Unskilled and Unaware of It
apa.org
apa.org
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.).
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.
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.
However, it is also very clear from their graphs that, overall, people simply seem to map the normal range of abilities (0% to 100%) into the compressed range (50% to 100%). I wonder if this has anything to do with how we grade in school, ... namely, anything below 50% is a "failure".
I can hear the seething controlled anger or my co-workers perception of me that I do nothing or am worthless. I can feel the tiny neutron star of resentment go off every time they have to talk to me.
I'm an expert on nothing but my only defense is to take work no one wants.
I'm trying to fix it.
You can also find similar quotes attributed to Socrates and Lao Tzu.
If anything, this made me question what I thought I knew, and is a lesson in humility.