Plays Well with Others

Plays Well with Others Plot Summary

Introduction

Have you ever felt that strange disconnect when someone completely misunderstands your intentions? Perhaps you sent what you thought was a friendly message, only to receive an unexpectedly cold response. Or maybe you've been in a relationship where, despite your best efforts, you and your partner seem to be speaking entirely different languages. These moments of miscommunication aren't just frustrating—they're windows into one of life's most profound mysteries: why is connecting with others simultaneously so essential and so challenging? The science of human connection reveals something both humbling and hopeful. Our brains are literally wired for social bonds, yet they're also remarkably prone to misreading others. The good news is that meaningful connection isn't about mind-reading abilities or perfect compatibility—it's about specific practices that anyone can learn. Through fascinating research and real-life stories, we'll discover how to overcome our natural biases, build deeper relationships, and find belonging in an increasingly fragmented world. Whether you're struggling with romantic partnerships, workplace relationships, or simply feeling isolated in a hyper-connected age, these insights will transform how you approach every interaction in your life.

Chapter 1: The Clever Hans Effect: Why We Misread Others

In early 20th century Berlin, a horse named Hans captivated the public with his seemingly miraculous abilities. Hans could add, subtract, multiply, and even identify musical notes by tapping his hoof the correct number of times. His owner, Wilhelm von Osten, a mathematics teacher, had apparently taught this ordinary horse extraordinary skills. Scientists and experts flocked to witness this phenomenon. Even when von Osten wasn't present, Hans continued to answer correctly about 90% of the time. The horse's fame spread throughout Germany, attracting massive crowds eager to witness this equine genius. A special commission of 13 experts, including psychologists, veterinarians, and circus trainers, investigated Hans and concluded there was no trickery involved. But psychologist Oskar Pfungst wasn't convinced. Through meticulous experimentation, he discovered something remarkable: Hans wasn't actually calculating anything. Instead, the horse was reading subtle, unconscious cues from his questioners. When someone asked Hans a question, they would inadvertently lean forward slightly in anticipation as Hans approached the correct number of taps. Upon seeing this tiny shift in posture, Hans would stop tapping. When questioners were placed behind a screen or didn't know the answer themselves, Hans's accuracy plummeted to near zero. This phenomenon, now known as the "Clever Hans Effect," reveals a profound truth about human interaction: we constantly give off and respond to nonverbal cues without realizing it. The most striking aspect isn't that a horse could read human body language, but that humans were completely unaware they were providing these signals. The questioners genuinely believed Hans was solving math problems, not reading their involuntary movements. Modern research confirms we're remarkably poor at understanding how we communicate. Studies show we overestimate our ability to convey our intentions and emotions by about 40%. We think we're being clear when we're actually sending mixed signals. Similarly, we believe we can accurately read others' thoughts and feelings, despite evidence showing we're often wrong. This miscalibration leads to countless misunderstandings in our relationships. The lesson from Clever Hans extends far beyond a clever horse trick. It reminds us to approach our interactions with humility. Rather than assuming we know what others are thinking or that they understand us perfectly, we should verify through direct communication. The next time you feel certain about someone's intentions or believe they fully grasp yours, remember the mathematics professor who was unknowingly communicating with his horse through tiny, unconscious movements. Our connections improve when we acknowledge the limits of our perception and work to bridge the gaps with conscious, deliberate communication.

Chapter 2: Love as a Delusion: Casanova's Surprising Insight

Giacomo Casanova, history's most notorious seducer, seems an unlikely source of wisdom about love. In 18th-century Venice, his romantic conquests were legendary—he claimed to have seduced 122 women throughout Europe. Yet in his 3,600-page memoir, Casanova revealed something surprising: he genuinely fell in love with each woman he pursued. Despite his reputation as a callous womanizer, he wrote passionately about experiencing the intoxicating rush of new love over and over again. Modern neuroscience confirms what Casanova experienced subjectively. When researchers placed people who reported being "madly in love" into fMRI machines, their brains lit up in the same regions activated by cocaine use. The ventral tegmental area floods with dopamine, creating an intense natural high. Blood tests show serotonin levels in new lovers drop to levels seen in people with obsessive-compulsive disorder, explaining the constant, intrusive thoughts about the beloved. This neurochemical cocktail creates what anthropologist Helen Fisher calls "the most powerful natural addiction we know." This addiction serves an evolutionary purpose. The human infant requires extraordinary parental investment, so nature needed a mechanism to keep couples together long enough to reproduce and raise children. Romantic love—with its obsessive focus, energy surge, and emotional intensity—evolved as that binding force. The idealization of one's partner is a crucial component of this process. Studies show new lovers consistently rate their partners more positively than objective observers do, overlooking flaws and magnifying virtues. What's fascinating is that this "positive illusion" isn't just a pleasant side effect—it's central to love's function. Psychologists Sandra Murray and John Holmes discovered that couples who maintained these positive illusions about their partners reported greater relationship satisfaction and were more likely to stay together. In other words, seeing your partner through rose-colored glasses isn't delusional thinking; it's adaptive and beneficial. As Casanova himself noted, "Love is three-quarters curiosity." The implications are profound for how we approach relationships. Rather than striving for complete objectivity about our partners, perhaps we should embrace the natural tendency toward positive bias. Research shows that couples who focus on each other's best qualities and potential create self-fulfilling prophecies—partners often grow into the idealized version their lovers see. This "Michelangelo effect" suggests that love's delusion can actually shape reality. However, there's a crucial balance to maintain. While positive illusions strengthen bonds, complete detachment from reality leads to disappointment when fantasy inevitably collides with fact. The healthiest relationships seem to combine idealization with genuine acceptance—seeing your partner's flaws but choosing to focus on their strengths and potential. As Casanova discovered through his many affairs, love may be a kind of beautiful delusion, but it's one that can transform both the lover and the beloved.

Chapter 3: The Michelangelo Effect: Bringing Out Each Other's Best

When David and Lisa first started dating, she noticed his natural talent for writing. Though David worked as an accountant, Lisa consistently encouraged his creative side, buying him journals and asking about his stories. She treated him as if he were already the writer he secretly wanted to become. Three years later, David published his first novel while maintaining his day job. When interviewed about his success, he credited Lisa's unwavering belief in his potential as the catalyst that transformed his private passion into public achievement. This phenomenon, where partners help each other become their ideal selves, has been studied extensively by psychologists and named "the Michelangelo effect." The term comes from how the famous sculptor described his process: "I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free." Michelangelo didn't see himself as creating something new but rather revealing what was already there, hidden within the stone. Similarly, the most successful relationships involve partners who recognize and nurture each other's ideal selves. Research by psychologists Caryl Rusbult and Eli Finkel found this effect has measurable impacts. In longitudinal studies, people whose partners actively supported their ideal self-development reported greater personal growth, relationship satisfaction, and commitment. The process works through what researchers call "affirmation"—behaviors that signal "I see who you want to become, and I'm helping you get there." These affirmations can be as simple as acknowledging a partner's progress toward goals or as significant as making sacrifices that create opportunities for their growth. What makes the Michelangelo effect particularly powerful is that it operates differently from typical attempts to change a partner. Rather than trying to mold someone into what you want them to be, you're helping them become who they already aspire to be. This distinction is crucial. Studies show that direct attempts to change partners typically backfire, creating resistance and resentment. In contrast, affirming a partner's own ideal direction meets little resistance because it aligns with their intrinsic motivation. The effect works through three primary mechanisms. First, partners provide the emotional security needed for risk-taking and growth. Second, they offer practical support like feedback, resources, or opportunities. Third, and perhaps most importantly, they hold up a mirror that reflects not just who you are now, but who you could become—a vision that can inspire action and change. As one participant in Rusbult's studies noted, "Sometimes I believe in myself because she believes in me." This research offers a powerful reframing of relationship purpose. Beyond companionship or romantic fulfillment, partnerships can serve as vehicles for mutual growth and self-actualization. The most satisfying relationships aren't those where partners complete each other, but where they help each other become more complete versions of themselves. By seeing and nurturing the potential in each other, couples can create a virtuous cycle where personal growth and relationship quality continuously enhance one another.

Chapter 4: When Enemies Become Friends: The Falwell-Flynt Story

In 1983, the American cultural landscape was sharply divided, and no two figures embodied this division more than Jerry Falwell and Larry Flynt. Falwell was a prominent Baptist minister, televangelist, and founder of the Moral Majority, a political organization dedicated to promoting traditional Christian values in American society. Flynt was the publisher of Hustler, one of the most explicit pornographic magazines in the country, and an outspoken advocate for free speech and sexual liberation. Their collision course was set when Hustler published a parody advertisement depicting Falwell discussing having drunken, incestuous relations with his mother in an outhouse. Outraged, Falwell sued Flynt for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court, where in a landmark 1988 decision, the justices unanimously ruled in Flynt's favor, establishing important First Amendment protections for parody and satire, even when deeply offensive. Throughout the legal battle, both men publicly vilified each other. Falwell called Flynt "a slime dealer" and "the greatest pornographer of our time," while Flynt described Falwell as "a glutton," "a hypocrite," and "a liar." The animosity seemed permanent and insurmountable. Yet something remarkable happened in the years following the Supreme Court case. In 1997, Falwell was being interviewed on Larry King Live when, to everyone's surprise, Flynt called in to the show. Instead of continuing their bitter feud, the conversation took an unexpected turn. Falwell mentioned that he'd been visiting Flynt's building occasionally, and they'd begun having cordial conversations. Flynt acknowledged that despite their profound differences, he had developed a genuine respect for Falwell's sincerity. "He's absolutely sincere in his beliefs," Flynt said. "And that's what I like about him." This unexpected thawing continued to develop. When Falwell faced financial troubles with his Liberty University, Flynt donated money to help keep the school afloat. They appeared together at speaking engagements at universities, where they would debate their vastly different worldviews while maintaining a surprising warmth toward each other. As Flynt later wrote in the Los Angeles Times after Falwell's death in 2007: "The truth is, the reverend and I had a lot in common. We both came from humble beginnings. We both had difficult childhoods. We were both passionate about our beliefs." Their unlikely friendship reveals a profound truth about human connection: shared humanity can transcend even the deepest ideological divides. Research in social psychology suggests that sustained personal contact between opposing groups often reduces prejudice and hostility—a phenomenon known as the contact hypothesis. When people move beyond abstract disagreements to face-to-face interaction, they begin to see the complex individual behind the simplified enemy image. The Falwell-Flynt relationship demonstrates that authentic connection doesn't require agreement or compromise on core values. Rather, it emerges from mutual recognition of sincerity, vulnerability, and shared experience. As Flynt reflected after Falwell's death, "I always knew what he was selling, and he knew what I was selling, and we found a way to communicate." Their story offers a powerful counterpoint to today's polarized discourse—a reminder that even the fiercest adversaries can find common ground when they recognize each other's essential humanity.

Chapter 5: Belonging as the Ultimate Human Need

When sixteen lepers were exiled to Molokai Island in 1866, authorities expected them to perish quickly. The Hawaiian government, fearful of the disease's spread, provided only minimal supplies—some blankets, basic farming tools, and food that would last mere days. The exiles were strangers to each other, not family or friends. Only four were relatively healthy; the rest were gravely ill. From a purely rational survival perspective, the healthy individuals should have hoarded resources and abandoned the sick, who represented a drain on limited supplies. Two weeks later, when officials returned to drop off more lepers, they were astonished by what they found. The healthy exiles had repaired huts, planted crops, located fresh water, and—most surprisingly—devoted themselves to caring for the weakest members of their impromptu community. Not a single person had died. Rather than pursuing individual survival strategies, they had spontaneously organized themselves into a functioning, compassionate community. This seemingly irrational choice to prioritize others over self-preservation reveals something fundamental about human nature. As University of Pennsylvania professor Paul Robinson documented, this pattern repeats across numerous historical cases where groups face extreme circumstances. From shipwrecks to war zones, humans consistently demonstrate a remarkable capacity for cooperation and self-sacrifice when survival is at stake. Modern research in evolutionary psychology explains why. For most of human history, social isolation meant certain death. Those who formed strong bonds and cooperative groups survived and reproduced; those who didn't, perished. This evolutionary pressure shaped not just our social behaviors but our neurophysiology itself. When we experience social rejection, the same brain regions activate as during physical pain. Conversely, when we feel securely connected to others, our bodies release oxytocin and endorphins that reduce stress and enhance immune function. The profound impact of belonging on health is difficult to overstate. A meta-analysis of 148 studies involving over 300,000 participants found that strong social connections increase survival rates by 50%—comparable to quitting smoking and exceeding the benefits of exercise or maintaining healthy weight. Conversely, chronic loneliness increases mortality risk by 26% and is associated with higher rates of depression, cognitive decline, and cardiovascular disease. What's particularly fascinating is how belonging affects our subjective experience. Sociologist Charles Fritz studied communities that had endured disasters like floods, bombings, and earthquakes. Counterintuitively, he discovered that mental health often improved during these crises. Despite objective hardship, people reported feeling more connected, purposeful, and even happy. As one survivor of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake recalled, "While the crisis lasted, people loved each other." When facing collective challenges, humans instinctively create communities of mutual support that fulfill our deepest psychological needs. This research offers a powerful lens for understanding contemporary social problems. Our modern emphasis on individualism and self-sufficiency runs counter to our biological wiring. The epidemic of loneliness affecting developed nations isn't just a social issue—it's a health crisis with physiological consequences as serious as any disease. The lepers of Molokai remind us that belonging isn't a luxury; it's the foundation of human flourishing. In recognizing our fundamental need for connection, we can build personal relationships, communities, and societies that align with our nature as social beings.

Chapter 6: The Four Rs: Rekindling Magic in Relationships

Michelle Philpots wakes up every morning believing it's 1994. After two car accidents in the mid-1990s, she developed anteretrograde amnesia—the inability to form new long-term memories. Each day, her husband Ian must convince her they're married, showing her their wedding album and patiently explaining their life together. To Michelle, Ian appears to have aged dramatically overnight. To Ian, this is their daily ritual, repeated for over two decades. What makes their story remarkable isn't just Ian's dedication but the fact that their emotional connection remains intact despite Michelle's memory loss. While she can't remember their shared experiences, her feelings for Ian persist and even grow stronger. Neuroscientists explain this through the distinction between episodic memory (events and experiences) and emotional memory (feelings and attachments). Michelle's condition affects the former but leaves the latter largely intact. Their story illuminates a profound truth about all relationships: they require constant renewal. Every morning, Ian must effectively "rewrite" their love story for Michelle. While most couples don't face such extreme circumstances, research by relationship psychologist John Gottman shows that all partnerships are vulnerable to what he calls "entropy"—the natural tendency toward disorder and disconnection. Without deliberate maintenance, even the strongest bonds gradually weaken. Gottman's decades of research identified what he calls "The Four Horsemen" that predict relationship failure: criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling. But his work also revealed their antidotes, which can be summarized as "The Four Rs"—practices that rekindle the magic in relationships that have grown stale or distant. The first R is Rekindling feelings through self-expansion. Psychologist Arthur Aron discovered that couples who regularly engage in novel, exciting activities together report significantly higher relationship satisfaction. In one famous experiment, couples who rode roller coasters together showed more affection afterward than those who completed mundane tasks. The neurochemical rush from new experiences becomes associated with the partner, creating what Aron calls "self-expansion"—the sense that your relationship helps you grow and experience life more fully. The second R is Reminding yourself of intimacy through "love maps." Gottman found that successful couples maintain detailed mental maps of each other's worlds—their worries, hopes, and daily experiences. When partners regularly update these maps through curious questions and attentive listening, they maintain connection even during busy periods. One couple in Gottman's studies created a ritual of asking three questions each evening: "What made you sad today? What made you angry? What made you grateful?" This simple practice kept their love maps current and their connection strong. The third R is Renewing intimacy through "the Michelangelo effect." As we've seen, partners who actively support each other's ideal selves create a virtuous cycle of growth and appreciation. One powerful way to implement this is through what psychologist Shelly Gable calls "active constructive responding"—reacting to a partner's good news with genuine enthusiasm and questions that help them savor the experience. Studies show this response style predicts relationship satisfaction better than how couples handle conflicts. The fourth R is Rewriting your shared story. Psychologist Dan McAdams has shown that the narratives we construct about our relationships powerfully shape our experience of them. Couples who frame their history in terms of growth, resilience, and shared purpose report greater satisfaction than those who emphasize disappointments or incompatibilities. One exercise involves regularly revisiting and celebrating "relationship defining moments"—the meaningful experiences that reveal what makes your connection special. Like Ian and Michelle, we all need to refresh our relationships daily, though in less dramatic ways. The Four Rs aren't one-time fixes but ongoing practices that counteract entropy and sustain connection. As one participant in Gottman's research observed, "Love isn't something you find. It's something you cultivate, like a garden that needs regular tending." By deliberately rekindling, reminding, renewing, and rewriting, we can maintain the magic that brought us together in the first place.

Chapter 7: Digital vs. Real: Finding Balance in Modern Connection

In Tokyo, a man named Nisan takes his girlfriend to the beach, snapping photos of their happy moments together. They've been a couple for three years, enjoying weekend getaways to Kyoto and Osaka. There's just one unusual detail about this relationship: Nisan's girlfriend is a pillowcase printed with an anime character named Nemutan. "I've experienced so many amazing things because of her," Nisan told the New York Times. "She has really changed my life." While this might seem like an extreme case, it reflects a growing trend in Japan, where romantic relationships with virtual characters are becoming increasingly common. Love Plus, a popular video game where men interact with digital girlfriends, generates over $100 million annually. Meanwhile, companies like Abyss Creations are developing increasingly sophisticated sex robots with AI capabilities and animatronic faces. What's driving this phenomenon? Research published in 2020 found that loneliness was the single trait most associated with attraction to romantic video games. In interviews, users rarely mentioned physical attributes of their digital partners; instead, they emphasized companionship and acceptance. As one Japanese man explained, real relationships seemed too mendokusai—too much trouble. A digital girlfriend offers "an ideal love story—there are no female rivals and no sad endings." This trend coincides with declining marriage rates in Japan. Between 2002 and 2015, the percentage of unmarried Japanese women ages 20-24 rose from 38.7% to 55.3%, while for men it grew from 48.8% to 67.5%. More striking still, nearly half of young Japanese adults report never having had a sexual experience. When surveyed, 37.6% said they simply didn't want a romantic partner, finding human relationships too complicated and risky. The appeal of digital connections extends beyond romantic relationships. Social media platforms offer the illusion of connection without the vulnerability real relationships require. We can curate perfect versions of ourselves, control the timing and depth of interactions, and disconnect whenever things become uncomfortable. The average American checks their phone 96 times daily—about once every 10 minutes of waking life—often seeking the dopamine hit that comes from likes, comments, and messages. Yet research consistently shows that digital connections, while better than complete isolation, cannot satisfy our deepest social needs. Psychologist Sherry Turkle, who has studied technology's impact on relationships for decades, observes that we're "connected, but alone"—constantly communicating but rarely connecting in ways that fulfill our need for understanding and acceptance. Studies show that social media use correlates with increased loneliness and decreased well-being, particularly when it replaces face-to-face interaction. The science of connection helps explain why. Human brains evolved to process the rich, multisensory experience of in-person interaction. When we meet face-to-face, we exchange approximately 10,000 nonverbal cues per minute—facial expressions, vocal tones, gestures, and pheromones that digital communication cannot replicate. These signals trigger neurochemical responses like oxytocin release that reduce stress and create feelings of trust and bonding. This doesn't mean technology is inherently harmful to relationships. Research by sociologist Barry Wellman shows that digital communication can enhance existing relationships when used to arrange in-person meetings, maintain connections between visits, or include distant loved ones in important moments. The key distinction is whether technology serves as a bridge to deeper connection or a substitute for it. Finding balance requires intentionality. Psychologist Robert Waldinger, director of the Harvard Study of Adult Development, recommends a simple practice: before reaching for your phone during downtime, ask yourself, "Is there a person here I could connect with instead?" Similarly, relationship expert John Gottman suggests technology-free zones and times in homes to create space for undistracted connection. These boundaries help ensure that digital conveniences enhance rather than replace the face-to-face interactions that fulfill our deepest social needs. The story of Nisan and his pillowcase girlfriend represents an extreme response to a universal challenge: balancing the convenience of digital connection with the vulnerability required for genuine intimacy. While technology offers unprecedented opportunities to maintain relationships across distance and time, the research is clear that our well-being still depends primarily on the quality of our in-person connections. As we navigate an increasingly digital world, we must remember that screens can connect us broadly, but only looking into another person's eyes can connect us deeply.

Summary

Connection is the cornerstone of human existence—we are neurologically wired to bond with others, and this need shapes everything from our brain chemistry to our survival prospects. The science reveals that our relationships don't just enhance our lives; they define them. When we understand the subtle dynamics of human interaction—from the unconscious signals we exchange to the delusions that fuel our romances—we gain powerful tools for building more meaningful connections. The research consistently shows that our greatest fulfillment comes not from individual achievement but from the quality of our relationships. Start approaching your interactions with greater awareness of nonverbal cues and the limits of your perception. Embrace the positive illusions that strengthen bonds while maintaining enough realism to navigate challenges. Look for opportunities to affirm others' ideal selves rather than trying to change them into what you want them to be. Remember that even profound differences can be bridged through recognition of shared humanity. Most importantly, prioritize belonging in your life choices—the evidence is clear that no amount of individual success can compensate for the absence of meaningful connection. Your health, happiness, and very survival depend on the relationships you cultivate.

About Author

Loading...

Eric Barker

Eric Barker is the author of The Wall Street Journal bestseller Barking Up the Wrong Tree which has been translated into more than 20 languages. Over 500,000 people have subscribed to his weekly newsletter. His work has been covered by The New York Times, The Atlantic, The Financial Times, and others. Eric is also a sought-after speaker, having given talks at MIT, Yale, Google, the United States Military Central Command (CENTCOM), and the Olympic Training Center. His new bestseller, “Plays Well with Others,” was released by HarperCollins in May of 2022.

Read more