The Unbiased Lens - Observation Over Inference

• by 2 Shabd
• September 19, 2026

When giving feedback about someone, it is important to separate what you observed from what you think it means.

Observation vs. Inference?

The Same Observation Can Lead to Different Inferences

Imagine three students observe the same behaviour:

Observation: “Rahul interrupted two teammates during the discussion.”

Three people might interpret it differently:

Student A:

“Rahul was too eager to share his ideas.”

Student B:

“Rahul wasn't giving others enough opportunity to speak.”

Student C:

“Rahul probably knew the solution and wanted to move the discussion forward.”

The observation is the same, but the interpretations are different.

This is why 2 Shabd encourages you to write observations in your review.

Context Changes Interpretation

The same behaviour can mean something completely different depending on the context.

For example:

“Rahul interrupted two teammates during the discussion.”

If the discussion was casual, it might indicate impatience or poor listening.

But if the team had only two minutes left to make an important decision, the same behaviour could have been an attempt to keep the team focused.

Behaviour without context can easily be misunderstood.

That is why useful feedback should capture:

Situational Context → Observation

How This Works in 2 Shabd

2 Shabd uses multiple perspectives instead of relying on a single person's interpretation.

1. Team Members Record Their Observations

Each team member reviews the student based on what they personally observed while working together.

Instead of:

“Aman is a bad team player.”

2 Shabd encourages:

“During the project allocation, Aman took responsibility for two tasks but did not update the team when one of them was delayed.”

The reviewer should describe what they actually experienced.

2. Multiple Reviews Provide Multiple Perspectives

If three teammates observed Aman during the same project, we now have three different perspectives.

• One person may notice his communication.
• Another may notice his reliability.
• Another may notice how he handles disagreements.

Together, these observations provide a broader picture than one review alone.

3. The Witness Adds Context

The team's witness (supervisor/faculty/lead) can then review the observations and provide their own evidence.

For example:

“Two teammates mentioned that Aman did not communicate the delay. From my observation, Aman had informed me about the delay but did not communicate it to the rest of the team.”

The witness can therefore clarify the context behind different observations rather than simply choosing which reviewer is right or wrong.

The witness also contributes their own direct observations.

4. The Psychologist Interprets the Evidence

Finally, the psychologist can look at:

• The context of the task
• Multiple peer observations
• Witness observations
• Repeated behaviours

The psychologist can then identify possible strengths and growth areas without treating one isolated interpretation as a fact.

The goal is not to decide:

“This is what the student is.”

The goal is to understand:

“What behaviour is consistently being observed, in what context, and what might it indicate?”

2 Shabd Recommended Review Framework

In the above blog, we have discussed the difference between an observation and an inference. 2 Shabd wants your review to describe what you actually observed, rather than directly judging (inferring) someone's personality or abilities.

2 Shabd recommends a simplified STAR format:

S — Situation

One-line context of the project or situation.

T — Task

What specific responsibility was assigned to the person?

A — Action

What did you directly observe the person doing? Avoid personality labels and vague qualifier words like "sometimes, at times, generally, potentially".

2 Shabd recommends the following micro framework: When [X], this person [Y]. In other words, Context → Noticed Behavioral Details

Ex. When report writing stalled, he volunteered first and assigned remaining sections to others.

R — Result

The Result is created by our psychologist, not by the reviewer. It is derived from patterns found across multiple observations, together with the available context and witness evidence.

A Review Example

[Situation] Our team had two days to build a small college garden.

[Task] Arjun was responsible for planning the layout and coordinating the planting work.

[Action] My observations about him:

1. When planting delays piled up, he reassigned tasks to keep us on schedule.
2. When space ran short, he adjusted plant spacing to fit the original design.
3. When two members stood idle, he assigned them to water newly planted beds.

Practice writing 2 Shabd reviews here.

From Observations to Behavioural Interpretation

The reviewer does not need to decide what their observations say about the other person.

For example:

These are possible interpretations, not conclusions.

2 Shabd psychologist looks for similar observations across multiple independent reviews, along with the witness's observations and context. When the same behavioural pattern is supported by multiple pieces of evidence, confidence in the interpretation increases.

So your role is simple:

Tell us what happened. 2 Shabd will use the evidence to understand what it may indicate.