The Unbiased Lens - Observation Over Inference

• by 2 Shabd
• September 19, 2026
• 5 min read

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 a review should not immediately turn one person's interpretation into a fact about someone's personality or ability.

Context Changes Interpretation

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

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.”

We want:

“During the task 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 or supervisor 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:

• Multiple peer observations
• Different interpretations
• The context of the task
• Witness observations
• Repeated behaviours
• The student's overall evidence

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?”

What We Want Users to Write

When writing a review, focus on evidence before interpretation.

Write:

1. Situation Where and when did you observe this?

2. Observation What exactly did the person do or say?

3. Impact What happened because of that behaviour?

4. Interpretation What do you think this behaviour might indicate?

Example

Situation: During our Sunday team project, we were dividing responsibilities for the final presentation.

Observation: Riya asked each team member which task they preferred before assigning responsibilities.

Impact: Everyone had a clear responsibility, and the team started working without further discussion about task allocation.

Interpretation: This may indicate that Riya is comfortable coordinating people and considering different team members' preferences.

Remember

Observation is what happened. Inference is what you think it means. Context helps explain why it happened. Multiple observations help identify patterns.

In 2 Shabd, we don't want one person to define another person. We want evidence from multiple people to help understand behaviour—and give the student an opportunity to grow.