3 ms·
This article could also be called skilled and unaware. While the authors assert that those who are unskilled lack the metacognition to realize that they are un
by mdasen 18y ago
This article could also be called skilled and unaware. While the authors assert that those who are unskilled lack the metacognition to realize that they are unskilled, the skilled also seem to lack the ability to realize just how skilled they are. Each study shows the top quarter vastly underestimating their ability. In each study, it looks like once you get to the 65th percentile, people start underestimating their ability. While there is some variation in people's perceptions of their abilities, most people seem to think that they just fall in an above average range whether they're brilliant or not.
This is really interesting and has broad implications on how we interact with the world. For example, if you're brilliant, but perceive yourself as above average, you won't think you're entitled to brilliant pay - just above average pay. Likewise, someone who is far below average, but thinks that they are above average will likely believe that they are entitled to above average pay. And that has implications both social and political spheres.
However, this might just be another manifestation of the middle class effect that we see all the time. People, generally speaking, always see themselves as middle class in America regardless of where they actually fit into the social hierarchy. In both situations, one of the factors might be that one's peer group is usually less of a cross section of society and more a cross section of one's own class and therefore it's likely that you'll be somewhere in the middle of that smaller grouping. Likewise, one's peers are also likely to be of the same intelligence level and therefore that becomes skewed.
Before I get jumped on with that last bit, I did read the part where the unintelligent not only misplaced their percentile, but also couldn't figure out how many they got wrong. But that's also influenced by where you think you placed relative to others. If you think you placed above average and the exam was meant to test a variety of people, you're decently likely to assume that you scored better than you did.
Well, maybe I'm full of hogwash. Still, it's really interesting to think about what it means socio-politically when people assume that they're in a different place than they are (intelligence, production, etc.).
- zackattack 18y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_competence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_competence
- nimbix 18y agoYour comment reminds me of the #2 fact from the book "Facts and fallacies of software engineering" which states that the best programmers are up to 28 times better than the worst programmers but nobody, including themselves, is aware of that. This makes them a great bargain because their paycheck is not nearly proportional with their quality. If all the best people were aware of how good they actually are, they'd have a really hard time finding a job where they wouldn't feel underpaid. Also, it's probably better if we don't have to deal with people on zour team constantly thinking how they're 20 times better/worse than some other guy.
- swombat 18y agoAlso, it's probably better if we don't have to deal with people on zour team constantly thinking how they're 20 times better/worse than some other guy. Not really... If you had one of those guys on your team, chances are you could fire most of the team, thus resolving most of the inter-personal tension you're referring to. There are both advantages and disadvantages to that, of course, but in a start-up context, for example, I would say you should have only top notch people who can work "faster than 20 normal programmers". Otherwise the communications overheads will kill you.