How to Know a Person: The Art of Seeing Others Deeply and Being Deeply Seen

An Illuminator is a person who illuminates and uplifts others, fostering a sense of recognition and understanding. The term stands in contrast to the Diminisher, representing someone who makes others feel small. An Illuminator is characterized by being present, faithful, and understanding, celebrating achievements and acknowledging strengths while navigating challenges. Within the book, Brooks employs the concept of the Illuminator to underscore the positive impact of individuals who engage in meaningful, empathetic interactions, emphasizing the importance of social connection and generosity in cultivating strong moral character.

In How to Know a Person, a “clearness committee” is a Quaker practice involving a group of peers who assist an individual in gaining clarity on a personal decision or dilemma. This committee facilitates self-reflection by posing questions, allowing the person to articulate their thoughts and arrive at their own conclusions. Brooks refers to Parker J. Palmer’s experience with a clearness committee, which illustrates its role in helping individuals explore their motivations, values, and desires. The committee’s supportive inquiry enables a deeper understanding of personal truths, providing an opportunity for self-discovery and discernment in the decision-making process.

Brooks refers to the mediator Adar Cohen’s idea of “gem statement,” which refers to the foundational truth underlying a disagreement. It serves as a shared understanding or agreement amid challenging conversations, encapsulating a point on which both parties can concur despite their differences. The gem statement represents a common ground that, when revisited during conflicts, helps maintain the strength of the relationship. By acknowledging and focusing on this core truth, individuals can foster understanding and connection, even in the midst of disagreement, providing a stabilizing anchor for the dynamics between them as emphasized within the book.

In the book, the term “novelty penalty” refers to the psychological phenomenon observed by social psychologist Gus Cooney and others, where individuals tend to struggle with picturing and getting excited about unfamiliar topics. People inherently prefer discussing familiar and known elements, experiencing a sense of difficulty or reluctance when engaging with new or novel subjects. This concept underlines the preference for familiarity in conversations, suggesting that individuals are more likely to connect and engage when the discussion centers around shared or known experiences. Brooks refers to the idea of novelty penalty to emphasize the importance of tapping into familiar aspects to facilitate meaningful and comfortable conversations, which aligns with the book’s exploration of effective communication and understanding.

The term “sommeliers of people” metaphorically refers to individuals who, armed with an in-depth understanding of the personality traits of those they engage in conversation with, can perceive and evaluate them more discerningly. Similar to how geologists distinguish between different types of rocks or sommeliers assess wines based on its characteristics, being a “sommelier of people” suggests having a heightened awareness of personality traits. This metaphor underscores the book’s theme of enhancing interpersonal understanding by providing readers with a refined framework for perceiving and appreciating the complexities of human personalities.