Are you reading my mind?

Reading people is not a psychic ability. It requires the same focus I once applied to counting cards at blackjack tables. Without too many details, my system assigned each card a value from -1.5 to 1.5. I used to carry a deck on the train, running through values until I consistently hit zero on the final card. Friends ask why I don’t use this skill to pay for dinner at casinos. The answer is simple: counting cards takes effort, and I don’t work on vacation.

When I meet new people, they often ask, “Are you assessing me right now?” I respond with a joke: “No, I don’t work for free.” Like most jokes, mine contains truth. Assessing a person takes work, and it interferes with my ability to enjoy or learn from them.

These lessons are a few ideas from my assessment practice, where I focus my energy on truly understanding someone. If you want to read people effectively, commit your energy and focus to it first. Plan on a power nap afterwards, it’s my favorite activity after I do an assessment. And I need it because I’m always wiped out. 

Can anyone learn to read people accurately, or does it require special training?

Reading people hinges on your ability to recognize patterns. In that regard, yes. It’s a learnable skill. 

Consider this pattern. Donald Trump praised a farmer for raising two “record-setting” birds, then pivoted to his electoral margin: “I won that county by 92 percent.” At a McDonald’s event, he claimed the United States controls 92 percent of the Gulf of Mexico’s shoreline. On Veterans Day, he said he won among veterans with “about 92 percent or something.” In July, he won farmers “by 92 percent.” In April, he claimed egg prices fell by 92 percent. (The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported 12.7 percent.) While complaining about the media, he allowed that “not all of them” are “sick people” just “about 92 percent.”

Source: Marie-Rose Sheinerman, The Atlantic

What are the odds that all these events hit exactly 92 percent? Check the facts. Look at a map. Review the polling numbers. The improbability reveals the pattern.

Pattern recognition exposes truthfulness, making it the most valuable skill for evaluating credibility in professional and personal settings. 

Here’s an example of what it looks like in a business environment. Several years ago, we worked with someone who missed seven important events consecutively. The airline canceled his flight three times. Three additional times the delays exceeded four hours. The final time, horrible traffic made him miss his flight.

Let’s check the math.

On average, airlines cancel 1.4 percent of flights. Delays exceeding four hours occur in 0.7 percent of cases. Even granting one legitimate traffic issue, the odds of six consecutive transportation failures are 1 in 600 million.

The first few times, we believed him. Eventually, we checked flight records.

The rule is straightforward: if patterns are real, they follow realistic probability distributions.

Using Patterns to Recognize Personality Traits

A few years back, I had a very unique project. A client asked me to review executives while they made announcements about their firms. The expectation was that I could use microexpressions and body language to know the truth. Although this provides some clues, I became much more effective when I could review older videos. They gave me context so I could understand their patterns.

To truly get a solid read on someone, you have to experience them over time. The following patterns are useful in determining personality factors. 

Factor 1: Insecurity

This factor evaluates the need for safety, stability, and predictability. It typically reflects a lack of self-confidence or agency (the belief that one controls one’s own fate)

Look for these patterns: 

• Avoiding decisions, even when presented with clear options.
• Overreliance on rules, job descriptions, and approval chains
• Overreaction to perceived threats to their role, reputation, or control
• Hoarding information or resources during uncertainty

Sometimes, insecurity is hard to spot, especially when the person also has imposter syndrome. 

Case example:

Imagine a rising star like Amanda. If you observed her week, it might look like this. 

On Monday, she stares at the two vendor proposals on her desk. Both are strong. Both are within budget. Her team needs an answer by Friday.

On Tuesday, she opens her email and types to her manager: “Could you review these and advise on next steps per our decision-making protocol outlined in section 4.2?”

It’s the third decision she escalated this week.

On Wednesday, her Slack buzzes. The marketing team wants access to the customer database she manages. Amanda’s stomach clenches. She already knows they have a legitimate need for the data. She’s simply unsure what happens if she grants access and something goes wrong, so she responds: “I’ll need to verify this request through the proper channels. Please submit a formal access request form and route it through your VP first.”

Thursday, in the leadership meeting, someone mentioned reorganizing her department. Amanda sits forward, her jaw tight.

“I’d like to see the full proposal before any discussions continue,” she says, her voice sharper than intended. “And I’ll need clarity on how this aligns with my role definition in the organizational charter.”

The room goes quiet.

On Friday, her colleague asks about the new client strategy she developed. She already built the complete framework, but it’s sitting on her desktop, unshared. “Just some preliminary thoughts,” Amanda says quickly. “Nothing finalized. I’m still validating the approach against company guidelines.”

If someone were looking over her shoulder, they would not be observing a timid middle manager. On the surface, Amanda appears to have some executive presence. It’s the pattern of behaviors that gives her away.

Maybe you have seen these patterns. In a meeting, who is most likely to defer a decision to another? Maybe you know someone who always has to check with someone else before deciding. Can you think of someone who reminds you of the protocol, even when it does not fully apply? What about that person who puts a lot of effort into contingency planning or never seems to share everything they know related to an issue? 

These patterns all signal that someone likely deals with insecurity.

Factor 2: Arrogance

This factor evaluates the need for external status and praise. Many arrogant people have learned not to express it directly because people find it off-putting, making it more important to observe the patterns: 

• Brags constantly, often having unbelievable stories of their greatness
• Align themselves with high-status people or groups (and name-drop about it
• Over-share their title or impressive role
• Turn collaborative events into competitions

Case example:

I used our 360 tool to evaluate a CEO. His direct reports created a drinking game based on how many personal achievements he highlighted at corporate social events. To provoke additional bragging, they would mention an achievement of their own or another person’s. Inevitably, the CEO would chime in with his own achievement, triggering another round of drinking.

Do you know someone who finds a way to mention a high-status contact, even when that relationship is irrelevant to the conversation? Have you been around someone who always steers conversations to a topic they know well, especially if they are less informed about the current one? What about the person who is constantly comparing themselves to people who are less effective in a way that feels like passive judgment? These are clear patterns of arrogant people. 

Factor 3: Neediness

This factor assesses the need for connection, affiliation, and acceptance from others or groups.

Pattern indicators:

• Prioritizing harmony over candor
• Avoiding disagreement with peers or authority figures
• Adjusting opinions to fit group norms
• Showing visible distress when excluded from conversations or decision-making
• Placing loyalty to people or institutions above objective evaluation of outcomes

Case example:

One client held quarterly reviews followed by Thursday night happy hours. Tom found a way to miss every review meeting. He usually cited last-minute urgent client visits, yet he always arrived on time for happy hour and put himself at the center of attention. After several missed reviews, his manager scheduled one at 4:00 pm on Thursday, with happy hour to follow. He set the meeting that morning, and Tom made his first review in almost two years.

Tom’s psychometrics revealed that his need for affection and social recognition both exceeded the 85th percentile. His conflict aversion was equally high.

Can you think of someone who will do almost anything to fit in? Maybe you know someone who doesn’t like fish but will go along and eat sushi if that’s what other people want. Have you ever heard someone go along with an objectively wrong opinion to keep the peace? 

My experience with needy people usually shows a three-stage pattern. Initially, it feels good to be around them because they are so interested in me and my ideas. After a while, it feels awkward because they seem to pop up nearly every day, either via email or social media. Finally, they express sadness or anger if I do not respond quickly enough or if I am unavailable to hang out. 

Factor 4: Controlling

This factor evaluates the need for independence, agency, and self-direction. In the extreme, it is a means to manage anxiety in a world that appears chaotic.

Pattern indicators:

Individuals with a strong drive for autonomy 

• Resist micromanagement
• Question authority 
• Prefer to define their own goals and methods. 
• Show impatience with bureaucracy, formal process, or oversight—particularly when they believe it slows execution. 

Case example:

Solveig was highly conscientious and excelled as a controller. She had a great relationship with her CFO and felt sad when he retired. Her new boss micromanaged the processes she had done for decades. After a month, he provided everyone with a style guide for reports, including font and heading formats. When Solveig turned in her monthly report, the work was, except that she used a different font. For the next few months, she had minor deviations from the style guide. After six months, the new CFO questioned whether she had purposefully deviated from the style guide. She denied it, but a review of her psychometrics revealed a very high need for autonomy.

The pattern is most obvious when the management is not practical. Maybe you have been around someone who exerts control over non-work-related events, like lunch. Has anyone ever insisted on ordering for you? It’s happened to me.  If you see someone with strong opinions about irrelevant things, like which shade of grey to paint the conference room or which type of paper to use in the copier, it’s a sign they want control. When someone shows a pattern of control that extends beyond the requirements of the work, they are likely controlling. 

Factor 5: Perfectionism

This factor evaluates the need to feel capable, skilled, and effective.

Pattern indicators:

• Invest heavily in developing expertise
• Take pride in precision, quality, and technical depth
• Uncomfortable outside of their areas of competence
• Defensive when questioned about their competence
• High personal standards
• Rigid

Case example:

Sarah arranges her desk each morning before work begins. She alphabetizes files, aligns pens in parallel rows, and checks every email twice before hitting send. Sometimes her colleagues move things around when she is not there, just to watch her rearrange them. Her reports never contain errors because she reviews them five times. She rehearses her presentations until midnight, so they always run smoothly.

Her manager asked if I had a moment to speak with her because she seemed especially tense, and he was concerned. He explained how controlling the details makes her feel less overwhelmed by the chaos at work and at home. She did not feel anxious while putting things in order or making slight improvements. The strategy worked until multiple deadlines stacked up, forcing her to choose between making things perfect and getting them done ontime. That day, being late was not an option and it really got to her. Ironically, talking to me made things worse because the clock was ticking.  

Maybe you’ve worked with someone who obsessed over minor details to the point where it got weird. Have you ever met someone who never felt satisfied with their work, even when they got high marks from their peers or their boss? If someone gets uncomfortable talking to someone from another department about whom they lack expertise, they likely crave perfection.

Factor 6: Manipulative

This factor assesses the need to shape outcomes and influence people. They don’t believe they can influence based on the merit of their idea, so they take shortcuts and workarounds. 

Pattern indicators:

• Rarely shares an opinion without referencing someone else who shares it
• Uses flattery followed by a request
• Overindexes on the benefits of an idea but is short on proof or logic
• Creates double binds through the use of emotions

I coached an executive who had a direct report named Marcus. My client laid out how Marcus operates, and it perfectly captured manipulation in action. He identified and built relationships with people who held influence in each department, who nursed grievances, and who craved recognition. Then he shared confidential information obtained from those relationships and framed it as a matter of trust. He sympathized when others showed frustration, and he always agreed with them in service to assembling a loose network of colleagues who viewed him as an ally. Among that group, he planted seeds of concern, amplified doubts, and positioned himself as the reasonable voice offering solutions. When the executive asked for opinions on a controversial project, Marcus spoke for the coalition, acting as if he represented widespread sentiment rather than his personal agenda.

Do you know anyone who wants to know a little bit too much about every bit of office gossip? Have you had a teammate who rode the coattails of good work by simply befriending those doing it? Maybe you have been around people who seemed to fan the flames of frustration to get on your good side instead of trying to help.

There are many patterns of manipulation, but the most common is co-opting others’ support.

Practical Techniques for Reading People

Tip #1: Commit Your Energy

Reading people interferes with enjoying them. Decide whether you want to assess or connect. You cannot do both simultaneously with full effectiveness.

Tip #2: Check Probability

When evaluating patterns, calculate the odds. When I was a kid, we had a saying: 1 is a coincidence, 2 is luck, and 3 is a fact. The rule applies here as well. Don’t make judgments after seeing a behavior once or twice. After the third time, the patterns reflect traits. 

This rule has a mathematical basis. Imagine that something has a 10 percent chance of occurring. If it happens twice, the chance is still 1 in 100. After the third time, it jumps to 1/1000 and is unlikely to happen by chance.

Tip #3: Track Patterns Over Time

Events within a very short period are less predictive than those that occur over a wider time span. Single incidents reveal little. If Tom missed one review, Solveig changed one font, or the CEO bragged at one event, we wouldn’t have any problems. The pattern emerges through repetition. Track behaviors across contexts before drawing conclusions.

Avoiding Disaster

Our clients avoid hiring candidates who create toxic environments or don’t fit or add to the culture because our assessment relies heavily on interpreting patterns through structured interviews and sophisticated analysis. 

Curious about how we can do the same for you? Reach out to admin@psynetgroup.com to schedule an introduction. Or choose a time on our calendly. 

Also, we’re now on Substack! Follow us there to get every new article we post, as well as a library of previous articles.