I played a game with a random PUBG streamer (less than 5 viewers) recently that I felt went fairly well, except for a few moments when he drove off without me and came back a minute later apologizing. He communicated very poorly and in the end, I had 4 kills and he had 2, i went down and he died trying to save me. Then he rage quit and muttered something or other as he disconnected.

I thought I must have said something to set him off. We seemed to get along fine, we had decent team chemistry but I figured I pushed the guy's buttons. It really bothered me so I sought out his videos and luckily he had recorded it.

I expected to find I wasn't nearly as pleasant as I thought I was. Nope, he was just an asshole. He was talking to someone behind him for several minutes and was on mute for about a quarter of the game, which explained a few moments of tension where he wouldn't respond or communicate at all in crucial parts. I watched a few other games of his with random people, and he'd do the same thing: be pleasant at first, die, rage quit, repeat.

Sometimes it really is the other people.

It's interesting that the default for most people, past adolescence, is to not realize it really is other people. It took me a long time to realize that other people's bad moods, scowls, glares, etc. were 99 out of 100 times a reflection of them and not me. Kind of freeing, but also kind of scary when people that are clearly in terrible moods are your coworkers :/

In my experience it's most often no ones fault. It's just miscommunication.

Its true that communication issues are the source of most of the conflicts generally.

But there is something else - as a grown up, it took me some time to realize and accept just how many other grown ups have various issues, are imbalanced, carry scars from messed up childhood and so on. If you spend some time with them, over time these will start to surface in various, often nasty ways.

Its a mistake to try to be friend with everybody. Life is too short, rather invest time and energy into those relationships who are worth it, ie give back, help when you need it etc.

This is something that I've come to discover over the past couple of years. People tend to think that other people like them less than they actually do. People will often think "oh wow, that person is great, I really want to spend more time with them", but then won't push the relationship (platonic or not) further because they're uncertain if the feelings are mutual. I've missed out and let a lot of relationships and friendships fade because of these feelings.

In general, we tend to have a lower opinion of ourselves than what other people do. As the study says, we're a lot more aware of our fears and insecurities than the people we interact with, as people aren't mind readers.

> Finally, simply ending an initial conversation with “I really enjoyed speaking with you” can help take the ambiguity out of the exchange

Reaching out like this and making positive statements can mean a lot to the person you're talking to. I've found it really strengthens a relationship to make these kinds of positive comments. You feel awkward the first few times you say it, because we're so unused to making meaningful compliments about people's personalities, but it's a really good thing to do. Saying something like "I really value our friendship" can absolutely make someone's day.

During my time at University I was involved in some research studies, one was particularly aligned to this study.

Essentially I myself (Male) had to stand up in a small room, in front of 6 young women and talk about myself for I think 2 minutes whilst being filmed. At the end of the chat I had to rate how I felt I did, then I watched the video of my conversation, then I had to rate myself again. I had to do this around 2-3 times from memory.

During this time the "audience" could not smile, or reciprocate any emotion or discussion, they had to sit there blankly during my speech.

The result of the experiment was that I had rated myself more confidently after seeing the video of myself speaking. Adding to the fact that we generally underestimate ourselves when speaking to others.

I think that this one is a bit different, because part of experiment is that audience will intentionally skip non-verbal clues that you would otherwise use to judge how they react to your talk.

>While initial meetings and relationships at the beginning stages are most vulnerable to these biases, long-term acquaintances are no less susceptible.

Isn't this a straight up contradiction?

Perhaps "vulnerability" and "susceptibility" are measured on a different scale? All stages of a relationship are susceptible to biases, but the beginning stages are the most vulnerable to destructive behavior arising from those biases.</nitpicking><!-- Yes this is exactly the kind of nitpicking that makes conversations awkward for us engineer types -->

The two claims are logically compatible iff vulnerability is exactly equal at all points during the relationship.

But in that case, relationships at the beginning stages would not be the 'most' vulnerable.

They wouldn't be uniquely the most vulnerable, but they would be the most vulnerable in that no other stage would be more vulnerable.

The 'the' implies unuiqueness. If John, Bill and Mary are equally skilful, then it's not the case that John is the most skilful of the three.

If there're other categories aside from 'initial' and 'long-term', then it isn't necessarily a contradiction... But it is confusing in any case.

Adding more categories doesn't help. If A is the most P, then B can't be no less P than A is.

My reading of that is that initial meetings are highest risk, but the severity can be the same with long term acquaintances.

Link to the study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30183512?dopt=Abstract

TL;DR: our perception of our performance in a meeting is lower than the actual performance.