Humans have been thinking about how we understand the world for millennia. Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave,” illustrated how our perceptions could simply be a shadow of reality. But it wasn’t until the 1900s that scientists really started studying this idea.
In the 1950s, scientists began looking at how people explain why others act the way they do. They found that people often think their own views are more correct than others.
In the 1990s, a scientist named Lee Ross came up with the term “Naive Realism.” He and his team did experiments that showed how people think their own ideas are fair and make sense, but other people’s ideas are wrong or silly.
These studies highlighted the implications of Naive Realism in social interactions and showed that people on opposing sides of an issue often view the other side as biased or misguided while seeing their own perspective as clear and unbiased. This creates significant barriers to conflict resolution and understanding.
In more recent years, naïve realism has become even more relevant. Social media and content algorithms create echo chambers. These algorithms reinforce our beliefs and make it harder to appreciate alternative perspectives.
For software teams, Naive Realism can impact team dynamics and project outcomes. This bias can manifest in various ways, often leading to misunderstandings, conflicts, and suboptimal decisions.
A key stakeholder might propose a complex interface with lots of features. They believe this design is objectively better because it offers more functionality. But, they may be failing to consider that their perception is influenced by their own professional expertise and familiarity with complex interfaces.
Meanwhile, a product manager might advocate for a simpler, more streamlined design. They’re convinced that users prefer minimalist interfaces, based on their interpretation of current market trends. Their stance, while seemingly data-driven, could be colored by their own preferences and the specific market segments they’ve focused on.
The engineering team, on the other hand, might push for a design that’s easier to implement and maintain, believing that technical considerations should take precedence. Their perspective, while valid, could be biased by their focus on backend processes rather than end-user experience.
Each team member is falling for Naive Realism. They each view their perspective as the most objective and rational. This can lead to heated debates, with each party struggling to understand why others can’t see the “obvious” merits of their position.
