The World Needs More Imposter Syndrome

There are two psychological terms to describe the opposite traits of lack of confidence and over-confidence.  If people question their abilities or accomplishments and worry that they do not deserve credit or accolades, then they may have ‘Imposter Syndrome’.  If, on the other hand, they are over-confident and consider their accomplishments to be extraordinary and their talents to be under-rated, then that is termed a ‘Dunning-Kruger Syndrome’.  

Most people have experienced the imposter syndrome at some time in their lives.  When you receive compliments or an award you may humbly accept the accolade but feel secretly that you are really not so special and that you are a bit of an imposter.  You may feel that you were lucky or had the benefit of some set of circumstances that enabled the achievement – that you should really not be singled out for praise.

 

This type of reaction can become pathological in some cases, reflecting a general inferiority complex, and this is why there is much written about women and minorities having the imposter complex and thus limiting their achievements or success because of self-doubt.  This is an unfortunate occurrence and society should make every effort to affirm any achievement in a healthy manner.

 

But I believe there is a more pernicious tendency in this realm.  Once people begin to gain recognition, success or wealth they may initially be surprised and delighted.  In this early phase, they may have moments of imposter syndrome as they realistically appraise the nature of their achievements.  

 

But as their success grows, the steady drumbeat of reward and adulation has a corrupting influence.  They begin to believe what they hear as others gush over their accomplishments.  The lens through which they see the world and themselves begins to warp and the image of their prowess begins to dominate their view.  They forget that success has a large component of good fortune and that wealth begets more wealth and fame begets more fame.

 

Soon they believe that they have a unique gift or unerring intuition. They begin to imagine that their success implies a much broader genius at work than the domain in which their achievements lie.  They are soon convinced that they are simply more capable than the rest of humanity.  They grow weary of the folly of lesser beings.  They yearn to impose their brilliant thinking on the world in ever greater ways.

 

This ever-expanding self-aggrandizement is the opposite pathology of the imposter syndrome, and it is much more dangerous to humanity.  The Trumps and Putins and Musks of this world no longer experience the braking effect of self-doubt, and the juggernaut of their egotism goes unchecked.

 

But it is not only the most notorious cases of out-of-control vanity that trouble our world.  The increasing centralization of wealth in finance and technology has launched a thousand ships of freighter-sized egos.  Being suddenly bloated with hundreds of millions of dollars, an entourage of sycophants and endless social media adulation is a short path to narcissism and a conviction that the world simply must benefit from one’s genius.  We see these people everywhere and they wield their wealth and prestige in ways that roil our society, exacerbate tensions and waste valuable resources.

 

Yes, the world would be a much better place if every hedge fund mogul, real estate tycoon and  tech titan were to fall prey to the imposter syndrome and abandon their master-of-the-world fantasy.  There is something very healthy and cathartic in recognizing that one is at least partly an imposter. We are all only human after all, even those most showered with wealth and fame.  A little (or a lot) of humility is in order.

Risk and Reward

Life is full of risks.  A risk, by definition, is an exposure to danger, harm or loss.  There are financial risks, transportation and travel risks, adventure risks, health risks and many others.  When one speaks of a risk, there must be uncertainty in an outcome of some event or behavior.  There must be some probability that a bad outcome could occur.  The level of risk is based on how high the probability is of that bad outcome.

A risk is typically undertaken because there is some expected reward associated with the event or behavior if things go well.  The reward may have significant monetary, psychological or experiential advantages, or it may simply be the completion of an ordinary but necessary task in one’s life.

 

Some people are described as risk-takers.  They are not afraid of taking ‘chances’ with their money or their health or even their lives.  Others are described as risk-averse.  It is interesting to contemplate what these descriptions really mean and what is the thought process involved in taking or avoiding risk.  

 

When I drive a car each day, I am taking a risk.  If I ride a bicycle on a street with cars, I am taking a risk.  If I clean the gutters on my roof, I am taking a risk. Do we internally calculate or otherwise estimate the probability of being hurt in these activities? 

 

Is driving a car an acceptable risk because it has a low probability of producing an accident with injuries, or is it simply something we do without thinking about the risk?  If I were to be paralyzed in a car accident, would driving all those years have been an acceptable risk?  I cannot imagine anyone blithely conceding that point.  Something is an acceptable risk only before a bad outcome occurs.  In most cases we use the term acceptable risk to describe a risk that is low enough to feel reasonably secure that the bad outcome will never happen.

 

Mountain climbers or hang-gliders who consider their death-defying acts as acceptable risks are also making the assumption that they will not die.  They love the activity of mountain climbing enough to take the risk, but it is doubtful they would say in retrospect that the risk was worth it if they are horribly maimed in an accident.  It seems the risk was only acceptable when nothing bad happened.

 

Men gleefully enlist and march off to war for the reward of unique experiences and perhaps a chance for exhibiting their courage.  But if they lose a leg or two, I highly doubt they will say that the risk was an acceptable one or that the experience or possibility of an award for valor was worth the lifetime of suffering they will now endure.

 

Financial investments and employment changes are also interesting versions of risk-taking.    The many well-publicized rags-to-riches stories make financial risk-taking seem very exotic and exciting.  But one wonders how many financial failures and hard-luck tales there are for every successful entrepreneur or investor.  Did the failures consider their doomed exploits to have been a ‘reasonable risk’?

 

Risk-taking may also be somewhat age dependent.  I know I was much more of a risk-taker in terms of physical challenges in earlier years.  And I capriciously experimented with drugs in my teens and early twenties in a way that I would never do today.  As age progresses our awareness of the consequences of our actions is better informed and applies the brakes to certain types of risky activity.

 

For the most part I doubt there is a way to quantify or even comprehend risk when one embarks on a new venture of any type.  There may be a gut feeling or an instinctual sense that the activity is worth doing.  The risk-takers are those who seem to have either no fear of failure and retain that feeling of youthful immortality, or are so driven by the need for change, recognition or wealth that they are compelled to choose the path of higher risk. The risk-averse are either more peacefully content with their lot or more sensitively aware of the potential for true damage, harm or loss.

 

There are extremes on both ends of the risk scale.  Wingsuit base jumping and free soloing would certainly seem to be examples of risk-taking that border on suicidal behavior.  And there are lots of people who timidly avoid any risk and thus severely limit their life experiences.

 

In the end, it seems that risk-taking is primarily a personality trait that has little analysis behind it.  It is difficult to say what kind of effect one’s willingness to take risks has on quality of life or one’s sense of fulfillment.  We are all unique creatures and must find the balance of risk and reward that makes sense for us and not feel compelled to emulate others.

 

 

On the Absurdity of Relying on Polls and Other Election Nonsense

Despite all the recent election evidence that polls are more or less worthless we seem to make them the basis of our political machinations.  Let’s explore why they have so little value.  And while we’re at it, let’s look at whether TV or Internet ads are a good use of money.

Number one, a poll with a relatively small number of respondents compared to the total population is statistically weak, and most polls fall into this category.  It only can be accurate if you believe that the respondents are strongly representative of the total population.  This brings us to the second point, that the people who respond to polls are most likely not even close to being a representative group of the general electorate.

 

Think about it!  Who answers their phone at all unless it’s a number they recognize?  In this time of spam, botmails, robocalls, and endless attempts to gain our attention, not to mention malicious attacks, scams, viruses and phishing, there is a totally understandable reluctance to engage with unknown entities.

 

And who has the time to respond to a survey?  What with Facebook, Insta, TikTok, YouTube and a thousand other claims to our precious time weighing heavily on us, who is going to be willing to submit to the drudgery of taking a survey?  This is clearly a self-selecting group, not a random collection of voters.  I’m not exactly sure what defines this group, but it must be a rather strange and motley crew.

 

Given the amount of money spent on polls and the consultants who make up the political money machine, I am sure there is a wealth of quasi-scientific efforts to justify poll-taking.  But I don’t buy it.  They are rubbish.

 

And of course, the polls then feed into the whole machinery of opinion influencing – the attack ads, the mailbox fillers, the TV portrayals, the mind-numbing drivel on social media, the even more outrageous YouTube slander and outright falsehoods.

 

Let’s face it, our election process is a colossal waste of time, money and good will.  Probably 99% of people make up their minds based on opinions and biases that are unaffected by the billions and billions of dollars spent.  We would be better served as a nation to dismantle the whole political process and start over again.