(no subject)
Oct. 9th, 2004 11:34 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cleolindaHeeeeeeeee. Teresa Nielsen Hayden "disemvowels" a disgruntled writer on her blog. The whole thread is a fascinating read if you're a writer, but if you're just looking for the fun, it starts here.
Following a pertinent link from that discussion: A series of psychological studies posits that people who are really, really bad at something don't know it, and they're bad at that thing precisely because they don't know it. And one of the things they tested was ability to recognize humor:
"To assess joke quality, we contacted several professional comedians via electronic mail and asked them to rate each joke on a scale ranging from 1 ( not at all funny ) to 11 ( very funny ). Eight comedians responded to our request (names removed by me, for reasons you'll understand in a moment. I didn't recognize any of the names, if you're wondering how famous [or not] they are.). Although the ratings provided by the eight comedians were moderately reliable ( a = .72), an analysis of interrater correlations found that one (and only one) comedian's ratings failed to correlate positively with the others (mean r = - .09). We thus excluded this comedian's ratings in our calculation of the humor value of each joke, yielding a final a of .76."
So basically, what they're saying is... one of those comedians turned out to be unable to recognize humor in a way that correlated to the rest of the group. One of those comedians... isn't funny. Oh dear.
Anyway. The conclusion of that part of the study? People who are really, really unfunny are really, really unaware of it. Also: You ever wondered why so many awful, awful singers take it upon themselves to try out for American Idol? Now you know. Their awfulness actually correlates to their unawareness of that same awfulness.
Curiously, people who scored in the top range on that joke quality questionnaire actually underrated themselves. I'm not going to leap to a one-for-one conclusion that skilled people underrate themselves to the same extent that unskilled people overrate themselves, but it's sort of like that idea that the more you learn, the more you know that you don't know.
Here's the really scary part: Ask yourself what it is that you think you can do well. Can you really do it well? Do you have objective, material verification of that fact? By which I mean, "All my friends say I'm a good writer" is neither objective nor material. "I've published six books that were critically acclaimed and/or sold a frillion copies each" is an over-the-top example, but it is both objective and material. (We can get into the popularity vs. quality publishing argument later.) Basically, if you're really God's gift to whatever, you'd have gotten somewhere with it by now. Example: Ask me and I will tell you that I am a really good cook and have a great singing voice. I don't so much have any proof of this. Particularly since I don't cook all that much, and I don't let anyone hear me sing. I am very likely overestimating my skills here. But once I realize that, and I know that I need to improve, and I decide that I would like to improve, I can set about cribbing cooking lessons from my sister, or practicing my shower-singing. Or I can just admit that I will never be a four-star chef who sings backup professionally. See?
Following a pertinent link from that discussion: A series of psychological studies posits that people who are really, really bad at something don't know it, and they're bad at that thing precisely because they don't know it. And one of the things they tested was ability to recognize humor:
"To assess joke quality, we contacted several professional comedians via electronic mail and asked them to rate each joke on a scale ranging from 1 ( not at all funny ) to 11 ( very funny ). Eight comedians responded to our request (names removed by me, for reasons you'll understand in a moment. I didn't recognize any of the names, if you're wondering how famous [or not] they are.). Although the ratings provided by the eight comedians were moderately reliable ( a = .72), an analysis of interrater correlations found that one (and only one) comedian's ratings failed to correlate positively with the others (mean r = - .09). We thus excluded this comedian's ratings in our calculation of the humor value of each joke, yielding a final a of .76."
So basically, what they're saying is... one of those comedians turned out to be unable to recognize humor in a way that correlated to the rest of the group. One of those comedians... isn't funny. Oh dear.
Anyway. The conclusion of that part of the study? People who are really, really unfunny are really, really unaware of it. Also: You ever wondered why so many awful, awful singers take it upon themselves to try out for American Idol? Now you know. Their awfulness actually correlates to their unawareness of that same awfulness.
Curiously, people who scored in the top range on that joke quality questionnaire actually underrated themselves. I'm not going to leap to a one-for-one conclusion that skilled people underrate themselves to the same extent that unskilled people overrate themselves, but it's sort of like that idea that the more you learn, the more you know that you don't know.
Here's the really scary part: Ask yourself what it is that you think you can do well. Can you really do it well? Do you have objective, material verification of that fact? By which I mean, "All my friends say I'm a good writer" is neither objective nor material. "I've published six books that were critically acclaimed and/or sold a frillion copies each" is an over-the-top example, but it is both objective and material. (We can get into the popularity vs. quality publishing argument later.) Basically, if you're really God's gift to whatever, you'd have gotten somewhere with it by now. Example: Ask me and I will tell you that I am a really good cook and have a great singing voice. I don't so much have any proof of this. Particularly since I don't cook all that much, and I don't let anyone hear me sing. I am very likely overestimating my skills here. But once I realize that, and I know that I need to improve, and I decide that I would like to improve, I can set about cribbing cooking lessons from my sister, or practicing my shower-singing. Or I can just admit that I will never be a four-star chef who sings backup professionally. See?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 09:59 am (UTC)it's interesting isn't it. What do we know we know? and how do we know we know it...? It's also rather confusing, but hey, I'm not here to complain.
How is the frillion copies of your book going, by the way? Are you deep in the "writers" mindset? (you don't have to answer if you don't want. I won't take offense). I've been wondering how it's going, that's all...
no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 10:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 05:12 pm (UTC)Cool that you can get into it. I hope you do. *hands you some luck* don't worry, I've got a fair bit to throw around.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 10:08 am (UTC)This also means that negative evaluations are often granted less weight because it is easy to read them as "rudeness" and thus not based in reality. Simon is a jerk, but he also violates mainstream norms.
This study sounds like a more specific go at an issue that's pretty well-studied in social psychology: people do not really know what other people think of them, and their misconceptions are generally overly optimistic. Unless they're clinically depressed, in which case their self-evaluations usually map onto "other" evaluations pretty well. So one might conclude that depressed people are overriding a psychological coping mechanism that is necessary to emotional well-being.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 11:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 03:07 pm (UTC)At least in ballroom/latin dancing, my hobby/pastime/whatnot, you're pretty sure whether you suck or not. Or it could be who you're dancing with..uh..or it could be you. On second thought, it's all messed up!
Yarha, Who's Been Evaluated or Judged on Something or Other His Entire Life
no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 10:39 am (UTC)That's actually rather disturbing - about what do we think we're good at that actually we're not? Now I'm thinking about all these things that I think I'm good at... and now will quite possibly never do in public again. *grin*
no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 11:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 10:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 11:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 11:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 11:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 11:20 am (UTC)I, too, am now going over everything I think I'm good at and trying to find proof. It's rather like a scavenger hunt.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 11:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 02:59 pm (UTC)If you don't think you're bad, and then you're told people who don't think they're bad usually are, you still don't think you're bad even though you probably are because people who don't think they're bad usually are.
In a nutshell.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 11:35 am (UTC)Hmm, could they be saying one of those comedians was unable to find commonly acceptable humor amusing? In particular, I look at the difference in humor between my ex and myself - I love British humor where he is left cold by it. Conversely, Jeff Foxworthy can have him rolling on the floor laughing while I was wondering how the hell I got into the situation where I was watching Foxworthy in the first place.
There are so few situations where I actually laugh out loud anymore so when I find something that does make me laugh until I cry ('Shaun of the Dead', TWOP, your journal), then I think those things are pretty damn special. :) For whatever that's worth. :)
no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 12:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 01:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 03:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 06:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-10 02:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-10 08:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 12:01 pm (UTC)There's something to be said for confidence, but one can't just have blind confidence. You need reliable external confirmation of it. I think that's one reason kids seem so screwed up these days; they get filled to the bunghole with SELF-ESTEEM but never actually made to DO anything to get real confidence in themselves. The first unflattering opinion to float their way freaks them entirely. Self-esteem isn't what kids need. It's confidence that they can do something and do it well. That brings its own self-esteem. Just being told over and over again that they are wonderful just for breathing in and out just creates delusion.
I am very confident in my writing, but I know why I'm confident.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 01:40 pm (UTC)AMEN! :D It seems we've long since passed the days of reason...
no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 05:31 pm (UTC)you know, it's funny because i had this same (more or less) discussion in someone else's journal. she was talking about how some people in her creative writing class aren't really very good writers but they had no idea (hence, what you're talking about). this, in turn, led her to wonder if maybe she's trapped in the same place - seeing herself as a good writer when in actuality, she's not at all. i feel the same way sometimes - most specifically, right now. it's just... how do i really know that i'm any good at anything? i think i'm a fairly good writer and singer but there's no definite proof or evidence to support those claims.
and this whole comment is kind of pointless because it's just making me more and more nervous about my real abilities, as opposed to the ones i think i have. fnarr.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 08:25 pm (UTC)Oh God, I suck.
But, I am good at writing, because I win competitions and get reviews and people offer to publish me...
But you don't go activly seeking publishment now-a-days, do you?
But I'm doing my HSC! I'm studying my brains out and barely squeezing in drabbles for memes!
But you could still do it!
That's what I'm planning on doing on my year off, aren't I, acting and writing?
YOU'RE PUTTING IT OFF! AND YOU SUCK AT IT!
But I'm always writing more and trying to improve and reading advise and learning from other people, aren't I?
SUCK SUCK SUCKKKKKYYYY!
OhgodIsuckIhatemyself
Hey, a picture of Jack the pirate! Ooo, I should re-watch POTC. Mmm, pirates...
Man, I need a new brain.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-10 06:32 am (UTC)Why 11? Well Because its higher than 10. All other amps only go to 10. Mine goes to 11.
You knew this was coming.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-10 06:49 pm (UTC)