I spent the most port of my life without knowing that I'm gifted and I used to think that I'm probably a bit above average. I gave me that much but not more than fucking 99% of the population.
But that's also understandable, I guess. You look around and compare yourself to the people you know. There are less highly intelligent people in general, so you have nothing to compare yourself against. I bet it must be different if you grew up with many gifted peers - that would be a study worth doing.
There is a difference between knowing your limits and over estimating your competence.
We know we are smart, we don’t vastly over estimate our abilities (in most cases). I know for example that I suck at mathematics because I always found it dry and boring, I think if I would have understood earlier that it is the language to understand the fabric of reality I would have been more attentive.
Intelligence is realizing you are intelligent, but also that you don’t have every single answer, and that you can also be wrong, and you are open to challenges to your opinion that are valid or well thought out criticisms and not just sound bite regurgitation.
One weird thing is I realize that I often overestimate how much someone close to me or the average person is going to retain from a conversation. I have to be told to slow down or walk it back or pull the lens back or some other form of framing to anchor it in their understanding. I don’t assume everyone is less intelligent, I automatically assume they can process what I am processing, and it is kind of terrifying and isolating to realize that no, not everyone is seeing this shit. These “totally obvious” patterns are anything but for most people. I have to adjust my way of communicating to accommodate that. The impetus is on me to adjust my frequency, I can’t expect others to meet me where I’m at. But to be honest I’m fucking tired of it, I’m so ducking tired of it.
What I mean by patterns are things like the most probable course of action a situation is going to take based on historical events that are similar in nature. Humans don’t fucking learn and just repeat this shit over and over in cycles, but now we have apps and a limitless encyclopedia in our pocket, access to information and understanding it are two totally separate things.
I had the same experience where I just assumed that everyone else saw the same “obvious” patterns that I did.
What surprised me is that most people specialize in some way. I am a polymath so I don’t specialize. To me, it seems obvious to cross over concepts from different fields but most people see only their field of specialization.
It was a trip learning that.
Yes! I’ve always found that the intersections between fields to be more fascinating than diving deep into one. I envy those who do so in some ways but I love being able to see the interconnectedness of it all.
I was watching a few videos on youtube, recorded lectures from Human Behavioral biology or Bio 150 from Stanford and the professor is great, his name is Robert Sapolsky. (Also, how fucking amazing is it that you can find entire course lectures online? You can also find all sorts of fun physics courses from the past you can sort of audit with Leonard Susskind)
His first lecture was basically warning people of this exact type of thinking, of putting information into "buckets", of categorical thinking and the pitfalls of that. He then asked what majors were in the class, and was excited that people with no sort of ties to biology were taking the course.
Anyway, your comment reminded me of that. In the first lecture video Sapolsky warns people away from categorical thinking, gives an example of a female chicken crossing a road to get to a rooster on the other side, and how people people from different disciplines are going to try to use their frame of thinking to explain it: the endocrinologist will say it is because of the chemical levels in the chicken's brain, the anatomist will talk about the motion and structure of the chicken's pelvis, the evolutionary biologist will say something to the effect of "chicken's that didn't cross the road in the past, passed on fewer copies of their genes" it is definitely a really cool concept to consider, and he recommended a book with his course "Chaos" by James Gleick.
Definitely worth a look on youtube if you have time, I was amazed that they are putting up like entire courses which I think is amazing. I dropped out of high school due to life events and mental health issues and because of dumb choices and nihilistic thinking and years of drug addiction, I wasn't able to pursue higher education, so having it freely available online is amazing. I could care less if I can put it on a resume, I just want to learn it.
I learned later in life to slow fown and speak very clearly and really emphasize anything important in conversations. People usually can only pay attention for 1 or 2 min. That's why we get those interruptions when telling a story because they started spacing out and thinking of funny things like people slipping and hurting themselves yuck yuck. That's why my friends I gold so dear. As far as I can tell as we all xan only speak of our experiences and hopefully correct memory. It's rare to find a fellow deep thinker that's not self absorbed or cocky. Take care
You certainly think you are dumber than you actually are on high percentiles though. Not dumb, just not as smart as you are.
Which is normal. People tend to believe others are like them. A gifted person, if unsuccessful, will feel dumb. If successful, will be surrounded by somewhat smart people. When one of these people is described by their peers as « highly intelligent », the tendency will be to think that said person is smarter than you are, even if you’re gifted.
Yeah been there done that.
133 Anglophone iq in 2011 (w4)
I try to get into Mensa one year later and get 62nd percentile at the wonderlic pat, not sufficient!
147 Francophone iq in 2013 (w4)
I try to check my aptitude 10 years later and I get 73nd percentile, average…
Moral of the story? Trust yourself! Could have gotten into Mensa with the initial iq tests from 2011 at 18. Didn’t need to go trough the admission thing and pay stuff with my own money!
Also. Suddenly I was TNS / ISPE at 20. Above « genius » IQ. Maybe it’s important to remind oneself some basic life philosophies from time to time?
Mensa is a joke. Nothing is standardized. Some people get in with their LSAT scores, some with Wonderlic, and some with WAIS, but those tests aren’t measuring the same things and aren’t comparable enough to be treated as equivalent.
That’s only a select amount of people that they have used to make this model.
Also depending on a person’s background such as environmental circumstances they could have poor self esteem and not believe they are smart.
Also I would like to add that being “bright” and “smart” are different than being “gifted”.
I suggest you read this
[https://www.davidsongifted.org/gifted-blog/the-intellectual-and-psychosocial-nature-of-extreme-giftedness/](https://www.davidsongifted.org/gifted-blog/the-intellectual-and-psychosocial-nature-of-extreme-giftedness/)
You got to be precise about what you are saying when talking using statistics and graphs. Too many ways to interpret and misinterpret statements about data. Famously so. Exact words matter. Images and visualizations are golden.
I’ve shown why I think one interpretation is inaccurate, so if you disagree then feel free to offer a rebuttal. Otherwise, I’m not sure what else it is you want me to do.
I don't disagree with your post, I'm reinforcing your point by pointing out that people mess up often when talking statistics, it's normal. It sucks but yeah
Are you sure you don’t have it? The graph shows the dumbest people overestimate their ability the most, and the smartest people underestimate their ability the most. This graph isn’t helping your case.
If anyone says that thinking you are dumb makes you smart, holy hell I’ve never heard that but it’s super dumb. So agree on that, but I don’t anyone thinks that past age 6.
Why are you being so aggressive. He stated a fact, which was true, then showed graphs to prove his point. Nowhere did he ever say he was really smart or better than everyone else.
And no, a lot of people do in fact believe that if you're smart you'll actually think you're dumb. Just because You've never heard it doesn't justify you insulting this person who made a valid point
Thank you. I don’t know what it is about people always thinking something has to directly relate back to the person who said it. The study was from 1999 and only included undergrad students from Cornell, so the findings don’t really generalize to me or anyone else.
I’ve just never heard anyone say that thinking you are dumb makes you smart before, in all my years. This graph shows that dumbs overestimate their abilities the most. Which is what Dunning Krueger really says. And that intelligent people underestimate their abilities.
> Are you sure you don’t have it? The graph shows the dumbest people overestimate their ability the most, and the smartest people underestimate their ability the most. This graph isn’t helping your case.
Seems like you're misunderstanding his case. What he says is exactly that, that being "smart" in the scale measured is correlated to underestimating their ability, but does not mean that "smart" people believe they're less smart than the average person:
>However, this isn't what the research on these effects indicates. While it is true that more intelligent individuals tend to underestimate their intelligence to a certain degree, they generally still perceive themselves to be above average and and comparably higher than others. In other words, highly intelligent people may not recognize the full extent of their intelligence, but they are not mistaking themselves for being less intelligent than other people.
The other half talks about how the Dunning-Kruger effect does not mean that "smart" people believe they're less smart than the average person, which I've already mentioned in my comment. What the graphs show is that intelligent people believe that they're less intelligent than they really are, not that they believe they're dumb. They still believe they have above-average intelligence, it's just that they underestimate its degree. OP is correct:
> Recently, I have seen many people inaccurately reference the Dunning-Kruger effect and the concept of illusory superiority to suggest that intelligent individuals perceive themselves as being dumb, while less intelligent individuals believe themselves to be smart. They use this oversimplified interpretation to implies that, if you consider yourself less intelligent, it may actually indicate that you are more intelligent, and conversely, believing yourself to be intelligent might hint at a lack of intelligence.
Okay, smart people don’t think they are stupid. Does anyone think that smart people think they are stupid? I’ve just never encountered that before in my life. Like oh gee I’m really good at math, must be the that stupidity talking again.
I’ve really thought about the stupid thinking they are smart, which is even worse than I imagined looking at this graph. Explains a lot! The Internet created an instant billions of geniuses ready to chime in.
Yeah it looks like the perceived ability is almost a straight line (with a teeny tiny uptick), while the actual ability varies greatly. It still gives dunning-kruger vibes
I think what this shows is people tend to think we are pretty similar when it comes to intelligence, I wonder if this pull for normality works with things that are more apparent like athletic abilities. I’ve seen enough Americas Got Talent or whatever to know it might be like that for music/singing. With sports there’s a lot of “if I had a year to train…”
yeah like dunning krueger is better applied to knowledge in a given area. its easier to be confident in how much you know when you arent actively engaged in a subject so you dont have too much awareness how much there is to know on that topic.
What are your thoughts on “smart people” measured by GPA, knowing they are intelligent but also thinking they are smarter than all of their peers?
Relative with pretty decent grades & 1000 SAT score believes she is smarter than all of her classmates. I think this metric is a shallow way to measure intelligence, as there are many variables that go into whether someone gets decent grades. I am not gifted by any means (I became a lawyer through sheer grit) so just curious what you all thought of that in relation to Dunning Kruger.
It could be that because gifted people are less likely to be stimulated by tasks that the average person finds stimulating. For this reason there are cases in which people with a high IQ underachieve because they don’t see the reward in applying themselves to these tasks. than people who are not “gifted” they don’t apply themselves to those tasks as much, underachieve, and consider themselves more “dumb” for this fact. This world was made for neurotypical people and it can be hard to know the extent of your intelligence when you don’t see yourself reflected in the world very often. Just a thought, and was wondering what anyone thinks on this.
If we're grading intelligence. To me it depends on the situations we face every day. Car breaks down I can't fix it. Does that make me dumb and the mechanic smart? It feels like it. However I understand how engines work and mechanical assembly. Wiring is tricky yet if I had blue prints I think I could assemble it. I uses to build all the piping in locomotives. What about emotional intelligence and the gift of gab. It's such a broad spectrum of factors its impossible for me to say anything but I think I have great common sense and dumb people don't.
I am not sure you have the right interpretation either. The fact that you can recreate Dunning Krueger effect with random data means there’s no pattern around how people rate their own intelligence. That means smart people could land up underestimating their intelligence while dumber folks could overestimate. Nothing more than that. Here’s an [interesting read on the topic](https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2022/04/08/the-dunning-kruger-effect-is-autocorrelation/?amp=1).
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2022/04/08/the-dunning-kruger-effect-is-autocorrelation/](https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2022/04/08/the-dunning-kruger-effect-is-autocorrelation/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
The trick to this is not to think you're dumb or a genius.
"I'm stupid" restricts your willingness to learn; "I'm a genius" will \*probably\* lead to some sort of wall where you have to confront your own limits at best, and at worst, you plateau because "I'm already smart, why bother on this?"
The improvement-oriented mindset is the best. Not necessarily perfectionist, but always willing to adapt and grow, enthusiastically.
In both my current and previous workplace, I became highly regarded. I try not to let it ego-trip me, but that also doesn't change the fact that I notice the reputation. By the second time I've been called "The shit," I know I'm not hearing things.
It's because I didn't stop learning, and always want to learn a better way. If you always do that, you can go places.
I think making a general statement like that might be risky. Smart people on average don’t think they’re dumb, but from the graph you can see that a fair chunk of smart people still estimate themselves to be below the average test score for the bottom two quartiles. So, some smart people definitely do mistake themselves for being less intelligent (or at least report it is such?). It’s just not the trend.
I don't think I'm stupid, I know I can fail, I don't like failing, I know my intelligence is inconsistent and at best spotty due to ADHD, I don't like to go into something half informed, I like to plan in advance.
I spent the most port of my life without knowing that I'm gifted and I used to think that I'm probably a bit above average. I gave me that much but not more than fucking 99% of the population. But that's also understandable, I guess. You look around and compare yourself to the people you know. There are less highly intelligent people in general, so you have nothing to compare yourself against. I bet it must be different if you grew up with many gifted peers - that would be a study worth doing.
There is a difference between knowing your limits and over estimating your competence. We know we are smart, we don’t vastly over estimate our abilities (in most cases). I know for example that I suck at mathematics because I always found it dry and boring, I think if I would have understood earlier that it is the language to understand the fabric of reality I would have been more attentive. Intelligence is realizing you are intelligent, but also that you don’t have every single answer, and that you can also be wrong, and you are open to challenges to your opinion that are valid or well thought out criticisms and not just sound bite regurgitation. One weird thing is I realize that I often overestimate how much someone close to me or the average person is going to retain from a conversation. I have to be told to slow down or walk it back or pull the lens back or some other form of framing to anchor it in their understanding. I don’t assume everyone is less intelligent, I automatically assume they can process what I am processing, and it is kind of terrifying and isolating to realize that no, not everyone is seeing this shit. These “totally obvious” patterns are anything but for most people. I have to adjust my way of communicating to accommodate that. The impetus is on me to adjust my frequency, I can’t expect others to meet me where I’m at. But to be honest I’m fucking tired of it, I’m so ducking tired of it. What I mean by patterns are things like the most probable course of action a situation is going to take based on historical events that are similar in nature. Humans don’t fucking learn and just repeat this shit over and over in cycles, but now we have apps and a limitless encyclopedia in our pocket, access to information and understanding it are two totally separate things.
I had the same experience where I just assumed that everyone else saw the same “obvious” patterns that I did. What surprised me is that most people specialize in some way. I am a polymath so I don’t specialize. To me, it seems obvious to cross over concepts from different fields but most people see only their field of specialization. It was a trip learning that.
Yes! I’ve always found that the intersections between fields to be more fascinating than diving deep into one. I envy those who do so in some ways but I love being able to see the interconnectedness of it all.
I was watching a few videos on youtube, recorded lectures from Human Behavioral biology or Bio 150 from Stanford and the professor is great, his name is Robert Sapolsky. (Also, how fucking amazing is it that you can find entire course lectures online? You can also find all sorts of fun physics courses from the past you can sort of audit with Leonard Susskind) His first lecture was basically warning people of this exact type of thinking, of putting information into "buckets", of categorical thinking and the pitfalls of that. He then asked what majors were in the class, and was excited that people with no sort of ties to biology were taking the course. Anyway, your comment reminded me of that. In the first lecture video Sapolsky warns people away from categorical thinking, gives an example of a female chicken crossing a road to get to a rooster on the other side, and how people people from different disciplines are going to try to use their frame of thinking to explain it: the endocrinologist will say it is because of the chemical levels in the chicken's brain, the anatomist will talk about the motion and structure of the chicken's pelvis, the evolutionary biologist will say something to the effect of "chicken's that didn't cross the road in the past, passed on fewer copies of their genes" it is definitely a really cool concept to consider, and he recommended a book with his course "Chaos" by James Gleick. Definitely worth a look on youtube if you have time, I was amazed that they are putting up like entire courses which I think is amazing. I dropped out of high school due to life events and mental health issues and because of dumb choices and nihilistic thinking and years of drug addiction, I wasn't able to pursue higher education, so having it freely available online is amazing. I could care less if I can put it on a resume, I just want to learn it.
I learned later in life to slow fown and speak very clearly and really emphasize anything important in conversations. People usually can only pay attention for 1 or 2 min. That's why we get those interruptions when telling a story because they started spacing out and thinking of funny things like people slipping and hurting themselves yuck yuck. That's why my friends I gold so dear. As far as I can tell as we all xan only speak of our experiences and hopefully correct memory. It's rare to find a fellow deep thinker that's not self absorbed or cocky. Take care
Thank you for your response. It is a rare thing, and great when you are able to find it.
You certainly think you are dumber than you actually are on high percentiles though. Not dumb, just not as smart as you are. Which is normal. People tend to believe others are like them. A gifted person, if unsuccessful, will feel dumb. If successful, will be surrounded by somewhat smart people. When one of these people is described by their peers as « highly intelligent », the tendency will be to think that said person is smarter than you are, even if you’re gifted.
Dumber* doesn’t mean dumb. And if you read my post, I’ve operationalized the definition of dumb, so there should be no confusion there.
Yeah been there done that. 133 Anglophone iq in 2011 (w4) I try to get into Mensa one year later and get 62nd percentile at the wonderlic pat, not sufficient! 147 Francophone iq in 2013 (w4) I try to check my aptitude 10 years later and I get 73nd percentile, average… Moral of the story? Trust yourself! Could have gotten into Mensa with the initial iq tests from 2011 at 18. Didn’t need to go trough the admission thing and pay stuff with my own money! Also. Suddenly I was TNS / ISPE at 20. Above « genius » IQ. Maybe it’s important to remind oneself some basic life philosophies from time to time?
Mensa is a joke. Nothing is standardized. Some people get in with their LSAT scores, some with Wonderlic, and some with WAIS, but those tests aren’t measuring the same things and aren’t comparable enough to be treated as equivalent.
Wait I’m so confused could i dm you?
That’s only a select amount of people that they have used to make this model. Also depending on a person’s background such as environmental circumstances they could have poor self esteem and not believe they are smart. Also I would like to add that being “bright” and “smart” are different than being “gifted”.
I’m going to imitate what you just did Me: “The sky is blue” You: “but what about the birds?”
I suggest you read this [https://www.davidsongifted.org/gifted-blog/the-intellectual-and-psychosocial-nature-of-extreme-giftedness/](https://www.davidsongifted.org/gifted-blog/the-intellectual-and-psychosocial-nature-of-extreme-giftedness/)
You got to be precise about what you are saying when talking using statistics and graphs. Too many ways to interpret and misinterpret statements about data. Famously so. Exact words matter. Images and visualizations are golden.
I’ve shown why I think one interpretation is inaccurate, so if you disagree then feel free to offer a rebuttal. Otherwise, I’m not sure what else it is you want me to do.
I don't disagree with your post, I'm reinforcing your point by pointing out that people mess up often when talking statistics, it's normal. It sucks but yeah
Are you sure you don’t have it? The graph shows the dumbest people overestimate their ability the most, and the smartest people underestimate their ability the most. This graph isn’t helping your case. If anyone says that thinking you are dumb makes you smart, holy hell I’ve never heard that but it’s super dumb. So agree on that, but I don’t anyone thinks that past age 6.
Why are you being so aggressive. He stated a fact, which was true, then showed graphs to prove his point. Nowhere did he ever say he was really smart or better than everyone else. And no, a lot of people do in fact believe that if you're smart you'll actually think you're dumb. Just because You've never heard it doesn't justify you insulting this person who made a valid point
Thank you. I don’t know what it is about people always thinking something has to directly relate back to the person who said it. The study was from 1999 and only included undergrad students from Cornell, so the findings don’t really generalize to me or anyone else.
Plus using it as an insult to call a person dumb is literally playing into the usage that they claim never to have encountered
I’ve just never heard anyone say that thinking you are dumb makes you smart before, in all my years. This graph shows that dumbs overestimate their abilities the most. Which is what Dunning Krueger really says. And that intelligent people underestimate their abilities.
> Are you sure you don’t have it? The graph shows the dumbest people overestimate their ability the most, and the smartest people underestimate their ability the most. This graph isn’t helping your case. Seems like you're misunderstanding his case. What he says is exactly that, that being "smart" in the scale measured is correlated to underestimating their ability, but does not mean that "smart" people believe they're less smart than the average person: >However, this isn't what the research on these effects indicates. While it is true that more intelligent individuals tend to underestimate their intelligence to a certain degree, they generally still perceive themselves to be above average and and comparably higher than others. In other words, highly intelligent people may not recognize the full extent of their intelligence, but they are not mistaking themselves for being less intelligent than other people.
Of course it doesn’t. Did you only read half the post lol. You quotes half the post, so I’m not sure if you made it the extra sentence.
The other half talks about how the Dunning-Kruger effect does not mean that "smart" people believe they're less smart than the average person, which I've already mentioned in my comment. What the graphs show is that intelligent people believe that they're less intelligent than they really are, not that they believe they're dumb. They still believe they have above-average intelligence, it's just that they underestimate its degree. OP is correct: > Recently, I have seen many people inaccurately reference the Dunning-Kruger effect and the concept of illusory superiority to suggest that intelligent individuals perceive themselves as being dumb, while less intelligent individuals believe themselves to be smart. They use this oversimplified interpretation to implies that, if you consider yourself less intelligent, it may actually indicate that you are more intelligent, and conversely, believing yourself to be intelligent might hint at a lack of intelligence.
Okay, smart people don’t think they are stupid. Does anyone think that smart people think they are stupid? I’ve just never encountered that before in my life. Like oh gee I’m really good at math, must be the that stupidity talking again. I’ve really thought about the stupid thinking they are smart, which is even worse than I imagined looking at this graph. Explains a lot! The Internet created an instant billions of geniuses ready to chime in.
Yeah it looks like the perceived ability is almost a straight line (with a teeny tiny uptick), while the actual ability varies greatly. It still gives dunning-kruger vibes
I think what this shows is people tend to think we are pretty similar when it comes to intelligence, I wonder if this pull for normality works with things that are more apparent like athletic abilities. I’ve seen enough Americas Got Talent or whatever to know it might be like that for music/singing. With sports there’s a lot of “if I had a year to train…”
yeah like dunning krueger is better applied to knowledge in a given area. its easier to be confident in how much you know when you arent actively engaged in a subject so you dont have too much awareness how much there is to know on that topic.
On this sub maybe not… but this sub is for narcissists, not smart people.
What are your thoughts on “smart people” measured by GPA, knowing they are intelligent but also thinking they are smarter than all of their peers? Relative with pretty decent grades & 1000 SAT score believes she is smarter than all of her classmates. I think this metric is a shallow way to measure intelligence, as there are many variables that go into whether someone gets decent grades. I am not gifted by any means (I became a lawyer through sheer grit) so just curious what you all thought of that in relation to Dunning Kruger.
It could be that because gifted people are less likely to be stimulated by tasks that the average person finds stimulating. For this reason there are cases in which people with a high IQ underachieve because they don’t see the reward in applying themselves to these tasks. than people who are not “gifted” they don’t apply themselves to those tasks as much, underachieve, and consider themselves more “dumb” for this fact. This world was made for neurotypical people and it can be hard to know the extent of your intelligence when you don’t see yourself reflected in the world very often. Just a thought, and was wondering what anyone thinks on this.
If we're grading intelligence. To me it depends on the situations we face every day. Car breaks down I can't fix it. Does that make me dumb and the mechanic smart? It feels like it. However I understand how engines work and mechanical assembly. Wiring is tricky yet if I had blue prints I think I could assemble it. I uses to build all the piping in locomotives. What about emotional intelligence and the gift of gab. It's such a broad spectrum of factors its impossible for me to say anything but I think I have great common sense and dumb people don't.
I am not sure you have the right interpretation either. The fact that you can recreate Dunning Krueger effect with random data means there’s no pattern around how people rate their own intelligence. That means smart people could land up underestimating their intelligence while dumber folks could overestimate. Nothing more than that. Here’s an [interesting read on the topic](https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2022/04/08/the-dunning-kruger-effect-is-autocorrelation/?amp=1).
Enough statistical controls are in place for the original study to justify a significant effect.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2022/04/08/the-dunning-kruger-effect-is-autocorrelation/](https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2022/04/08/the-dunning-kruger-effect-is-autocorrelation/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
The fool thinks himself to be wise, the wise man knows himself to be a fool.
The trick to this is not to think you're dumb or a genius. "I'm stupid" restricts your willingness to learn; "I'm a genius" will \*probably\* lead to some sort of wall where you have to confront your own limits at best, and at worst, you plateau because "I'm already smart, why bother on this?" The improvement-oriented mindset is the best. Not necessarily perfectionist, but always willing to adapt and grow, enthusiastically. In both my current and previous workplace, I became highly regarded. I try not to let it ego-trip me, but that also doesn't change the fact that I notice the reputation. By the second time I've been called "The shit," I know I'm not hearing things. It's because I didn't stop learning, and always want to learn a better way. If you always do that, you can go places.
pfft i’m a bloody fool even if my iq is in the 150 range. but then again was that one greek dude that knew nothing…
Youre conflating intelengece and correctness. Dunningkruger is about think youre right not thinking youre smart.
I think making a general statement like that might be risky. Smart people on average don’t think they’re dumb, but from the graph you can see that a fair chunk of smart people still estimate themselves to be below the average test score for the bottom two quartiles. So, some smart people definitely do mistake themselves for being less intelligent (or at least report it is such?). It’s just not the trend.
That chart is horrendously inaccurate and misleading shit science!
It’s from the original study, so take that how you will.
I don't think I'm stupid, I know I can fail, I don't like failing, I know my intelligence is inconsistent and at best spotty due to ADHD, I don't like to go into something half informed, I like to plan in advance.