinterpretations can carry significant real-life consequences.

5. The Pitfalls of Misjudging Non-Transparent Strangers

When strangers aren’t transparent, we easily and completely misjudge them.

On November 1, 2007, a British student named Meredith Kercher tragically lost her life at the hands of a local criminal, Rudy Guede. Despite compelling evidence pointing to Guede, suspicion initially fell on Meredith’s roommate and fellow student, Amanda Knox, not Guede.

Knox, who discovered Kercher’s lifeless body and promptly alerted the authorities, found herself at the center of a perplexing investigation. Law enforcement speculated that Kercher’s death resulted from a drug-fueled sexual escapade gone awry, implicating Knox and her boyfriend. This conclusion appeared implausible, as no physical evidence tied Knox to the crime, nor did her history suggest involvement in such dangerous activities.

So, why did Knox become the primary suspect from the outset? The answer lies in the concept of transparency. The police assessed Knox’s behavior and character as if they were watching Friends with the sound off.

While Knox was innocent, her actions conveyed a sense of guilt. When confronted with Kercher’s murder, most of her friends responded predictably: they wept and conversed in hushed tones. Knox’s behavior, on the other hand, diverged from these expectations. She openly displayed physical affection toward her boyfriend in the presence of grieving friends. Moreover, when someone expressed hope that Kercher hadn’t suffered, Knox bluntly retorted, “What do you think? They cut her throat. She fucking bled to death!” Diane Sawyer, during an ABC News interview with Knox, suggested that her demeanor did not resemble typical grief.

However, here lies the problem — some individuals are not transparent. Their external demeanor does not align with their internal thoughts and emotions.

Consider Tim Levine’s videos featuring potential cheaters. In one video, there was a woman playfully named “Nervous Nelly” who incessantly fidgeted with her hair. When questioned about cheating, she became defensive, agitated, and repeated herself. To the author’s astonishment, Nervous Nelly was believed to be lying. In reality, she wasn’t lying; she simply lacked transparency.

Common misconceptions suggest that liars tend to avert their gaze, fidget, or appear agitated. However, the truth is far more complex — many liars can confidently maintain eye contact while deceiving others, while countless honest individuals may inadvertently project an image of secrecy.

6. The Hazards of Alcohol-Induced Myopia in Stranger Interactions

Alcohol can make interactions between strangers far worse, with terrible consequences.

On January 18, 2015, around midnight, two Swedish students stumbled upon a distressing scene outside a Stanford University fraternity house. They encountered a man and a woman on the ground, sensing that something was amiss. As they approached, the man, freshman Brock Turner, abruptly fled the scene. Turner had sexually assaulted the unconscious woman.

Regrettably, encounters like this are all too common, and the author posits that sexual consent between individuals who have just met is rarely crystal clear, even without the influence of alcohol. In a 2015 Washington Post poll, students were asked about their perceptions of consent for continued sexual activity. The results were disconcerting: 47 percent believed that a person's undressing constitutes consent for further sexual engagement, while 18 percent thought that merely not vocalizing a refusal constitutes consent to continue. There was no unequivocal consensus on any specific indicator of consent.

The situation becomes even more convoluted when alcohol enters the equation. The author contends that alcohol induces myopia, causing individuals to become shortsighted, overly focused on immediate desires, and oblivious to long-term consequences. Normally, we strike a balance between these two perspectives, but alcohol diminishes our consideration of long-term ramifications, thus prompting impulsive actions. For instance, it might embolden a reserved individual to disclose intimate feelings or obliterate the impulse control of a sexually aggressive teenager like Brock Turner.

However, the profound impact of alcohol-induced myopia remains inadequately understood. The Washington Post study also explored measures that could effectively reduce sexual assault. Most respondents advocated harsher punishments for assailants, with just a third believing that drinking less would be “very effective.” A mere 15 percent supported stronger restrictions on alcohol availability on campuses.

In a statement to the court, Turner’s victim asserted that focusing on campus drinking culture rather than consent culture or sexual assault on campus is misguided. She believed that men must learn to respect women rather than reduce alcohol consumption. Nonetheless, the author disagrees; he contends that addressing both issues is imperative. Alcohol-induced myopia underscores that for people to engage honestly and clearly in social environments, sobriety is essential.

5. Sandra Bland: A Tragic Victim of Misjudgment

Sandra Bland was a victim of our inability to judge strangers.

On July 10, 2015, Sandra Bland, a 28-year-old African-American woman, was pulled over by Texas State Trooper Brian Encinia for a lane change without signaling. Bland argued that she had changed lanes to allow Encinia to pass after he aggressively approached her from behind. Tensions escalated as Bland expressed her frustration. When Encinia asked, “Are you done?” it further exacerbated the situation, even though he later claimed it wasn’t intended as a provocation.

Bland, in an attempt to calm her nerves, lit a cigarette, but Encinia demanded she put it out. Refusing, Bland questioned why she should comply. Instead of de-escalating the situation, Encinia ordered her out of the car, leading to a dramatic confrontation. He eventually forcibly removed her from the vehicle, and the encounter took a violent turn. Bland, mentioning her epilepsy, asked Encinia if he felt good about his actions. His response was far from empathetic.

Tragically, three days later, Bland was found dead in police custody, allegedly by suicide. This devastating incident highlights the perils of relying on the assumption of truth at inappropriate times. Encinia’s traffic stop was a common policing tactic, particularly in high-crime areas, aiming to uncover more serious offenses. However, it was out of place in a low-crime area like the stretch of highway where Bland was stopped. Encinia abandoned his default to truth when it was unjustified.

Furthermore, it underscores the fallibility of interpreting character solely based on demeanor. Encinia believed he could discern criminal intent from Bland’s agitation, failing to recognize that her distress was a response to the situation, not an indication of wrongdoing. When Bland lit a cigarette, Encinia’s perception became clouded by fear, viewing her as a threat rather than someone seeking to ease her anxiety.

This tragic episode serves as a stark reminder that our ability to interact with and understand strangers is often flawed. To improve this, the first step is to refrain from making unfounded assumptions and judgments.

Summary

In conclusion, the key message emphasized throughout this article is that humans are often ill-equipped to understand and judge strangers accurately. We tend to default to the assumption of truth, which hampers our ability to detect deception, and we often rely on limited and potentially misleading information to form judgments about others. This misplaced confidence can lead to misunderstandings and misjudgments with significant real-life consequences.

Furthermore, the story sheds some light on the limitations of transparency, highlighting how people’s external demeanor can be deceptive and not necessarily indicative of their true character or intentions. The tragic cases of Sandra Bland and others underscore the importance of not making unfounded assumptions and judgments when interacting with strangers.

Ultimately, these highlights serve as a compelling reminder of the need to approach interactions with strangers with empathy, open-mindedness, and a willingness to truly listen and understand one another. By recognizing our limitations in understanding strangers, we can strive for more meaningful and harmonious relationships in an increasingly diverse and interconnected world.

THANK You for Reading!

Your support means everything to me. If you enjoyed this story and want more directly to your inbox, subscribe here!

• Follow me to stay updated → LET’S CONNECT
• Clap if you found it valuable (it helps me get featured).
• Comment with your thoughts on this topic.
• Let’s keep the conversation going.
• Join a community of 19,000+ solopreneurs and entrepreneurs!

Consider becoming a Medium member

Support me and thousands of other writers while enjoying unlimited access to all stories on Medium for just $5/month. By signing up through this link, you directly support my work at no extra cost to you. Thank you for making a difference!

See ya soon! Mo