How to Determine If Youre Full of Shit
We all think were special. We usually get our sense of specialness from some characteristic we take pride in. We make claims to ourselves and to others about these characteristics. We can go most of our lives telling ourselves a story built around such claims.
But exactly when is it complete bullshit?
As an example, Ive never felt exceptional in almost any sense. Sometimes Ive been surprised by how far above the curve I am in a particular domain, and my underestimating myself works against me (like when assuming others know more than they really do); other times, Im humbled by how much Ive overestimated myself in some way (like basketball).
Yet through it all, Ive often protected my ego with the belief that my THINKING is whats unique. Others may be more articulate, faster, stronger, better looking, more successful socially or financially, etc but they dont have the special knowledge I do! Apes dont read PHILOSOPHY!
I figure this is a common psychological experience. But how can we break out of such ego-protecting narratives?
I offer a simple principle:
If you cant prove it in the real world, with real people, you just may be full of shit.
For fun, heres a 3-step guide.
Example claim: I am one of the best cooks in the world.
1. Assuming the claim is not easily dismissed as the ramblings of a crazy person, the next question should be: Is it measurable or demonstrable in some way?
If no youre likely full of shit.
If yes, go to 2 (eg., you cook me a passionfruit soufflé, or I play you in chess and you beat me).
2. What is the sample size?
To shift the premise a bit: if you make everyone in your family (or neighborhood, or town) laugh or if you can argue them into the ground, or if you can beat them all in chess, or out-bench them by 100 pounds then theres at least some basis for your belief. Good for you. Your belief may be justified.
Whats more likely, however, is that your sample size is too small.
If it is, youre likely full of shit.
If not, go to 3.
3. So youve made a claim about yourself, and that claim is measurable and has been compared to a fairly large sample size.
Finally: have you taken on others that have also satisfied 1 and 2?
If not, you may be full of shit.
If yes congrats on your abilities. Screw yourself.
In my view, 90% of us dont even pass (1). We remove our claims from the realm of demonstrability, so we can go on holding our very self-serving beliefs without ever having to prove them or subject them to real scrutiny. Much like many religions.
Whew that post was long. And worth it.
But exactly when is it complete bullshit?
As an example, Ive never felt exceptional in almost any sense. Sometimes Ive been surprised by how far above the curve I am in a particular domain, and my underestimating myself works against me (like when assuming others know more than they really do); other times, Im humbled by how much Ive overestimated myself in some way (like basketball).
Yet through it all, Ive often protected my ego with the belief that my THINKING is whats unique. Others may be more articulate, faster, stronger, better looking, more successful socially or financially, etc but they dont have the special knowledge I do! Apes dont read PHILOSOPHY!
I figure this is a common psychological experience. But how can we break out of such ego-protecting narratives?
I offer a simple principle:
If you cant prove it in the real world, with real people, you just may be full of shit.
For fun, heres a 3-step guide.
Example claim: I am one of the best cooks in the world.
1. Assuming the claim is not easily dismissed as the ramblings of a crazy person, the next question should be: Is it measurable or demonstrable in some way?
If no youre likely full of shit.
If yes, go to 2 (eg., you cook me a passionfruit soufflé, or I play you in chess and you beat me).
2. What is the sample size?
To shift the premise a bit: if you make everyone in your family (or neighborhood, or town) laugh or if you can argue them into the ground, or if you can beat them all in chess, or out-bench them by 100 pounds then theres at least some basis for your belief. Good for you. Your belief may be justified.
Whats more likely, however, is that your sample size is too small.
If it is, youre likely full of shit.
If not, go to 3.
3. So youve made a claim about yourself, and that claim is measurable and has been compared to a fairly large sample size.
Finally: have you taken on others that have also satisfied 1 and 2?
If not, you may be full of shit.
If yes congrats on your abilities. Screw yourself.
In my view, 90% of us dont even pass (1). We remove our claims from the realm of demonstrability, so we can go on holding our very self-serving beliefs without ever having to prove them or subject them to real scrutiny. Much like many religions.
Whew that post was long. And worth it.
Comments (10)
They could if they were not rabid about typing Shakespeare.
Ha its from A Fish Called Wanda.
Interesting. I can only respond with tenuous relevance. I'm not sure I agree that we all think we are special. Many do. Many do not. Some are suicidal with self-loathing or self-denigration. I also sure that many a boundless ego is overcompensating for feelings of inadequacy.
Personally I would say that it is healthy to think we are special in as much as we are the beginning and end of our experience with the world. If we don't treat our unique subjective experience as special - take care of our health, be grateful, be prudent in business, kind to others, etc - we end up suffering and our loved ones suffer with us.
But you mean something different here. Personally I don't know many (if any) who think they are 'the best' at anything. I've never dreamed that big. I would aspire to be competent in and enjoy certain activities. That's always been good enough for me, as I tend to enjoy the experience of doing more than the end result. While I think it's healthy to want to improve at things, the goal is to be the best seems forced and doesn't resonate with me. There's something exhilarating about being a limited, flawed being who makes the most of what they've got.
'Hell is other people.'
I think it's only other people that can help confirm or refute any impression an individual might have about how 'special' you are. I think it starts from how you are treated as an baby/infant.
If you get a great deal of love and positive nurture from your parents, then you can indeed grow up believing you are indeed special, others may confirm that or refute it as time goes on. Depending on how that goes, the balance can be tipped into a myriad of pathologies.
This is not the norm unless you are a narcissist. I mean that in a factual way. Most people have a good sense of more here, little there, okay, and good. In fact, even an egoistic individual would only be egoistic within his own circle around him -- usually a very tiny one: himself and another person.
"Egoistic" as used here is not the philosophical egoism.
Yeah, I think thats nonsense. A feeling that youre unique or important in some way is hardly narcissism. If thats true, were all narcissists, because its a psychological truism.
Agreed here. @Mikie there's a lot of assumptions in your OP. I would counter that most people don't think of themselves as special. If you think we all are like that, that may say something about you.
That said, I did at one point think I was "special." Thankfully I got knocked down a few pegs and realized my place. It's not that philosophical.
What Im describing is an unavoidable psychological fact. Whatever else is being projected on to the word isnt my business.
So, it has always been hard to distinguish between when I was just fooling myself from times when I actually understood what was happening. Turning out to be correct does not explain very much.