Pick what you're like. Then guess how many of your five friends would pick the same answer for you.
Your own estimateThe result is only your guess. A table with your own people will show the real number. What you enter isn't stored or sent anywhere unless you save your result yourself.
What are you like?
What do you do when it turns out you're wrong?
Pick what describes you best. Not how it should be, but how it usually goes.
We think we're transparent
We feel that more of us shows than actually does. Thomas Gilovich, Kenneth Savitsky and Victoria Medvec (1998) had people lie in front of an audience or taste an unpleasant drink while keeping a straight face. Then they asked them how many observers would see through them. People overestimated it: liars expected more people to catch them than actually did, and tasters thought their disgust was written all over their faces. The authors call this the illusion of transparency.
Why? We experience our own feelings from the inside, at full volume. It's hard to imagine that someone else sees only the little that gets out.
In general yes, in particular no
David Kenny and Bella DePaulo (1993) reviewed eight studies in which people in small groups rated each other and also guessed how the others rated them. People guessed how others see them in general fairly well. How one particular person sees them, much worse. And above all, they expected everyone to see them alike, even though individual views differed.
You know how people see you. You don't know how Pete sees you.
According to the authors, the reason is simple: we build our picture of how others see us mostly from how we see ourselves, not from what others let us know. We build our own picture from intentions and thoughts, others only from what they can see. What they see and we don't is the blind spot (the Johari window, Luft and Ingham, 1955).
Why the table only asks about behaviour
Simine Vazire (2010) showed that traits easy to see from outside, such as sociability, are judged by friends about as well as by the person themselves. For intelligence, friends were even more accurate. Inner states, such as anxiousness, the person knows better. That's why the questions, both in the guess and at the table, only ask about behaviour: what you do when it turns out you're wrong, what you usually do in a group, when you arrive for a meeting. Your people have something to say about that.
Find out for real
The guess is only your estimate. You'll find out the real number by asking your people. A table needs no sign-up: you get a link and a code to scan, and people join from their own phones.
A gameA game for you and your people aged 18 and over. Only a nickname and a figure are saved with the table.
Find out for real: set up a table
Invite two to ten people who know you. Everyone answers what they're like and guesses what the others are like. You'll see how many of them see you the same way. No sign-up.
What gets saved?Your nickname (encrypted) and figure are saved with the table. You can delete the table on its screen at any time. With 4 or more people at the table only counts are shown, so no one can tell who said what.
What an evening at the table looks like
In each round it's one person's turn: they answer what they're like, and the others answer how they see them. Then you see whether the others see them the same way, or whether they have a blind spot. With four or more people at the table only counts are shown, so no one can tell who said what. With two or three people that can't be hidden, so the game says in advance that answers will be shown with names. If you like, Egi, an AI player, joins in and guesses along with everyone else.
IllustrationThe characters and answers are made up. Use the arrows to switch to another question.
Example with made-up characters
What does Tom do when it turns out they're wrong? 1/4
What Tom says
I admit it right away
2 of 3 friends about him
Defends it for a while
Tom sees himself differently from how friends do. That's exactly what you find out about yourself at a table.
Who to invite: people you don't have to be careful around. If one person at the table would make you guard your answers, you'd answer cautiously and the whole thing loses its point. Then it's better to set up two tables, say one with your group and one just for two.
How it works
The mini app shows one of three questions from the table (being wrong, a role in a group, punctuality). You pick what you're like and use the slider to guess how many of five friends would pick the same for you. The friends and the example table are made up. We don't show the real share of matches from tables yet, until there are enough of them.
Data. Your answer and guess stay in your browser. Only what you send yourself goes to the server: your guess via Save result (it then counts towards the readers' summary), or a nickname and a figure when you set up a table. If you fill in an email, we'll send the link there too, but we don't store the email. This browser remembers the link to your table. Only the founder can invite the AI player. It sees the question and the counts from revealed rounds, not individual people's answers (for players with an account who agreed to AI, also their choices from Getting to know you). The game is for people aged 18 and over.
Sources
- Gilovich, T., Savitsky, K., & Medvec, V. H. (1998). The illusion of transparency: Biased assessments of others' ability to read one's emotional states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(2), 332–346.
- Kenny, D. A., & DePaulo, B. M. (1993). Do people know how others view them? An empirical and theoretical account. Psychological Bulletin, 114(1), 145–161.
- Carlson, E. N., Vazire, S., & Furr, R. M. (2011). Meta-insight: Do people really know how others see them? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(4), 831–846.
- Vazire, S. (2010). Who knows what about a person? The self–other knowledge asymmetry (SOKA) model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 281–300.
- Luft, J., & Ingham, H. (1955). The Johari window, a graphic model of interpersonal awareness. Proceedings of the Western Training Laboratory in Group Development. Los Angeles: UCLA.
