I don't think there's a person whom I've known who hasn't claimed to have experienced imposter syndrome. It seems like everyone has this feeling when they're engaging in something they have don't have complete experience or confidence in. This is a normal way to feel, but some people are better at overcoming it than others. The people who don't seem like they experience imposter syndrome are either well settled into their roles or are simply good actors who can handle pressure. At some point or another, we decided that this state of being had something to do with being an "imposter" rather than being a human being lacking experience. Unless you outright lied about who you are, you're not an imposter.
This reminds me how everyone says they're an "introvert". Even the people I know who are party animals say they're introverts because they need time to "recharge". We throw around these terms like "imposter syndrome" and "introvert" because they make us feel better, even though they describe most people, in which case they're really not that useful. Sometimes you've just got to buck up and not waste time overthinking, descriptions of one's self being one form of that.
It's not that we've forgotten that feeling like an imposter is just being human. It's that almost everyone has always felt this way but never talked about it. As social animals, we're terrified (justifiably) of being outcast from the group, so admitting any feeling of weakness or low utility seems like something that could make the group start to question whether we actually belong. Our rivals can also use it against us. People are more likely to follow someone who projects confidence in their ability over someone who is actually competent but projects uncertainty.
It's only now that imposter syndrome is well known and starting to be understood as the rule, not the exception, that people are getting more comfortable talking about it and learning to be OK with it.
I have come across many people who had never heard the term before but immediately identified with having experienced such a state when it was explained to them.
I also disagree that having names for things that is common to most peoples' experience is a bad idea. On the contrary, it helps people better understand their experience as a human. This isn't a competition to see who experiences it the most.
In the case of impostor syndrome I have also found this is true. In my experience, once people are exposed to the idea they find it a great relief to know it is merely a cognitive bias and it makes them more confident about their abilities in the future.
Naming it has power. We can talk through this insecurity, rather than let it eat us from the inside out.
Your question is a bit confusing. It sounds like you acknowledge X's existence, but are mostly unhappy with the naming, since "imposter" implies a negative connotation (which X isn't), and "syndrome" implies that it is some sort of exceptional condition (where X isn't). I agree with you on that about X.
That said, I think imposter syndrome isn't about X per se. I am more interested in the case where X gets into smart people's heads and prevents them from being as successful as they can be (projecting a bit, because I too have imposter syndrome). In these cases, it makes sense to not only label it, but also give it a slight negative connotation. At that point, X becomes a phenomenon that is worth talking about.
You say they're not useful, but in the very same sentence you say they make us feel better. I can't find a way to reconcile these two seemingly contradictory statements; can you help me understand this?
It sounds a bit like saying "you're only human" -- which is of course unlikely to convey any new information, but could still be useful for its emotional result.
In reality I think a lot of people feel this way a lot of the time and it's not shared for some GameTheory-y coordination problem reasons
That's your circle. I know many extraverts. They're certainly not afraid to admit it!
Regardless of what you think of the MBTI's value as a tool, you didn't really think that half of the MBTI types were completely imaginary, did you?
And you know who never has to worry about Dunning-Krueger in a given field? Folks with "impostor syndrome" in that field.
Yes, it's possible that some folks with traits of impostor syndrome are genuinely incompetent and incapable of learning a given field, but much more likely that it's something the opposite of Dunning-Krueger at play. And as a software developer, I've seen many more genuinely incompetent people with Dunning-Krueger than I have genuinely incompetent people with imposter syndrome.
There's always the rare supremely-confident 10x developer, but as a general rule, people with no zero doubt in software development make me very nervous, because I've send it turn out badly much more than I've seen it turn out well.
>“I studied for weeks, but I’m still not prepared...”
>“I’m not actually good at this. They’re going to see right through me...”
>If any of these thoughts resonate with you, you're not alone. They are so common they have a name: impostor syndrome
I mean it's clear that their secret sauce is just instilling confidence in everyone, and it's great to have such an optimistic view, but reality is that these things are often true and happen to everybody. Sometimes you're just not good enough, sorry.
It's not just knowing your comp sci basics such as recursion or closure or BigO, but knowing quirks in multiple languages, and know them well enough to catch them in a coding interview. If you don't get everything exactly correct, then you are rejected and labeled an imposter (and labeled so much so, Amazon will block you from any further interviews for one year).
It also takes knowing as many platforms as possible if one wants to be as employable as possible. The current hotness is React, but I've still seen some good Angular jobs out there, and knowing both to a high degree will make one a tad more employable. How much of an imposter am I if I know React, MVC patterns, but just a little Angular, and apply to an Angular job?
None of the jobs I've applied to are senior level, yet it makes me shudder in fear to ever interview again beyond the entry level. The imposter syndrome is real, not because of my insecurities, but because of the outcomes of the interviews I've had.
Small nitpicks should not disqualify you, small mistakes should not disqualify you. In fact small mistakes are expected and can be used as part of the interview to see if the interviewee can identify their mistakes when hinted at.
I've never been required to know a particular platform before. I HAVE been asked to do a small API project in Go prior to the interview, which is similar, but it was an excellent take home problem in scope and completeness. Something like a TodoMVP in React. Something that doesn't require mastery, they just want to see that you can do something that takes more than an hour.
It is reasonable for a company to decline to hire if they cannot afford for you to train in a new technology on the job. But this is a failing in the company and NOT a rejection of you.
Inept and incapable people often get promoted because they either know how to play the political game or are perceived not to be a threat. A great number of these people are aware they are imposters and they are actually right.
It's perfectly normal to be a bit nervous or shy during interviews, so don't sweat it so much. A decent interviewer isn't going to hold that against you. I'm more suspicious of people who aren't a bit nervous, and am inclined to interview them more thoroughly because most of the time when companies I've worked for have hired someone who's slick, they've turned out to be an imposter.
An interviewer held it against me. Said I did well technically but didn't seem confident enough.
In order to ace the interview you pretty much have to be the perfect candidate -- technically, socially, emotionally.
However, the nervousness of the whole in-person interview situation caused me to basically blow it. Stuff I knew like the back of my hand, or would get almost instantly under calmer circumstances, I simply kept stumbling on.
Some people are, though. Sometimes, “impostor syndrome” isn’t really a syndrome, but an appropriate way to feel when you’ve been Peter-Principled your way into a position that you’re not competent in.
It doesn't seem like it would cause it in the first set people - they compare themselves to the people who can't code and feel like the opposite of impostors. It doesn't seem like it would cause it in the people who can't code, because those people really are impostors, so can't have impostor syndrome. So is there some effect on some third group of people?
But I wonder if this experience has value. Literally go in with a firm, well-justified expectation of failure. Would that bring peace of mind, in situations where you're skilled and you might be otherwise predisposed to impostor syndrome? The biggest fear that comes up for me is "what if I'm a better bullshit artist than I think, and I actually land the job?"
Curious to hear if you got anything deeper from the experience.
