A harsh interpretation of someone’s behaviour can be unfair. Replacing it with a flattering story does not necessarily make it accurate.
“I think they do not care” and “I am sure they are struggling privately” are both claims about an internal state you may not know. A more careful response keeps several explanations open, seeks relevant information and judges the conduct using what can actually be established.
Use Acuity Insights’ official preparation resources as your starting point. The original exercise below is independent teaching material about reasoning, not an official statement of scoring criteria.
The quiet meeting and the late objection
Original fictional scenario. You coordinate volunteers for a community games festival. At Tuesday’s planning meeting, Sam says little while the team discusses a registration card containing only a QR code. Written comments are due at 9 a.m. Wednesday; printing is booked for 11 a.m.
At 10 a.m. Wednesday, Sam emails: “People without smartphones will be unable to register. We should not print this.” You have authority to hold the print job while a concern is checked, but doing so may delay distribution.
A colleague says Sam is disengaged: “If this mattered, Sam would have spoken yesterday.” Another colleague offers a kinder explanation: “Sam is probably quiet for cultural reasons. We should accept the late feedback without discussing it.”
You know Sam attended the meeting and received the written deadline. You do not know why Sam was quiet or why the email arrived late. You also do not yet know whether another registration route is available.
How would you respond?
Separate observation from interpretation
The observations are narrow: Sam did not contribute much in the meeting, and the email arrived one hour after the deadline. “Disengaged” adds a motive. “Quiet for cultural reasons” adds a cause tied to a presumed group characteristic. Neither follows from the observations given.
Other explanations are possible. Sam may have noticed the access problem afterwards, needed time to formulate it, misunderstood the process, or simply postponed replying. Listing possibilities can loosen an overconfident judgment. It does not establish which explanation is true.
Notice also what does not depend on Sam’s motive: a QR-only route could exclude a person who cannot use it. The substantive concern deserves examination even if Sam handled the deadline poorly. Conversely, a valid concern does not mean timing can never be discussed.
For this exercise, keep three questions separate: what happened, what the proposal means for participants, and what might explain Sam’s response. Combining them too early produces statements such as “Sam is inconsiderate, so the objection is unhelpful,” which never evaluate the objection itself.
Imagination is not testimony
A relevant research caution comes from Eyal, Steffel and Epley’s 2018 study series. Its published abstract reports 25 experiments and no consistent accuracy benefit from instructions to adopt another person’s perspective. In a final experiment, obtaining the person’s perspective through conversation improved accuracy. These were not Casper studies, and the abstract does not establish that every conversation reveals the truth.
The useful distinction for this case is modest: imagining Sam’s reasons is different from hearing Sam’s account. Even an account should be interpreted alongside the available evidence, rather than treated as infallible.
Perspective-taking can still mean considering how a situation might feel or affect someone. The mistake is presenting that imaginative exercise as knowledge of what this particular person thinks. You can make room for uncertainty without becoming unable to assess a decision.
Ask about the work before requesting a personal story
A relevant first message could be: “Thank you for flagging the registration issue. What have you found about the options for someone who cannot use the QR code?” That asks for information affecting the immediate decision.
A separate process question could be: “I noticed your comments arrived after the deadline. How did you understand the feedback process, and what would help us get concerns in before printing next time?”
These questions leave room for Sam’s perspective. “Are you anxious about speaking?” narrows the answer around your diagnosis. “Is this because of your culture?” makes a personal category the explanation before Sam has offered one. Neither is necessary to establish the registration options or agree on a workable deadline.
Sam may not want to disclose a private reason. You can still discuss the work arrangement: when feedback is needed, which channels are available and what to do when a concern is discovered late. Privacy does not prevent an honest conversation about responsibilities.
Critique the compassionate-sounding response
Consider this reply:
Sam is probably facing challenges we cannot see, so I would excuse the delay, apologise for the meeting being uncomfortable and promise never to pressure Sam to contribute.
It invents both a difficulty and an uncomfortable meeting. It also makes a broad commitment without asking what Sam wants. Perhaps Sam enjoys discussion but disagreed only after checking the registration page. Perhaps the meeting was fine and the deadline was simply missed.
A different flawed response would reject the concern because it was late. That protects the process at the expense of examining a potentially avoidable access barrier. The task is to respond to the issue and improve the process, without forcing either to excuse the other.
A worked response that preserves judgment
One defensible response would be:
I would thank Sam for raising the access concern and check with the registration lead whether an alternative route exists and can be communicated on the card. I would hold printing if needed while we verify this, acknowledging any distribution delay. I would not infer disengagement or a cultural explanation from Sam’s silence. Separately, I would ask how Sam understood the deadline and which feedback channel would work for future planning. We still need timely contributions, but I would discuss that expectation using the actual late email rather than assumptions about motivation.
This response has a decision: verify access before committing the print job. It also has a boundary: future planning needs usable deadlines. Neither depends on making a favourable diagnosis of Sam.
If Sam explains that an accessible alternative already exists, confirm it and ensure the card communicates it clearly. If none exists, involve the person authorised to choose a workable route. Do not promise a telephone service or staffed desk without checking capacity. The concern may be justified even when the first imagined solution is not available.
Update in both directions
Suppose Sam says, “I thought silence meant I could send comments whenever I was ready.” You can clarify that silence did not waive the written deadline, while accepting that the process was misunderstood. A written reminder or explicit closing check may be useful if the team agrees it addresses the problem.
Now suppose Sam says, “I understood the deadline and forgot.” You do not need to manufacture a deeper explanation. Acknowledge the admission, discuss the consequence and agree how late discoveries should be flagged.
In either case, one explanation should not become a permanent label. A missed deadline is evidence about that event. A pattern of missed commitments, if it develops, can justify a different conversation based on the pattern rather than a theory about personality.
Transfer exercise: a stereotype inside a valid concern
Change Sam’s message to: “Older people cannot use QR codes, so this plan is discriminatory.” No information has been collected about individual participants’ access or preferences.
How would you preserve the useful concern while challenging the unsupported claim?
Reasoned feedback. You can say that smartphone access and ability vary among individuals, and that the relevant design question is whether registration has a usable alternative. You need not endorse a claim about everyone in an age group to investigate access. Asking intended participants about available methods is one defensible next step; checking known barriers and offering a verified alternative is another. The urgency, available information and authority determine what can happen before printing.
For further practice, use QuietStride’s guide to feedback without score predictions. Ask a partner to mark the sentences where you describe evidence, offer a hypothesis or make a judgment. Then check whether your wording makes those differences clear.
Sources and further reading
- Acuity Insights: official Casper preparation resources — provider guidance and official practice.
- Eyal, Steffel and Epley (2018): Perspective mistaking — PubMed abstract of the original research; supports the limited experimental finding described here. Full study text was not used.