Imagine Daniel washing a cup when several family arguments suddenly make sense. His sister, he decides, cannot bear to lose, and everything else is an argument she assembles afterwards. By the time the cup is dry, the explanation feels like something he has finally noticed rather than something he has made up.
The latest disagreement concerned a journey with their father. Daniel proposed a convenient date, and his sister objected, offered alternatives and eventually became angry. He remembers the anger far more readily than the alternatives. If winning explains her behaviour, opening the calendar can seem beside the point, which is exactly how we ignore red flags when we want something to be true.
Daniel and his sister are fictional, but their situation raises a practical question for anyone who enjoys psychological explanations. How do you check an explanation that feels right, and what would make your interpretation change? An account can settle an argument in your imagination while leaving the shared problem untouched, much as explaining yourself again rarely changes a mind already made up.
How to check an explanation that feels right, starting with the feeling
In a 2017 study, Amory Danek and Jennifer Wiley analysed responses from 70 undergraduates who were trying to explain filmed magic tricks. On average, correct answers received stronger Aha ratings than incorrect ones. Yet some wrong answers also received strong Aha ratings, and pleasantness, suddenness and confidence were associated with Aha ratings for both kinds of answer.
In this task, then, the feeling was informative on average without guaranteeing that an answer was correct. The study concerned solutions to magic tricks, not explanations of family relationships. It did not test whether enjoying an interpretation makes someone wrong, nor did it offer a way to identify another person’s hidden motive.
The distinction I draw for everyday reflection is a modest one. The satisfaction of finding an explanation and the work of checking it deserve separate attention, and you can enjoy an idea while leaving its accuracy open.
Turn the model towards your own account
In my book Treat Your Monkey Right, I use Monkey, Ego and Super-Ego as overlapping perspectives on one person. Monkey names embodied attractions and aversions, including curiosity and the pleasure of understanding. Ego concerns organising action, comparing routes and using skills, while Super-Ego concerns the social expectations we carry inside, including standards we may have good reasons to keep. These are an author’s metaphor, not separate brain compartments or a validated personality test.
Daniel could use that vocabulary to examine his own explanation. What is satisfying about it? How is he arranging the details he remembers? And does his picture of himself as the reasonable sibling leave room for a reasonable objection?
Those are questions, not findings about his motives. He could just as easily produce another elegant story in which he secretly needs control, and that story would still require evidence. Turning a psychological label towards yourself does not automatically make it accurate. The model earns its place only if it helps Daniel notice an assumption he can inspect, because it offers no private entrance into his sister’s mind.
Give the explanation somewhere to be wrong
Begin with the part of the disagreement that both people could examine. Daniel might write: “I assumed my proposed date left us with roughly equal responsibilities”. That sentence is narrower than “She always needs to win”, and it points towards information he can actually seek.
Which dates were available? Who had already agreed to drive? Did his convenient plan require her to rearrange something he had overlooked? He can read the messages, check his own commitments and ask what made the proposal difficult for her.
Consider two possible findings. His sister’s alternative might avoid work he had unknowingly assigned to her, or the dates might be equally practical, leaving a genuine disagreement about preferences. Neither result requires a complete theory of her character, yet each changes what needs discussing.
The check should also allow Daniel’s proposal to remain reasonable. Looking for an inconvenient fact is not an obligation to prove yourself wrong; the aim is to give both accounts the same chance to meet the available information. An explanation that survives everything needs closer inspection, though. If agreement proves that someone wants approval and disagreement proves that they fear losing, what could ever count against the interpretation? At that point the vocabulary may be protecting the conclusion rather than helping to examine it.
Choose a next step before explaining a whole person
Some evidence will remain out of reach. A calendar cannot settle every disagreement, and another person’s account may leave questions unanswered. Daniel can still ask for clarity or disagree about fairness without claiming to know the psychological origin of her response.
He can also make a useful decision before resolving the whole history. Perhaps they need a different date, a clearer division of the journey or a limit on what either of them can take on. An agreed arrangement does not require agreement about everyone’s deepest motivation.
This approach gives the other person a real voice. Asking “Which part of this plan creates a problem for you?” makes room for an answer, whereas announcing “Your Monkey needs to win” places the interpretation beyond their reach. A refusal to accept the label would not confirm it.
For your next satisfying explanation, try three steps. None of them requires a theory of anyone’s character.
- Name the assumption: Write down one assumption the explanation depends on.
- Find the test: Identify an ordinary fact that could change it.
- Plan the response: Decide what you would do differently if that fact appeared.
Keep the observation proportionate, because a message or conversation can clarify one occasion without proving a lifelong pattern. This is a reflective practice, not a research-tested treatment or a test of the model.
FAQs
- Is an Aha moment a sign that an answer is correct? Not reliably. In one study of magic trick solutions, correct answers drew stronger Aha ratings on average, but some wrong answers did too.
- How can I test my explanation of someone else’s behaviour? Write down one assumption it depends on, look for an ordinary fact that could change it, such as messages or dates, and ask the other person what made the situation difficult for them.
- Why is an explanation that fits everything a warning sign? If every possible response seems to confirm it, nothing could count against it, so it may be protecting a conclusion rather than explaining anything.
Takeaway
Daniel can keep his pleasure in understanding while giving it a task that allows for an unwelcome answer. Before sending the message about his sister’s Monkey, he opens the calendar.
