Why We Can't Communicate with Certain People: Workplace Communication Through the Lens of "Naive Realism" - Based on the Insights of Masashi Kawakami

We will take up the theme of "Corporate and Psychology Topics #69: Naive Realism" by Professor Masashi Kawakami of Business Breakthrough University.

Naive realism refers to the tendency to perceive one's own cognition and judgments regarding what one sees and feels as objective, neutral, and fact-based. It is said to be a phenomenon that occurs frequently in our daily lives, workplaces, and even in discussions on social media.

The True Nature of the Assumption That "Only I Am Objective"

Everyone has their own opinions and principles. These should inherently be subjective to that individual. However, we unconsciously assume that "my way of thinking is based on facts and is universal, and it is the correct answer that everyone should follow." This "unconsciously" part is the tricky aspect, as it is said that we are almost never aware of this bias ourselves.

When one falls into this psychological state, one follows the following thought process.

First, regarding a judgment one has made, one does not think, "This is just my preference." One perceives it as "a judgment based on objective facts." For example, suppose you see a painting and feel it is "wonderful." While that is inherently a personal preference, in a state of naive realism, you feel that "this painting is objectively superior both technically and artistically, and I am correctly perceiving that fact."

Next, one thinks, "Since it is an objective fact, everyone else must judge it the same way."

And finally, when someone else appears who makes a different judgment, one concludes that "the other person is wrong." One becomes aggressive, seeking the cause in the other person's abilities or character, saying things like, "That person has no eye for quality," "They don't understand because they lack knowledge," or "They have a distorted view."

The Structure of Conflict Where Even "Neutrality" Is Not Permitted

The terrifying aspect of naive realism is that if it becomes severe, it can lead to the breakdown of human relationships and, in the worst case, even war. In conflicts involving religion, politics, or nations, when both sides are convinced that "my justice is the absolute fact and the other side is wrong," there is no room for dialogue.

What I found very interesting was the point made about the "fragility of a neutral position in a conflict structure."

For example, suppose there is a person with an extreme "Ideology/Value A" and a person with a conflicting "Ideology/Value B." The two are in a state of complete opposition.

Now, let's say a person with a "neutral viewpoint" who is not too biased toward either side appears.

Normally, one might think that a neutral person would function as a balancer. However, from the perspective of person "A," who is trapped in naive realism, the neutral person is perceived as, "Since they do not agree with my correct thinking (A), they must be on side B."

On the other hand, from the perspective of person "B," the neutral person is seen as, "Since they do not understand our (B) correctness, they must be on side A."

In other words, because they are convinced that their own thinking is the "center and standard of the world," a psychological mechanism kicks in that tries to exclude anyone who deviates even slightly from that, even if they are neutral, as being on the "enemy side" or the "side that does not understand." This is highly suggestive for understanding the recent divisions on social media and factional strife within organizations, isn't it? In an era where diversity and inclusion are championed, this psychological mechanism can become a major wall that hinders the acceptance of diversity.

Awareness (Metacognition) That We See the World Through a "Lens"

So, how can we escape this trap of naive realism? The key is "metacognition." In other words, objectively re-examining one's own cognition from a higher perspective.

Specifically, the following five attitudes are proposed.

1. Recognize that your own thinking is "one of many ways of thinking."
   Re-perceive your opinion not as an absolute correct answer, but as merely one of many options.

2. Understanding others' thoughts from "their own context"
   You do not need to agree with the other person's opinion. It is important, however, to reflect on the context behind it, thinking, "Given their experience, position, and background, it is understandable that they would reach that conclusion."

3. Consulting diverse information sources and comparing them
   Instead of generalizing based solely on your own feelings, make it a habit to gather objective data and a wide range of information to compare against your own thoughts.

4. Being humble and not overly confident in your own ideas
   Always leave room for the possibility that you might be wrong.

5. Daring to research and experience things you dislike
   This was a very unique and practical piece of advice. You should intentionally research or experience the very opinions or things you feel you "dislike" or "cannot accept." By doing so, you may gain insights like "it actually has some good points" or "so that was the logic behind it," which can help loosen up rigid perspectives.

We tend to think we are seeing the world accurately, as if reflected in a "mirror," but in reality, we are viewing it through various "lenses" such as education, culture, media, and our own positions. These lenses are inevitably distorted or tinted.

Rather than easily respecting and blindly believing someone's opinion, we should research and think for ourselves from a zero-base, building our own values. Developing such intellectual stamina seems to be the key to overcoming naive realism.

HR Perspective: As a hint for dissolving the "invisible walls" of an organization

From here, I would like to consider how the concept of "naive realism" can be applied to organizational development and human resource development from the standpoint of corporate HR.

Observing the various conflicts and communication failures that occur within an organization every day, I often feel that this psychological mechanism lies at the root. "Why doesn't that department understand?" "Why won't my subordinate follow instructions?" Behind such laments may lie the unconscious assumption that "our logic is the correct and objective one."

Approaching the "true enemy" of diversity promotion

Diversity & Inclusion (D&I) has become a major issue for many companies, but there is no end to the frustration that the atmosphere on the ground does not change even after systems and metrics are put in place. One of the causes is likely this very concept of naive realism.

We unconsciously hold a standard of "normally, you would do this." However, that "normal" is merely a "lens" formed by our own experiences and cultural background.

While the term "unconscious bias" has become widespread in training and workshops, one possible next step is to foster a mindset of "doubting one's own correctness."

For example, in management training, it might be interesting to incorporate a workshop that uses a scenario of a "subordinate who has the exact opposite opinion to oneself" and forces participants to thoroughly imagine that subordinate's background and context (why they came to think that way). The stance of "I don't have to agree, but I do understand" can be a very realistic and effective middle ground for creating a team with high psychological safety.

As a common language to resolve "divisions" between departments

Conflicts between departments, such as between sales and development, or between headquarters and the field, are also an eternal challenge for organizations. Criticisms like "Sales only looks at the customer" or "Development is too obsessed with technology" arise precisely because both sides believe that "their own perspective is the benefit of the entire company (objective fact)."

Here, couldn't HR play a role in translating and sharing the "context" of both sides?

Rather than just social gatherings, it is an opportunity to share each other's work processes, KPIs, and pressures from customers as "data" and "facts." It is a chance to recognize that the other party is not "stubborn," but rather "viewing the world through a different lens (role and goals)."

Making the term "naive realism" a common language within the company is also one approach. If a culture is created where people can ask each other, "Aren't we falling into naive realism right now?", it might become a trigger to take a step back and calmly re-examine emotional conflicts.

Career development through experiencing "things you dislike"

The approach mentioned in the lecture of 'daring to thoroughly investigate or experience things you dislike' could also be applied to the interpretation of career development and job rotation.

One reason employees resist transfers is an aversion to unknown areas or tasks they feel uncomfortable with. However, it is possible to communicate the value of intentionally experiencing areas outside one's expertise or those previously considered unimportant as 'training to polish one's own cognitive lens'.

Furthermore, this concept is useful in evaluator training to help managers become aware of the tendency to rate subordinates who are different from them lower (similarity bias). Simply knowing the theory that 'the correct answer for me' is not necessarily 'the correct answer for the subordinate' should change the sense of fairness in evaluations and the quality of feedback.

The Importance of Using Data as a 'Common Yardstick'

Finally, with a note of self-reflection regarding HR work itself: we in HR also tend to have strong beliefs about 'how people should be' or 'how an organization should be.' However, that, too, is merely one lens.

That is precisely why we should learn from the stance mentioned in the lecture that 'psychology emphasizes objective data'.

When implementing measures, rather than relying solely on rules of thumb or 'gut feelings,' we should adopt a 'people analytics' perspective—gathering survey data and factual information to verify hypotheses. This, I believe, will serve as the foundation for preventing HR's own naive realism and making persuasive proposals to management and the front lines.

Instead of clashing over whose 'correctness' is right, we should find interest in the differences between each other's 'lenses' and try to see new scenery together from there. Aiming for an organization with such flexible strength, I felt I wanted to start by questioning my own 'taken-for-granted' assumptions.