Talk:Illusion of asymmetric insight

This could be compared to the encapsulation concept of Object Oriented Programming. In order to use, or interact, with the object/unit (whether indivual or social 'group') you do not need to know how it works internally, just understand how you can interact and what to expect in return. The units understand how they work and the motivations behind the behaviours they output. They tend to take note of their thoughts and not their actions. It is not necessary for people to understand why you behave the way you do, just know what to expect in return to them. And that is the side of you they understand, which is also the only part which they need to.

Both the outside units and the units themselves understand what is appropriate to them, which is why they each see their perspective to be more important. 00iddy (talk) 06:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

naive realism?

why on earth does this page link to naive realism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.32.219 (talk) 11:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought the link was supposed to be to the psychological term naïve realism, but that page seems to have been created after the last recorded edit of this page. Still, I think this page should link to that one rather than naïve realism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heurisko (talk • contribs) 00:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

confusion of meaning?

there seems to be confusion as to which of the following this illusion means. Suppose A and B are people. Here are three possible meanings. Which would be termed an example of the illusion of asymmetric insight? All seem plausible.

1. A knows A better than B knows B.

2. A knows B better than B knows B.

3. A knows B better than B knows A.

I suggest a definition like the above, rather than relying on the ambiguous use of reflexive pronouns like 'themselves'.

Ken M Quirici 01:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)