3 ms·

In general, everyone rates themselves as above average. Known as the Lake Wobegon Effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wobegon_effect http://en.wikipedia.

In general, everyone rates themselves as above average. Known as the Lake Wobegon Effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wobegon_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wobegon_effect This study on the subject was especially good reading: http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf Most interestingly, the study points out that people who are truly way above average underrate themselves, illustrating the old adage that the more you know, the more you realize you don't know.

electromagnetic 17y ago
You make an interesting point, those who achieve well are often self-deprecating. When I began I thought I was great at golf, it helped that I was actually making near 300 yards with a driver. However I quickly learnt that I nearly always slice the ball, and when I don't I can break 300 yards. A similar thing happened with my writing, once I broke a certain point and I suddenly realized I'd just climbed a molehill and noticed the mountain. It's incredible how a small amount of knowledge will make you feel smart, but a moderate amount of knowledge will make you feel stupid, and a considerable amount of knowledge will make you feel just plain ignorant.
- etal 17y ago
  Some of it's the regression effect, where the extreme results really are flukes -- and the achievers are aware of it -- while average results are more likely to be statistically representative. Of course, "aware of it" is key, which is why the results sometimes diverge at the other end of the scale.
Confusion 17y ago
As most people will not read that PDF, I think it is important to make one thing clear about your last sentence: although people in the top quarter underestimate themselves, they still estimate themselves to be in the top quarter and they also estimate themselves to be better than those in other quarters.
- Nwallins 17y ago
  > they still estimate themselves to be in the top quarter and they also estimate themselves to be better than those in other quarters. Isn't a top quarter member 'better' than those in the other (lower) quarters by definition?
  - Confusion 17y ago
    Yes, but atop quarter members that estimate themselves to be in the top quarter don't necessarily estimate themselves to be better than non top quarter members that estimate themselves to be in the top quarter. The 'better' is 'within the top quarter'.
- Xichekolas 17y ago
  True, but the top quartile only estimated themselves 6 points higher than the bottom quartile estimated themselves. The top quartile is the only group to actually underestimate their abilities, and do so by over 10 points. Ironically, the third quartile is the most accurate at estimating their own abilities, being almost spot on. The people in the other three quartiles generally also believe they are in the third. To quote liberally from the paper to save everyone reading the whole thing: "As Figure 2 (page 5 of the pdf) clearly illustrates, it was participants in the bottom quartile [...] who overestimated their logical reasoning ability and test performance to the greatest extent. Although these individuals scored at the 12th percentile on average, they nevertheless believed that their general logical reasoning ability fell at the 68th percentile and their score on the test fell at the 62nd percentile. Their estimates not only exceeded their actual percentile scores, [...] but exceeded the 50th percentile as well. [...] Thus, participants in the bottom quartile not only overestimated themselves but believed that they were above average. [...] Other participants were less miscalibrated. However, as Figure 2 shows, those in the top quartile once again tended to underestimate their ability. Whereas their test performance put them in the 86th percentile, they estimated it to be at the 68th percentile and estimated their general logical reasoning ability to fall at only the 74th percentile"

electromagnetic 17y ago

You make an interesting point, those who achieve well are often self-deprecating. When I began I thought I was great at golf, it helped that I was actually making near 300 yards with a driver. However I quickly learnt that I nearly always slice the ball, and when I don't I can break 300 yards. A similar thing happened with my writing, once I broke a certain point and I suddenly realized I'd just climbed a molehill and noticed the mountain. It's incredible how a small amount of knowledge will make you feel smart, but a moderate amount of knowledge will make you feel stupid, and a considerable amount of knowledge will make you feel just plain ignorant.

etal 17y ago
Some of it's the regression effect, where the extreme results really are flukes -- and the achievers are aware of it -- while average results are more likely to be statistically representative. Of course, "aware of it" is key, which is why the results sometimes diverge at the other end of the scale.

Confusion 17y ago

As most people will not read that PDF, I think it is important to make one thing clear about your last sentence: although people in the top quarter underestimate themselves, they still estimate themselves to be in the top quarter and they also estimate themselves to be better than those in other quarters.

Nwallins 17y ago
> they still estimate themselves to be in the top quarter and they also estimate themselves to be better than those in other quarters. Isn't a top quarter member 'better' than those in the other (lower) quarters by definition?
- Confusion 17y ago
  Yes, but atop quarter members that estimate themselves to be in the top quarter don't necessarily estimate themselves to be better than non top quarter members that estimate themselves to be in the top quarter. The 'better' is 'within the top quarter'.
Xichekolas 17y ago
True, but the top quartile only estimated themselves 6 points higher than the bottom quartile estimated themselves. The top quartile is the only group to actually underestimate their abilities, and do so by over 10 points. Ironically, the third quartile is the most accurate at estimating their own abilities, being almost spot on. The people in the other three quartiles generally also believe they are in the third. To quote liberally from the paper to save everyone reading the whole thing: "As Figure 2 (page 5 of the pdf) clearly illustrates, it was participants in the bottom quartile [...] who overestimated their logical reasoning ability and test performance to the greatest extent. Although these individuals scored at the 12th percentile on average, they nevertheless believed that their general logical reasoning ability fell at the 68th percentile and their score on the test fell at the 62nd percentile. Their estimates not only exceeded their actual percentile scores, [...] but exceeded the 50th percentile as well. [...] Thus, participants in the bottom quartile not only overestimated themselves but believed that they were above average. [...] Other participants were less miscalibrated. However, as Figure 2 shows, those in the top quartile once again tended to underestimate their ability. Whereas their test performance put them in the 86th percentile, they estimated it to be at the 68th percentile and estimated their general logical reasoning ability to fall at only the 74th percentile"