An inability

[snegledmaca]

What is responsible for an inability to grasp reality, to completely and utterly misperceive that which is right under your nose. Something identical to a Don Quixote kind of perception of reality where you could be riding a hippopotamus through a desert and think you're admiring the stunning scenery of the lush green hills with forests on your trusty stallion. All of this but in relation to one's own abilities, capabilities and so on. For example thinking you're great at something while you really suck or thinking you suck at something while really you're good at it.

[Phaedrus]

What is responsible for an inability to grasp reality, to completely and utterly misperceive that which is right under your nose. Something identical to a Don Quixote kind of perception of reality where you could be riding a hippopotamus through a desert and think you're admiring the stunning scenery of the lush green hills with forests on your trusty stallion. All of this but in relation to one's own abilities, capabilities and so on. For example thinking you're great at something while you really suck or thinking you suck at something while really you're good at it.

That is an interesting phenomenon that has been described in at least one scientific study. According to that study (which I read in a Swedish science magazine some year ago) there is a clear general pattern to observe, and that pattern might seem counter-intuitive to some people.

They discovered that those who were among the worst performers in some area, for example really bad singers, had a completely unrealistic view on their own abilities. They didn't realize how badly they were singing, but thought instead that they were among the very best.

The same pattern could be seen in academic tests and similar situations. The worst scoring students thought highly of themselves and predicted that they would score among the best on a future test. And the most interesting thing was that not even when they had a chance to compare their own factual performance with reality and could see with their own eyes that they had got a very low score, they draw a correct conclusion. They refused to see the truth and believed that they were still among the best in that area.

The best performers, on the other hand, were much more realistic about their own chances, and they even had a slight tendency to be too pessimistic about what result they would get. Overall, however, their estimations were overwhelmingly superior in accuracy compared to the low scorers. The best scorers knew that they were good, but they didn't realize that they were so much better compared to many others. The differences were bigger than they could imagine.

I don't recall that any clear explanation for the phenomenon was presented in the study. For some reason the bad scorers didn't learn anything from their mistakes, and they couldn't make an objective assessment of their own performance. A natural guess would be (and maybe it was stated in the study too) that in a lot of cases this general phenomenon is probably rather strongly correlated with your general level of intelligence. If you are very bad at estimating your own performance in objective terms, you probably have a low IQ. But maybe other factors than IQ are relevant too.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I have an IQ of 7!

[marooned]

I often tried to tell myself I was very good at physical activity in elementary school even though I was terrible at it... on some level I knew I wasn't being honest with myself. I just felt really insecure about how bad I was at everything physical I think.

[Blaze]

What is responsible for an inability to grasp reality, to completely and utterly misperceive that which is right under your nose. Something identical to a Don Quixote kind of perception of reality where you could be riding a hippopotamus through a desert and think you're admiring the stunning scenery of the lush green hills with forests on your trusty stallion. All of this but in relation to one's own abilities, capabilities and so on. For example thinking you're great at something while you really suck or thinking you suck at something while really you're good at it.

dunno. maybe 5th or 6th function stuff. when you value something, you mistakenly think you're good at it?

[tcaudilllg]

What is responsible for an inability to grasp reality, to completely and utterly misperceive that which is right under your nose. Something identical to a Don Quixote kind of perception of reality where you could be riding a hippopotamus through a desert and think you're admiring the stunning scenery of the lush green hills with forests on your trusty stallion. All of this but in relation to one's own abilities, capabilities and so on. For example thinking you're great at something while you really suck or thinking you suck at something while really you're good at it.

That is an interesting phenomenon that has been described in at least one scientific study. According to that study (which I read in a Swedish science magazine some year ago) there is a clear general pattern to observe, and that pattern might seem counter-intuitive to some people.

They discovered that those who were among the worst performers in some area, for example really bad singers, had a completely unrealistic view on their own abilities. They didn't realize how badly they were singing, but thought instead that they were among the very best.

The same pattern could be seen in academic tests and similar situations. The worst scoring students thought highly of themselves and predicted that they would score among the best on a future test. And the most interesting thing was that not even when they had a chance to compare their own factual performance with reality and could see with their own eyes that they had got a very low score, they draw a correct conclusion. They refused to see the truth and believed that they were still among the best in that area.

The best performers, on the other hand, were much more realistic about their own chances, and they even had a slight tendency to be too pessimistic about what result they would get. Overall, however, their estimations were overwhelmingly superior in accuracy compared to the low scorers. The best scorers knew that they were good, but they didn't realize that they were so much better compared to many others. The differences were bigger than they could imagine.

I don't recall that any clear explanation for the phenomenon was presented in the study. For some reason the bad scorers didn't learn anything from their mistakes, and they couldn't make an objective assessment of their own performance. A natural guess would be (and maybe it was stated in the study too) that in a lot of cases this general phenomenon is probably rather strongly correlated with your general level of intelligence. If you are very bad at estimating your own performance in objective terms, you probably have a low IQ. But maybe other factors than IQ are relevant too.

How does one measure intellect? Given intellect is governed by structural efficiency, and is only produced via and , that means that whatever forces creating "low" intellect can be correlated to specific manifestations of brain structure/genetics. So for example, only a pathological type would believe themselves superior on a topic after failing to pass muster regarding a consensus body of knowledge. Under this argument, one could say that the (innate?) "stupidity" of the person translates into their pathology, and the innate intellect of a person translates into their biopsychological structure. How does one measure this innate capacity? Given that genes are both potential expressions of a personality (its archetypes) and its means of self-organization, genes can be said to have and components; therefore genes should be the determinants of intelligence, although heredity may not be completely important due to DNA recombinancy rules.

But let's ask the ESTps and ENTps to be sure. They'll doubtless have more specifics.

[UDP]

What is responsible for an inability to grasp reality, to completely and utterly misperceive that which is right under your nose. Something identical to a Don Quixote kind of perception of reality where you could be riding a hippopotamus through a desert and think you're admiring the stunning scenery of the lush green hills with forests on your trusty stallion. All of this but in relation to one's own abilities, capabilities and so on. For example thinking you're great at something while you really suck or thinking you suck at something while really you're good at it.

Needing an ST, badly.

[marooned]

Adding on... I think when I suck at something (like physical activities) I'm not very hard on myself. I silently congratulate myself on every little thing I actually succeed at. Then I'll tell myself I'm actually doing pretty good at it to sort of reassure myself.

If I actually am good at something, then I'll hold myself to a very high standard, so I am never quite good enough at it, I could always be better, there's a long way to go... that kind of thinking. Then sometimes I'll actually fall into these periods of underconfidence in areas that I'm good at, and even go to others to help relieve me of my own self-created and unwarranted insecurties. But in that period of self-doubt I can't see that.

[Phaedrus]

So for example, only a pathological type would believe themselves superior on a topic after failing to pass muster regarding a consensus body of knowledge.

As I recall the content of the study, this phenomenon is much more common than one would be inclined to believe. That was the surprising result of the study -- that so many people have totally incorrect views of themselves in these respects. That perhaps most people are inclined to believe that they perform much better than the average person, but only those who actually did have better than average scores -- and especially those with the highest scores -- were able to be objective about their chances. Maybe there is an evolutionary explanation for these misbeliefs and this type of thinking.

[krieger]

I'm thinking it's the resolutes and dynamics that have these 'realistic self images'. Talents afforded by reasonable and static functions generally don't get expressed well in objectively measurable results. As such the person might have a high self image for a good reason and might yet not be able to demonstrate this in clearly visible ways.

[Birds]

Delusions of grandeur, cognitive distortions... being told/pressured at a young age into believing that you're really great at something, then being told that you suck, etc. Generally having an unrealstic view of yourself I think.

[Blaze]

Delusions of grandeur, cognitive distortions... being told/pressured at a young age into believing that you're really great at something, then being told that you suck, etc. Generally having an unrealstic view of yourself I think.

yeah. what birds said.

[snegledmaca]

Hmm, I see that I missed what I was trying to convey. No, not delusions or what phaedrus mentions with a lack of experience in the matter at hand. I'm talking about a complete lack of an ability to make judgment in a certain field. Real judgment that is. The person can still make judgments but they have barely any or no connection to reality. It's as if their judgment has nothing to do with what it is judging. Something akin to schizophrenia, except that one's perception is not what is affected in this manner but judgment. Like I mentioned, like being in a desert and seeing meadows with your judgment of all matters pertaining to yourself. One is unable to make accurate self assessments of any kind (Without external verification). Oh, I forgot to mention, all of this is without external verification. When the person has external verification they function normally. But as soon as you take it away, "blindfold them", they behave like this.

[tcaudilllg]

That sounds just about any introverted type who isn't working in harmony with their extroverted functions.

[strrrng]

I don't recall that any clear explanation for the phenomenon was presented in the study.

no phenomenon; humans are just egotistical.

although, the fact that the highest scorers are objective got me thinking it had something to do with survival of the fittest, like humans needing to be competent/the best, and sacrificing logic for that.

it's also easier to be objective about your abilities when you are the best in a specific area.

[Blaze]

Hmm, I see that I missed what I was trying to convey. No, not delusions or what phaedrus mentions with a lack of experience in the matter at hand. I'm talking about a complete lack of an ability to make judgment in a certain field. Real judgment that is. The person can still make judgments but they have barely any or no connection to reality. It's as if their judgment has nothing to do with what it is judging. Something akin to schizophrenia, except that one's perception is not what is affected in this manner but judgment. Like I mentioned, like being in a desert and seeing meadows with your judgment of all matters pertaining to yourself. One is unable to make accurate self assessments of any kind (Without external verification). Oh, I forgot to mention, all of this is without external verification. When the person has external verification they function normally. But as soon as you take it away, "blindfold them", they behave like this.

this sounds like a psychological defense mechanism called denial.

for a complete list of defenses, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_mechanisms

[snegledmaca]

No, not really because this person doesn't do this intentionally in any way, it's totally natural. I'm wondering if it's linked to any function of IME. But I'm thinking that theoretically what tcaud says is right, it seems like using an introvert functions with no connection to extrovert ones.

[marooned]

Socionics may be able to help understand certain aspects of human behavior, personality, etc. but that is not to say that all aspects of human behavior, personality, etc. can be effectively explained via Socionics.

[snegledmaca]

Yeap, I know. I actually don't use socioncis to explain any aspect of reality. I use it solely as a closed system. Explanation through socionics are separate from normal explanations. I asked for a socionics explanation here because I was wondering about the person's socionics type and this trait struck me as significant.

[tcaudilllg]

Yeap, I know. I actually don't use socioncis to explain any aspect of reality. I use it solely as a closed system. Explanation through socionics are separate from normal explanations. I asked for a socionics explanation here because I was wondering about the person's socionics type and this trait struck me as significant.

Indeed, one must seperate one's socionics concerns from "normal" concerns because the normal concerns are built up around compensating for the weaknesses described around socionics without actually using socionics as a means of compensation. The prospect of socionics becoming a normalized means of social compensation is not as far fetched as one might think: business networking has already emerged for just that purpose, although without any specifics on how to actually make your choices save through feelings of mutual trust and/or good vibes about someone. Socionics awareness merely implies more efficient networking, which in general means a more efficient society.

[Birds]

Hmm, I see that I missed what I was trying to convey. No, not delusions or what phaedrus mentions with a lack of experience in the matter at hand. I'm talking about a complete lack of an ability to make judgment in a certain field. Real judgment that is. The person can still make judgments but they have barely any or no connection to reality. It's as if their judgment has nothing to do with what it is judging. Something akin to schizophrenia, except that one's perception is not what is affected in this manner but judgment. Like I mentioned, like being in a desert and seeing meadows with your judgment of all matters pertaining to yourself. One is unable to make accurate self assessments of any kind (Without external verification). Oh, I forgot to mention, all of this is without external verification. When the person has external verification they function normally. But as soon as you take it away, "blindfold them", they behave like this.

...example(s)?

[snegledmaca]

For example the person thinks they've have done a good job when it's beyond obvious they haven't. They will think somebody liked them when it's beyond obvious they didn't. They will think everything is ok when it's beyond obvious it isn't. And so on. Things that boggle you mind as to how can one be so out of touch with reality. They do have a way of hiding this potentially serious problem by never doing anything first, repeating others actions and opinions and generally reusing the information from around them. Yeah, I'm now reasonably convinced it's just a result of a disconnection between introversion and extroversion.