This article reminded me of this old gem from PG's "Great Hackers":
"I've found that people who are great at something are not so much convinced of their own greatness as mystified at why everyone else seems so incompetent."
Tangentially related is one of my favorite Bertrand Russell quotes: The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.
For a while after I first saw that, my opinion of myself became slightly oscillatory. (Then after a bit I went looking for objective measures, which besides being more stable have the extra benefit of showing how to improve.)
The smarter you are the higher up you go in perspective the more you realize how much more information and work you need. But I wager this is not always a good or healthy frame.
Some days I feel unhappy because I beat myself up for failing my own standards. Some people live in the moment and they're happy, some people aren't. In the end it's finding a balance in life.
My take on this is slightly different. I think people have different opinions on what above average means.
Take the driving example. I may say I'm an above average driver, since I have good reflexes and can drive at high speeds. However, someone else might say they're a good driver because they follow the speed limit.
I think the reason everyone thinks they're above average is because they are- they're just above average in different ways.
I think you were being sarcastic, alluding to teachers doling out gold stars for effort. Sarcasm doesn't really play well on mediums without body language or intonation. If this was your intention, then I agree with you.
Talent and intelligence tends to cluster in individuals. People who are above average in certain skills tend to be above average in related skills; the converse is also true. Yes, certain classes of skill tend to have an inverse relationship with others, but I don't think it's a problem of the "definition of above average." Instead, I think people simply have evolutionary reasons for inflating their worth.
Sarcastic quips don't play well on forums which value high signal-to-noise ratio, even when people can recognize the tone, unless they are exceptionally amusing or relevant.
That's an interesting thought. To say that 96% of people rate themselves a better driver because they customize their criteria to reflect what they value is quite insightful.
Your driving example is actually characteristic of how men and women differ on the issue. And the opposite is true of accidents: men, who fancy themselves better drivers, get in far more serious accidents due to aggressive and reckless behavior, and women, who fancy themselves safer/better, (supposedly) get in far more fender benders with slow moving or parked cars (possibly do to spatial perception).
I doubt Derek really believes this. At least for me it would be paralyzing to think that I was below average at everything.
I assume what he really means is, "below average in x, but I make up for that with y."
I think it'd be hard to have done as well as Derek if you honestly managed to convince yourself that you were below average intelligence, below average skill in your profession, below average ability to motivate yourself and so on. It sounds like he's setting the y to "in being humble and willing to learn from others".
Otherwise why would you try anything hard if you believed it to just be a lottery with bad odds? Wouldn't it be better to leave it as an open question so that you're self critical and are able to suss out your own weaknesses?
The fixed theory of intelligence versus the growth/incremental.
You're right: no use to be an Eeyore and assume you're doomed.
But if you're dedicated to learning, then assuming you're currently below average keeps you learning harder than if you assume you're most of the way there.
The approach I find myself taking is to keep moving the goal posts by putting myself in groups where I genuinely am below average, or at a minimum where there are prominent examples around me of people much better than me at the thing I'm trying to do.
There's also something about approaching one's limits that helps distill genuine personal weaknesses and learn to either live with or work around them.
Excellent comment. I also try to put myself in groups where I genuinely am below average, and I think it accelerates my learning curve. But it's also good to be Top Dog from time to time; the teacher often can learn more than the student.
> But it's also good to be Top Dog from time to time; the teacher often can learn more than the student.
Even in those cases, I think there is an advantage to choosing people who have the potential to become better than you are. It's really gratifying to teach someone something, and then watch them grow to the point where they know more than you do on the subject.
agreed, deluding yourself into believing that you're below average is about as useful as deluding yourself into believing that you're above average. considering yourself below average at everything is indicative of low self esteem which is really bad for your mental health. a much better approach is to take things you want to be better at, subdivide them into skills that you can actually improve, and then improve those skills. really average has nothing to do with it, as average is usually pretty bad. the average programmer, where a programmer is defined as anyone who has ever written a computer program, is not cut out to be a professional programmer. it is way more important to know your strengths and weaknesses in terms of meeting your goals so you can improve your weaknesses rather than worrying about being average.
At the end of school (17-18 years old) I was top of my class. I got the best exam results in my town. I expected to breeze Uni, I sailed through the first year and some of the second, breezed some higher (3rd/4th year honours) classes for which I had a natural aptitude. I realised not long after starting that I was more intelligent than some of my class but by no means all but also tellingly lacked their drive and ability to knuckle down. There were several others that were completely out of my league in all aspects.
Sadly I'm still kinda there wallowing in that [self-]defeat 12 years on.
It's not about being below average capacity, it's about believing that your currently-realized capacities are below average and below their limits. It's motivating. It's not about discouragement or not believing you can do something, it's actually the opposite; you know that you can improve in whatever you do so you're not afraid to learn from others. Assuming that you're "below average" in this article merely means to be teachable.
It's actually the opposite of what you're talking about here; Derek is not below-average capacity, he just has a lot of capacity yet to be realized and is willing to both admit that and take steps to improve.
The first issue is defining what you mean by "average." What does "average at driving" mean? If you're assigning people a competence percentage, then it's quite possible for a large portion of drivers to be above average (e.g. a thousand drivers that are 75% competent and a hundred drivers that are 25% competent). People often throw out the claim that "remember, half of everyone is below average," which implies a contiguous ordinal ranking for all people, in which case "average" is the same as "median."
I think he meant the mindset in general, not exactly the strict meaning or interpretation of the words "below average".
I think he meant tackling each problem by assuming that you're below the average and therefore examining and solving it more thoughtfully and carefully than you would if you just knew you're so damn good you don't really have to pay much attention to it.
So, how I saw it, it's about emphasizing that you're not quite sure how to solve a problem and, in this, thinking everyone else does makes it easier to remember the meticulousness that you desire.
It is matter of opinion. Someone who always drives the speed limit may believe they are better than all the people driving over the speed limit. And someone who drives over the limit my scoff at the parking ability of the slow driver.
Reminds me about my experiences in martial arts; notably Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. You will go in every day to train and spar and get your ass kicked by someone smaller, bigger, weaker, stronger, newer, more experienced, etc. It gets pretty rough on the ego, and if you're not smart enough to figure out that all the ass kicking's don't really matter, then you'll be one of the guys who drops out. But if you keep coming every day, commit to training despite losing constantly, you'll be absorbing more and more information and progressing faster than people who train strictly to "win" or stroke their egos.
This happens with everyone, nobody ever gets to the top by being the best from the beginning. Thats why the best fighters in the world are very humble; they've paid their dues and got their asses kicked every day to get to the top.
There's something to learn from everyone, and learning never stops. The day you think you're better than everyone else, or are "good enough", is the day your results start declining.
Especially for driving, I think most people are above average. This is because the distribution of driving ability is negatively skewed, meaning the tail on the left is longer than the tail on the right.
If you were to put a number on driving ability, most people would get something like a seven (out of a maximum of 10).
In my opinion, there would be a very small amount of two's and fives. There would also be a small percentage that would get a one out of a maximum of a ten. (The drivers that don't follow the speed limit, make dangerous overtaking maneuvers, and are agressive towards other drivers).
I think those drivers make most people claim they have an "above average" driving ability.
I think you're right which is funny because many people (way more than half as this article noted) would say they are above average and say that only half of drivers can be above average
Only 50% of students can be above average (median) but 80% may have above average grades (mode)
I believe its about attitude. One need consider him/herself to be below average to be attentive to what others say and not consider others stupid.
Considering myself below average has not really worked for me, this has actually hit my confidence and made me apprehensive about sharing my views
Wasn't there just a thread about the Dunning-Kruger effect recently?
Anyhow, yes; the more you know the more you know that you know little. The more experienced you are the more you know that you lack experience.
But that doesn't mean that you're not knowledgeable or experienced. This kind of worldview is a good basis for approaching anything, but it's not a good way to make decisions.
My high school psychology teacher taught us about illusory superiority by another name (which is discussed on the Wikipedia page): the Lake Woebegone Effect.
This refers, of course, to Garrison Keillor's Lake Wobegone, where "all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average."
Although that was years ago, I think about the effect often. Part of the reason it had such a profound effect on me, I think, is because the name is just so awesome.
I think this way, too. I assume I'm a bad programmer, businessman, communicator, etc. It has always served me well. It keeps me asking questions and always striving to improve. Even in the unlikely event that I ever knew what I was talking about, what would it have mattered? It's rule of the Price is Right: you automatically disqualify yourself by going over.
It seems to me that the benefit that the author describes comes from listening and seeking to learn, rather than by viewing oneself as inferior. I have a particularly hard time believing that you can sustain a successful career if you're not able to sell yourself, something you can't do effectively with a negative self image.
"Most people are so worried about looking good that they never do anything great.
Most people are so worried about doing something great that they never do anything at all."
That was wow! Though, thinking you are below average outs constraints in some people making them believe that certain bigger things are "not for me". That can be devastating.
I don't really pay much attention to the average, or to what other people "know". I mostly compare what I know to what I don't know, or more accurately - What I can do to what I can't but want to do. That is a sure way to keep yourself fairly humble - no matter how smart I am, there is never time to learn to do all the things I want to do.
I like to think of myself as above average in my areas on strong interest. That being said though I love to meet people that are better than me, allows me to learn a lot.
I hate working with people and knowing that there is much point asking them a question because they will go through the same basic stuff I have already tried. Much prefer to be surrounded by really smart people and feel like a beginner than be the smartest person in the room and get some things done much more slowly.
112 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 178 ms ] thread"I've found that people who are great at something are not so much convinced of their own greatness as mystified at why everyone else seems so incompetent."
Some days I feel unhappy because I beat myself up for failing my own standards. Some people live in the moment and they're happy, some people aren't. In the end it's finding a balance in life.
http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=5...
Take the driving example. I may say I'm an above average driver, since I have good reflexes and can drive at high speeds. However, someone else might say they're a good driver because they follow the speed limit.
I think the reason everyone thinks they're above average is because they are- they're just above average in different ways.
Talent and intelligence tends to cluster in individuals. People who are above average in certain skills tend to be above average in related skills; the converse is also true. Yes, certain classes of skill tend to have an inverse relationship with others, but I don't think it's a problem of the "definition of above average." Instead, I think people simply have evolutionary reasons for inflating their worth.
I guess fish would define sophistication as a nice swim bladder.
I assume what he really means is, "below average in x, but I make up for that with y."
I think it'd be hard to have done as well as Derek if you honestly managed to convince yourself that you were below average intelligence, below average skill in your profession, below average ability to motivate yourself and so on. It sounds like he's setting the y to "in being humble and willing to learn from others".
Otherwise why would you try anything hard if you believed it to just be a lottery with bad odds? Wouldn't it be better to leave it as an open question so that you're self critical and are able to suss out your own weaknesses?
The fixed theory of intelligence versus the growth/incremental.
You're right: no use to be an Eeyore and assume you're doomed.
But if you're dedicated to learning, then assuming you're currently below average keeps you learning harder than if you assume you're most of the way there.
There's also something about approaching one's limits that helps distill genuine personal weaknesses and learn to either live with or work around them.
Even in those cases, I think there is an advantage to choosing people who have the potential to become better than you are. It's really gratifying to teach someone something, and then watch them grow to the point where they know more than you do on the subject.
Sadly I'm still kinda there wallowing in that [self-]defeat 12 years on.
It's actually the opposite of what you're talking about here; Derek is not below-average capacity, he just has a lot of capacity yet to be realized and is willing to both admit that and take steps to improve.
I think he meant tackling each problem by assuming that you're below the average and therefore examining and solving it more thoughtfully and carefully than you would if you just knew you're so damn good you don't really have to pay much attention to it.
So, how I saw it, it's about emphasizing that you're not quite sure how to solve a problem and, in this, thinking everyone else does makes it easier to remember the meticulousness that you desire.
This happens with everyone, nobody ever gets to the top by being the best from the beginning. Thats why the best fighters in the world are very humble; they've paid their dues and got their asses kicked every day to get to the top.
There's something to learn from everyone, and learning never stops. The day you think you're better than everyone else, or are "good enough", is the day your results start declining.
If you were to put a number on driving ability, most people would get something like a seven (out of a maximum of 10).
In my opinion, there would be a very small amount of two's and fives. There would also be a small percentage that would get a one out of a maximum of a ten. (The drivers that don't follow the speed limit, make dangerous overtaking maneuvers, and are agressive towards other drivers).
I think those drivers make most people claim they have an "above average" driving ability.
Only 50% of students can be above average (median) but 80% may have above average grades (mode)
People tend to confuse the two concepts
Anyhow, yes; the more you know the more you know that you know little. The more experienced you are the more you know that you lack experience.
But that doesn't mean that you're not knowledgeable or experienced. This kind of worldview is a good basis for approaching anything, but it's not a good way to make decisions.
This refers, of course, to Garrison Keillor's Lake Wobegone, where "all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average."
Although that was years ago, I think about the effect often. Part of the reason it had such a profound effect on me, I think, is because the name is just so awesome.
Most people are so worried about doing something great that they never do anything at all."
That was wow! Though, thinking you are below average outs constraints in some people making them believe that certain bigger things are "not for me". That can be devastating.
I hate working with people and knowing that there is much point asking them a question because they will go through the same basic stuff I have already tried. Much prefer to be surrounded by really smart people and feel like a beginner than be the smartest person in the room and get some things done much more slowly.
not to mention the condescending, lecturing tone in the post makes me want to vomit