Nine Things You Don’t Know about Yourself PART I
You probably do not understand yourself as well as you think you do.
Your “self” lies before you like an open
book. Just peer inside and read: who you are, your likes and dislikes, your
hopes and fears; they are all there, ready to be understood. This notion is
popular but is probably completely false! Psychological research shows that we
do not have privileged access to who we are. When we try to assess ourselves
accurately, we are really poking around in a fog.
Princeton University psychologist Emily
Pronin, who specializes in human self-perception and decision making, calls the
mistaken belief in privileged access the “introspection illusion.” The way we view
ourselves is distorted, but we do not realize it. As a result, our self-image
has surprisingly little to do with our actions. For example, we may be
absolutely convinced that we are empathetic and generous but still walk right
past a homeless person on a cold day.
The reason for this distorted view is quite
simple, according to Pronin. Because we do not want to be
stingy, arrogant, or self-righteous, we assume that we are not any of those
things. As evidence, she points to our divergent views of ourselves and others.
We have no trouble recognizing how prejudiced or unfair our office colleague
acts toward another person. But we do not consider that we could behave in much
the same way: Because we intend to be morally good, it never
occurs to us that we, too, might be prejudiced.
Pronin assessed her thesis in a number of
experiments. Among other things, she had her study participants complete a test
involving matching faces with personal statements that would supposedly assess
their social intelligence. Afterward, some of them were told that they had
failed and were asked to name weaknesses in the testing procedure. Although the
opinions of the subjects were almost certainly biased (not only had they
supposedly failed the test, they were also being asked to critique it), most of
the participants said their evaluations were completely objective. It was much
the same in judging works of art, although subjects who used a biased strategy
for assessing the quality of paintings nonetheless believed that their own judgment
was balanced. Pronin argues that we are primed to mask our own biases.
Is the word “introspection” merely a nice
metaphor? Could it be that we are not really looking into ourselves, as the
Latin root of the word suggests, but producing a flattering self-image that
denies the failings that we all have? The research on self-knowledge has
yielded much evidence for this conclusion. Although we think we are observing
ourselves clearly, our self-image is affected by processes that remain
unconscious.
1.
Your motives are often a complete mystery to you
How well do people know themselves? In
answering this question, researchers encounter the following problem: to assess
a person’s self-image, one would have to know who that person really is.
Investigators use a variety of techniques to tackle such questions. For
example, they compare the self-assessments of test subjects with the subjects’
behavior in laboratory situations or in everyday life. They may ask other
people, such as relatives or friends, to assess subjects, as well. And they
probe unconscious inclinations using special methods.
To measure unconscious inclinations,
psychologists can apply a method known as the implicit association test (IAT),
developed in the 1990s by Anthony Greenwald of the University of Washington and
his colleagues, to uncover hidden attitudes. Since then, numerous variants have
been devised to examine anxiety, impulsiveness, and sociability, among other
features. The approach assumes that instantaneous reactions require no reflection;
as a result, unconscious parts of the personality come to the fore.
Notably, experimenters seek to determine how
closely words that are relevant to a person are linked to certain concepts. For
example, participants in a study were asked to press a key as quickly as
possible when a word that described a characteristic such as extroversion (say,
“talkative” or “energetic”) appeared on a screen. They were also asked to press
the same key as soon as they saw a word on the screen that related to themselves
(such as their own name). They were to press a different key as soon as an
introverted characteristic (say, “quiet” or “withdrawn”) appeared or when the
word involved someone else. Of course, the words and key combinations were
switched over the course of many test runs. If a reaction was quicker when a
word associated with the participant followed “extroverted,” for instance, it
was assumed that extroversion was probably integral to that person’s
self-image.
Such “implicit” self-concepts generally correspond
only weakly to assessments of the self that are obtained through
questionnaires. The image that people convey in surveys has little to do with
their lightning-fast reactions to emotionally laden words. And a person’s
implicit self-image is often quite predictive of his or her actual behavior,
especially when nervousness or sociability is involved. On the other hand,
questionnaires yield better information about such traits as conscientiousness
or openness to new experiences. Psychologist Mitja Back of the University of
Münster in Germany explains that methods designed to elicit automatic reactions
reflect the spontaneous or habitual components of our personality.
Conscientiousness and curiosity, on the other hand, require a certain degree of
thought and can therefore be assessed more easily through self-reflection.
2.
Outward appearances tell people a lot about you
Much research indicates that our nearest and
dearest often see us better than we see ourselves. As psychologist Simine
Vazire of the University of California, Davis, has shown, two conditions in
particular may enable others to recognize who we really are most readily:
First, when they are able to “read” a trait from outward characteristics and,
second, when a trait has a clear positive or negative valence (intelligence and
creativity are obviously desirable, for instance; dishonesty and egocentricity
are not). Our assessments of ourselves most closely match assessments by others
when it comes to more neutral characteristics.
The characteristics generally most readable
by others are those that strongly affect our behavior. For example, people who
are naturally sociable typically like to talk and seek out company; insecurity
often manifests in behaviors such as hand-wringing or averting one’s gaze. In
contrast, brooding is generally internal, unspooling within the confines of
one’s mind.
We are frequently blind to the effect we have
on others because we simply do not see our own facial expressions, gestures,
and body language. I am hardly aware that my blinking eyes indicate stress or
that the slump in my posture betrays how heavily something weighs on me.
Because it is so difficult to observe ourselves, we must rely on the
observations of others, especially those who know us well. It is hard to know
who we are unless others let us know how we affect them.
3.
Gaining some distance can help you know yourself better
Keeping a diary, pausing for self-reflection,
and having probing conversations with others have a long tradition, but whether
these methods enable us to know ourselves is hard to tell. In fact, sometimes
doing the opposite—such as letting go—is more helpful because it provides some
distance. In 2013, Erika Carlson, now at the University of Toronto, reviewed
the literature on whether and how mindfulness meditation improves one’s
self-knowledge. It helps, she noted, by overcoming two big hurdles: distorted
thinking and ego protection. The practice of mindfulness teaches us to allow
our thoughts to simply drift by and to identify with them as little as
possible. Thoughts, after all, are “only thoughts” and not the absolute truth.
Frequently, stepping out of oneself in this way and simply observing what the
mind does fosters clarity.
Self-discovery
by diary? Those who view themselves at a distance from their self—for example,
in solitude—may see themselves more clearly.
Gaining insight into our unconscious motives
can enhance emotional well-being. Oliver C. Schultheiss of Friedrich-Alexander
University of Erlangen-Nürnberg in Germany has shown that our sense of
well-being tends to grow as our conscious goals and unconscious motives become
more aligned or congruent. For example, we should not slave away at a career
that gives us money and power if these goals are of little importance to us.
But how do we achieve such harmony? By imagining, for example. Try to imagine,
as vividly and in as much detail as possible, how things would be if your most
fervent wish came true. Would it really make you happier? Often we succumb to
the temptation to aim excessively high without taking into account all of the
steps and effort necessary to achieve ambitious goals.
4.
We too often think we are better at something than we are
Are you familiar with the Dunning-Kruger
effect? It holds that the more incompetent people are, the less they are aware
of their incompetence. The effect is named after David Dunning of the
University of Michigan and Justin Kruger of New York University.
Dunning and Kruger gave their test subjects a
series of cognitive tasks and asked them to estimate how well they did. At
best, 25 percent of the participants viewed their performance more or less
realistically; only some people underestimated themselves. The quarter of
subjects who scored worst on the tests really missed the mark,
wildly exaggerating their cognitive abilities. Is it possible that boasting and
failing are two sides of the same coin?
As the researchers emphasize, their work
highlights a general feature of self-perception: Each of us tends to overlook
our cognitive deficiencies. According to psychologist Adrian Furnham of
University College London, the statistical correlation between perceived and
actual IQ is, on average, only 0.16—a pretty poor showing, to put it mildly. By
comparison, the correlation between height and sex is about 0.7.
So why is the chasm between would-be and
actual performance so gaping? Don’t we all have an interest in assessing
ourselves realistically? It surely would spare us a great deal of wasted effort
and perhaps a few embarrassments. The answer, it seems, is that a moderate
inflation of self-esteem has certain benefits. According to a review by
psychologists Shelley Taylor of the University of California, Los Angeles, and
Jonathon Brown of the University of Washington, rose-colored glasses tend to
increase our sense of well-being and our performance. People afflicted by
depression, on the other hand, are inclined to be brutally realistic in their
self-assessments. An embellished self-image seems to help us weather the ups
and downs of daily life.
5.
People who tear themselves down experience setbacks more frequently
Although most of our contemporaries harbor
excessively positive views of their honesty or intelligence, some people suffer
from the opposite distortion: They belittle themselves and their efforts.
Experiencing contempt and belittlement in childhood, often associated with
violence and abuse, can trigger this kind of negativity—which, in turn, can
limit what people can accomplish, leading to distrust, despair, and even
suicidal thoughts.
It might seem logical to think that people
with a negative self-image would be just the ones who would want to
overcompensate. Yet as psychologists working with William Swann of the
University of Texas at Austin discovered, many individuals racked with
self-doubt seek confirmation of their distorted self-perception. Swann
described this phenomenon in a study on contentment in marriage. He asked
couples about their own strengths and weaknesses, the ways they felt supported
and valued by their partner, and how content they were in the marriage. As
expected, those who had a more positive attitude toward themselves found
greater satisfaction in their relationship the more they received praise and
recognition from their other half. But those who habitually picked at
themselves felt safer in their marriage when their partner reflected their
negative image back to them. They did not ask for respect or appreciation. On
the contrary, they wanted to hear exactly their own view of themselves: “You’re
incompetent.”
Swann
based his theory of self-verification on these findings. The theory holds that
we want others to see us the way we see ourselves. In some cases, people
actually provoke others to respond negatively to them so as to prove how worthless
they are. This behavior is not necessarily masochism. It is symptomatic of the
desire for coherence: If others respond to us in a way that confirms our
self-image, then the world is as it should be.
Likewise, people who consider themselves
failures will go out of their way not to succeed, contributing
actively to their own undoing. They will miss meetings, habitually neglect
doing assigned work, and get into hot water with the boss. Swann’s approach
contradicts Dunning and Kruger’s theory of overestimation. But both camps are
probably right: hyperinflated egos are certainly common, but negative
self-images are not uncommon.
CONTINUES IN PART II
No comments:
Post a Comment