Why Diagnosing Others Is More Complicated Than It Looks—The Danger of Simplifying People

Picture this: someone tells you about a colleague who’s always making excuses and missed another deadline. Instantly, you think, 'Slacker, irresponsible, just doesn’t care.' It’s easy—almost satisfying—to stick a label on a person, especially when you only have part of the picture or hear about them in moments of stress. But beneath the surface, the reasons for anyone’s behavior can be knotted and hidden from plain view.

Later, you learn something new—maybe the colleague is caring for a sick parent or battling their own invisible challenges. Suddenly, your certainty unravels, replaced with humility and, perhaps, a touch of guilt. We all want neat categories for complicated people, but real life rarely fits on a checklist. Just like in stories about psychiatric diagnoses, snap labeling often says as much about us as it does about those we’re judging.

Research in cognitive bias and diagnostic error shows that humans—experts included—quickly default to first impressions and are slow to update them, even when new facts emerge. True understanding often demands second looks and deeper context. When we acknowledge this, our judgments grow fairer, our empathy sharper, and our communication much clearer.

Whenever you meet someone or jump to an opinion after hearing a story, try pausing to jot down your first impression and ask yourself what information you might be missing. Instead of locking in your judgment, collect more facts, check for alternate explanations, and reflect on whether your initial view would change if you had a fuller picture. By doing this a few times, you train yourself to slow down, spot your own bias, and give others—and yourself—a little more psychological space to be human. See if you can catch your next quick judgment and put it to the test.