Four Rules to Understand What Makes People Tick
Breaking down human behavior into rules might seem like a gross simplification. But even with the complexities, it is easy to fall into the same mistakes. I’d argue that many heated fights, lost sales and broken hearts are caused by a few critical errors. If you make the wrong assumptions, you’ve lost before you begin.
By keeping in mind these rules, you can avoid repeating the same mistakes.
Rule One: People Mostly Care About Themselves
People aren’t thinking about you. A damaging myth to buy into is believing the amount of time you think of yourself compares to the amount of time others think of you. In reality they are nowhere close. Take a look at this chart:
I’ve used this example before but I believe it deserves repeating. Take a look at the different slices of this chart. The biggest is the time you spend thinking about yourself. The second is the time spent thinking about relationships, but how they affect you. What does Julie think of me? Will my boss give me a raise or fire me? Do my friends respect me or just tolerate me?
Only a tiny sliver is devoted to empathy. Empathy is the rare occasion where you think through the perspective of another person. When I’ve discussed these ideas previously, many people argue I’m being far too generous with my chart. In reality that sliver is probably even smaller.
This means that you occupy only a tiny percentage of a persons thoughts. Waiting for people to invite you, becoming embarrassed at a minor faux-pas or emphasizing what others think of you come from failing to use this rule. Almost all people are far too self-absorbed to notice.
Rule Two: People are Motivated by Selfish Altruism
To say all behavior is strictly selfish would be misleading. It fails to account for acts of charity, ethics and why people don’t just cheat, swindle and lie all the time. Selfish altruism is a broader category that covers why people do nice things as a way to get what they want.
By studying primates, researchers noticed four main categories of selfish altruism. I believe they are the same categories we use, even if slightly more sophisticated:
- Dominance - Some primates will give help as a way of asserting dominance in the group. It is as if they are saying, “Look at how powerful I am that I can give some of my resources to help you.”
- Reciprocity - You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours. The idea is that I do a favor for you with the assumption it will be returned one day. If the cost to me is less than the benefit towards you, I might help you even if I can’t predict an immediate payback.
- Trade - If we both have something the other person wants, we have a reason to interact. While reciprocity is vague on the details of a payback, trade is direct.
- Familial - It makes sense, from an evolutionary perspective, to help those who might share your genes.
By looking through this lens of selfish altruism, you can better make decisions. Viewing people as completely uncaring or selfish is incomplete. But expecting people to think of you constantly and do nice things for free is dangerous.
Rule Three: People Don’t Think Much
I believe we drastically overestimate what we do intentionally. Subconscious patterns, environmental stimulus and programmed reflexes occur frequently, even if we later take credit for them.
The conscious mind is a relatively new addition to the human operating system. And it’s been designed to cleverly take credit for a lot of decisions it doesn’t really make. If someone asks you to be unbiased in making a decision, it is probably best to just laugh.
The implication of this is that appealing entirely to thoughts won’t work. Since a bulk of decision making is made in the background, you need to target that background if you want to be influential. You don’t need to be manipulative, just smart enough to recognize that snap judgments mean a lot and your communication is more than just words.
Rule Four: Conformity is the Norm
You become your environment. Uniqueness and individuality tend to warp to fit the people around you. This is true of other people as it is for yourself. It means you should be careful who you pick as friends, partners and colleagues.
This is why I believe it is important to keep a varied social group. When you interact with people from completely different backgrounds, beliefs and behaviors on a regular basis you are more likely to see different perspectives. This also means you have more control in picking who you want to be.
Applying the Four Rules
Here are some applications of these rules you might want to consider:
- What layers are you communicating with? If people are selfish, self-absorbed and fail to think much, just working on the words you use isn’t enough. Everything about you is communicating something, and unless you get that message straight, the most persuasive argument won’t win anyone over.
- Give reminders. Although some people are meticulously organized, most aren’t. Give people the reminders they need so you don’t get left out unintentionally.
- What’s your social value? This isn’t your worth as a person, but what you have to offer in terms of other peoples needs and wants. It is easy to get depressed about human issues, if you don’t see the calculations behind it. Improve the value you offer and you can access the selfish altruism in us all.
Tags: 
Get your own Avatars at 
Loading ...
Comments
Hayden Tompkins says on October 2nd, 2007 at 10:42 am
“And it’s been designed to cleverly take credit for a lot of decisions it doesn’t really make. ”
The rationale can come in so quickly after the decision is made, that it may seem ’simultaneous’. We are feeling machines.
Hermano Cabral says on October 2nd, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Putting a child picture at the beginning of the article and writing on the selfish side of all humans with no mention to parenting seems to me like trolling…;-)
On the other hand, your article is very accurate for workplace relationships.
Hermano
michael says on October 2nd, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Interesting chart, but it lacks references. Simply stating “take a look at this chart” means nothing if we don’t know how the chart was researched.
declan says on October 3rd, 2007 at 5:35 am
It really annoys me to see data trotted out as fact. Where did the chart come from? How was this research conducted? By whom? Stats and charts mean nothing at all if they are not referenced. It just destroys a good posting and makes me want to hit the unsubscribe button.
neuroasis says on October 3rd, 2007 at 8:03 am
There are some self-evident truths here, at least from my frame of reference. I don’t necessarily need a long scientific dissertation in this case. Looking at my own experience and thought patterns tells me that this is reasonably accurate.
Jacki says on October 3rd, 2007 at 1:37 pm
I could not disagree with this any more than I already do. None of this theory truly explains the phenomenon of minds such as Martin Luther King Jr. Absolutely he was protesting actively for his rights, but he was doing it more so for other people than himself.
There are a significant number of people in society that place other’s injustices before their own worries.
Steven Clark says on October 4th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
I think one of the best things to realise is we all use attribution - we attribute the world with our own knowledge, experience and thought processes.
Realising someone is doing that to you and you to them can be quite liberating (re motives especially).
Narcisists beware - I’m onto you! Or one of you lol…
mahalie says on October 5th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Steven, I think the human mind is creative enough to apply selfish altruism in all sorts of ways. Maybe MLK wanted to be remembered and this ego-drive was greater than risk or discomfort. Maybe he wanted to the big-payoff in heaven. Etc.
Besides, I think this article is truly speaking in averages. Although references to statistics would be nice
it still wouldn’t make this rule work across the board. I’m sure some rare freaks empathize a lot more than average, in fact I think there’s a clinical name for that ‘disorder’….
mahalie says on October 5th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Oops, I misread the comments. That was in reply to Jacki, not Steven.
roland says on October 5th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
sounds vaguely Dr Phil. I wonder how practical the advice is?
Jacki says on October 7th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
That has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard. Martin Luther King Jr. striving forth throughout the entire Civil Rights Movement just so he’d get a big payoff in heaven? If going to heaven was his first and foremost priority, he could have just as easily lived a peaceful life. He saw and experienced injustice and decided to act out against it so that no one else would have to suffer. THAT is why he took a stand.
quimbylips says on October 7th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
I agree references need to be attributed, or at least say this is your own thoughts or generalisations, but come on Jacki!! That’s a completely emotive and illogical argument. Do you really believe you know with any certainty the exact reason why Martin Luther King did anything? The blog is obviously dealing with generalities, but you have only isolated the relatively few (albeit important) decisions Martin Luther King made out of the millions of minor decisions a person makes in a lifetime. In respect to Martin Luther King, there are a handful of decisions in a lifetime that make a person great, but this is not what the blog is talking about.
Gerald says on October 8th, 2007 at 1:50 am
OK article, but its all in “How To Win Friends and Influence Others”. If this article seemed interesting to you, read that book.
Bob Zegler says on October 8th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Wow, thanks a lot for this. This information is very pertinent to some of my current problematic altercations.
Moda Siliv says on October 11th, 2007 at 3:50 am
To hades with references. A person shares his opinion, let anyone who wanta to take it take it, tohse who don’t can take a hike.
I admit the childs photo is a little misleading but the substance is present in the blog even if it is alrady an obvious truth to all enlightened adults in their own words ot not.
not half bad at all.
Joe Citizen says on October 15th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
These are wrong, of course.
Everything every human does is based on three primes.
Food. Sex. Adventure.
Jim M. says on November 5th, 2007 at 11:14 am
I think the Martin Luther King reference (or Gandhi as another example) succeeded to transform themselves and their environments by being a cause in the matter of their missions. MLK for one knew that he would probably encounter death at some point in his mission, and Gandhi probably knew that too.
I think the article speaks of a human “default” but not necessarily the template that MLK used to drive his life. We as humans can transcend the default by being something remarkably different. If we do nothing, this is what we have, but if we transform ourselves into making a difference, we are the difference. Living a “default” life is what I see being described here.
It is not my way of being — but it is the way of being for many I know.
Keith says on January 10th, 2008 at 12:40 am
Facinating article! Many thanks.
Mr. me says on April 4th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Very good article i completely agree with this. As far as the martin luther king thing goes he wanted to do something important and be remembered as a great person or at least be remembered as someone who tried to make things right. I mean if you knew that people would honor you and thought of you almost sain like as much as martin luther king was would you do it? I know i certainly would
Mr. me says on April 4th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Very good article i completely agree with this. As far as the martin luther king thing goes he wanted to do something important and be remembered as a great person or at least be remembered as someone who tried to make things right. I mean if you knew that people would honor you and thought of you almost saint like as much as martin luther king was would you do it? I know i certainly would