This is a blurb taken from a morning newsletter I subscribe to:
"Awareness is the key to high performance. Top performers are thoughtful, and completely aware of what it takes to perform skillfully. Dr. David Dunning, a psychology professor at Cornell University, argues that poor performers are "blissfully unaware of their incompetence." They overestimate their abilities. Their intuition tells them that their performance is superior, yet objective estimates show their actual performance is under par. For example, when people are asked to take a test measuring abilities, such as thinking logically, writing grammatically, and spotting funny jokes, they tend to overestimate their performance: they think they are performing well above average, yet their actual performance is in the bottom 25%. These biased estimates aren't restricted to taking tests. People in a variety of settings and skill areas overestimate their abilities. Debate teams in college tournaments wrongly think they are eloquent debaters. Hunters who are bad shots think they are expert marksmen. And medical residents think they know how to diagnose patients more accurately than they really can. Studies have even shown that when people are offered money to estimate their performance accurately, they still can't do it. Behavioral economists have similarly demonstrated that novice traders and investors overconfidently trade beyond their skill level."
Not this is something most of you don't already know about, but I think this says a lot about ego and its uselessness.
Is there some empirical evidence for this?
Is it beneficial to have someone keep you "in-check" so to speak or do the markets eventually humble all those who think they are better than they actually are?
The irony is that a good confidence level requires a balance of positive/negative self-perception.
Mike
"Awareness is the key to high performance. Top performers are thoughtful, and completely aware of what it takes to perform skillfully. Dr. David Dunning, a psychology professor at Cornell University, argues that poor performers are "blissfully unaware of their incompetence." They overestimate their abilities. Their intuition tells them that their performance is superior, yet objective estimates show their actual performance is under par. For example, when people are asked to take a test measuring abilities, such as thinking logically, writing grammatically, and spotting funny jokes, they tend to overestimate their performance: they think they are performing well above average, yet their actual performance is in the bottom 25%. These biased estimates aren't restricted to taking tests. People in a variety of settings and skill areas overestimate their abilities. Debate teams in college tournaments wrongly think they are eloquent debaters. Hunters who are bad shots think they are expert marksmen. And medical residents think they know how to diagnose patients more accurately than they really can. Studies have even shown that when people are offered money to estimate their performance accurately, they still can't do it. Behavioral economists have similarly demonstrated that novice traders and investors overconfidently trade beyond their skill level."
Not this is something most of you don't already know about, but I think this says a lot about ego and its uselessness.
Is there some empirical evidence for this?
Is it beneficial to have someone keep you "in-check" so to speak or do the markets eventually humble all those who think they are better than they actually are?
The irony is that a good confidence level requires a balance of positive/negative self-perception.
Mike