Ask HN: How'd you get past Impostor Syndrome? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: How'd you get past Impostor Syndrome?

14 pointshtp20 comments

Hi HN,

I've had a small string of minor or undocumented successes that collectively suggest I'm a capable leader and an at-least-decent programmer. The trouble is, I don't believe it: I've gotten irrationally good at attributing my successes to others' efforts, sheer blind luck, or the application of brute force instead of skill.

The prevailing advice for moving past Impostor Syndrome seems to be "fake it 'til you make it", but trying that made me feel like an even bigger fraud. Do you have any other advice for getting out of the impostor mindset?

View on HN

> the application of brute force instead of skill

The application of brute force is a skill, if you were successful with it. It shows you had the good judgement to apply the right kind of brute force to the right problem, and then the persistence, and the confidence in yourself, to see it through.

This was going to by my question, is brute force a skill? Who is better off,

Y = person who can brute force a problem, and solve it 100% of the time but takes Z amount of time/effort to do so

X= person who can elegantly solve a problem quickly W% of the time, but gives up very quickly if problems arise

when does

Y * Z < X * W

and

Y * Z > X * W

(solve for all variables)

I would say that brute force is absolutely a skill. Your point about developers Y and X is kind of interesting, though. I think both types of developers are important. I read an anecdote here or at reddit that mentioned a couple of coders that worked together, one who had the idea and a creative method of implementation and the other who enjoyed bludgeoning out the hardest, mind-numbing parts of the code that are required in a true finished product.

The trick is identifying who is who, and assigning tasks appropriately.

Early in my career I did myself a rather large amount of damage; I got myself on a very good team, but I thought I was holding the team back (I was obviously the least experienced person there) and I thought that everyone else was just being nice to me. I ended up quitting because I thought the boss was unwilling to fire me. Worst career decision ever. Going back and reexamining the situation and talking to some of the people involved, I now believe I was performing better than expected. I mean, they knew my experience level when I was hired, and they judged that experience level to be appropriate for the job at hand.

If you might have low self-esteem, I believe it's best to assume that other people act in their own best interest, to assume that other people will fire you if you are getting in the way of the team. If you get into a good team an they don't fire you, you should see that as evidence that this good team believes you are worth keeping around.

Every good team has a mechanism for ejecting people who hold them back, and if your team lacks that mechanism, your team has much bigger problems than just one person who isn't up to the level of the rest of the team. So get yourself on the best team you can, work as hard as you can, and don't dial back your ambition until you get fired.

Let other people decide that you are not good enough.

This might not be the most delicate thing to say, but maybe you feel this way because it's true?

For every Zuckerberg there are 20 guys that were near him that think they're great programmers/investors/entrepreneurs, but really they were just lucky to be in the right place/time.

Try a controlled experiment. Do something on your own, so you know it's all you.

  This might not be the most delicate thing to say, but
  maybe you feel this way because it's true?

A cold, hard slap from reality wouldn't be the worst thing to receive- it'd at least give me a point of reference to define my abilities.

  Try a controlled experiment. Do something on your own,
  so you know it's all you.

This is so bewilderingly straightforward I can't believe I didn't think of it sooner. Thanks.

>Try a controlled experiment. Do something on your own, so you know it's all you.

I don't think this is the best test... Zuckerberg leaned pretty hard on those investors. would facebook have gotten big if he had to pay for all the years they lost money out of pocket or consulting or something?

Bootstrapping is a rather different game than building a site with massive investor backing, and it requires very different skills.

Then if the controlled experiment shows you're capable, it could provide a perspective that Zuckerberg may be an imposter.

my point is that needing a team doesn't mean you are useless. do you grow your own food? did you design the integrated circuits that your computer is made from?

My point is that a well-constructed group can accomplish a lot more than a lone person; and being more effective in a group than alone does not mean that the individual members of that group are somehow worthless.

This is why I think the "what can you do by yourself" is a poor test of the ability of a person.

I look to see how other people do things. For example, if I think I am an "imposter designer," I look at reputable designers to see what they are doing, and how much of that I can also do. I also look at designers who seem equal to me, to see if they are good.

I also try to learn the flaws of people I admire because that helps me realize that when I am different than someone, it does not mean I am necessarily worse.

Also, Imposter Syndrome is a symptom in the "fear of rejection" category of pride. Reluctance to ship is in that category too. This is a little like Rejection Therapy, but you can beat both those symptoms and hopefully hack at the root if you resolve to put work out there until somebody with authority makes you stop. Most likely they won't, and you'll get the feedback you need to know that you are adequately capable to do what you do.

Going to one of the largest developer conferences of my particular niche in the development world was a particularly eyeopening experience. While there were definitely talks that were above my skill level, they were also well above the skill level of many of the other attendees. Being able to compare my code with some of the rockstar/ninja/insert-superlative-here showed me that I was working on things at the same levels as them, and in some cases found that my code might even be better. Check out your peers outside of your immediate surroundings and read their code.

In the end, do you ship software? Is it solving the problems it was designed to solve? Are the people you're leading happy, healthy and also productively shipping software? Then you're not an impostor.

[edited] I wonder if humility and thankfulness might help.

Not humility in the sense that you put yourself down, but humility in the sense that you accept that you're part of a large world (and a huge universe) and that you're happy with that.

And being thankful for the things you've been able to achieve, the help you've received along the way etc.

You can quite easily practice both. http://www.google.com/search?q=practice+thankfulness

The fact that you are posting it here suggests that you actually attribute your success to yourself, but are looking for validation.

Knowing about the Imposter Syndrome can be really confusing and changes everything. You keep thinking whether you are really an imposter or a genius.

  looking for validation.

In a way. I'm not here to fish for compliments or reassurances, and if my post conveyed that, that wasn't what I intended to do.

I'm looking for ways other HNers have internalized that they're (at least partially) responsible for their successes; how to "self-validate" rather than trust and rely on external validation.

I wrote a book. I took the time, worked at it, and there it is. So I feel good about that.

Now, I know that there were many factors that made it possible for me to do that. Most of them pure luck. The place I was born. Etc. But I still did it.

Also, it's not the greatest book ever. If I did it again, I'd do it much better. If I would review it, I'd give it, perhaps, 5 out of 10. It's not written very well, and the content could be better too. There are things in there I'd cringe about now.

But I still wrote it. That's not bad :)

Looks like shipping things (good or otherwise) is the name of the game here.

Thanks for your comments!

"fake it 'til you make it",

similar one but a bit lighter way to think: "you can't fake what you can't make".

if you are making things you are not faking, of course.

I've spent a lot of time on gifted-homeschooling forums and the like (and used to be "somebody" in such circles). I have two sons who are very "twice exceptional" (gifted with learning disabilities plus other handicaps) and I did extremely well in school but a medical handicap has held me back and generally frustrated me in life. Finally getting a diagnosis late in life allowed me to begin moving forward, but from a starting place of a deep pit, in essence.

I have come to think that "impostor syndrome" is probably at its worst with "twice exceptional" folks -- folks who are both more intelligent or competent than average and also have some kind of handicap (ADHD, OCD, dyslexia, whatever). I have found that the best antidote involves figuring out what is real and what isn't. I mean, I have done so many things that people said "could not be done" -- and I don't mean they said that I couldn't do it, I mean they said that no one could do it. -- that listening to other people about what my limitations "should" be is utterly useless to me. At the exact same time, there are lots of things that I find incredibly difficult or problematic that most other people don't struggle with. My observation has been that people like me frequently only find out what their actual limits are by hitting a metaphorical wall at like 100 miles an hour. When I fail and fail big, then I know I cannot do it. That is the only real, meaningful test. Listening to other people and their predictions/estimations/whatever doesn't work. Nor am I actually a good judge of what I can or can't do. My own predictions of my own ability sucks eggs. I've worked hard on finding less disastrous ways to find my limits and to fail more gracefully but failing still is basically the only reliable test of my limits.

Learning some real world, hard numbers that compare your abilities realistically to others helps. There are some sources of info out there and all that. And then just gradually testing your limits in some manner that is meaningful to you which gives you the feedback you need to judge what you are really capable of and whether or not it is genuinely better than what most other people could do in that area. Sometimes such data can be quite hard to come by. But there are ways to develop mental models for assessing such things.

I don't think comparing yourself to others really helps.

I think it can but you have to have the right data. Coming up with the right data seems to me to be the hard part. But I also realize that, like with anything, it's a case of "different strokes for different folks".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com