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.
