|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
Are you above average? If you're like most, then you probably thought something along the lines of, *"well, I'm not spectacular per se, but I can hold my own. I'd say I'm slightly above average." For some of us, it may very well be the case that we are above average; but it's quite likely that we're overestimating ourselves [1]. One prominent example is in online dating. Studies have shown that over 70% of us rate ourselves above average in looks in such settings [2]. A separate study using the site "Hot or Not", determined that our own self-assessment was significantly higher than what our peers would rate us [3]. So psychological studies consistently show our propensity to overvalue ourselves. But honestly, a study done by an anonymous researcher in some ivory tower may not be convincing to many of us; we surely have the right to remain skeptical. But let's look at our everyday, normal lives for a bit. Haven't we sesn first hand, this kind of self-overvaling behavior? Let's move the setting to the office, the site of our daily toils. Now, think about some of our coworkers, both current and former. Let's think about the passing comments they made about how unappreciated they are, their gripes about being passed by for a promotion in favor of another coworker, or their self-promotions about how hard and how long they worked. What did we feel when we heard these comments? Did we agree? Did we smirk? Did we empathize? For some, the unhappiness was probably justified; there are plenty of brilliant people who go unnoticed or unappreciated. But looking back at our experiences, was everyone assess themselves accurately? How many people made us think, *"I can understand where he's coming from, but I honestly can't agree." ? What is the barometer to judge these people's self-assessment? The equivalent of the "Hot or Not" test, cited earlier, is the simple converstaions we have with other coworkers each day. Taken in aggregate, our peers have a much more balanced perspective for our true abilities and results. In such an office poll, we quickly find out that there are indeed discrepancies between self-assessed values and the common opinion. The guy who was passed over for a promotion lost out to someone who delivered more results than he; the guy who asserts that he works extremely hard actually works significantly fewer hours than the engineers across the office who put in 12+ hour days every day, plus weekends. Most people are firmly entrenched in the idea that they are above average. What is the root of this behavior? Is it the incomplete dataset we operate off of [4]? Is it a self-defense mechanism? Whatever the root cause may be, self-awareness of the matter is essential; not only to avoid being labeled by our peers as a self-overvalueer (which sooner or later devolves into mockery), but to be able to see ourselves clearly -- to take steps in becoming truly above average [5].
[1] Of course, the area in which we consider ourselves to be above average will differ from person to person when the question is posed so vaguely, so it may very well be that we've all subconsciously chosen a biased area from which to base our above-averageness on. [2] I believe one of the authors of the study was Ariely. The number of users who rated themselves below average in looks was eitehr 2% or 12%, a paltry sum. [3] So if we rated oureslves a 7/10 on an online dating site, then we're probably closer to a 5 or 6 when judged by our peers/mates. Of course, it's possible that those judging us have an upwardly skewed perspective as well, distorting the results. [4] After all, we have the most data about ourselves. [5] If so desired.
Crossposted from my main blog
 
|
Hm, I must be above average, because I've always been arrogant enough to think I'm the best.
edit: No, not everything. Not even most things, or some things, but a couple, maybe 
|
It seems that most of us are about average in rating ourselves above average in rating ourselves.
Is that not the ultimate kick to the balls?
|
Interesting read as always. But this thread clearly need an "Are you above average"-poll
|
Well, in terms of looks, the more people see someone (ie themselves or a friend), the more appealing they look in time.
|
Some of this may stem from our educational system (or "lack of education"-al system, if you'd prefer) in the US. I recently watched a documentary titled "Waiting for Superman" which did, amongst other things, a comparison between the US and other countries on standardized testing - as well as how the students felt they did on their standardized testing. It found that while we were amongst the worst in terms of performance, we were #1 in confidence.
I think your point is something else though, and its still true but for different reasons. Mankind inherently overestimates their ability almost by design. When confronted with positive or negative stimulus, we imagine that our actions have contributed to the stimuli we received. We take that in as data and try to use that as an input by which to form our opinions - a process which is completely distinct from rational thought. Of course, sometimes the connection is obvious - like tastes being pleasant because of what you chose to eat - but sometimes the connections are very nonsensical - like learning food aversions because you ate something while you were sick (it isn't like the food did it, but we blame our choice of food anyway).
|
I thought this was going to be about penises.
|
Well, I'd honestly be surprised if our ability to rate ourselves against subjective measures like attractiveness was not skewed. After all, the benchmarks we set on anything subjective will be largely based in our own experiences by the very nature of it.
Now when it comes to objective things, like a job, I think it's largely a defense mechanism based off of the same effect. Since our evaluation of other people is likely to be based off of ourselves, and we've self-conditioned to consider ourselves above average due to subjective benchmarks, we have two options.
First, we can analyze ourselves as honestly as possible and see what we can change to see desired results, or second, we can seek to point fingers to avoid perception of our own faults.
It's actually a lot like Gheed's blogs about Bronze. If you look for a subjective criteria to blame for an objective failing, you can continue to perceive yourself more highly than you deserve, which protects you from a loss of your own subjectively measured self-worth.
Not many people like introspection.
|
Reminds me of a study of university students. They divided them into 4 groups, asked them individually how they expected to do in a test that would be administered and then correlated the results against the expectation. The bottom quartile were the least accurate in their self-assessment. The next worst was the second bottom. The third was close, but still over-rated their abilities substanitally. The only group who evaluated themselves as likely to score lower than they did, was the top 25%.
Actually I have the article here if anyone wants to read it.. No I don't. But it's easy to google and read. Unskilled and Unaware of it.
|
I've actually seen several studies similar to the one you mention, although they were subjective enough that it was hard for me to rule out the possibility that the researchers didn't accurately account for bias. There could also be the possibility that people rate themselves higher than they think they should be rated because many say that confidence makes one more attractive, so in an effort to be more attractive, they force false self-confidence.
Personally, I feel like i'm above average at some things, fairly average at others, and sub average at others. It really depends who I'm comparing my self too as well.
|
Russian Federation142 Posts
|
According to psych research, we tend to overvalue ourselves predominantly on criteria which are vague or ambiguous. Take "athletic," for example. A track runner most likely would associate "athletic" with endurance and stamina, and would thus evaluate him/herself as above average in athleticness.
A body builder, on the other hand, construes athleticness in terms of strength, and would rate him/herself as above average according to those criteria. Understanding the phenomenon of self-evaluation of self-defined criteria can help us understand the above average effect.
The same phenomenon manifests itself across criteria. I think I'm a skilled driver because I'm cautious, you think you are one because you can weave skillfully in and out of traffic. And we're both right.
As far as looks go (as this seems to be the starting point of the OP), this phenomenon still applies, but it is also (I would argue) amplified by the mere exposure effect. Simply seeing something more often makes you like it substantially more (hence people's preference for their own mirror images rather than their actual appearances).
The cases where you don't find this effect, predictably, are the unambiguous ones: I'm taller than you, and you aren't going to argue that, for example.
If you find this stuff interesting, I would refer you to the work of David Dunning, the pioneering researcher in this subject (and, as it happens, one of my college professors who I might possibly be doing research with. Go Big Red!).
|
I think it is dumb to use a hot or not site as evidence. The people who post their photos on that site are going to be very confident already, it's going to attract people willing to be judged, while the people who rate photos on those sites are often going to be bitter, more likely to rate lower than they should.
I like the post above mine. Vagueness is very important. I value certain characteristics in myself, that's the reason I have them to begin with. Every man is his own measure, as they say ;p
|
On April 20 2012 02:02 Subversive wrote:
Reminds me of a study of university students. They divided them into 4 groups, asked them individually how they expected to do in a test that would be administered and then correlated the results against the expectation. The bottom quartile were the least accurate in their self-assessment. The next worst was the second bottom. The third was close, but still over-rated their abilities substanitally. The only group who evaluated themselves as likely to score lower than they did, was the top 25%.
Actually I have the article here if anyone wants to read it.. No I don't. But it's easy to google and read. Unskilled and Unaware of it.
Dunning Kruger Effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
In any case, my looks are average, but my brain is awesome, in a work-environment with somewhat comparable tasks, I have yet to find anyone who can keep up with me. I also kick ass at strategy games, card games, quizzes and I am quite sporty. So yes, I am above average - ha!
|
Studies on looks are almost always flawed.
They generally involve taking a photo of someone and showing it to other people, this can completely destroy some peoples attractiveness and enhance others. Some people are very photogenic, some people aren't, a lot of someone's looks might come from the way they carry themselves (I personally can't stand people who slouch).
Of course those who are symmetrical and attractive in that very standard way will rate highly there, but that doesn't account for the people who are attractive in other ways, which are still physical.
I think its too difficult to really judge how attractive you are, and as for judging ability, of course people will overestimate, its called confidence. The reason 'smarter' people don't is because they are more introspective, they spend more time looking at their flaws, which lowers your confidence.
You're looking at the Dunning-Kruger effect basically.
|
On April 20 2012 02:22 Imperium11 wrote:
According to psych research, we tend to overvalue ourselves predominantly on criteria which are vague or ambiguous. Take "athletic," for example. A track runner most likely would associate "athletic" with endurance and stamina, and would thus evaluate him/herself as above average in athleticness.
A body builder, on the other hand, construes athleticness in terms of strength, and would rate him/herself as above average according to those criteria. Understanding the phenomenon of self-evaluation of self-defined criteria can help us understand the above average effect.
The same phenomenon manifests itself across criteria. I think I'm a skilled driver because I'm cautious, you think you are one because you can weave skillfully in and out of traffic. And we're both right.
As far as looks go (as this seems to be the starting point of the OP), this phenomenon still applies, but it is also (I would argue) amplified by the mere exposure effect. Simply seeing something more often makes you like it substantially more (hence people's preference for their own mirror images rather than their actual appearances).
The cases where you don't find this effect, predictably, are the unambiguous ones: I'm taller than you, and you aren't going to argue that, for example.
If you find this stuff interesting, I would refer you to the work of David Dunning, the pioneering researcher in this subject (and, as it happens, one of my college professors who I might possibly be doing research with. Go Big Red!).
This hits the nail on the head in my opinion.
We all have different values that we try to live up to. So being in a work environment, if being told to rate ourself, we would automaticly think about the values that we ourself uphold and put value in.
For example I put a lot of value in being on time. I'm always on time and I hate it when people aren't. So I would rate myself high due to the fact I'm always on time. Others might not put as much value in meeting times and more on work performed during the day and thus rate themself high because they uphold the values they themself believe are important.
|
I think it has something to do with people feeling special. Rating yourself average sounds boring and you would be like a copy to the rest. Saying your above average does sound more appealing since it says your more unique.
|
Self-awareness is so biased. Case in point, I almost immediately answered of course I'm above average. But then I thought about all the stuff I'm below average at and realized that there are tons and tons and tons and tons and ... ad infinitum and realize that if anything I'm below average, well below it, just in areas that aren't commonly inspected.
|
I dunno. I prefer to leave that kind of judgement to others. To myself, I'm... me. I know that I have some skills to do certain things, and I know that all of the things I do I could probably do better. Due to the bell curve, I'm probably somewhere in the middle - maybe towards the high end on some things, towards the low end on other things.
Of course, my self esteem has been pretty thoroughly stomped into the mud over the years, so while I think it's possible I might be above average to some people, I couldn't say I am or am not. That's up to the person making that judgement about me, and as far as I'm concerned, I don't really care all that much. I am who I am, and that's all that I am.
(Yes. I'm Popeye.)
|
The overwhelming majority of people believe that what they are doing regarding any facet of life is ' acceptable ' If they didn't think what they were doing was acceptable, they would change it or hate it about themselves enough to admit it.
If any outside person or thing challenges this, its very likely that they become immediately offended/insulted.
Essentially what imperium and dirkzor already said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
