Constantly underestimating self?

[Els]

So, the last few months as a grad student haven't been easy for me. For a variety of reasons, notably that I found it HARD, or much harder than I thought I should have, I was starting to genuinely believe that I sucked at what I did.

 

I recently got feedback from my supervisor, which I was dreading immensely. To my great surprise, the feedback was very good. And given that they tend to tell you straight up if you're not doing well (as the feedback that some of my peers received suggested), I suppose it's reasonable to believe that my good feedback was true.

 

But in that case, I'm noticing a pattern here. For some reason, I seem to underestimate my capabilities. In fact, the bf has told me that I'm always worried about doing poorly in something, but usually end up doing fairly well.

 

I don't think I'm necessarily suffering from poor self-esteem per se. As in, I don't hate myself, and even if I think I'm performing poorly, I just think it means I need to work harder at it. Not that I'm worthless/awful in general. However, I notice that this underestimating has led to me not reaching for several opportunities that I perhaps could have, as I always think that they are beyond my capability. ie I won't perform well in them.

 

So, easy, right? Just believe in myself more. But then, what happens if I go overboard and start overestimating myself? Say, get a job that I really am not capable of doing, end up failing miserably at it, and get poor references that stick with me forever?

 

How does one estimate one's own capabilities objectively and accurately?

[USMCHokie]

But in that case, I'm noticing a pattern here. For some reason, I seem to underestimate my capabilities. In fact, the bf has told me that I'm always worried about doing poorly in something, but usually end up doing fairly well.

 

Ah, my ol' buddies, Dunning and Kruger. Those who are more competent have been found to underestimate their abilities in a particular area, while those who are less competent were found to drastically overestimate their competency.

 

I think it's derived from an appreciation for competency in that area that is gained from actually having that competency.

 

How does one estimate one's own capabilities objectively and accurately?

By using rubrics and established external feedback mechanisms (such as the supervisor feedback you received), i.e., external validation :eek:.

 

Because you don't know how your own capabilities measure up. Only a person who knows more than you could tell you that.

 

For example, in martial arts, you don't have a white belt testing out someone for their black belt, right...?

Edited July 11, 2013 by USMCHokie

[Els]

Ah, yes, I think Emilia shared the study that you were referring to, once. Very interesting.

 

Sometimes you can't get external feedback til it's too late, though. For instance, the job capability thing. And sometimes the external feedback might be conflicting.

 

A very interesting example of conflict, is that we actually had a system to rate our own peers during a presentation of our work so far. As in, we rate each other, the supervisor sits out and watches. I scored slightly below average on that, which is part of the reason that led to me believing that I sucked.

 

That would have been reconciliable without conflict if their feedback had centred on poor presentation skills, etc, but the negative comments were centered on my content. Which was exactly the same as the content I had received good feedback for by the Prof.

 

Odd?

[Kamille]

 

 

So, easy, right? Just believe in myself more. But then, what happens if I go overboard and start overestimating myself? Say, get a job that I really am not capable of doing, end up failing miserably at it, and get poor references that stick with me forever?

 

 

I understand the question - at work, there is no one more critical of my own work than myself. I don't think this is a trait that will ever change - and I'm learning to see it as a positive. It is what pushes me to do my job well.

 

But I would like to wager that since you will likely be hired as a specialist somewhere, there is no way you could be hired for a job that you are not capable of doing. You have to trust that the hiring committee knows what its doing.

 

Also, I think there is some black and white thinking in your question, namely about failing miserably. The only way you could fail miserably is if you refuse to ask for support and guidance from veterans in your field. You won't end up failing miserably at the job for a simple reason: you can assess your strengths and weaknesses accurately, identify things upon which you can improve. I, for instance, am not very good at presenting papers. I've decided, that this year I will focus on getting better at it. There is no drama attached to this assessment of myself.

 

So it's not really about underestimating or over-estimating yourself. It's about not approaching work from a space of anxiety. It's about assessing yourself accurately so that you can identify what you can do better - and know what your strengths are so that you know when your contributions are needed.

[Kamille]

A very interesting example of conflict, is that we actually had a system to rate our own peers during a presentation of our work so far. As in, we rate each other, the supervisor sits out and watches. I scored slightly below average on that, which is part of the reason that led to me believing that I sucked.

 

That would have been reconciliable without conflict if their feedback had centred on poor presentation skills, etc, but the negative comments were centered on my content. Which was exactly the same as the content I had received good feedback for by the Prof.

 

Odd?

 

Not at all.

 

Do you peers see you underestimating yourself and doubting yourself? It's possible they believe your assessment of yourself. Peers often have little else to go on.

[USMCHokie]

Sometimes you can't get external feedback til it's too late, though. For instance, the job capability thing.

 

So you'll just have to be more proactive in seeking qualified feedback.

 

And sometimes the external feedback might be conflicting.

 

A very interesting example of conflict, is that we actually had a system to rate our own peers during a presentation of our work so far. As in, we rate each other, the supervisor sits out and watches. I scored slightly below average on that, which is part of the reason that led to me believing that I sucked.

 

That would have been reconciliable without conflict if their feedback had centred on poor presentation skills, etc, but the negative comments were centered on my content. Which was exactly the same as the content I had received good feedback for by the Prof.

 

Odd?

 

No, not odd at all, and fully explainable by Dunning-Kruger. You have to remember that your classmates don't have the core competency to properly evaluate your work. You have to remember who your evaluators are and assess the value of their judgments based on their level of experience and expertise.

[Els]

I understand the question - at work, there is no one more critical of my own work than myself. I don't think this is a trait that will ever change - and I'm learning to see it as a positive. It is what pushes me to do my job well.

 

But I would like to wager that since you will likely be hired as a specialist somewhere, there is no way you could be hired for a job that you are not capable of doing. You have to trust that the hiring committee knows what its doing.

 

Also, I think there is some black and white thinking in your question, namely about failing miserably. The only way you could fail miserably is if you refuse to ask for support and guidance from veterans in your field. You won't end up failing miserably at the job for a simple reason: you can assess your strengths and weaknesses accurately, identify things upon which you can improve. I, for instance, am not very good at presenting papers. I've decided, that this year I will focus on getting better at it. There is no drama attached to this assessment of myself.

 

So it's not really about underestimating or over-estimating yourself. It's about not approaching work from a space of anxiety. It's about assessing yourself accurately so that you can identify what you can do better - and know what your strengths are so that you know when your contributions are needed.

 

Thanks, K. I think that perhaps part of my worry about failure may be caused by worry about how I will cope with the anxiety, as well as actual competency. You are right in that if a hiring committee decides to hire me after having reviewed my resume, I should be reasonably qualified to do the job.

 

Not at all.

 

Do you peers see you underestimating yourself and doubting yourself? It's possible they believe your assessment of yourself. Peers often have little else to go on.

 

This is quite possible.

 

I think part of this whole issue may stem from the fact that my field is strongly male-dominated, as well. As in, 90% male. Not just male, but oftentimes male geeks who have been doing this since they were 7. I did not think that that would be an issue, but I often feel... different. As if I am left out in some sense.

 

But then again, my issue of underestimating myself has been going on for longer than I've been in this field, so... Ach, so many issues.

[Els]

 

No, not odd at all, and fully explainable by Dunning-Kruger. You have to remember that your classmates don't have the core competency to properly evaluate your work. You have to remember who your evaluators are and assess the value of their judgments based on their level of experience and expertise.

 

Well, to be fair, I think some of them are better than me in some ways. Certainly more experienced. I'm quite a newcomer to this field, having done a very fast-track degree and going straight on to grad studies. Many of them are not only older than me, but have dabbled in this field since high school or before.

 

I like your suggestion about getting more feedback, thanks.

[camillalev]

I think this happens a lot with people, we underestimate ourselves, our past performances and our projected future performances. Apparently this is also more common in women. I think everyone goes through it - even the most confident people I know go through periods when they question themselves, especially before a big project. Its something you have to lean into and trust your judgements.

[Els]

Thanks, camilla. That's reassuring to hear.

[carhill]

How does one estimate one's own capabilities objectively and accurately?

 

By challenging oneself to succeed, whether in the more general sense or at a specific task. The failure point is generally a pretty accurate determiner of one's capabilities at that particular time of life. There's a lot of success to be found in failure.

[Els]

Very insightful, carhill. I wish I had thought of that sooner!

 

Edit: What do you think of situations in which failure could be very costly - either in monetary terms or professional reputation?

Edited July 11, 2013 by Elswyth

[GorillaTheater]

Elswyth, I have no doubt that you are very capable and will succeed at whatever you pursue.

 

I've felt the way you describe, and I wonder if you'll find any parallels:

 

In high school, I barely (if that) applied myself and sailed through. College was a little more difficult (married and working) but I still did well without trying that hard. Then came law school. I was married, still working, had a kid by that point, and was going to school full-time. And for perhaps the first time in my life was really pushed to my limits. I still remember that self-doubt that came with the realization that "damn! This sh*t is HARD!"

 

Anything resonate here?

[GorillaTheater]

Edit: What do you think of situations in which failure could be very costly - either in monetary terms or professional reputation?

 

They can be a little unnerving, but the only way to deal with them is to do your best, run your proposed course of action by people whose judgment you trust, and let the chips fall where they may.

[Els]

Sounds about right, GT! I guess being the odd one out, and also the one with the least experience in the field, I feel a little intimidated, as well.

[candie13]

you know, you actually can work on you self esteem. There are some fantastic books - one of them written by Christophe Andre, called: "imperfect, free and happy" and another one called "daring the self esteem" (Swiss or French writer, interesting approach, more academic compared to the Americans that are a bit too flamboyant, for my taste)

 

You can actually attend some seminars and work on that, if you feel it's affecting your quality of life.

 

I am sure you are great at what you do. Just have a bit more faith. cheers.

[carhill]

Very insightful, carhill. I wish I had thought of that sooner!

 

Edit: What do you think of situations in which failure could be very costly - either in monetary terms or professional reputation?

Good question. I deal with that every day, since what I do for a living entails risks and other people's safety depends on my capabilities and skill. Reflecting, part is confidence that, no matter the outcome, I'll move forward, learning from failures. The other part is intuition, perhaps a more nebulous component, one learned from a lifetime of successes and failures. It helps define the difference, in action, between going it alone and taking the risks, versus bringing in the think tank and group problem-solving, versus walking away from an intuitively toxic challenge.

 

As risk-takers go, I tend to be more conservative, which I view differently from 'under-estimating self', in that each estimation is engineered to be right at the cutting edge of the limits of self at that moment. Would success still be possible if more risk were undertaken? Perhaps. There are others who will take those risks, defining their estimate of self individually. We're all different, both in real and estimated senses of self.

[Kamille]

Very insightful, carhill. I wish I had thought of that sooner!

 

Edit: What do you think of situations in which failure could be very costly - either in monetary terms or professional reputation?

 

Failure is never total.

 

And no two people are going to judge you the same for a mistake.

 

During my PhD, I had a moment when I thought I was totally failing, that everyone was going to judge me and that I was going to lose everything.

 

You know what, I lost the respect of some colleagues - and gained the respect of others for how I handled the situation. Turns out, actually, that my failure solidified my relationship with some VIPs in my field. I know, it sounds crazy. But we all make mistakes. Successful people know that success comes from taking risks. And they admire someone who shows they can learn from their mistakes, pick themselves up and move on.

 

The important thing is that you do your best and stand by your own ethics. And you already have those qualities in spades.

[candie13]

I'll take a chance at that question: maybe, the answer isn't linked to you, but to what you do, to what you believe in. If you invest in a cause or institution you believe in, it won't just be about you and your performance, it will be about you doing something for a bigger cause. This is what gives me courage, this is what motivates me.

 

The difference between men and women is linked to self esteem. A lot of guys, less prepared, aim for higher positions because they dare more. And they should, especially if they are capable of performing the tasks. A lot of women will go for the safer choice, because they doubt.

 

You know that saying "he who believes shall fail or shall succeed is right "?

 

I am very serious when I am advising you some professional couching sessions. They are life changing. It will be a pity to sell yourself short, only because of your insecurities. So first, be honest and evaluate yourself objectively. Then, go for the position that is compatible with your preparation. You will discover then how to do it. Everybody has to learn and should start, at some point !!!

[Els]

Thank you, everyone. Very interesting appraisals about risk and failure. I'm really glad I started this thread.

 

One of the 'crazy' ideas I have been pondering, is striking out on my own as a freelancer, with my own business, once I finish grad school. I may return to academia later to finish up my PhD (we do it in two stages here, I am in the masters stage) and work towards becoming a professor, but this is something I really want to do before that. I will require minimal capital, since I am selling my own expertise and could technically work at home if office rent is prohibitive.

 

But I am well aware of how many small businesses fail in the first year. And it is pretty unheard-of for someone to go straight from studying to being self-employed. Most people work several years for someone else first. I am open to doing that if I need to, but that would be the 'safer' route. As in, I have no desire to work my way up the ladder of a corporation, so if I did do that, it would be solely for money/experience.

 

I know I'm derailing my own thread a little (sorry, mods! ), but given that I've received so much good advice from experienced folks here, and it IS somewhat related, I thought I'd pose the question here.

 

Am I being just a little too crazy with this idea? I keep mulling over ideas for my business niche, how I would achieve it, etc... but as I get deeper and deeper into the details I start to feel more and more like it would be an impossible endeavour. Or at least improbable.

[thefooloftheyear]

OK...I am going to inflate you a little bit more..

 

You are one of the most level headed and pragmatic one on this forum..

 

As someone who has lived more years than you, I can tell you one thing for sure..Success in life has so little to do with formal education that its almost comical.. Some of the most degreed and credentialed people I know couldnt find their ass with either hand..Conversely, some of the most successful people I know have little or no formal education. A good friend of mine recently sold his company for 200 million dollars..He is an 8th grade dropout and did time in federal prison on drug charges when he was a kid... This guy is as razor sharp as anyone you would ever meet..

 

I have a BS that was ridiculously difficult to obtain..Science/Bio major..I started my own company at 23 with 0 money except for 10 grand I borrowed from a friend..By 30 I was worth over a million.. I have gone on to be successful in business and didnt use anything I learned in college to get there..I dont think you would have any problem at all..You are sharper than me..

 

The cream always rises..You'll be fine, IMO

 

TFY

Edited July 11, 2013 by thefooloftheyear

[MrCastle]

OK...I am going to inflate you a little bit more..

 

You are one of the most level headed and pragmatic one on this forum..

 

As someone who has lived more years than you, I can tell you one thing for sure..Success in life has so little to do with formal education that its almost comical.. Some of the most degreed and credentialed people I know couldnt find their ass with either hand..Conversely, some of the most successful people I know have little or no formal education. A good friend of mine recently sold his company for 200 million dollars..He is an 8th grade dropout and did time in federal prison on drug charges when he was a kid... This guy is as razor sharp as anyone you would ever meet..

 

I have a BS that was ridiculously difficult to obtain..Science/Bio major..I have gone on to be successful in business and didnt use anything I learned in college to get there..

 

The cream always rises..You'll be fine, IMO

 

TFY

 

Not really. If you look at most people that own companies or at the very least, are in high level positions -- most of them are quite accomplished academically.

 

I mean most reputable establishments are not going to even consider hiring you unless you have some level of college education under your belt.

 

There are of course exceptions to the rule, but those are just that -- exceptions.

 

Higher learning has proven time and time again that it will land you better paying jobs.

 

Now whether or not you are actually smart is a different story. I know plenty of airheads in school. School just means you had the time and money to go. That's about it. However, that being said, it looks a lot better on a resume that you have a phd in the particular field you're looking to get into, versus not having a phd.

 

Anyway Els -- we all go through moments of doubt. Feelings of being discouraged or overwhelmed. It's human.

 

Believe in yourself, embrace your fears, and come out of it a better, more confident person.

[FitChick]

Those who are more competent have been found to underestimate their abilities in a particular area, while those who are less competent were found to drastically overestimate their competency.

 

 

We see that everyday in the Dating Forum.

Edited July 11, 2013 by FitChick

[Els]

Awww, thanks, TFY.

 

I totally get what you're saying about academia not mattering in most cases. I do love academia for its own sake, though, and have little interest in corporations. In my dreams of the future, I am either a nutty old professor driving everyone mad by them not being able to understand my blathering , or the owner of my own small tech business.

[thefooloftheyear]

Not really. If you look at most people that own companies or at the very least, are in high level positions -- most of them are quite accomplished academically.

 

I mean most reputable establishments are not going to even consider hiring you unless you have some level of college education under your belt.

 

There are of course exceptions to the rule, but those are just that -- exceptions.

 

Higher learning has proven time and time again that it will land you better paying jobs.

 

Now whether or not you are actually smart is a different story. I know plenty of airheads in school. School just means you had the time and money to go. That's about it. However, that being said, it looks a lot better on a resume that you have a phd in the particular field you're looking to get into, versus not having a phd.

 

Anyway Els -- we all go through moments of doubt. Feelings of being discouraged or overwhelmed. It's human.

 

Believe in yourself, embrace your fears, and come out of it a better, more confident person.

 

I see what you are saying, and in no way was I knocking higher education. But the reality is that earning a diploma really gives you little more than a wider prospect than the next guy..No way does it guarantee success in career or life..

 

I paid off my mortgage by the time I was 42(in one of the wealthies counties in the US) and I am probably the only one in my development that doesnt have a post graduate diploma..And judging by all of the bittching going on at the block party, a lot of these hotshots have a long way to go before they will be mortgage free..And most of them have wives that are professionals and bring home a big salary as well..My wife is a SAHM...

 

So, if anyone feels like they arent meeting the goals of their peers in school, take solace in the fact that it might not be as important to survival in the long run..

 

TFY.