Slow down interpretation of others’ intent

Treat your first read of someone’s motivation as a hypothesis, not a fact, and hold it loosely.

Why it works

Naive realism generates quick intent-attributions: their objection means they’re threatened, their silence means contempt. These attributions feel like perceptions rather than inferences — which is why they are so sticky. Labeling them explicitly as hypotheses engages the prefrontal processes that evaluate rather than the automatic processes that generate them.

How to do it

1. When you’ve formed an intent-attribution ("she did that to undermine me"), restate it with a hypothesis tag: "My hypothesis is that she did X to undermine me."
2. Generate one alternative hypothesis of roughly equal plausibility.
3. Ask yourself: "What would I need to see to distinguish these?" Then, if possible, check.

Evidence

Attribution theory and social cognition research consistently show that intent-attributions are fast, automatic, and systematically biased toward hostile or self-serving explanations. Labeling thoughts as hypotheses is a technique from cognitive defusion (ACT) that reduces their behavioral influence. (mechanistic)

The labeling technique draws on ACT theory rather than a direct study of intent-attribution specifically.

Common mistake

Generating the alternative hypothesis but privately rating it at 1% — the exercise is only useful if you take the alternative seriously.