為什么無能的人認(rèn)為自己了不起

你的能力是否與想象中的一樣好? 你的理財(cái)能力有多強(qiáng)? 你解讀情感的能力有多好敦姻? 與熟人相比亦鳞,你有多健康? 你的文法高于平均水平嗎?了解自己的能力以及對(duì)比自己與別人的能力藤乙,不僅僅能夠提升自尊简珠,還能幫助我們確定何時(shí)可以跟著感覺走阶界,何時(shí)需要尋求建議。

但是心理學(xué)研究表明聋庵,我們并不善于準(zhǔn)確評(píng)價(jià)自己膘融。事實(shí)上,我們經(jīng)常高估自己的能力珍策。研究人員將這種現(xiàn)象命名為鄧寧-克魯格效應(yīng)托启。此效應(yīng)解析了為什么有100多項(xiàng)研究表明人們有虛幻的優(yōu)越感宅倒。我們認(rèn)為自己比別人好攘宙,這在某種程度上甚至違反了數(shù)學(xué)定律。

兩個(gè)公司的軟件工程師被要求進(jìn)行自我評(píng)定拐迁,兩家公司分別有32%和42%的工程師把自己排在前5%蹭劈。在另一項(xiàng)研究中,88%的美國司機(jī)自認(rèn)為具有高于平均水平的駕駛技能线召。這些并不是特例铺韧。平均來說,人們傾向于認(rèn)為自己比大多數(shù)人更優(yōu)秀缓淹,這表現(xiàn)在健康情況,哈打,領(lǐng)導(dǎo)才能,道德水平和其他領(lǐng)域讯壶。

特別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料仗。在邏輯推理,文法伏蚊,金融知識(shí)立轧,數(shù)學(xué),情商,醫(yī)學(xué)實(shí)驗(yàn)氛改,國際相棋等方面帐萎,分?jǐn)?shù)低的人都傾向于認(rèn)為自己與真正的專家能力相當(dāng)。那么胜卤,究竟誰最容易受這種錯(cuò)覺的影響呢? 可悲的是疆导,答案是所有人,因?yàn)槲覀兌加凶约阂庾R(shí)不到的不擅長領(lǐng)域葛躏。

但為什么呢? 1999年心理學(xué)家鄧寧和克魯格首次描述了這種效應(yīng)是鬼,他們認(rèn)為缺乏特定領(lǐng)域知識(shí)和技能的人,遭受雙重困境紫新。第一均蜜,他們會(huì)犯錯(cuò)誤并作出糟糕的決定。第二芒率,這種知識(shí)欠缺也會(huì)阻礙他們發(fā)現(xiàn)錯(cuò)誤囤耳。換句話說,表現(xiàn)不佳的人缺乏所需的專業(yè)知識(shí)偶芍,因此無法認(rèn)識(shí)到自己做得多么糟糕充择。 舉例來說,對(duì)大學(xué)辯論賽的參賽者進(jìn)行的研究發(fā)現(xiàn)匪蟀,在預(yù)賽中排在倒數(shù)25%的隊(duì)員在每五場比賽中失敗了近四場椎麦。但他們卻認(rèn)為自己贏了近60%的比賽。這些學(xué)生們沒有扎實(shí)掌握辯論規(guī)則材彪,因此他們根本分不清观挎,自己的論點(diǎn)在何時(shí)被推翻或是多少次被推翻。

鄧寧-克魯格效應(yīng)并不是說自我意識(shí)讓我們看不到自身弱點(diǎn)段化。人們一旦發(fā)現(xiàn)自己的弱點(diǎn)通常都會(huì)承認(rèn)這些問題嘁捷。在一項(xiàng)研究中,一些學(xué)生起初在邏輯測驗(yàn)中表現(xiàn)不好显熏,在參加了一些小型邏輯課程后雄嚣,他們欣然承認(rèn)原來的表現(xiàn)糟透了。這也許就是為何擁有些許經(jīng)驗(yàn)或?qū)I(yè)知識(shí)的人喘蟆,往往對(duì)自己的能力信心不足缓升。他們清楚地知道自己還有很多不了解的事情。與此同時(shí)蕴轨,專家們往往能意識(shí)到自己知識(shí)多么淵博港谊。但他們經(jīng)常犯另一個(gè)錯(cuò)誤,那就是尺棋,他們假定其他人同樣知識(shí)淵博封锉。

結(jié)果就是绵跷,無論是笨拙還是技藝精湛,人們經(jīng)常不能準(zhǔn)確認(rèn)知自我成福。當(dāng)他們不擅長某事的時(shí)候碾局,他們看不到自己的缺點(diǎn)。當(dāng)他們異常能干的時(shí)候奴艾,他們不知道自己的能力有多不尋常净当。

對(duì)于正在經(jīng)歷鄧寧-克魯格效應(yīng)卻不自知的人來說,如何能了解自己在各領(lǐng)域的真實(shí)水平呢? 首先蕴潦,要尋求別人的反饋像啼,即使它并不動(dòng)聽,也要仔細(xì)考慮潭苞。其次忽冻,更重要的是不斷學(xué)習(xí),我們了解的知識(shí)越多此疹,那些隱藏的能力缺陷就會(huì)減少僧诚。也許一切都?xì)w結(jié)為那句古老的諺語:當(dāng)和傻瓜辯論時(shí),首先要確定你是否與對(duì)方在做同樣的事蝗碎。

來源: TED-Ed 短視頻課程https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOLmD_WVY-E

Why incompetent people think they're amazing

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 the 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 so 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 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.

?著作權(quán)歸作者所有,轉(zhuǎn)載或內(nèi)容合作請(qǐng)聯(lián)系作者
  • 序言:七十年代末湖笨,一起剝皮案震驚了整個(gè)濱河市,隨后出現(xiàn)的幾起案子蹦骑,更是在濱河造成了極大的恐慌慈省,老刑警劉巖,帶你破解...
    沈念sama閱讀 222,681評(píng)論 6 517
  • 序言:濱河連續(xù)發(fā)生了三起死亡事件眠菇,死亡現(xiàn)場離奇詭異边败,居然都是意外死亡,警方通過查閱死者的電腦和手機(jī)琼锋,發(fā)現(xiàn)死者居然都...
    沈念sama閱讀 95,205評(píng)論 3 399
  • 文/潘曉璐 我一進(jìn)店門放闺,熙熙樓的掌柜王于貴愁眉苦臉地迎上來,“玉大人缕坎,你說我怎么就攤上這事〈畚颍” “怎么了谜叹?”我有些...
    開封第一講書人閱讀 169,421評(píng)論 0 362
  • 文/不壞的土叔 我叫張陵,是天一觀的道長搬葬。 經(jīng)常有香客問我荷腊,道長,這世上最難降的妖魔是什么急凰? 我笑而不...
    開封第一講書人閱讀 60,114評(píng)論 1 300
  • 正文 為了忘掉前任女仰,我火速辦了婚禮,結(jié)果婚禮上,老公的妹妹穿的比我還像新娘疾忍。我一直安慰自己乔外,他們只是感情好,可當(dāng)我...
    茶點(diǎn)故事閱讀 69,116評(píng)論 6 398
  • 文/花漫 我一把揭開白布一罩。 她就那樣靜靜地躺著杨幼,像睡著了一般。 火紅的嫁衣襯著肌膚如雪聂渊。 梳的紋絲不亂的頭發(fā)上差购,一...
    開封第一講書人閱讀 52,713評(píng)論 1 312
  • 那天,我揣著相機(jī)與錄音汉嗽,去河邊找鬼欲逃。 笑死,一個(gè)胖子當(dāng)著我的面吹牛饼暑,可吹牛的內(nèi)容都是我干的暖夭。 我是一名探鬼主播,決...
    沈念sama閱讀 41,170評(píng)論 3 422
  • 文/蒼蘭香墨 我猛地睜開眼撵孤,長吁一口氣:“原來是場噩夢啊……” “哼迈着!你這毒婦竟也來了?” 一聲冷哼從身側(cè)響起邪码,我...
    開封第一講書人閱讀 40,116評(píng)論 0 277
  • 序言:老撾萬榮一對(duì)情侶失蹤裕菠,失蹤者是張志新(化名)和其女友劉穎,沒想到半個(gè)月后闭专,有當(dāng)?shù)厝嗽跇淞掷锇l(fā)現(xiàn)了一具尸體奴潘,經(jīng)...
    沈念sama閱讀 46,651評(píng)論 1 320
  • 正文 獨(dú)居荒郊野嶺守林人離奇死亡,尸身上長有42處帶血的膿包…… 初始之章·張勛 以下內(nèi)容為張勛視角 年9月15日...
    茶點(diǎn)故事閱讀 38,714評(píng)論 3 342
  • 正文 我和宋清朗相戀三年影钉,在試婚紗的時(shí)候發(fā)現(xiàn)自己被綠了画髓。 大學(xué)時(shí)的朋友給我發(fā)了我未婚夫和他白月光在一起吃飯的照片。...
    茶點(diǎn)故事閱讀 40,865評(píng)論 1 353
  • 序言:一個(gè)原本活蹦亂跳的男人離奇死亡平委,死狀恐怖奈虾,靈堂內(nèi)的尸體忽然破棺而出,到底是詐尸還是另有隱情廉赔,我是刑警寧澤肉微,帶...
    沈念sama閱讀 36,527評(píng)論 5 351
  • 正文 年R本政府宣布,位于F島的核電站蜡塌,受9級(jí)特大地震影響碉纳,放射性物質(zhì)發(fā)生泄漏。R本人自食惡果不足惜馏艾,卻給世界環(huán)境...
    茶點(diǎn)故事閱讀 42,211評(píng)論 3 336
  • 文/蒙蒙 一劳曹、第九天 我趴在偏房一處隱蔽的房頂上張望奴愉。 院中可真熱鬧,春花似錦铁孵、人聲如沸锭硼。這莊子的主人今日做“春日...
    開封第一講書人閱讀 32,699評(píng)論 0 25
  • 文/蒼蘭香墨 我抬頭看了看天上的太陽账忘。三九已至,卻和暖如春熙宇,著一層夾襖步出監(jiān)牢的瞬間鳖擒,已是汗流浹背。 一陣腳步聲響...
    開封第一講書人閱讀 33,814評(píng)論 1 274
  • 我被黑心中介騙來泰國打工烫止, 沒想到剛下飛機(jī)就差點(diǎn)兒被人妖公主榨干…… 1. 我叫王不留蒋荚,地道東北人。 一個(gè)月前我還...
    沈念sama閱讀 49,299評(píng)論 3 379
  • 正文 我出身青樓馆蠕,卻偏偏與公主長得像期升,于是被迫代替她去往敵國和親。 傳聞我的和親對(duì)象是個(gè)殘疾皇子互躬,可洞房花燭夜當(dāng)晚...
    茶點(diǎn)故事閱讀 45,870評(píng)論 2 361

推薦閱讀更多精彩內(nèi)容

  • rljs by sennchi Timeline of History Part One The Cognitiv...
    sennchi閱讀 7,350評(píng)論 0 10
  • **2014真題Directions:Read the following text. Choose the be...
    又是夜半驚坐起閱讀 9,585評(píng)論 0 23
  • 黑色 總是黑色 只有黑色不是沉默的 我試圖通過它來表達(dá)我的不滿 可是我忘了 我只是一抹塵埃 那黑色深處 是一片混亂...
    一本正經(jīng)的蘿卜閱讀 175評(píng)論 0 0
  • C語言是面向過程的跟啤,而C++是面向?qū)ο蟮?C和C++的區(qū)別: C是一個(gè)結(jié)構(gòu)化語言新博,它的重點(diǎn)在于算法和數(shù)據(jù)結(jié)構(gòu)扳埂。C程...
    小辰帶你看世界閱讀 785評(píng)論 0 2
  • 大家好恩溅!我是香雪球!今日份的成長如雨后春筍一般寺酪,冒了18個(gè)芽坎背!可把我激動(dòng)壞了!帶來的新問題是寄雀,這么小一個(gè)盒子會(huì)不會(huì)...
    莞爾橘閱讀 798評(píng)論 0 1