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.
你的能力是否与想象中的一样好？ 你的理财能力有多强？ 你的解读情感能力有多好？ 与熟人相比，你有多健康？ 你的文法高于平均水平吗？ 了解自己的能力 以及对比自己与别人能力 不仅仅能够提升自尊。 它帮助我们确定 何时可以凭着感觉走， 何时需要寻求建议。 但是心理学研究表明 我们并不善于准确评价自己。 事实上，我们经常高估自己的能力。 研究人员将这种现象命名， 称为邓宁-克鲁格效应。 此效应解析了 为什么有100多项研究 表明人们有虚幻的优越性。 我们认为自己比别人好， 这在某种程度上 甚至违反了数学定律。 两个公司的软件工程师 被要求进行自我评定， 两家公司分别有 32%和42%的工程师 把自己排在前5%。 在另一项研究中， 88%的美国司机自认为 具有高于平均水平的驾驶技能。 这些并不是特例。 平均来说，人们倾向于认为 自己比大多数人更优秀， 这表现在健康情况、领导才能 、 道德水平和其他领域。 特别有趣的在于 能力越低的人越容易 最大程度地高估自己的技能。 在逻辑推理、 文法、 金融知识、 数学、 情商、 做医学实验、 国际象棋等方面， 分数低的人都倾向于认为 自己与真正的专家能力相当。 那么，究竟谁 最容易受这种错觉的影响呢？ 可悲的是，答案是所有人， 因为我们都有 自己意识不到的不擅长领域。 但为什么呢？ 1999年心理学家邓宁和克鲁格 首次描述了这种效应， 他们认为 缺乏特定领域知识和技能的人 遭受双重困境。 第一，他们会犯错误 并做出糟糕的决定。 第二，这种知识欠缺也会 阻碍他们发现错误。 换句话说， 表现不佳的人缺乏所需的专业知识， 因此无法认识到自己做得多么糟糕。 举例来说， 对大学辩论赛的参赛者进行的研究发现， 在预赛中排在倒数25%的队员 在每五场比赛中失败了近四场。 但他们却认为自己赢了近60%的比赛。 这些学生们没有扎实掌握辩论规则， 因此他们根本分不清 自己的论点 在何时被推翻或是多少次被推翻。 邓宁-克鲁格效应并不是说 自我意识让我们看不到自身弱点。 人们一旦发现自己的弱点 通常都会承认这些问题。 在一项研究中， 一些学生起初在逻辑测验中表现不好， 在参加了一些小型逻辑课程后， 他们欣然承认原来的表现糟透了。 这也许就是为何 拥有些许经验或专业知识的人 往往对自己的能力信心不足。 他们清楚地知道 自己还有很多不了解的事情。 与此同时，专家们往往能意识到 自己知识多么渊博。 但他们经常犯另一个错误： 那就是，他们假定其他人同样知识渊博。 结果就是， 无论是笨拙还是技艺精湛， 人们经常不能准确认知自我。 当他们不擅长某事的时候， 他们看不到自己的缺点。 当他们异常能干的时候， 他们不知道 自己的能力有多不寻常。 对于正在经历邓宁-克鲁格效应 却不自知的人来说， 如何能了解自己在各领域的真实水平呢？ 首先，要寻求别人的反馈， 即使它并不动听，也要仔细考虑。 其次，更重要的是不断学习。 我们了解的知识越多， 那些隐藏的能力缺陷就会越少。 也许一切都归结为那句古老的谚语： 当和傻瓜辩论时， 首先要确定 对方是否也在做同样的事。