What’s Wrong with Outside-In Thinking?

One of the most important pillars of persuasive communication is outside-in thinking, which is thinking about an issue or a situation from the point of view of the other person. I’ve written about it extensively and it’s a fundamental part of every sales or communication course I teach.

Obviously, the ability to predict other’s thinking and attitude about what you’re trying to persuade them about (what psychologists call perspective taking) is a tremendous asset, because it allows you to frame your idea in a way that is most attractive to them, or even change your idea to accommodate their needs, such as in a win-win negotiation. That’s why I always urge you to research the other person, including what their interests are, how they are measured, how they’ve made similar decisions in the past, and their possible reasons for objecting. We’re all self-centered so outside-in thinking doesn’t come naturally to us; that’s why simply asking yourself those questions is an excellent way to remind yourself and engage your mind into their perspective.

The benefit of outside-in thinking is so clear that there should be nothing more to be said. But what if it’s wrong?

I’ve recently learned that outside-in thinking is inadequate, and may even hinder your persuasive attempts. A recent journal article by three researchers involving 25 separate experiments has found that while people may think they understand the other person’s perspective by engaging in outside-in thinking, evidence shows that they don’t. We’re just not as good at figuring out others’ minds as we think we are. Even married couples are consistently wrong about predicting what their partner will answer. In one of the experiments, one spouse was asked to predict how the other would react to certain statements. They predicted they would get 13 out of 20 right; in reality they got an average of five.

If even married couples can be so consistently wrong and overconfident, it’s apparent that simply making the attempt to understand the other person’s perspective is not enough. In fact, if it causes you to become overconfident in your estimation of what they’re thinking, it can actually backfire on you.

I’m not recommending that you ditch outside-in thinking. By all means, do the preparation and ask yourself the questions. But don’t stop there. Be humble about your initial conclusions, because they’re only predictions, and predictions give you the illusion of knowledge. You’ll be better off if instead of predicting how the other person will react, you think of it as a hypothesis.

A hypothesis needs to be tested, and the simplest way to test a hypothesis about what another person is thinking is to just ask them. This is about as blindingly obvious as can be, but according to the authors of the study it’s rarely done. I’m not sure why, but I’ll take a stab at perspective taking here and make a hypothesis about what’s going on in the minds of people who don’t ask: they either assume they already know, or they’re afraid of finding out they’re wrong.

Outside-in thinking can be a great start as long as you don’t stop there. Go beyond perspective taking to what one of the authors of the article, Nicholas Epley, calls “perspective getting.” You can prepare in advance by thinking of questions you can ask to verify your assumptions about the other person but then go into the conversation with an open and curious mindset. Ask your questions and then really listen to the answers; probe further if you need clarification; paraphrase back your perceptions to confirm your understanding.

Asking questions, listening, and engaging in a sincere effort to understand the other person’s point of view will give you a much more accurate picture of what they’re thinking. Perhaps even more importantly, they will send a clear message to the other person that you actually care—and that’s probably the most important reason you shouldn’t take outside-in thinking for granted.