Psychological Express

We all think we can see people.

See how he chats with you, see if he remembers your preferences, and see if he takes care of your feelings at the dinner table.

These can certainly explain some things, but they cannot explain everything.

Because as long as he wants to maintain a relationship with you and feels that there is still value in you, he will present the best side to you.

When people are profitable, anyone can behave like a good person.

This is just the normal operation of a relationship, a basic understanding between adults.

But what you really need to see is not when he wants to be good to you, but when he no longer needs to be good to you.

The former is all about packaging, while the latter is the base color.

After the relationship ended, the mask was truly taken off

There is a concept in psychology called 'impression management'.

It refers to everyone consciously controlling the impression they leave on others in social interactions. As long as the relationship is still valuable and the other party is still in your evaluation system, people will instinctively maintain their own image.

But once the relationship ends, the motivation to maintain it disappears.

So when looking at someone, it depends on how they handle a 'relationship that has already ended'.

Former colleagues, resigned subordinates, estranged friends, and no longer contacted partners.

These people have one thing in common, they can no longer provide any practical value to each other.

At this point, a person's posture is the most honest.

There is a very practical skill for identifying people: you directly ask someone how they viewed their previous relationship, whether it was their previous relationship or their previous job.

Listen to how he attributes it.

If a person always grinds their teeth and blames their ex for everything, describing themselves as a complete victim, then you can basically judge that their true appearance in the relationship will not be much better.

It's not that he can't have emotions, but rather that a person with a mature background has the ability to do something after the relationship ends, which is called 'each taking their own part'.

He can say that the relationship caused him a lot of pain, but he won't pick himself clean.

In psychology, this is called the difference between "internal attribution" and "external attribution".

People with habitual external attribution tend to attribute all their problems to others and all their misfortunes to the environment. If you approach this kind of person, sooner or later, you will also become the one who "destroyed him" in his mouth.

The opposite is also true.

If a person spreads rumors about their former subordinates or friends who have already left, or even uses resources to make things difficult for them, then you should understand that the energy they held back when working with these people was only suppressed by their interests.

Now that the benefits are gone, all that energy has been unleashed.

And if one day you also become the 'useless person' in his mouth, guess what he will do to you.

When 02 gained the upper hand, what was he solving

There is another detail, more subtle but also more deadly.

What kind of demeanor does a person have when they have the upper hand in a relationship.

When two people have a conflict, you are the one who cares more about the relationship, and you choose to compromise first.

What was the other party's reaction at this moment?

It's about stopping when it's good, giving each other a step down, and turning the problem over.

Still pushing step by step, insisting that you admit 'it's all your fault' and enjoy the sense of control that presses you down.

This moment is extremely crucial.

Psychological research has found that when a person feels they have absolute power in a relationship, their level of empathy significantly decreases.

Power can make people dull.

People with power are more likely to ignore others' feelings, prioritize their own needs, and find it harder to think from the other person's perspective.

So a person's reaction at the moment of "winning" is more indicative of the problem than their performance when they are treated equally.

If a person's first reaction after gaining the upper hand is to stop attacking, or even to give you a step back, it shows that deep down they value relationships more than winning or losing.

But if he takes the advantage and becomes even more aggressive, insisting that you completely bow down and admit that you are worthless, then you have to understand that this person never wants to solve problems, he wants to win over you.

He wants to feed his sense of superiority with your lowered head.

Being with such a person, all your tolerance will become a reason for him to intensify.

Your forbearance will not bring him heartache, only his confirmation that he can hold onto you.

Here is a very useful skill for identifying people: go and see how he treats those who "dare not resist him at all".

Not a waiter, that's too superficial. Everyone knows how to show off.

What you need to see is how he treats a competitor who has completely lost to him, a subordinate who has no resistance ability, and someone who is completely inseparable from him in the relationship.

These people have no bargaining chips in front of him.

His attitude towards them is his most authentic definition of the 'weak'.

When no one is watching, social supervision becomes ineffective

There is also a classic concept in psychology called 'social facilitation effect'.

It refers to when a person knows that they are being observed by others, they will unconsciously adjust their behavior and move towards the direction expected by society.

In other words, as long as someone is watching, everyone will behave a little better than their real self.

This is instinct, not hypocrisy.

So what truly exposes a person is not their appearance in front of others, but what they are doing when no one is watching.

When you were present, he was polite, he was moderate in his actions, and he tidied himself up to be presentable.

These don't count.

Because your existence itself is an invisible constraint.

He knows you're watching, so he will act according to societal expectations.

What truly exposes him is his appearance when he is alone, when he faces those who do not exert any evaluative pressure on him.

How does he deal with stray cats on the street, how does he handle a bag of garbage in his hand, and how does he say thank you to the courier.

These moments have no audience, no profit, only him and his own actions.

What a person still maintains in these unnoticed corners is their background color.

We often say that we know what's subtle, but in fact, what's subtle is not the behavior itself, but the state of being "unnecessary" in that behavior.

He may have said a hundred beautiful words to you, but in a place where no one saw him, he casually threw the garbage on the roadside.

Which one do you believe in?

Of course it's the latter.

Because saying beautiful things has a cost, he chooses to say it, indicating that he is investing in you.

And there was no audience for littering, so he chose to throw it, indicating that it was just his true self.

In psychology, there is a "moral self permission" effect, which means that after doing good things, people are more likely to engage in unethical behavior in the future because they feel they already have a "moral balance".

So those who are extremely perfect in front of others are sometimes worth keeping an extra eye on.

It's not that there must be a problem with him, but rather that if a person puts too much effort into surface efforts, they will have less inner strength left.

What you are really looking for is the person who is still good behind others, not the perfect person in front of them.

In the end, when it comes to identifying people, what we are looking for is the bottom line, not perfection

Speaking of which, you may think that in the future, I need to keep my eyes wide open and see through everyone.

But I want to say one more thing.

The purpose of identifying people is not to have you examine everyone with a magnifying glass, nor is it to turn you into a human skeptic.

After learning some skills for identifying people, many people become very tired because everyone thinks there is a problem.

This person spoke ill of their ex partner after breaking up, it's not acceptable.

That person gained a little more face in the dispute, it's not acceptable.

When another person is alone, throwing garbage outside the trash can is even more unacceptable.

If you frame everyone with the standards of a saint, you will eventually find that no one is qualified, including yourself.

This is not sobriety, this is a new kind of paranoia.

In psychology, there is a term called 'basic attribution error', which refers to the tendency to attribute other people's problems to 'they have problems' when we look at them, but when we look at ourselves, we tend to attribute the problems to' I couldn't do anything at the time '.

If you learn the art of identifying people, but become someone who uses moral standards to measure others everywhere, then you have fallen into a bigger pit.

The truly mature way to recognize people is to learn to distinguish between "flaws" and "underlying colors".

A person can be selfish, occasionally indifferent, and say a few harsh words when tired.

These are normal fluctuations of human nature, not called chromatic aberration.

What is the color difference at the bottom?

He chose to hurt you even though he knew he would hurt you.

It was him who insisted on stepping on you even after you took the initiative to make concessions.

After the relationship ended, he picked himself clean and poured all the dirty water on you.

He chose to be his unbearable self in a place where no one saw him.

These are the things that cannot be touched.

When it comes to people, it's never about whether they are good or not, but whether their goodness has a bottom line.

People with good background colors can also argue, lose their temper, and at some point, want to protect themselves.

But they can't do that kind of 'destructive' thing.

Their selfishness stops at not harming others.

Their emotions stop at not intentionally hurting others.

Their self-protection stops at not framing.

This is the bottom line.

And what you're looking for is the person with a bottom line.

Not a perfect person, a sober person.

Not someone who is always gentle, but someone who knows what not to say when angry.

Not someone who always thinks of you, but someone who thinks of themselves and won't push you down.

Kindness is never a performative posture.

It is the line that you are still willing to follow when facing yourself after all the audience has left.

Go find the person who is guarding the line even when there is no one around.

Because what he does to others, he will do to you in the future.

When he doesn't have to treat you well, the way he appears is his true self.

This article is reproduced from the WeChat official account "Sunny psychologist's dream building psychology“