Top performers tend to have a relatively
good sense of how well they perform in absolute terms, such as their raw score on a test (see Fig. 2). Where they err is in their estimates of other people -- consistently overestimating how well other people are doing on the same test.

This made me laugh. I caught myself doing this in grad school a lot, and I think it's mainly because I consistently ignored my stupid classmates, to the point of forgetting that I was being compared against them.

(And yes, I realize the folly of self-identifying as a top performer after reading that study, but I feel my real-world experience backs that up!)

Here's a good writeup on this over at Damn Interesting.

Or, as I like to say, the problem with all the morons in the world is that they're too stupid to realize that there's such a thing called being smart.

One thing I always wondered was if my consistently scoring in the 93rd percentile gave me enough to imagine what it was like for someone who consistently scored in the 98th. I have always doubted it.

I know my own weaknesses (disorganization, inconsistency, if you must know). I know my stengths (too modest to say, 'natch :D

It's interesting to think about how the research might shed light on workplace situations. I have a colleague who tends to get immersed in the trees sometimes over the forest. But if that person sees the trees, how do you get them to "get" that they miss the forest?

I wonder what HR professionals do with this research (besides cry).

I have a colleague who tends to get immersed in the trees sometimes over the forest. But if that person sees the trees, how do you get them to "get" that they miss the forest?

I don't know that it works like that, or that it should. Tree people help the forest people, forest people help the tree people, everyone works on being kind and accommodating.

everyone works on being kind and accommodating

Si, oui, all that, I'm always nice, but -- it's interesting to think about when does a person's weakness interfere with their ability to recognize their weakness. Don't know if my example is a good one, perhaps not.

Assuming a good example, I wonder how the research might change how a supervisor or mentor would approach the person. It's a bit of a brain teaser.

Years ago, I read about this very study in the NYT, and clipped out the article. I showed to a nice, polite, but utterly incompentent then co-worker, who basically laughed and said, "yeah those people sure are stupid." His reaction convinced me that the study held water - he didn't see himself in there at all.

"how the research might change how a supervisor or mentor would approach the person"

Depends on the competence of the supervisor. While reading the study, I kept returning to how often it applied to front-line and mid-level managers I have known.

Hey, my IQ is at least in the high 80s and I'm good enough at my job. The only reason I keep getting disciplined, laid off and /or fired is that all bosses are jerks. Amirite???

Hell, I could do a study better than that.

Couldn't figure out how to open this stupid link.