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.
你真的有自己想像的那麼棒嗎? 你的理財能力怎麼樣? 解讀別人的情感的能力呢? 你比你認識的人更健康嗎? 你的語法高於水平嗎? 清楚的知道自己能力 和客觀的把自己 和別人的能力做比較, 不止會增加一個人的自信, 它還會幫助我們相信自己的本能和判斷, 和需要的時候徵求別人的意見。 但是心理學研究顯示, 我們很少 能夠正確地衡量自己的能力。 事實上, 我們經常高估自己的能力。 學術界稱此現象為 達克效應。 在超過 100 個研究中, 這個效應解釋了 人們普遍有虛幻的優越感。 我們高估自己的程度 甚至超越了數學的原理。 有個研究讓兩個軟體公司裡的 程式設計師評估自己的能力, 兩個公司分別有 32% 和 42% 的程式設計師 覺得自己是頂尖的 5%。 另一個研究顯示 88% 的美國人 認為自己的駕駛能力高於平均。 這種數據不在少數。 一般來說, 人們會認為自己在 健康、領導能力、 倫理等等方面都優於平均。 有意思的是,最沒有能力的人 經常會最高估自己。 在邏輯、 語法、 金融知識、 數學、 情商、 做醫學化驗, 和下棋方面能力低下的人, 都會認為自己堪比專家。 那誰最容易有這種幻覺呢? 所有人。 因為人人都有自己不勝任 而又沒有意識到的方面。 為什麼呢? 當心理學家達寧和克魯格 在 1999 年提出達克效應時, 他們認為人們在缺少 知識和技術的領域 遭受一個雙重詛咒。 第一,他們會有失誤和失策。 第二,知識中的差距 讓他們無法發覺自己的錯誤。 也就是說, 表現越不佳的人就越不容易 意識到自己表現不佳。 比如, 一項針對大學辯論競賽者的研究發現, 前幾輪的表現在倒數四分之一的群體 在之後的四五輪裡還是屢戰屢敗。 但是他們以為自己的贏率接近六成, 由於對辯論規則缺乏深入理解, 這些學生根本就沒有意識到 他們的論點什麼時候瓦解, 和瓦解的頻率。 達克效應不是弱點被自我蒙蔽的問題。 人們經常能夠承認已經辨識到的弱點。 一個研究顯示, 邏輯測驗做得不好的學生 在上了一個小型邏輯課程後, 爽快地承認了自己原來的不足。 這有可能是水平一般的人 通常信心不足的原因。 他們有足夠的知識明白自己的不足。 在另一方面, 專家們很清楚自己的水準, 但他們經常會犯另一種錯誤: 他們以為其他人也知道的很多。 結果,水平不高的人 和專家們都把自己 圈在了不同的 錯誤自我認知的氣泡裡。 水平不高的人看不到自己的不足。 能力超高的人無法意識到 自己的能力如何罕見。 那麼在達克效應中, 人們應該怎樣對自己有正確的評估呢? 第一,向其他人索要反饋, 即使忠言逆耳。 第二,也是更重要的一點,不斷學習。 越多的知識能讓我們 填補更多的不足。 就如一個諺語所說, 和一個蠢材吵架時, 先要確保自己不也是個蠢材。