One of the most valuable concepts I learned in undergraduate psychology was the ingroup-outgroup bias – the way our perceptions of people are skewed by whether we identify with them or not. We tend to be kinder and more generous in our perception of people we feel socially aligned with, and more critical of those we do not.
This bias can affect our judgement in profound and insidious ways, and treatment settings are far from immune.
A person with autism doesn’t understand a neurotypical person because they are autistic. A neurotypical person doesn’t understand a person with autism because they are autistic.
I can’t work with this woman because she’s too emotional. This woman can’t work with me because she’s too emotional.
This client is wrong because he lacks insight (or is in denial). He thinks we’re wrong because he lacks insight (or is in denial).
Any disagreement or misunderstanding between these two people can be attributed to a deficit in one person. The other gets the invisible elephant stamp of “well it couldn’t possibly be me, I see the world normally”.
Yet rarely is it so simple or so one-sided. The more factual version is that these two people see things differently. But when one is ostracised by the system to the outgroup, they are more likely to feel invalidated and not taken seriously. Which runs the risk that they respond in ways that may just be interpreted as confirming the initial bias.
We need to cultivate a mindset of deep curiosity and be on alert to the way we fill in the blanks with our own assumptions and world views. If we see the person as an equal partner, it becomes easier to also see them as a potential teacher. And when we honour a person’s autonomy, our perception becomes less important because it’s about them, not us.