As with many things, this goes both ways. Some people are overconfident and need to practice humility. Other people are underconfident and need to take more risks. The trick is figuring which group you're in on any given day.
No. It goes one way more than the other. Did you read the article? Statistics the author references show that people are more overconfident than underconfident.
People who start with unsupported conviction that they are good in tech, interact with tech a lot more. They over time really learn a lot and meantime end up blaming everything except themselves. But, people who start with conviction that they are not technical kind of person, never learn and just give up.
Drivers who assume themselves to be bad drivers tend to drive very little or not at all and never improve. They are parallelized by fear, their assumption they cant do anything rubs on others who are in car with them who then start to give them advice - making situation worst.
I have seen that dynamic a lot of times, because in my country it is quite frequent with women drivers. Not most women or something, but there is certain kind of woman who assumes own incapability and it is self-fullfiling prophecy.
90% thinking they are above average could still mean that almost 50% underestimates themselves. All it proves is that people who are less than mediocre rarely realizes it.
our sense of averages is also greatly skewed.
if you are a degree bearing professional in a competitive field, the amount of time you spend measuring yourself against the 50th percentile and below is in all likelihood close to zero.
you see this in review scores as well. there is a strong cultural bias towards the upper third, an album/ movie or game is often considered a critical failure if it scores a 7 or below even though that would, broadly speaking, mean it is better than average.
I can point out things I'm clearly above average at, and things I'm clearly below average at. I can also point out areas where I have no idea, like driving.
If I start assuming I'm below average as a baseline, when I wasn't assuming I was above average as a baseline, I'm pretty sure that will make me less accurate.
Thinking about things as just practice is good advice but I don't see how it has any connection at all to whether my skill level is above or below average.
I totally agree. The different and sometimes complex ways people are good at some things and bad at others is a reality that actually exists.
The idea of playing mind games in order to act less self-important seems... kind of self-important. The context of it being sold as a new idea in a blog with the person's name at the top in capital letters doesn't help that perception. I think Socrates might have the jump on this guy's routine by a few years.
The illusion can be summed up in a single pithy phrase: "I remember everything, because I don't recall ever forgetting anything important".
If we were aware of our mistakes, we wouldn't make most of them. So generally we will appear to be the only person doing nothing wrong in a sea of people who are constantly screwing up.
People who fight against that illusion be creating safeguards around themselves and testing things they think are obvious have a chance of outperforming.
Never underestimate the ability of someone to get amazing results simply by not making any obvious mistakes.
All that doesn't explain the cancer patients though.
Ithink it is always good to stay realistic. This could mean you are not as good as you think you are, but it could also mean that you are better than the average (e.g. most people on this site might be better with computers than the average of the world population).
Assuming other people are idiots is never a good thing, even if it was true. I'd rather assume they have a bad day, or misunderstand what you mean because they dont have the same mental map unrolled in front of themselves as you have, and that can also be due to miscommunication.
Whether someone really is an idiot will come to light through repetition.
Exactly, we can all to some extent look at our outcomes and compare to see where we stand. It's what grades are for, after all. A humble attitude in a completely new environment isn't a bad start though.
Grades can be misleading as well, because they don't necessarily signify that a person understood what they did, but that they managed to deliver within that grading system (e.g. by learning things by hard, by preparing for a very narrow topic, etc).
Working in a very free university/art school (without grades and with little pressure), I often see people who had good grades before completely fall apart when nobody tells them what to do and how to do it. Grades are nice and all, but don't take it for given that they correlate to actual performance. Additionally there are field where this is even truer: how do you grade art? Will a gallerist buy your art because you had good grades in art school? Will a festival screen your film because your professors gave you the best grade?
Grades should be taken with a grain of salt unless you know the system within which they were created very well and what these grades indicate. I think actual projects and experiences are worth more. If you e.g. mixed the sound for 10 movies and there are more people asking you to do it for them (and they are willing to pay), this might be a good indicator that you actually know what you are doing.
Yeah - are you below average compared to the average population or compared to the fantastic people that you might work with? The latter is more likely to be true or helpful to assume in any field in which you have survived for some time.
don't bother about whether or not you have it. Just assume that you do and then forget about it. talent is a word we use after someone has become accomplished. There is no way to detect it before the fact, or when someone is still grappling with the learning process. It is impossible to predict when or if mastery will click into place. Besides, the thing we label as talent is not a single ability. It is a complex mixture of motive, curiousity, receptivity, intelligence, sensitivity good teaching, perseverance, timing, sheer luck, and countless other things. If any part of it is genetic, God-given, the result of astrological fiddle-faddle, fate, or destiny, that part is not the sole determining factor, All the other ingredients must be present in the right combination- and no one knows the exact recipe. Therefore Dear Reader, don't waste time worrying about if you are talented- and don't blame any failures on the lack of it-that is really a cop out...'
- Alla Prima: Everything I Know About Painting, Richard Schmid
I dunno, if you look at untrained 6 year olds, some just are faster runners, have better hand eye coordination, etc. With 0 training. It’s always a balance between hard work and reasonable expectations.
> To assume you’re below average is to admit you’re still learning
The top physicist in the world deeply knows that he is still learning, but he also knows that he's above average. There are plenty of ways people get feedback in life that tells them that they're above average. I think the real advice is to not assume you're better than someone just because you're above average at X. That person is probably above average at Y. Thankfully, most people who are above average already know this.
Sure but why does it matter that one is above average? I can’t think of one situation that isn’t contrived that involves this piece of information. That physicist doesn’t need that info to do research or accomplish great things.
I've used that kind of information throughout my life as a marker to help me determine when it's time for me to move on to the next "stage" of development of my skill. It is similar in spirit to the quote (paraphrasing), "If you're the smartest person in the room, find another room", except substitute "smartest" with "highest skilled" perhaps.
Essentially, I see it as a meta-indicator, a way of making decisions in situations where I don't have all of the information.
Another way to look at it would be through the lens of game theory. Game theory is absolutely a field of some consequence, and it's all about relative positioning of agents in a system and their likely intentions after factoring in the likely intentions of their peers.
In a word, you might describe this type of analysis as simply, "wisdom." I find it to be of particular value in entrepreneurship.
I agree. Comparing your ability to do X vs your peers can be helpful when looking for ways to improve yourself. A lot of people on this forum probably think of themselves as above average at some technical skill like programming or business development. It is useful for them to know that fact because it can help with guiding things like career opportunities. It is equally important to figure out what you’re below average at so you can take steps to improve that skill.
I absolutely see where you're coming from but I can't help but think this strategy will only ever gimp one's ability to grow. I always think of the example of Lebron James. If he was always comparing himself to others he wouldn't have gotten nearly as good as he is. Especially since he's risen to the top end of the skill bracket. Comparing yourself to the people in the room only gets you better than the best person in that room. That strikes me as a very slow way to get to be the best ever unless you're in some supremely gargantuan rooms.
I think what everyone ought to do is only ever compare yourself to yourself. "Am I doing this better than the last time I did it? If not how can I do that?" It's a function that's always growing and the rate of growth is how much effort you put in. It's not bounded by the people you're comparing yourself to.
Assume nothing! If, for some reason, it is important to get an accurate gauge of how you rank compared to others, then find engage some kind of assessment that will determine that. If that's not viable, then it probably isn't important to know (often when it is viable it also isn't important to know also).
I think this is generally not such a great idea, quite a few things end up getting achieved because somebody is punching above their station. I think you learn the most when you steam train into something and get stuck - then figure out how to get out of it.
In general, I think it would be better to assume that you're not more intelligent than the person you are speaking to (at least on a particular subject) and that you may not be the smartest person in the room. That's not to say you are below average, but that there is still something you can learn from at least one person in your company.
I’d say both shifts in mindset is a tactical decision. Sometimes you really need to have faith in yourself to achieve something. Sometimes you need to remove your ego to sustain something. Every situation is different, but I would agree one should not give up tactical options in the greater strategic battle of coping with life and the onslaught of dealing with people.
Practice. Relinquish a belief and deal with the fallout (internally with the psychological hit to the ego, modulate the impact it has on you), then strive for something that may or may not be achievable (and modulate again, not letting the attainment be your everything, and not letting failure be overly impactful).
It’s tough when you’re insecure because your primary mental fortification is an inflated ego. Just get used to (practicing) inflating and deflating the ego (ideally just keeping it half filled with air) so you literally are not a zero-self-esteem mess out there in the world.
If you have no practice with this, every time life gives you an opportunity or challenge, you’ll make judgement mistakes.
I think the people who punch above their weight are the ones who genuinely want to solve the problems in said domain. It is a signal of drive. If you are working in a domain and not punching above your station, then you are probably not driven in that domain. Coasters get nowhere. People who push boundaries are often the most likely ones to get past them.
That's one possibility. The other is that you're delusional about your own abilities. There is a skill in being able to tell the difference between these two.
>quite a few things end up getting achieved because somebody is punching above their station. I think you learn the most when you steam train into something and get stuck - then figure out how to get out of it.
You can do that without deluding yourself into thinking you're smarter than you actually are, in fact it probably puts (the very likely) failure into a much healthier context.
Someone who is average can do exceptional things depending on the circumstances, and that is also really another point, not overplaying your own role in your success will make you pay attention to the people and the circumstance you rely on, and the huge role luck plays.
There is no need to perceive oneself as exceptional to take risk, that's just a broken celebrity culture. What I'm saying is, be Samwise, basically.
> I think you learn the most when you steam train into something and get stuck - then figure out how to get out of it.
Warning: Please don't apply this to _other_ people who say they need help with something. If someone comes to you with a problem they say that they are stuck on and can't figure out, please don't respond solely by giving them encouragement to just keep plugging along. Either encourage them to find someone else with time to listen or give your time to listen.
1. It feels incredibly _isolating_ to be told something like, "Thats just imposter syndrome. I'm sure you'll figure it out."
2. It is much harder to focus and succeed when you're trying to push yourself down a path you think is probably fruitless.
3. It is much harder to solve problems when you don't have a sounding board. When you can have conversational space to teach someone else about the problem space, paths open up.
I've had some good experiences encouraging people to push on, especially when i suspected that they suffer from imposter syndrome. Probably there is no absolute truth here.
> 2. It is much harder to focus and succeed when you're trying to push yourself down a path you think is probably fruitless.
This is actually the big one. Validation that they are making progress allows people to go back to banging on a problem.
If one of my senior engineers claims to be stuck on some technical problems and comes to me asking for extra technical advice, we're probably going to spend some time digging at things. That's the realm of sounding board.
However, I may have given an assignment to an intern specifically so that they will go learn something that I think they need to learn by working it out. If they come to me, I'll give them some limited advice, validate their progress to this point, but I'm probably going to send them back and tell them to bang their head on it some more. One of the lessons junior engineers need to learn is "Sometimes the senior guys don't actually know the answer and part of your work is actually figuring it out."
And sometimes the task really is just a slog. Too many junior engineers think everything can be made "easy and quick" like a textbook question. However, if someone is slogging via brute force and comes to me I'll look at it and say something like: "Yup, you seem to be going the right way. And it looks like you're about 10% done. Keep going."
The validation that they're not going down a blind path is the most important thing.
> One of the lessons junior engineers need to learn is "Sometimes the senior guys don't actually know the answer and part of your work is actually figuring it out."
100% agreed on this.
I just think we should be doing more to put 'how and when to start a sounding-board conversation' in the toolbox of Junior Engineers.
> "Yup, you seem to be going the right way. And it looks like you're about 10% done. Keep going."
Agreed.
On top of that: "Here are signs of progress to look for" or "Here are ways to detect signs of progress".
Which allows one to judge whether they are truly stuck or just need to plug at it some more... not to mention all those times when they realize the mistake they made while explaining the problem to you !
I agree. It also filters out all those people who didn't put in effort and want to use you as their personal "Google".
I love to help people. I esp. appreciate the ones that up front tell me what they already did and tried. I had a great colleague once - I loved to help her, because I always knew that she came to me, when she was truly stuck and did not know what to do after trying everything that she could think of.
And she was able to succinctly tell what she did so that I was able to narrow down potential causes/solutions quite efficiently.
Contrast that with another former colleague who when getting stuck alawys came to me first thing to ask me, if he could just ask a short question. Even in moments when I was clearly deep in concentration and clearly signaling that state. It was always urgent and he never put in any effort to solve the problem himself first.
"What" questions that calmly ask for a list are often really good because they are easy to answer if you know the information. And if someone doesn't know the answer, it prompts them into the good habits of:
1. Doing some work before interrupting someone with a question.
2. Writing down their steps as they do so.
Other good ones are: "What are some questions that come to mind" and "What are some paths forward that seem plausible?" to help those who are
1. At a crossroads.
2. Having trouble articulating that they are afraid of going down a rabbit hole.
I'm still looking for a good question for helping those who are totally lost without a mental model that lets them put words to the domain.
My first 'real job' as a developer at MSFT. My manager would respond to any problem I was having with 'What have you tried'. Internalizing that question has made me a much better developer that gets 'stuck' much less.
As you mention, this is for a person to apply themselves and my original comment is not meant to be applied to others.
Regarding your points:
> "Thats just imposter syndrome. I'm sure you'll figure it
> out."
But they should be encouraged to at least try to find a solution (depending on the scenario). If it's simply "I do not know how to do X" and I ask "have you looked at Y", if the answer is no then this is something they should do. Maybe there is no solution there either, but it is something they should explore so we can have a discussion about that.
> It is much harder to focus and succeed when you're trying
> to push yourself down a path you think is probably
> fruitless.
Well, that is also where the maximum reward exists - when you think something is impossible and then you discover you are able to do it. If nothing else, you gain a better ability to judge what 'fruitless' looks like when considering problems.
> It is much harder to solve problems when you don't have a
> sounding board.
Sure, but it also robs you of a learning experience if you are always relying on other people to guide you through solving problems - and it can be exhausting for the person that has to guide you. So it should be something that is not used common place.
For example, you could ask "off the top of you head, do you know how to do X? If not I'll consult Y...". Maybe they have some pointers for solving X, but you're also saying that you're willing to investigate using method Y.
Ultimately, if you have little risk, you have little reward. You can easily setup a scenario where they try to solve their problem, but don't get stuck for too long. For example, send them off and check up on them half hour later: "any luck solving X yet?", "have you considered looking at Z?".
Another point to consider when you agree to always help somebody solve problems they make little to no effort to solve themselves is that they are robbed of the learning experience, they have a path where they never have to become self-dependent and you are distracted from some other task.
> If it's simply "I do not know how to do X" and I ask "have you looked at Y"
This is helpful, sometimes enormously so. It may be that the only way they could have heard of Y within 2 years of facing the problem is through conversation. But once they hear the name of Y, they have something to punch into google.
> they should be encouraged to at least try to find a solution
Note that having someone _assume_ you did not try after you've spent hours of effort is also quite isolating.
People who do not first try are indeed frustrating. There is a judgement for junior engineers to learn to exercise here.
------------------------------------------
> it also robs you of a learning experience if you are always relying on other people to guide you through solving problems
Which is why this is a matter of judgement and balance, where extremes like "always" rarely apply.
> it can be exhausting for the person that has to guide you.
Very yes.
This is why it's crucial to deny without justification some honest requests from those who need help.
1) So you do not exhaust yourself.
2) So that fear of exhausting yourself doesn't push you to assume a request for help is an excuse and treat another person as if they are lazy.
------------------------------------------
> Well, that is also where the maximum reward exists - when you think something is impossible and then you discover you are able to do it.
1) If.
2) We should aim to recognise the difference between "impossible" and "unimaginably hard".
Impossible problems are a waste of time and we should not encourage people to solve them but instead to be skeptical of impossibility.
Landing a man on was impossible _until_ congress allocated money to have a lot more engineers collaborate. Then it was no longer impossible but did come with many easy, moderate, hard, and unimaginably hard problems.
3) Unimaginably hard problems don't just require focus. They also require de-focus to see odd connections. We should aim to help junior engineers recognise the difference so they wisely decide when to keep banging away and when to go for a random walk.
When you have talent, it is your duty and responsibility to hone it and care for it. You have a gift; to squander it in a misguided attempt at humility or fear of trying is the worst sin you could commit.
Stop listening to what other people have to say about where you should go and what you should do; their reasons are either selfish or fearful. Only you are sufficient judge of what is your true potential, and that only comes through the continuous experience of discovery and trying.
Become your potential, because you're the only one who will ever care enough.
This advice will be downvoted to oblivion because very few people can understand it, but I implore you to at least TRY it, take a chance on yourself. SURVIVE and THRIVE!
Not sure you even read the piece. OP doesn’t link assuming that you’re below average with being below average, but rather being more humble in the way we approach other people and other activities.
And by the way, I’m curious who bestows this “duty” and “responsibility” to care and hone one’s “talents”? You obviously come off as thinking you have at least one...
The piece starts by running off statistics about everyone who has been wrong about being exceptional. Basically "Don't bother; by all wagers you're at best average." It then settles into the comfortable safety of "I'll just assume I'm average." No guts, no glory.
Even worse, those statistics are basically about believing without evidence. Talents produce evidence when exercised (provided you're ready to recognize them). If something comes easier to you, you focus and push harder, seeing how far it can go. But you have to believe that you can or else you won't put your full weight behind it.
Man's greatest asset and his greatest enemy is his mindset.
The lucky talented just know in their bones that they are. For the rest, your mindset determines the success of your talents, and that mindset takes work to maintain.
If you have a talent, you can do with it whatever you want. There is no such thing as squandering your talent.
People always told me: "You're so good at maths, you have to go into research. Your talent would be wasted as a middle school teacher." But then it turned out that I hated research. I work as a programmer now, a profession that I do enjoy, but it's so mundane. I wonder where I would have ended up if people hadn't discouraged me from becoming a teacher. I'm slightly jealous of people who get to work with curious kids every day.
And that's totally fine. You're the only one who can decide how to build upon your talents (even though EVERYONE else will have an opinion on that). If you hate research, then research isn't your thing.
My point is that you shouldn't sell yourself short by denying your talents entirely, as is being expressed in the post. Your talents are your edge, and an opportunity to make a difference (such as teaching in your case - talented teachers are the great amplifiers. They help the next generation discover and build upon their passions and talents, enriching us all). Talents in the right environments can foster passions.
But once again, people telling you what you should and should not do is a huge problem.
I wanted to be a school teacher. My parents, both teachers, basically barred me from pursuing that as my first career. (“If you want to teach, go do something else first and teach later.”)
Though it reads negatively, it was among their top 5 contributions to my life I think. Now that I have kids in school and see what teachers have to do, it might be top 3.
If anyone downvotes your comment it is because it plays into common tropes that don't help anyone.
>When you have talent, it is your duty and responsibility to hone it and care for it.
First of all there is the idea of a talent being a trait. It's not. It's merely acquired (through exposure aka experience). You have zero duty and responsibility to hone anything.
>You have a gift
Yeah, the gift of being human. The one thing that helps you more than anything else because being human lets you acquire everything else.
>to squander it in a misguided attempt at humility or fear of trying is the worst sin you could commit.
There is no such sin. Everything is wasted by default. The vast majority of animals never reach adulthood.
>Stop listening to what other people have to say about where you should go and what you should do; their reasons are either selfish or fearful. Only you are sufficient judge of what is your true potential, and that only comes through the continuous experience of discovery and trying.
That's an argument to stop listening to you because you are a burden to me. You will never give anything, you just take.
Your arguments boil down that every living thing starts at minus x and if you do (not try) your best and do everything perfectly you will merely arrive at 0.
I think if it's important to you then don't assume, measure it. Ask your students, colleagues, partners where you could improve and see where you are already good at (above avg).
The mistake or cognitive error people make is that the potential of an average human is actually extraordinarily high. Being “average” is in itself more than enough to achieve close to anything.
Compare the human brain to anything currently in existence, and it should begin to dawn on you that we basically carry around a low energy power efficient supercomputer inside our heads.
Imo this is not good advice for junior software engineers that work for a startup. The truth is most project managers and technical leaders at startups are happy with the quality of their codebases being way below the industry average.
Most senior and mid-level engineers are well aware of this fact, but they avoid bringing it up due to workplace politics and how awkward it is. This leads junior engineers to think they are just learning what to do, while the truth is that they are learning what NOT to do as well.
How confident you come across is huge part of how others see you. Especially in chaotic environments where leader is not even in position to look closely at your work. If you really overdone it while producing complete crap or stop learning because of it, then yes, it harm you.
But in most situations, very confident people do better then humble people of exact same capabilities. Especially in startups and such.
Does it really matter though? Does it matter if I am above average or below average? I am as good as the last product I built, last library I wrote, the last game I played. I will have to see if I can improve and move on. Looking at one's standing on some world wide leader board is largely irrelevant outside of duolingo, imho.
It doesn't really, but what does matter is whether you FEEL like you are. The software industry (and broader, the whole STEM industry) is full of people who are kinda full of themselves, and people are being TOLD that they are above average, that they SHOULD be above average, that they should be or strive to be a mythical 10x developer, a thoughtleader, that they should be writing blogposts and appear on stage, organize and attend meetups, create and maintain open source software, read books and papers, etc etc etc.
And those that don't are silently shamed or shunned, looked down on by those who do (or say that they do; in practice / what I've seen is that that energy they have lasts for only a few years, after which they either settle down in family life, end up in burnout, or both).
It's a toxic culture, one that isn't actively pushed by any one individual or organization, but one that is prevalent and normalized throughout the industry.
The SF bubble is even worse, where you're considered cool if you do 24 hour hackathons, work nights, sleep in overpriced bunk beds in hacker homes so you can hop back on your tech five seconds after waking up.
Anyway sorry, I had a rant brewing, it's not specific to your comment. Speaking for yourself, while I will acknowledge I'm probably better at my job than a lot of people, I also suffer from impostor syndrome, from not being good, fast, ambitious, productive or smart enough. I've thankfully gotten out of a "rat race" organization (consultancy, yay) and I've settled down in a job where I have both responsibility, time and space to do my own thing, pick my own tools and tech.
In that job, I can decide on my own technology choices without having to compete with egos and trends. I can sit down and think about, write down the tech choices, instead of landing in an assignment where the decisions have already been made, or where they're made in a 15 minute meeting where the loudest or most impatient guy decides without any deliberation or paperwork.
I am a lot more confident that the software I write now will last for longer, whereas other jobs I've had, code I've written would likely go quickly to subsistence / maintenance mode, then a full rewrite by the next generation of energetic hipsters because the existing stuff is unsalvageable, because the previous generation of energetic hipsters got bored and the opportunity to start something new (which they prefer to do every 6-12 months).
I should probably write an angry rant blogpost about this, ironically.
Just wanted to say thank you for your (informative) rant.
> In that job, I can decide on my own technology choices without having to compete with egos and trends. I can sit down and think about, write down the tech choices, instead of landing in an assignment where the decisions have already been made, or where they're made in a 15 minute meeting where the loudest or most impatient guy decides without any deliberation or paperwork.
I assumed for years that I was average and it led to endless frustration: If I'm average, then it means most people should be able to do what I do. So if they don't then it means they are lazy.
I agree with the other comments here: assume nothing. Each person (and situation) is a case-by-case basis.
Being above/below average doesn't necessarily imply not being also the opposite. There are different aspects in everything you can measure yourself by. You can be slightly more stupid than others (e.g. I don't think I can score at a whiteboard interview, I never am the first one to solve a puzzle) but the fact you are actively aware of that, accept that (but don't give up) and take that in conscious account already makes you superior to others in some very important aspects. Also, being above average doesn't mean stopping improving, it means your can improve better and easier so you probably should.
"Ninety percent of students think they are more intelligent than the average student."
Does anyone know which study this came from? I was trying to figure out exactly how the survey question was worded because this statistic seems somewhat amazing to me. The driving one I get because drivers are not being routinely graded, but students are.
I googled the phrase and I basically got related quotes, this article (from 2010), and a couple of studies that came after this article was posted, and they were mostly looking at gender differences in preceived intelligence and after a quick glance, didn't seem to support this statement.
I've been routinely graded WORSE than the average student and believe this rather confidently. An impression I get from having had teachers yell at me in the hallway about wasted potential and other students cracking jokes about how my friends had "ruined me" after my grades fell off a cliff after making some new ones. Grading doesn't prevent inflated delusions of intellectual superiority if people believe grades are a matter of hard work rather than intelligence.
What drove a sense of inferiority for me was somebody getting better grades with seemingly less effort.
I understand your point and, as I am sure you know, life can definitely be unfair.
Do you think it's so unfair that 90% of students would feel the same way? It's not impossible but personally, I would be surprised by that. Which is the point. Experiences vary dramatically, especially if we broaden the statement internationally, so knowing who was asked what is just as important as the claim.
I don't see it as unfairness, college mostly gatekeeper business and academia and raw brainpower isn't what you should be selecting for. At least not in isolation.
I do agree the 90% claim seems dubious especially unsourced.
I think you can view this advice in a negative light or a positive light. If you interpret it as "my maximum is lower than other people's" then it will naturally lead to worse outcomes. I believe the author intended it as "my current progress is less than my peers". This outlook can encourage you to work harder to accomplish the thing that you want and be more open to new strategies, if you earnestly believe that other people might have better strategies than you.
It's probably better to assume you might be wrong than to assume your abilities/understanding are below average in some area. To assume you're below average in some aspect when you're not also causes problems in interacting with others. ("This is easy because I find it easy and I'm below average. Anyone with a high school education probably has a functioning knowledge of linear algebra and differential equations.")
It's absolutely true that you might be wrong, and your decision making and behavior should take that into account, regardless of your abilities relative to others.
My general rule is to assume I'm missing something or could be wrong. For instance, I was skiing with my dad this February. He said he didn't have his milt-resort pass with him, but it sure looked to me like it was attached to his arm. So, I asked him if the thing on his arm could get him what he needed, instead of flat-out telling him he was wrong. For all I knew, it was some expired single-day pass from the previous season, but it could have been some kind of membership ID that was still useful in our situation. It turned out he had forgotten that his multi-resort pass was on his arm, but my response was less confrontational and more focused on cooperatively reaching the goal.
231 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 223 ms ] threadNo. It goes one way more than the other. Did you read the article? Statistics the author references show that people are more overconfident than underconfident.
Drivers who assume themselves to be bad drivers tend to drive very little or not at all and never improve. They are parallelized by fear, their assumption they cant do anything rubs on others who are in car with them who then start to give them advice - making situation worst.
I have seen that dynamic a lot of times, because in my country it is quite frequent with women drivers. Not most women or something, but there is certain kind of woman who assumes own incapability and it is self-fullfiling prophecy.
https://www.polygon.com/2014/10/28/7083373/look-at-this-char...
I can point out things I'm clearly above average at, and things I'm clearly below average at. I can also point out areas where I have no idea, like driving.
If I start assuming I'm below average as a baseline, when I wasn't assuming I was above average as a baseline, I'm pretty sure that will make me less accurate.
Thinking about things as just practice is good advice but I don't see how it has any connection at all to whether my skill level is above or below average.
The idea of playing mind games in order to act less self-important seems... kind of self-important. The context of it being sold as a new idea in a blog with the person's name at the top in capital letters doesn't help that perception. I think Socrates might have the jump on this guy's routine by a few years.
If we were aware of our mistakes, we wouldn't make most of them. So generally we will appear to be the only person doing nothing wrong in a sea of people who are constantly screwing up.
People who fight against that illusion be creating safeguards around themselves and testing things they think are obvious have a chance of outperforming.
Never underestimate the ability of someone to get amazing results simply by not making any obvious mistakes.
All that doesn't explain the cancer patients though.
Assuming other people are idiots is never a good thing, even if it was true. I'd rather assume they have a bad day, or misunderstand what you mean because they dont have the same mental map unrolled in front of themselves as you have, and that can also be due to miscommunication.
Whether someone really is an idiot will come to light through repetition.
Working in a very free university/art school (without grades and with little pressure), I often see people who had good grades before completely fall apart when nobody tells them what to do and how to do it. Grades are nice and all, but don't take it for given that they correlate to actual performance. Additionally there are field where this is even truer: how do you grade art? Will a gallerist buy your art because you had good grades in art school? Will a festival screen your film because your professors gave you the best grade?
Grades should be taken with a grain of salt unless you know the system within which they were created very well and what these grades indicate. I think actual projects and experiences are worth more. If you e.g. mixed the sound for 10 movies and there are more people asking you to do it for them (and they are willing to pay), this might be a good indicator that you actually know what you are doing.
'Talent-
don't bother about whether or not you have it. Just assume that you do and then forget about it. talent is a word we use after someone has become accomplished. There is no way to detect it before the fact, or when someone is still grappling with the learning process. It is impossible to predict when or if mastery will click into place. Besides, the thing we label as talent is not a single ability. It is a complex mixture of motive, curiousity, receptivity, intelligence, sensitivity good teaching, perseverance, timing, sheer luck, and countless other things. If any part of it is genetic, God-given, the result of astrological fiddle-faddle, fate, or destiny, that part is not the sole determining factor, All the other ingredients must be present in the right combination- and no one knows the exact recipe. Therefore Dear Reader, don't waste time worrying about if you are talented- and don't blame any failures on the lack of it-that is really a cop out...'
- Alla Prima: Everything I Know About Painting, Richard Schmid
>https://imgur.com/a/XSMc1zh
I can do both:
- assume that I am below average (don't underestimate others)
- assume that I have talent (don't underestimate yourself)
It feels like different modes of thinking for different situations.
The top physicist in the world deeply knows that he is still learning, but he also knows that he's above average. There are plenty of ways people get feedback in life that tells them that they're above average. I think the real advice is to not assume you're better than someone just because you're above average at X. That person is probably above average at Y. Thankfully, most people who are above average already know this.
Essentially, I see it as a meta-indicator, a way of making decisions in situations where I don't have all of the information.
Another way to look at it would be through the lens of game theory. Game theory is absolutely a field of some consequence, and it's all about relative positioning of agents in a system and their likely intentions after factoring in the likely intentions of their peers.
In a word, you might describe this type of analysis as simply, "wisdom." I find it to be of particular value in entrepreneurship.
I think what everyone ought to do is only ever compare yourself to yourself. "Am I doing this better than the last time I did it? If not how can I do that?" It's a function that's always growing and the rate of growth is how much effort you put in. It's not bounded by the people you're comparing yourself to.
In general, I think it would be better to assume that you're not more intelligent than the person you are speaking to (at least on a particular subject) and that you may not be the smartest person in the room. That's not to say you are below average, but that there is still something you can learn from at least one person in your company.
It’s tough when you’re insecure because your primary mental fortification is an inflated ego. Just get used to (practicing) inflating and deflating the ego (ideally just keeping it half filled with air) so you literally are not a zero-self-esteem mess out there in the world.
If you have no practice with this, every time life gives you an opportunity or challenge, you’ll make judgement mistakes.
That's one possibility. The other is that you're delusional about your own abilities. There is a skill in being able to tell the difference between these two.
You can do that without deluding yourself into thinking you're smarter than you actually are, in fact it probably puts (the very likely) failure into a much healthier context.
Someone who is average can do exceptional things depending on the circumstances, and that is also really another point, not overplaying your own role in your success will make you pay attention to the people and the circumstance you rely on, and the huge role luck plays.
There is no need to perceive oneself as exceptional to take risk, that's just a broken celebrity culture. What I'm saying is, be Samwise, basically.
Warning: Please don't apply this to _other_ people who say they need help with something. If someone comes to you with a problem they say that they are stuck on and can't figure out, please don't respond solely by giving them encouragement to just keep plugging along. Either encourage them to find someone else with time to listen or give your time to listen.
1. It feels incredibly _isolating_ to be told something like, "Thats just imposter syndrome. I'm sure you'll figure it out."
2. It is much harder to focus and succeed when you're trying to push yourself down a path you think is probably fruitless.
3. It is much harder to solve problems when you don't have a sounding board. When you can have conversational space to teach someone else about the problem space, paths open up.
> no absolute truth here
Correct, which is why listening is important.
It is how to know the experience _of the person you encouraged_.
This is actually the big one. Validation that they are making progress allows people to go back to banging on a problem.
If one of my senior engineers claims to be stuck on some technical problems and comes to me asking for extra technical advice, we're probably going to spend some time digging at things. That's the realm of sounding board.
However, I may have given an assignment to an intern specifically so that they will go learn something that I think they need to learn by working it out. If they come to me, I'll give them some limited advice, validate their progress to this point, but I'm probably going to send them back and tell them to bang their head on it some more. One of the lessons junior engineers need to learn is "Sometimes the senior guys don't actually know the answer and part of your work is actually figuring it out."
And sometimes the task really is just a slog. Too many junior engineers think everything can be made "easy and quick" like a textbook question. However, if someone is slogging via brute force and comes to me I'll look at it and say something like: "Yup, you seem to be going the right way. And it looks like you're about 10% done. Keep going."
The validation that they're not going down a blind path is the most important thing.
100% agreed on this.
I just think we should be doing more to put 'how and when to start a sounding-board conversation' in the toolbox of Junior Engineers.
> "Yup, you seem to be going the right way. And it looks like you're about 10% done. Keep going."
Agreed.
On top of that: "Here are signs of progress to look for" or "Here are ways to detect signs of progress".
"Describe me what you did."
Which allows one to judge whether they are truly stuck or just need to plug at it some more... not to mention all those times when they realize the mistake they made while explaining the problem to you !
I love to help people. I esp. appreciate the ones that up front tell me what they already did and tried. I had a great colleague once - I loved to help her, because I always knew that she came to me, when she was truly stuck and did not know what to do after trying everything that she could think of.
And she was able to succinctly tell what she did so that I was able to narrow down potential causes/solutions quite efficiently.
Contrast that with another former colleague who when getting stuck alawys came to me first thing to ask me, if he could just ask a short question. Even in moments when I was clearly deep in concentration and clearly signaling that state. It was always urgent and he never put in any effort to solve the problem himself first.
"What" questions that calmly ask for a list are often really good because they are easy to answer if you know the information. And if someone doesn't know the answer, it prompts them into the good habits of:
1. Doing some work before interrupting someone with a question.
2. Writing down their steps as they do so.
Other good ones are: "What are some questions that come to mind" and "What are some paths forward that seem plausible?" to help those who are
1. At a crossroads.
2. Having trouble articulating that they are afraid of going down a rabbit hole.
I'm still looking for a good question for helping those who are totally lost without a mental model that lets them put words to the domain.
Regarding your points:
> "Thats just imposter syndrome. I'm sure you'll figure it
> out."
But they should be encouraged to at least try to find a solution (depending on the scenario). If it's simply "I do not know how to do X" and I ask "have you looked at Y", if the answer is no then this is something they should do. Maybe there is no solution there either, but it is something they should explore so we can have a discussion about that.
> It is much harder to focus and succeed when you're trying
> to push yourself down a path you think is probably
> fruitless.
Well, that is also where the maximum reward exists - when you think something is impossible and then you discover you are able to do it. If nothing else, you gain a better ability to judge what 'fruitless' looks like when considering problems.
> It is much harder to solve problems when you don't have a
> sounding board.
Sure, but it also robs you of a learning experience if you are always relying on other people to guide you through solving problems - and it can be exhausting for the person that has to guide you. So it should be something that is not used common place.
For example, you could ask "off the top of you head, do you know how to do X? If not I'll consult Y...". Maybe they have some pointers for solving X, but you're also saying that you're willing to investigate using method Y.
Ultimately, if you have little risk, you have little reward. You can easily setup a scenario where they try to solve their problem, but don't get stuck for too long. For example, send them off and check up on them half hour later: "any luck solving X yet?", "have you considered looking at Z?".
Another point to consider when you agree to always help somebody solve problems they make little to no effort to solve themselves is that they are robbed of the learning experience, they have a path where they never have to become self-dependent and you are distracted from some other task.
This is helpful, sometimes enormously so. It may be that the only way they could have heard of Y within 2 years of facing the problem is through conversation. But once they hear the name of Y, they have something to punch into google.
> they should be encouraged to at least try to find a solution
Note that having someone _assume_ you did not try after you've spent hours of effort is also quite isolating.
People who do not first try are indeed frustrating. There is a judgement for junior engineers to learn to exercise here.
------------------------------------------
> it also robs you of a learning experience if you are always relying on other people to guide you through solving problems
Which is why this is a matter of judgement and balance, where extremes like "always" rarely apply.
> it can be exhausting for the person that has to guide you.
Very yes. This is why it's crucial to deny without justification some honest requests from those who need help.
1) So you do not exhaust yourself.
2) So that fear of exhausting yourself doesn't push you to assume a request for help is an excuse and treat another person as if they are lazy.
------------------------------------------
> Well, that is also where the maximum reward exists - when you think something is impossible and then you discover you are able to do it.
1) If.
2) We should aim to recognise the difference between "impossible" and "unimaginably hard".
Impossible problems are a waste of time and we should not encourage people to solve them but instead to be skeptical of impossibility.
Landing a man on was impossible _until_ congress allocated money to have a lot more engineers collaborate. Then it was no longer impossible but did come with many easy, moderate, hard, and unimaginably hard problems.
3) Unimaginably hard problems don't just require focus. They also require de-focus to see odd connections. We should aim to help junior engineers recognise the difference so they wisely decide when to keep banging away and when to go for a random walk.
When you have talent, it is your duty and responsibility to hone it and care for it. You have a gift; to squander it in a misguided attempt at humility or fear of trying is the worst sin you could commit.
Stop listening to what other people have to say about where you should go and what you should do; their reasons are either selfish or fearful. Only you are sufficient judge of what is your true potential, and that only comes through the continuous experience of discovery and trying.
Become your potential, because you're the only one who will ever care enough.
This advice will be downvoted to oblivion because very few people can understand it, but I implore you to at least TRY it, take a chance on yourself. SURVIVE and THRIVE!
And by the way, I’m curious who bestows this “duty” and “responsibility” to care and hone one’s “talents”? You obviously come off as thinking you have at least one...
Even worse, those statistics are basically about believing without evidence. Talents produce evidence when exercised (provided you're ready to recognize them). If something comes easier to you, you focus and push harder, seeing how far it can go. But you have to believe that you can or else you won't put your full weight behind it.
Man's greatest asset and his greatest enemy is his mindset.
The lucky talented just know in their bones that they are. For the rest, your mindset determines the success of your talents, and that mindset takes work to maintain.
People always told me: "You're so good at maths, you have to go into research. Your talent would be wasted as a middle school teacher." But then it turned out that I hated research. I work as a programmer now, a profession that I do enjoy, but it's so mundane. I wonder where I would have ended up if people hadn't discouraged me from becoming a teacher. I'm slightly jealous of people who get to work with curious kids every day.
My point is that you shouldn't sell yourself short by denying your talents entirely, as is being expressed in the post. Your talents are your edge, and an opportunity to make a difference (such as teaching in your case - talented teachers are the great amplifiers. They help the next generation discover and build upon their passions and talents, enriching us all). Talents in the right environments can foster passions.
But once again, people telling you what you should and should not do is a huge problem.
Though it reads negatively, it was among their top 5 contributions to my life I think. Now that I have kids in school and see what teachers have to do, it might be top 3.
>When you have talent, it is your duty and responsibility to hone it and care for it.
First of all there is the idea of a talent being a trait. It's not. It's merely acquired (through exposure aka experience). You have zero duty and responsibility to hone anything.
>You have a gift
Yeah, the gift of being human. The one thing that helps you more than anything else because being human lets you acquire everything else.
>to squander it in a misguided attempt at humility or fear of trying is the worst sin you could commit.
There is no such sin. Everything is wasted by default. The vast majority of animals never reach adulthood.
>Stop listening to what other people have to say about where you should go and what you should do; their reasons are either selfish or fearful. Only you are sufficient judge of what is your true potential, and that only comes through the continuous experience of discovery and trying.
That's an argument to stop listening to you because you are a burden to me. You will never give anything, you just take.
Your arguments boil down that every living thing starts at minus x and if you do (not try) your best and do everything perfectly you will merely arrive at 0.
It touches on something similar.
Compare the human brain to anything currently in existence, and it should begin to dawn on you that we basically carry around a low energy power efficient supercomputer inside our heads.
Most senior and mid-level engineers are well aware of this fact, but they avoid bringing it up due to workplace politics and how awkward it is. This leads junior engineers to think they are just learning what to do, while the truth is that they are learning what NOT to do as well.
But in most situations, very confident people do better then humble people of exact same capabilities. Especially in startups and such.
And those that don't are silently shamed or shunned, looked down on by those who do (or say that they do; in practice / what I've seen is that that energy they have lasts for only a few years, after which they either settle down in family life, end up in burnout, or both).
It's a toxic culture, one that isn't actively pushed by any one individual or organization, but one that is prevalent and normalized throughout the industry.
The SF bubble is even worse, where you're considered cool if you do 24 hour hackathons, work nights, sleep in overpriced bunk beds in hacker homes so you can hop back on your tech five seconds after waking up.
Anyway sorry, I had a rant brewing, it's not specific to your comment. Speaking for yourself, while I will acknowledge I'm probably better at my job than a lot of people, I also suffer from impostor syndrome, from not being good, fast, ambitious, productive or smart enough. I've thankfully gotten out of a "rat race" organization (consultancy, yay) and I've settled down in a job where I have both responsibility, time and space to do my own thing, pick my own tools and tech.
In that job, I can decide on my own technology choices without having to compete with egos and trends. I can sit down and think about, write down the tech choices, instead of landing in an assignment where the decisions have already been made, or where they're made in a 15 minute meeting where the loudest or most impatient guy decides without any deliberation or paperwork.
I am a lot more confident that the software I write now will last for longer, whereas other jobs I've had, code I've written would likely go quickly to subsistence / maintenance mode, then a full rewrite by the next generation of energetic hipsters because the existing stuff is unsalvageable, because the previous generation of energetic hipsters got bored and the opportunity to start something new (which they prefer to do every 6-12 months).
I should probably write an angry rant blogpost about this, ironically.
> In that job, I can decide on my own technology choices without having to compete with egos and trends. I can sit down and think about, write down the tech choices, instead of landing in an assignment where the decisions have already been made, or where they're made in a 15 minute meeting where the loudest or most impatient guy decides without any deliberation or paperwork.
1000 thousand times this.
Would read that post btw.
I agree with the other comments here: assume nothing. Each person (and situation) is a case-by-case basis.
friendly yours.
Does anyone know which study this came from? I was trying to figure out exactly how the survey question was worded because this statistic seems somewhat amazing to me. The driving one I get because drivers are not being routinely graded, but students are.
I googled the phrase and I basically got related quotes, this article (from 2010), and a couple of studies that came after this article was posted, and they were mostly looking at gender differences in preceived intelligence and after a quick glance, didn't seem to support this statement.
What drove a sense of inferiority for me was somebody getting better grades with seemingly less effort.
Do you think it's so unfair that 90% of students would feel the same way? It's not impossible but personally, I would be surprised by that. Which is the point. Experiences vary dramatically, especially if we broaden the statement internationally, so knowing who was asked what is just as important as the claim.
I do agree the 90% claim seems dubious especially unsourced.
(Note, this blog post was written in 2010.)
It's absolutely true that you might be wrong, and your decision making and behavior should take that into account, regardless of your abilities relative to others.
My general rule is to assume I'm missing something or could be wrong. For instance, I was skiing with my dad this February. He said he didn't have his milt-resort pass with him, but it sure looked to me like it was attached to his arm. So, I asked him if the thing on his arm could get him what he needed, instead of flat-out telling him he was wrong. For all I knew, it was some expired single-day pass from the previous season, but it could have been some kind of membership ID that was still useful in our situation. It turned out he had forgotten that his multi-resort pass was on his arm, but my response was less confrontational and more focused on cooperatively reaching the goal.