My takeaway from DK is that the roughly 80% mark is where is the generally ideal balance between self-image and social acceptance, and that's why everyone on ei

My takeaway from DK is that the roughly 80% mark is where is the generally ideal balance between self-image and social acceptance, and that's why everyone on either side leans toward that inflection point. Having been on the "exceptional" side of the curve on some things (and verified though both independent testing and testimonials), it was definitely socially isolating until I broadened my perspective and accepted that while I may be past that 80% mark in some things, I was well behind it in many others, and if I could appreciate the skill others have that I do not, I would have a much more enjoyable experience of community than comparing others to myself in the things I was the best at. In general, I think this is a lot of cognitive dissonance & confirmation bias. For everything from politics & religion to what foods or TV shows we like, it's more enjoyable to share our lives with people that enforce our sense of reality. Coming to terms with the fact you suck at something is really unpleasant if you haven't also found the things you are awesome at to balance it out in your self-evaluation. And vice versa, being REALLY awesome at something kind of sucks and makes you feel you can't connect with others (and sometimes they will hate you for outshining them if you shove it in their faces) unless you recognize your own clay feet. It also explains why echo-chambers like the anti-vaxx FB groups are so popular. They are exceptionally (in the standard deviation sense) out-of-touch with reality, which is typically something that is socially isolating, but by coming together, they can have the benefits of community without sacrificing their identity of being smarter than doctors. It's basically like a reverse-MENSA (which has its own issues with being on the wrong side of DK -- IQ tests are one specific measure of a population variance, and doesn't necessarily correlate with things like empathy, open-mindedness, or creative thinking - all things I'd care about having in my social circle moreso than IQ). Interestingly enough, we can see the same effect in purely objectively evaluated ranges. Many of us might be familiar with the threshold for how much income correlates with the maximum happiness (on average, having either less or more correlates with unhappiness). IIRC the latest research puts it at about $100,000 times the square root of the household size. While I don't have the tables in front of me, I'd wager that's roughly the 80th percentile in income. The thing is - that 80% mark is simply the ideal average - but the spread around it is up to us as a society. If we provide better education resources for those struggling in academics, we can get more people closer to the ideal (and likely improve their happiness) without necessarily moving the mean. If we have high marginal tax rates, we can redistribute wealth to close the "spread" around the ideal, which if the research is correct will actually improve happiness for the people on both sides of it. If we actually manage to master our own genes, we can likely do the same for health, innate intelligence, empathy, depression, etc.