In Dunning and Kruger's study, subjects
scoring at the bottom on tests of logic, grammar and humor -extremely
overestimated'' their talents. Although their test scores put them in the 12th
percentile (百分位数)
they guessed they were in the 62nd. What these individuals lacked (in addition
9 clear logic, proper grammar and a sense of humor) was "meta cognitive
skill" the capacity to monitor how well they're performing. In the absence
of that capacity, the subjects arrived at an overly hopeful view of their own
abilities. There's a paradox here, the authors note: The skills that lead to
competence in a particular domain are often the very same skills necessary to
evaluate competence in that field? In other words, to get better at judging how
well we're doing at an activity, we have to get better at the activity itself.
There are a couple of ways out of this
double bind. First, we can learn to make honest comparisons with others. Train
yourself to recognize excellence, even when you yourself don't possess it, and
compare what you can do against what truly excellent individuals are able to
accomplish. Second, seek out feedback that is frequent, accurate and specific.
Find a critic who will tell you not only how poorly you're doing, but just what
it is that you're doing wrong. As Dunning and Kruger note, success indicates to
us that everything went right, but failure is more ambiguous: any number of
things could have gone wrong. Use this external feedback to figure out exactly
where and when you screwed up.
郑重声明：本文版权归原作者所有，转载文章仅为传播更多信息之目的，如作者信息标记有误，请第一时间联系我们修改或删除，多谢。
