story
See also the odd thing that most people consider themselves better than average, which by definition cannot be true.
I've always wondered with that whether the problem is with the question. What it's really checking is whether someone will admit to being worse than average, which is a very different thing to thinking you're worse than average.
Googling it, the example given is "starting conversations with strangers" and his theory is that people ignore the question they are asked ("how they compare with average") because it's hard/impossible to actually answer, and instead, without realising it, substitute an easy question ("are you good at x") and answer that instead.
Does he talk about other theories? I wonder if there's also an element of what the person has tied up in that skill and what the consequences of being bad at it are?
Certainly it seems unlikely that anyone would want to admit to being bad at their job (kind of tantamount to admitting to be a fraud), or at something which, as with driving, can be actively dangerous if you're bad at it.
I'm talking about something more binary. Good or bad. Progress or stagnation. The right or wrong side of history.
I'm also talking about power. Who determines engineering practice. The engineers or the marketers?
Evidence of power is in the corporate hierarchy. Are there n tiers of middle management? Can an engineer truly make a difference at a company? Will the engineer be able to have a voice in what the priority is?
It saves me from playing games that are not in my favor. It also helps me avoid & call out people's bullshit. Life is too short to play someone else's bullshit game.
Good luck being exploited or exploiting other people ;-)
