Are you as good at things as you think you are? How good are you at managing money? What about reading people's emotions? How healthy are you compared to other people you know? Are you better than average at grammar? Knowing how competent we are and how are skill stack up against other people's is more than a self-esteem boost. It helps us figure out when we can forge ahead on our own decisions and instincts and when we need, instead, to seek out advice. But psychological research suggests that we're not very good at evaluating ourselves accurately. In fact, we frequently overestimate our own abilities. Researchers have a name for this phenomena, the Dunning-Kruger effect. This effect explains why more than 100 studies have shown that people display illusory superiority. We judge ourselves as better than others to a degree that violates the laws of math. When software engineers at two companies were asked to rate their performance, 32% of the engineers at one company and 42% at the other put themselves in the top 5%. In another study, 88% of American drivers described themselves as having above average driving skills. These aren't isolated findings. On average, people tend to rate themselves better than most in disciplines ranging from health, leadership skills, ethics, and beyond. What's particularly interesting is that those with the least ability are often the most likely to overrate their skills to the greatest extent. People measurably poor at logical reasoning, grammar, financial knowledge, math, emotional intelligence, running medical lab tests, and chess all tend to rate their expertise almost as favorably as actual experts do. So who's most vulnerable to this delusion? Sadly, all of us because we all have pockets of incompetence we don't recognize. But why? When psychologists Dunning and Kruger first described the effect in 1999, they argued that people lacking knowledge and skill in particular areas suffer a double curse. First, they make mistakes and reach poor decisions. But second, those same knowledge gaps also prevent them from catching their errors. In other words, poor performers lack the very expertise needed to recognize how badly they're doing. For example, when the researchers studied participants in a college debate tournament, the bottom 25% of teams in preliminary rounds lost nearly four out of every five matches. But they thought they were winning almost 60%. WIthout a strong grasp of the rules of debate, the students simply couldn't recognize when or how often their arguments broke down. The Dunning-Kruger effect isn't a question of ego blinding us to our weaknesses. People usually do admit their deficits once they can spot them. In one study, students who had initially done badly on a logic quiz and then took a mini course on logic were quite willing to label their original performances as awful. That may be why people with a moderate amount of experience or expertise often have less confidence in their abilities. They know enough to know that there's a lot they don't know. Meanwhile, experts tend to be aware of just how knowledgeable they are. But they often make a different mistake: they assume that everyone else is knowledgeable, too. The result is that people, whether they're inept or highly skilled, are often caught in a bubble of inaccurate self-perception. When they're unskilled, they can't see their own faults. When they're exceptionally competent, they don't perceive how unusual their abilities are. So if the Dunning-Kruger effect is invisible to those experiencing it, what can you do to find out how good you actually are at various things? First, ask for feedback from other people, and consider it, even if it's hard to hear. Second, and more important, keep learning. The more knowledgeable we become, the less likely we are to have invisible holes in our competence. Perhaps it all boils down to that old proverb: When arguing with a fool, first make sure the other person isn't doing the same thing.
Da li ste dobri u stvarima onoliko koliko mislite da jeste? Koliko ste dobri u upravljanju novcem? Šta je sa čitanjem ljudskih emocija? Koliko ste zdravi u poređenju sa drugim ljudima koje poznajete? Da li ste u proseku bolji u gramatici? Poznavanje svoje stručnosti i kako naše veštine stoje u poređenju sa drugim ljudima je više od jačanja samopouzdanja. Pomaže nam da shvatimo kada možemo da se držimo naših odluka i instinkata, a kada nam je, umesto toga, potrebno da tražimo savet. Međutim psihološka istraživanja nagoveštavaju da nismo naročito dobri u preciznoj samoproceni. Zapravo, često precenjujemo sopstvene sposobnosti. Istraživači imaju naziv za ovu pojavu, Daning-Krugerov efekat. Ovaj efekat objašnjava zašto je preko 100 istraživanja utvrdilo da ljudi pokazuju iluzornu superiornost. Cenimo sebe kao bolje od drugih u meri koja narušava zakone matematike. Kada su softverski inženjeri u dve firme upitani da ocene svoj učinak, 32% inženjera iz jedne firme i 42% iz druge je stavilo sebe u 5% najboljih. U drugom istraživanju, 88% američkih vozača su opisali sebe kao nekoga ko ima natprosečne veštine vožnje. Ovo nisu izolovana otkrića. U proseku, ljudi su skloni tome da sebe ocenjuju kao bolje od većine u disciplinama koje sežu od zdravlja, veština predvodništva, etike itd. Naročito je zanimljivo to da su oni najnesposobniji često najskloniji precenjivanju svojih veština u najvećoj meri. Ljudi koji su vidno loši u logičkom zaključivanju, gramatici, finansijskom znanju, matematici, emocionalnoj inteligenciji, izvođenju laboratorijskih medicinskih testova i šahu, svi su skloni ocenjivanju svoje stručnosti skoro jednako povoljno kao stručnjaci. Pa, ko je najpodložniji ovoj obmani? Na žalost, svi mi jer svi mi imamo parčiće nesposobnosti koje ne prepoznajemo. Međutim zašto? Kada su psiholozi Daning i Kruger prvi put opisali ovaj efekat 1999, tvrdili su da ljudi kojima manjka znanja i veština u određenim oblastima pate od dvostruke kletve. Prvo, prave greške i donose loše odluke. Ali, drugo, te iste rupe u znanju ih sprečavaju i da zapaze svoje greške. Drugim rečima, lošim znalcima nedostaje baš ona stručnost koja ima je potrebna da uvide koliko im loše ide. Na primer, kada su istraživači izučavali učesnike na fakultetskom turniru debate, najlošijih 25% ekipa u preliminarnim rundama je izgubilo četiri od svakih pet mečeva. Međutim, smatrali su da pobeđuju u skoro 60%. Bez jasnog razumevanja pravila debate, studenti prosto nisu mogli da prepoznaju kada ili koliko često su njihovi argumenti pobijeni. Daning-Krugerov efekat nije pitanje toga da smo zbog ega slepi za naše slabosti. Ljudi često priznaju svoje nedostatke kada uspeju da ih spaze. U jedom istraživanju, đaci koji su prvobitno loše prošli na logičkom kvizu a potom su pohađali kraći kurs logike su bili prilično voljni da označe prvobitni učinak kao užasan. Možda zbog toga ljudi sa umerenom količinom iskustva i stručnosti često imaju manje samopouzdanja u svoje sposobnosti. Znaju dovoljno da znaju kako ima mnogo toga što ne znaju. U međuvremenu, stručnjaci su svesni toga koliko znaju. Međutim, često prave drugačiju grešku: pretpostavljaju da svi ostali znaju koliko i oni. Iz toga proishodi da ljudi, bilo da su nevični ili visoko kvalifikovani, često su zarobljeni u mehuru netačne samoprocene. Kada su nevični, ne mogu da vide sopstvene mane. Kada su izuzetno kompetentni, ne uviđaju koliko su neobične njihove sposobnosti. Pa, ako je Daning-Krugerov efekat nevidljiv onima koji ga doživljavaju, šta možete da uradite da otkrijete koliko ste zaista dobri u raznim stvarima? Prvo, pitajte druge ljude za povratnu informaciju i razmotrite je, čak iako vam ne prija. Drugo, i još važnije, nastavite da učite. Što smo obučeniji, to smo manje skloni da imamo nevidjive rupe u našoj sposobnosti. Možda se sve svodi na staru poslovicu: Kada se raspravljate sa budalom, prvo se postarajte da i druga osoba ne radi to isto.