On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 15:44:36 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

>> True, but at the same time, some people have *very* good instincts.  I
>> seem to be one of those kinds of people - because I have an instinct
>> that something's going to be OK or work out for the best, and I find
>> that better than 90% of the time, I'm right.  That's far better than
>> the luck of averages.
>> 
> Everyone thinks that they make good instinctive decisions 90% of the
> time, save for those people that are totally disfunctional and hide in
> their houses, unwilling to make *any* decisions. Its our nature to
> forget the cases where we screwed up, or at least marginalize them, in
> favor of a self perception of being right most of the time. We couldn't
> function effectively if we second guessed every action, based on a
> recognition that we get it close enough to right only half the time to
> call it "good instinct".

Except that my view is confirmed by people who are in a position to 
evaluate objectively and without bias or anything to gain.  For example, 
in one circumstance I had evaluated the potential for deceit in a 
situation that involved lawyers, and the lawyers initially thought that I 
might have a point, but that they needed something concrete other than a 
"gut feeling" (which in my mind was backed up by a thoughtful analysis of 
the person and the items in question).  The person then admitted to the 
deceit, proving my instinct correct.

The lawyer involved who I had expressed my suspicion of the evidence 
provided was not swayed from his stance of "we have to take it at face 
value" until the OP had admitted the deceit, at which point the lawyer 
complimented me on my instincts and insight into the items in question.

> Its also a tested psychological factor that the true twits in society
> have a coping mechanism, by which they "exaggerate" their own
> competence.

Perhaps "true twits" should be replaced with something indicating that in 
general it's human nature to do so?  I try to be objective about myself, 
and yes, it is hard to do, especially if one doesn't make a conscious 
decision to be objective in self-evaluation.  I think most people are 
prone to exaggeration about their own abilities and skills.  That's 
confirmed, in part, by an adjustment that is made in standard course 
evaluations from Knowledge Advisors - there are questions that ask about 
the % of increase in productivity (I'd have to look at the questions 
again for the exact verbiage) as a result of training, and it's a 
situation where the individual answers have no meaning at all, but the 
aggregate answer does provide useful information, but only after an 
adjustment downward of the average answer of something like 30% (again 
would have to look at my notes to see what the specific value in the 
adjustment is).

>> I've also been told by people in professions that depend on the ability
>> to read people and situations that my instincts are exceptionally good
>> - I have an extremely good track record and picking out attempts at
>> deception.  Part of that I attribute to the fact that I tend not to
>> trust very easily because I know that people will generally try to get
>> away with whatever they can.
>> 
> I would, with some caveats, tend to allow for their perceptions to be
> less flawed than yours. The caveats being, for starters, that their
> perception of "why" you seem to have good instincts may be due to their
> own flawed views of who a good candidate for deception are, and the
> like, due to personal bias, than to actual skill in the matter. Good
> example of this sort of fun thing:

Well, I'd refer back to the above example involving the lawyers.  It's 
not the only example, but one of the more notable.  The advantage there 
was that the lawyer in question was more inclined to dismiss my idea 
because he had to make a totally objective decision about what the best 
course of action would be - least costly, least likely to cause 
litigation, etc.  And he's got a great deal of experience in making those 
determinations and has a very good track record himself.

> Now, if everyone that was telling you that you are good at detecting
> deceit where one of those who claimed to trust priests, farmers and
> prostitutes, before scientists, what would your reaction be to their
> certainty of how good you are?

Admittedly not that good.  That's why I don't look to those kinds of 
people (or people actually in those professions) to help me adjust my 
personal self-perception bias.

Jim

Post a reply to this message