|
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.
|
Life's too short to not think you're awesome.
|
For me, it's a mixture of above-average intelligence and self awareness, yet a lack of an open mind and my memory is godlike awful. I sometimes happen to forget what I did just 10 minutes ago.
|
IQ >100 ? gratz, youre above average
|
People are not balls, you can't compare them like that.
Everyone IS above average, in the part of life they find interesting (which almost always matches where their talents lie).
You can be faster than me, but since I don't give a fuck about running, I'll keep thinking to myself that I'm above average when it comes to playing guitar or w/e. And you're an above average runner. And we're both right.
The problem arises tho when we're focusing on our own advantages in situations where those qualities are not the main thing. For example, if a great runner and a great guitar player worked at a law firm, none of these attributes really dictate how useful we are at that specific workplace. You're right in this regard.
|
Most people can be above average, (average is not median). As long as there are a couple of people HORRENDUS, it lowers the average and most can be above average! woo
|
+ Show Spoiler +On April 20 2012 01:31 thedeadhaji wrote:<p>Are you above average? </p><p>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]. </p><p>One prominent example is in online dating. Studies have shown that over 70% of us rate ourselves <em>above average</em> 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].</p><p>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? </p><p>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 <em>everyone</em> assess themselves accurately? How many people made us think, *"I can understand where he's coming from, but I honestly can't agree." ?</p><p>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.</p><p>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? </p><p>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 <em>above average</em> [5].</p><p><hr>[1] Of course, the area in which we consider ourselves to be <em>above average</em> 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. </p><p>[2] I believe one of the authors of the study was Ariely. The number of users who rated themselves <em>below average</em> in looks was eitehr 2% or 12%, a paltry sum.</p><p>[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. </p><p>[4] After all, we have the most data about ourselves. </p><p>[5] If so desired.</p> Crossposted from my main blog
I love your blogs <3
To understand yourself is to understand your relationship with the world around you. Its really hard to be introspective and really find out the truth about yourself. But if you go out and explore the world and other peoples opinions it becomes much easier to learn about yourself. Something I've learned from Jiddu.K and been struggling to implement in my own life recently. It is possible that we have the most information about ourselves, but there is no simple mirror to your soul, the only mirror we have to learn about ourselves is others.
|
So in the studies, were people being incentived to report their perceptions accurately, or were they exhibiting strategic behavior? There is no reason in a dating site, for example, to underestimate your qualities. In that particular example, we might be better off asking whether it makes sense to ask people to rate their own appearance.
|
On April 20 2012 01:31 thedeadhaji wrote:</p><p>One prominent example is in online dating. Studies have shown that over 70% of us rate ourselves <em>above average</em> in looks in such settings [2].
I bet my god damn dick that the way this actually breaks down is that 85% of females on online dating sites believe themselves to be better than average looking and more like 55% of dudes believe themselves to be above average looking.
But I remember an OKCupid study that revealed that the females on the site rated 80% of males as below average looking which is obviously impossible. The males rated females in an almost perfect normal distribution.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
Paradoxically its probable that most people who have any awareness of this are more likely to be in the minority who are underrating themselves. Also accoridng to the wikipedia entry the opposite of the Dunning-Kruger effect is observed in East Asian countries. I don't think its human nature, there's something culturally at work in the west and America specifically.
|
everyone is above average at something
different people take up different hobbies, and the amount of time they spend on that hobby is relatively higher than most others, which leads to similarly increased skill level in whatever that is
which may convince people to generally say they are above average
|
I'm above average at school, I am a near all A student at a fairly difficult American Highschool. I take classes harder than the university here, but that doesn't make me above average as a person, but as a student. I would say I'm average looking aesthetically, though a bit short. Basically, if you put me on a bell curve, on somethings i would be an outlier, on some I would fit right in. Techincally its all about the bell curve and most of us fit on it, if you don't you are either seriously troubled or a genius, but either way a true bell curve outlier is rare.
|
|
|
I enjoyed the read, thank you sir.
|
Most TL users are well above average as far as the internet goes
|
I would ditch the part about being "above average in looks"--every person is going to have a different opinion of every other person, simply as the old adage "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" describes.
On traits that can be more systematically measured, such as test scores, grades, etc., but even those don't say much about people.
I don't have a problem with people overvaluing themselves, as it probably helps most people stay sane and in the end people don't really care what your opinion of yourself is--they're perfectly capable of judging you on their own.
|
Compliment sandwich incoming.
This is the best blog I've read of yours.
I find most of your blogs pedantic, overly florid and full of modern social science horseshit.
In the future, I'd recommend either drawing on some concrete fact and extrapolating on it, like you did here, or discussing in depth why you believe one particular idea. That's much better than just stringing together a bunch of dubious claims.
Cheers!
|
Well, I am generally a bit above average  Platinum player in SC2. 1.4 on the swedish highschool test (1.0 is the average, 2.0 is the max).
I think it all depends on the situation. As for looks, I really have no idea, it's insanely subjective. While I might score below average on a swedish dating site, I would probably score way above the average on an asian dating site, maybe solely because I'm white and tall, but still, it's all about perspective.
|
Tbh my feelings of above-averageness usually get confirmed in my everyday life.
|
On April 20 2012 06:37 Drowsy wrote:
But I remember an OKCupid study that revealed that the females on the site rated 80% of males as below average looking which is obviously impossible.
Perfectly possible, if the males on the site were an unrepresentative sample of all males.
Given that this is a dating site, do you think the average attractiveness of members is likely to be higher or lower than the average in the general population?
EDIT: In fact, we don't even need to resort to that explanation.
When a girl rates a guy's attractiveness, she isn't factoring in all the other guys she's ever seen. I mean, if you showed her 50 complete munters in a row, she wouldn't progressively lower her estimation of what 'averagely attractive' was, would she?
No: what she does probably weighted strongly towards using the extremes of attractiveness to which she has previously been exposed to define a midpoint. And because everyone has seen at least a couple of highly attractive models and movie stars, that drags the calculated midpoint a long way from true average. When you watch a lot of telly, everyone around you looks less attractive than you would otherwise find them.
|
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
This is a significantly error-prone way of testing such a thing. There's extreme skew on Hototnot that divides males and females, people who show cleavage and people who don't, etc.
|
On April 20 2012 20:09 Umpteen wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 06:37 Drowsy wrote:
But I remember an OKCupid study that revealed that the females on the site rated 80% of males as below average looking which is obviously impossible. Perfectly possible, if the males on the site were an unrepresentative sample of all males. Given that this is a dating site, do you think the average attractiveness of members is likely to be higher or lower than the average in the general population? EDIT: In fact, we don't even need to resort to that explanation. When a girl rates a guy's attractiveness, she isn't factoring in all the other guys she's ever seen. I mean, if you showed her 50 complete munters in a row, she wouldn't progressively lower her estimation of what 'averagely attractive' was, would she? No: what she does probably weighted strongly towards using the extremes of attractiveness to which she has previously been exposed to define a midpoint. And because everyone has seen at least a couple of highly attractive models and movie stars, that drags the calculated midpoint a long way from true average. When you watch a lot of telly, everyone around you looks less attractive than you would otherwise find them.
Try going on a site like that and comparing the scores men get to the scores women get. They're drastically different. And since you can't be sure that all or even most of the votes come from people of the opposite gender, it's not as easy as saying that men and women vote differently. Hotornot in particular used to try to force you to vote on pictures of both sexes.
|
This was a good read, then made me feel bad about myself haha. I was like well that just means im worse at everything than I thought.
|
People judge each other too much and too quickly in my opinion. Yes you might not be superficially physically above average attractiveness wise, but many people make up for this with a great personality or a huge ... bank balance. In the same way, we judge how intelligent someone is by their IQ maybe or their exam results, but this doesn't tell us about their emotional intelligence or maybe even their practical skills.
So although if we are honest we might admit that we aren't as clever or as good looking as we like to think we are, I'm sure in every one of us there is something we can point to and say "I'm really good at this particular thing", and that would be true.
|
What is being ''above average''? I mean, I think I am above average in some areas, but also below average in others. I don't know what my overall score is tho.
|
On April 20 2012 06:37 Drowsy wrote:Show nested quote +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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effectParadoxically its probable that most people who have any awareness of this are more likely to be in the minority who are underrating themselves. Also accoridng to the wikipedia entry the opposite of the Dunning-Kruger effect is observed in East Asian countries. I don't think its human nature, there's something culturally at work in the west and America specifically.
I usually assume that I am average or a little below average at most things, because I am my frame of reference. It's easier to notice the things others can do that you can't than to establish that someone else actually can't do something you do rather than choosing not to.
The weird thing is that this self-assessment remains even in the face of evidence otherwise.
|
I am at the bottom of the totem pole.
|
I always knew I couldn't possibly be a 12/10 ...
|
You compare people on things that you value. You value things based on how well you believe you do on it.
i.e., I judge a "primitive civilization based on their ability to use a can opener; they judge me on how well I can smash open a coconut and extract the fruit." Our priorities are different, and it so happens my priorities place my skills above others. Also notice I only call something a skill when I am measurably good at it. In reality, everything is a skill. You just might be horrible at it.
|
I'd have to argue that the reason people tend to overvalue themselves is because, in non-quantifiable areas, perception is overwhelmingly important. You understand your own reasoning and thought-processes, but the reasoning and thought processes of others is much more difficult to understand. When you can only justify your own actions, it is difficult not perceive your own actions as better/ more rational/ et cetera. Just as a quick illustration of this, I'd say that a lot of people overestimate their skill/decision-making at driving as above average (studies have shown this part is true) because they understand their own reasons for going too slowly or quickly relative to the rest of traffic around them. but they don't understand why that one a**hole won't just go the speed limt/ won't slow down to 10 mph over the speed limit.
I'd say that the effect of a natural shift up in qualitative esteem due to basic human perception combines with the hard truth of the quantitative to effect a slight upward trend in peoples' subjective value of themselves. Thus people tend to say "I am a little above average", and not "I am the best human being on the planet." Anyways, that was a highly thought provoking read, and I just wanted to give a raw response, so I apologize if someone else has already said roughly the same thing.
|
There's a very simple reason for this:
Most of us will naturally surround ourselves with people that value us higher than the average person.
- Our parents like us more than other parents like us.
- Grandparents the same.
- Friends the same.
- Wife husband the same.
- Teammates the same.
- You were most likely hired because they felt you would fit in, and another company didn't, because they didn't value you that highly ...
So - by default - most of the time, we are among people that value us higher than the average person in the world.
Why wouldn't we get a skewed result that way?
... of course, in addition, there's that thing called politeness where people don't consistently give honest feedback.
(all of the above isn't true for all the people in all arenas of life ... but it's mostly true for most people).
|
As far as dating sites go i have tried out RussianCupid and AsianCupid. While on RussianCupid i messaged plenty of women and got maybe 1 to 2 messages back. I had an outstanding sucess at attracting attention on AsianCupid. I was geting messages without even contanting them first.They flocked to me like i was a bee hive.
So you could say that i was way above average to the asian population but below average on RussianCupid. It is interesting how attraction differs from one continent to another.
|
This is a simple superiority complex evolved by Americans through their own personal success of their own achievements and support of their peers. To add my 2 cents and summarize everything.
|
Well grading things is somehow really hard for people. Ask someone about how they would grade the movie you just watched. They are really likely to say 7/10 even if it was just average. Same goes for grading someones looks, you almost never hear someone say he/she is a 4/10 but more often 7/10. Dont really know why this is but I come across this alot. In the late 90's I read a letter to the editor for a gaming magazine. The writer had calculeted the reviews over an unknown time (I dont remember) and the average score was ~70% or 7/10 ect.
People are really worthless in grading things.
|
On April 22 2012 07:53 Eatme wrote:
Well grading things is somehow really hard for people. Ask someone about how they would grade the movie you just watched. They are really likely to say 7/10 even if it was just average. Same goes for grading someones looks, you almost never hear someone say he/she is a 4/10 but more often 7/10. Dont really know why this is but I come across this alot. In the late 90's I read a letter to the editor for a gaming magazine. The writer had calculeted the reviews over an unknown time (I dont remember) and the average score was ~70% or 7/10 ect.
People are really worthless in grading things.
I quite agree, for many people when they wish to say average they somehow come out with a score better than average. The 1-10 scale is really poor when used by people to measure things, generally 1-4 means worlds worst, 5-6 is bad 7 is average 8 being good, best physically possible is 9, while perfections is 10, being unachievable. Its different for many but that's what i've observed.
I personally rank myself as being average/terrible at things until I have proof otherwise, such as Grades or Ladder position, I thought it would be contradictory to see myself as being better than average without knowing the abilities of the rest, and everyone being above average would be contradictory to it being average. Although i know of people that even when presented with this information believe themselves to be better/worse than that, such as a bronze player believing he's average or a diamond player believing the exact same thing. When i heard of the Denning-Kruger effect i fell in love with it, as it explained this phenomenon so well.
|
On April 20 2012 20:09 Umpteen wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 06:37 Drowsy wrote:
But I remember an OKCupid study that revealed that the females on the site rated 80% of males as below average looking which is obviously impossible. Perfectly possible, if the males on the site were an unrepresentative sample of all males. Given that this is a dating site, do you think the average attractiveness of members is likely to be higher or lower than the average in the general population? EDIT: In fact, we don't even need to resort to that explanation. When a girl rates a guy's attractiveness, she isn't factoring in all the other guys she's ever seen. I mean, if you showed her 50 complete munters in a row, she wouldn't progressively lower her estimation of what 'averagely attractive' was, would she? No: what she does probably weighted strongly towards using the extremes of attractiveness to which she has previously been exposed to define a midpoint. And because everyone has seen at least a couple of highly attractive models and movie stars, that drags the calculated midpoint a long way from true average. When you watch a lot of telly, everyone around you looks less attractive than you would otherwise find them.
Bear in mind this site has millions of members and is slanted toward 18-30 where attractiveness peaks, so its highly unlikely the sample is so far removed from the general population that 80% of males on the site really are below average looking. The study also fails to specify if the population is just ok cupid members. And how do you counterbalance that with men's almost perfect distribution when rating female attractiveness? That would mean that the females who sign up for the site are a representative sample but the men are not, which just makes no sense intuitively.
Study: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/
Counterpoint/more cynical interpretation: http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/why-men-dont-need-to-worry-so-much-about-their-looks/
I'll let you draw your own conclusion.
On April 21 2012 22:02 aebriol wrote:
There's a very simple reason for this:
Most of us will naturally surround ourselves with people that value us higher than the average person.
- Our parents like us more than other parents like us.
- Grandparents the same.
- Friends the same.
- Wife husband the same.
- Teammates the same.
- You were most likely hired because they felt you would fit in, and another company didn't, because they didn't value you that highly ...
So - by default - most of the time, we are among people that value us higher than the average person in the world.
Why wouldn't we get a skewed result that way?
... of course, in addition, there's that thing called politeness where people don't consistently give honest feedback.
(all of the above isn't true for all the people in all arenas of life ... but it's mostly true for most people).
How would you explain the reverse dunning-kruger effect appearing in east-asian countries then? I think the pop psychology surrounding the supposed benefits of high self-esteem have just grown out of control in a lot of western countries.
|
On April 20 2012 02:34 Rimstalker wrote:Show nested quote +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_effectIn 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!
If you ever need to see an example of the Dunning Kruger Effect, try playing a game of any MobA :D It's amazing how prevalent this phenomenon is in that game, and in most team games in general.
On April 20 2012 06:37 Drowsy wrote:
But I remember an OKCupid study that revealed that the females on the site rated 80% of males as below average looking which is obviously impossible. The males rated females in an almost perfect normal distribution.
It's perfectly possible for that 80% to be accurate. There are a lot of factors that can play into lowering a guys looks on OKCupid. It's a dating site, so it's perfectly reasonable to assume the average member is going to be below average in looks. On top of that, most guys seem to be clueless when it comes to taking a good picture of themself, so they aren't even representing themselves well. The guys on the site are probably being compared to the men the girls see in real life or more likely, on tv and in magazines, which would set the bar higher. Couple all these together and it's not too surprising to see a number like 80%.
|
my laziness is above average
|
On April 22 2012 08:48 Drowsy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 20:09 Umpteen wrote:On April 20 2012 06:37 Drowsy wrote:
But I remember an OKCupid study that revealed that the females on the site rated 80% of males as below average looking which is obviously impossible. Perfectly possible, if the males on the site were an unrepresentative sample of all males. Given that this is a dating site, do you think the average attractiveness of members is likely to be higher or lower than the average in the general population? EDIT: In fact, we don't even need to resort to that explanation. When a girl rates a guy's attractiveness, she isn't factoring in all the other guys she's ever seen. I mean, if you showed her 50 complete munters in a row, she wouldn't progressively lower her estimation of what 'averagely attractive' was, would she? No: what she does probably weighted strongly towards using the extremes of attractiveness to which she has previously been exposed to define a midpoint. And because everyone has seen at least a couple of highly attractive models and movie stars, that drags the calculated midpoint a long way from true average. When you watch a lot of telly, everyone around you looks less attractive than you would otherwise find them. Bear in mind this site has millions of members and is slanted toward 18-30 where attractiveness peaks, so its highly unlikely the sample is so far removed from the general population that 80% of males on the site really are below average looking. The study also fails to specify if the population is just ok cupid members. And how do you counterbalance that with men's almost perfect distribution when rating female attractiveness? That would mean that the females who sign up for the site are a representative sample but the men are not, which just makes no sense intuitively. Study: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/Counterpoint/more cynical interpretation: http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/why-men-dont-need-to-worry-so-much-about-their-looks/I'll let you draw your own conclusion. Show nested quote +On April 21 2012 22:02 aebriol wrote:
There's a very simple reason for this:
Most of us will naturally surround ourselves with people that value us higher than the average person.
- Our parents like us more than other parents like us.
- Grandparents the same.
- Friends the same.
- Wife husband the same.
- Teammates the same.
- You were most likely hired because they felt you would fit in, and another company didn't, because they didn't value you that highly ...
So - by default - most of the time, we are among people that value us higher than the average person in the world.
Why wouldn't we get a skewed result that way?
... of course, in addition, there's that thing called politeness where people don't consistently give honest feedback.
(all of the above isn't true for all the people in all arenas of life ... but it's mostly true for most people). How would you explain the reverse dunning-kruger effect appearing in east-asian countries then? I think the pop psychology surrounding the supposed benefits of high self-esteem have just grown out of control in a lot of western countries.
the dunning-kruger effect is prevalent in east-asian countries too. being humble or showing false humility /= reverse dunning-kruger effect. its human nature to think of ourselves as smarter and emotionally more complex than other people since we think of ourselves as the hero or heroine of the world we live in, even though from a macro perspective we are smaller than bits of dust.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
