Are we looking at this all wrong? The science of behaviour and intentionality
There’s a growing discomfort in the world of human development:
we talk endlessly about values, mindsets, beliefs, and intentions — yet the outcomes we observe often tell a different story.
Someone may hold inclusive beliefs yet behave defensively under pressure.
Someone may genuinely value empathy yet interrupt juniors without noticing.
Someone may believe in fairness yet make decisions that are anything but.
We tend to resolve this mismatch with a familiar explanation:
“Their intentions were good.”
But what if this is the wrong place to look?
What if we’ve spent too long staring at the internal world and not nearly enough time examining how people actually behave in real conditions?
This is where Epistemological Behaviourism (EB) quietly steps into view — not as a rejection of internal states, but as a reframing that shifts the inquiry from what people believe to what people can reliably demonstrate.
And that shift changes everything.
Why Intentions Mislead Us
Intentions feel comforting because they’re neat, narratable, and socially acceptable.
They help people justify their choices, protect their self-concept, and maintain coherence.
But intentions are also:
- inconsistent
- highly context-dependent
- shaped by stress, norms, pressure, fatigue
- prone to rationalisation
- invisible to everyone except the person claiming them
In other words, they’re a shaky foundation for understanding human behaviour.
Epistemological Behaviourism proposes that instead of asking,
“What do you believe?”
we should ask,
“What behaviour do you reliably produce across contexts?”
Not as a judgment — but as data.
Epistemological Behaviourism: The Shift That Makes the Invisible Visible
At its heart, EB argues something simple yet profound:
We understand who we are not from what we say we intend, but from the behavioural patterns we enact — especially under cognitive load, stress, or uncertainty.
This perspective forces us to study:
- the micro-decisions made in real time
- reactions rather than rehearsals
- behaviour in practice rather than behaviour in principle
- patterns, not anecdotes
It’s the difference between stating a value and embodying it.
This is why EB aligns beautifully with simulation work, leadership practice, mentoring observations, and organisational culture audits.
Because the moment you place someone inside a dynamic system — interpersonal conflict, ambiguity, a power gradient, a time pressure —
their behaviour stops being hypothetical.
What If Behaviour Is the True Expression of Intent?
This question alone reshapes how we think about learning and accountability.
Instead of assuming that behaviour flows from intention, EB invites us to consider that behaviour is its own category of knowledge — a form of epistemic truth.
In other words:
- You know someone is collaborative because they collaborate.
- You know someone is defensive because they become defensive.
- You know someone values inclusion because they consistently make space for others, not because they say they value it.
Behaviour becomes a language.
Intentions become commentary.
Once you see it this way, you can’t unsee it.
Why This Matters for Human Development Work
If we design training around what people believe, we get self-reports and pleasant conversations.
If we design training around what people actually do, we get:
- observable patterns
- measurable change
- richer insight
- reduced bias
- more honest data
- better predictions
- interventions that actually work
And suddenly, culture change becomes less about convincing people to think differently and more about creating conditions where new behaviour can emerge and stabilise.
This is the realm Free-Range Minds works in.
Becoming Curious: A Quiet Invitation
Epistemological Behaviourism doesn’t ask you to abandon intentions.
It simply asks:
- What if behaviour is already telling you a story you’ve been trained not to listen to?
- What if the truth of human interaction is buried in the micro-behaviours, not the macro-narratives?
- What if the gap between who we think we are and what we actually do is the most interesting place to explore?
This isn’t a critique.
It’s a curiosity.
A new lens.
A deeper way of seeing.
Because if we want to understand people — truly understand them — we may need to stop staring at their stated intentions and start paying attention to the subtleties within their behaviour.
Not as accusation.
As discovery.
Adil J. Khan
adil.khan@lis.ac.uk