Actual impostors don't get impostor syndrome(zapier.com)
zapier.com
Actual impostors don't get impostor syndrome
https://zapier.com/blog/actual-impostors-dont-get-impostor-syndrome/
367 comments
A lot of this resonates with me, and in particular:
> but I don't consider them difficult (how could they be, if I am good at them)
I've struggled with this over the years. As a kid, once something clicked it felt like you had leveled up in some way, and now had a new skill. As an adult, I have a hard time not looking at everything I'm capable of and thinking "it's so simple, it obviously just works like this".
It's as if I have no spectrum of [I don't know this at all] and [I'm an expert at this], my self reflection that leads to impostor syndrome just sees them as [I don't know this at all] and [This is obvious].
FWIW, not FAANG, but Senior Firmware Engineer for a household name with FAANG affiliations.
> but I don't consider them difficult (how could they be, if I am good at them)
I've struggled with this over the years. As a kid, once something clicked it felt like you had leveled up in some way, and now had a new skill. As an adult, I have a hard time not looking at everything I'm capable of and thinking "it's so simple, it obviously just works like this".
It's as if I have no spectrum of [I don't know this at all] and [I'm an expert at this], my self reflection that leads to impostor syndrome just sees them as [I don't know this at all] and [This is obvious].
FWIW, not FAANG, but Senior Firmware Engineer for a household name with FAANG affiliations.
> As an adult, I have a hard time not looking at everything I'm capable of and thinking "it's so simple, it obviously just works like this".
The way you fix this perception is teach the skill to someone with zero foundational knowledge of the skill’s background requirements. Or write if there is no person around. There is always documentation going begging.
IMHO, one of the biggest oversights I see in the industry today is the lack of inward-facing technical writer and editor teams, sitting alongside pair programmers and/or agile stand ups. Skills transmission works through a highly opaque diffusion membrane of tribal knowledge (reaching its peak form in StackExchange), and synchronous, people-intensive discussions, where insight is rarely if ever captured and memorialized.
Powerful, effective documentation prepared by professional programmers with professional communications skills asynchronously transmits insight and not just information. We have incredible tooling now, but ironically do not staff them.
One way to calibrate your imposter syndrome is write lots of documentation. In it, make sure you call out references for further to skill stacks you consider prerequisites lest you dilute your focus and the the prose becomes too unwieldy. And call out references to what you have used to learn meta information and abstractions beyond the current documentation’s focused skill band. If that list will routinely take an average practitioner at a particular skill level more than a year to absorb, then you have a fair baseline. Now update the documentation each time someone asks for clarification on a point in it. If there are lots of readers and few questions, then you possibly have a reasonable grasp of the material.
The way you fix this perception is teach the skill to someone with zero foundational knowledge of the skill’s background requirements. Or write if there is no person around. There is always documentation going begging.
IMHO, one of the biggest oversights I see in the industry today is the lack of inward-facing technical writer and editor teams, sitting alongside pair programmers and/or agile stand ups. Skills transmission works through a highly opaque diffusion membrane of tribal knowledge (reaching its peak form in StackExchange), and synchronous, people-intensive discussions, where insight is rarely if ever captured and memorialized.
Powerful, effective documentation prepared by professional programmers with professional communications skills asynchronously transmits insight and not just information. We have incredible tooling now, but ironically do not staff them.
One way to calibrate your imposter syndrome is write lots of documentation. In it, make sure you call out references for further to skill stacks you consider prerequisites lest you dilute your focus and the the prose becomes too unwieldy. And call out references to what you have used to learn meta information and abstractions beyond the current documentation’s focused skill band. If that list will routinely take an average practitioner at a particular skill level more than a year to absorb, then you have a fair baseline. Now update the documentation each time someone asks for clarification on a point in it. If there are lots of readers and few questions, then you possibly have a reasonable grasp of the material.
It's interesting you say this, because I have probably written more documentation in the last two years than I did the first eight years that had made up my career prior to that. The team I'm with now, we've been building it with a focus on documentation (and testing) that I didn't appreciate was possible prior.
We've also been pushing hard to get a full time technical writer, someone who specifically doesn't get screwed three months into the job with "Ok, you write docs, AND do a little coding work on the side in your down time". No, we've clearly got the workload necessary for a full time writer, let's bring someone on board and really let them become that core differentiator.
We've also been pushing hard to get a full time technical writer, someone who specifically doesn't get screwed three months into the job with "Ok, you write docs, AND do a little coding work on the side in your down time". No, we've clearly got the workload necessary for a full time writer, let's bring someone on board and really let them become that core differentiator.
This comment resonates a lot with me. Over the years, I realized that while I may not know the most in some areas, the fact that I am able to communicate what I do know clearly and efficiently often makes up the difference. You quickly learn that people aren't really expecting you to hold the entire knowledge base in your head as long as you're willing to admit you may not know the best answer/best solution but are willing to dig for it.
I feel that some level of imposter syndrome is healthy it means you’re cognizant of the fact that there might be something you’re missing or that there might be a “better” way.
I started my career in software 20 years ago with a good attitude and an “HTML for Dummies” book. It made me very cognizant that I was outgunned by a lot of my peers so it made me ask a lot of questions - half of them I’d figure out just figuring out how to pose a question while walking over to someone else’s cube.
I’ve gotten “better” as an engineer and there’s less I “don’t know” but I’m still always wondering, even on “simple” stuff if there’s not a “simpler” way to do it.
I started my career in software 20 years ago with a good attitude and an “HTML for Dummies” book. It made me very cognizant that I was outgunned by a lot of my peers so it made me ask a lot of questions - half of them I’d figure out just figuring out how to pose a question while walking over to someone else’s cube.
I’ve gotten “better” as an engineer and there’s less I “don’t know” but I’m still always wondering, even on “simple” stuff if there’s not a “simpler” way to do it.
Total derail but:
> I'm a Principal Engineer at a FAAMNG company.
Does anyone other than a MS employee put an M in FAANG?
> I'm a Principal Engineer at a FAAMNG company.
Does anyone other than a MS employee put an M in FAANG?
Definitely not. This is literally the first time I’ve even seen FAAMNG.
Same. Sup, faam.
First time I've seen it too, but I find it more fitting actually. I see Microsoft as a lot more of a tech giant than Netflix, but maybe Im judging by the wrong criteria.
You aren’t, MSFT is much more appropriate than Netflix, a company that releases 2nd rate copies of shows from better networks.
I think as of late FAAMG is more popular or appropriate than FAANG, but I mean, who knows.
According to Wikipedia at least https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Tech
Edit: Not popular maybe, but appropriate still.
According to Wikipedia at least https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Tech
Edit: Not popular maybe, but appropriate still.
Can we put an R in there too? Does Redit count!? Did you know that modern farming is very high tech?
I always thought it was more appropriate for most purposes. But on HN, perhaps the most common purpose is discussing ludicrous total comp. And, at least when I left in 2010, Microsoft most certainly did not offer that. I heard that they raised pay across the board shortly after I left, but considering where they started, I’d be shocked if it put them on par with FAANG. Anybody know?
It’s a dog whistle for fellow prestige whores and status collectors. Literally nobody cares what megacorp buys your time from you. I’d posit that if you’re optimizing for comp and stock options you’re either a well-balanced person with priorities outside your career, or the complete opposite – obsessed with chasing status symbols and a myopic idea of success.
Is it better to aspire for balance by chasing both, or neither? After all, what is status if you have no-one to brag to - and what good is having a lot of free time when you are just going to end up dead either way, and with work being the best chance most of us get at making a mark on the world.
Not meant as a snide/flippant remark; this shit is what keeps me up at night.
Not meant as a snide/flippant remark; this shit is what keeps me up at night.
What was the Steve Jobs quote? Something like “if you look in the mirror in the morning and you’re not excited about what you’re doing that day, go do something else.”
Or the Bezos quote about “imagining myself 80 on a rocking chair – will I regret not doing this?”
As a young adult mostly lacking in wisdom of my own, I’ve found myself coming back to these quotes time and time again. Their philosophy is sound.
If you don’t want balance, then you should go all in. In general, people should take more risk. This is especially true in tech where the downside is often vastly overstated – even if you fail completely, you can get a new job in two days.
My advice to anyone at FAANG feeling unfulfilled is to quit and take a risk to do something awesome. Even if you fail you’ll still grow more than you would working for a megacorp with a recruiting funnel that intrinsically selects for conformists and rule followers.
Or the Bezos quote about “imagining myself 80 on a rocking chair – will I regret not doing this?”
As a young adult mostly lacking in wisdom of my own, I’ve found myself coming back to these quotes time and time again. Their philosophy is sound.
If you don’t want balance, then you should go all in. In general, people should take more risk. This is especially true in tech where the downside is often vastly overstated – even if you fail completely, you can get a new job in two days.
My advice to anyone at FAANG feeling unfulfilled is to quit and take a risk to do something awesome. Even if you fail you’ll still grow more than you would working for a megacorp with a recruiting funnel that intrinsically selects for conformists and rule followers.
I don’t really know, but I’m under the impression that Amazon comp is pretty comparable to Microsoft these days.
I think AMZN stock value increases pushes Amazon comp well past Microsoft
Both MS and AMZN have increased comparable amounts in value.
levels.fyi has MSFT at ~75% of GAAF salaries for equal positions (N is apparently exclusively Seniors getting a cool half mil in pure salary and nothing else? Not sure how accurate that is...)
That being said, it's hard to compare directly. I know many M folks, and some F, G, A and A folks. The M folks probably work at most 75% of the hours of the others. I for one would much rather work a standard 9-5 and make a lot than work 996 (not that extreme, but kinda) and make downright absurd amounts...
That being said, it's hard to compare directly. I know many M folks, and some F, G, A and A folks. The M folks probably work at most 75% of the hours of the others. I for one would much rather work a standard 9-5 and make a lot than work 996 (not that extreme, but kinda) and make downright absurd amounts...
Amazon seems pretty comparable to MS, not sure where you are looking.
levels.fyi has LinkedIn broken out from MSFT even though it’s wholly owned by them. And LI levels seem comparable to FANG. Also GitHub is a subsidiary of MSFT that seems to pay better than the parent company.
Gretchen, stop trying to make FAAMNG happen! It's not gonna happen!
Lmao, had the same thought.
Also, did you get a lot of those participation trophies when you were a kid? I read a take on those recently, along the lines of, "if the adults always praise everyone, then their praise is meaningless and can't be trusted". Ie, a recipe for impostor syndrome in later life. I certainly experience that. Anytime I participate in an activity that I'm naturally talented at, I figure it's just not that difficult and I've done nothing special.
Also, did you get a lot of those participation trophies when you were a kid? I read a take on those recently, along the lines of, "if the adults always praise everyone, then their praise is meaningless and can't be trusted". Ie, a recipe for impostor syndrome in later life. I certainly experience that. Anytime I participate in an activity that I'm naturally talented at, I figure it's just not that difficult and I've done nothing special.
Participation trophies weren't a big thing for GenX or Millennials, according to Google's N-gram Viewer, showing up instead for Boomers and Zoomers (and the Silent Generation).
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=participation+...
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=participation+...
Did OP mention their age? I assumed, without any other info to go with, that they're about the same age as me - 30's and millennial. And my cohort got participation medals for every goddam thing you could think of. Looking at the 6th place ribbon winner of the third grade spoon race right here.
Not to pick nits or anything!
Not to pick nits or anything!
People probably should. If the acronym includes Netflix, it definitely needs to include MS, they’re way bigger.
The acronym was coined in 2013, when Microsoft arguably looked on track to be the next IBM (the year after, Ballmer departed and their turnaround started). So it kind of made sense at the time, maybe? It’s a bit odd now, granted.
Microsoft wasn't historically an "internet company".
They were an OS only, non-internet company, compared to the rest. When the acronym was created, it was still that way.
Even now, they make most of their butter from OS installs, although yes, they have branched out a lot.
They were an OS only, non-internet company, compared to the rest. When the acronym was created, it was still that way.
Even now, they make most of their butter from OS installs, although yes, they have branched out a lot.
They were, though now I feel Microsoft is actually a more diversified tech company than the FAANGs. Consumer software and hardware, enterprise software, cloud / Internet, gaming, open source (github, etc.)
Micorosft has alwyas been the hyper diversified tech company, they could lose an entire segments of their market and still truck along
The acroynm is based purely on stock performance during the time it was created. You could make the same argument for Apple but Apple was on the list from day 1.
Apparently jim cramer invented the term and AAPL wasn't on the list in 2013: https://www.cnbc.com/id/100436754
And I think this supplanted the earlier "four horsemen" terminology.
Originally: Intel, Cisco, Microsoft, Dell
Then (in 2007): Apple, Research in Motion (Blackberry), Google, Amazon
Originally: Intel, Cisco, Microsoft, Dell
Then (in 2007): Apple, Research in Motion (Blackberry), Google, Amazon
I think there's more nuance here, for example, Microsoft never succeeded in disrupting anyone but itself.
Others were major market movers and shakers.
Others were major market movers and shakers.
Netflix wasn't historically an "internet company" either.
What do you think the "Net" in "Netflix" stands for?
If we're actually gonna do this, can we at least rearrange and make it "MAFANG"?
Agreed. We don’t need another MAGA
OUTED!
I've seen people on 4chan /g/ include the M, but it being 4chan, they rearrange the acronym into something offensive that I shan't repeat.
I still think that the acronym should be "FN MAGA". Microsoft, Apple, Google, and Amazon are the big-4 companies, with notably larger market caps than Facebook and Netflix, and those 4 are more broad platforms/conglomerates while Facebook and Netflix are closely associated with a single app or small set of apps.
Facebook has grown into a lot of the things. It probably deserves to be grouped with the others. I honestly thing FAANG became the acronym because these companies were making big waves simultaneously at one point, and the acronym is attractive.
There’s never been any good reason not to include Microsoft except that for a long time it was considered old and stodgy.
Netflix doesn’t make sense in terms of market cap, and it also doesn’t make sense in 2021 when it’s more a media company than a technology company. Don’t get me wrong, they totally nailed it on a ton of tech fronts, and deserve their technical accolades…it just looks strange next to the others.
Oh, thinking about Netflix, I just figured it out. It’s about SWE salaries, and not really related to much else.
…although if that’s it, then Amazon doesn’t really deserve it’s spot any more than Microsoft.
There’s never been any good reason not to include Microsoft except that for a long time it was considered old and stodgy.
Netflix doesn’t make sense in terms of market cap, and it also doesn’t make sense in 2021 when it’s more a media company than a technology company. Don’t get me wrong, they totally nailed it on a ton of tech fronts, and deserve their technical accolades…it just looks strange next to the others.
Oh, thinking about Netflix, I just figured it out. It’s about SWE salaries, and not really related to much else.
…although if that’s it, then Amazon doesn’t really deserve it’s spot any more than Microsoft.
I think it’s because Microsoft’s market cap was stagnant for the entirety of Ballmer’s tenure as CEO.
Netflix is fairly comparable to Disney in terms of business model and market cap.
Which isn't bad -- I assume Disney also has a number of highly-paid SWEs -- but for me the difference between FAAMG and Netflix is that (as far as I can tell) Netflix doesn't employee a giant pile of SWEs doing blue sky research / doomed projects only tangentially related to the core business.
Which isn't bad -- I assume Disney also has a number of highly-paid SWEs -- but for me the difference between FAAMG and Netflix is that (as far as I can tell) Netflix doesn't employee a giant pile of SWEs doing blue sky research / doomed projects only tangentially related to the core business.
Great comparison, Disney v Netflix. It’s actually remarkable to me how close to Disney that Netflix is, considering the considerable IP that Disney now owns and how otherwise comparable they are.
It’s more like Facebook Apple Google Microsoft Amazon Netflix
good to be inclusive on this one.
I enjoyed
FAANGMULA
and
TARANTULAS
fun meme
There are also a handful of sub $100bn marketcap publicly traded tech companies that pay on par of FAANGs and may have more enticing vesting schedules too. Greater upside as well.
FAANGMULA
and
TARANTULAS
fun meme
There are also a handful of sub $100bn marketcap publicly traded tech companies that pay on par of FAANGs and may have more enticing vesting schedules too. Greater upside as well.
Would love to hear about some of those companies
Pinterest, Lyft, Uber to name a few
Salesforce has done well for me up until the last two weeks. Oracle isn't dead yet. Adobe, Nvidia and Qualcomm are also all doing well at a 30 foot view. None of those have made as much money for me as Cleveland-cliffs, though.
I usually use FAAMG instead of FAANG because I don't understand what Netflix is doing in there.
Netflix is large enough and pays well enough that it frequently poaches developers from the others on the list. And they poach from it back.
Depending on what you're discussing when you're listing those companies, it may make sense to include them.
Depending on what you're discussing when you're listing those companies, it may make sense to include them.
Lol good on you for not just dropping the N, but there's actually a person who coined this, and he coined 'FANG' to describe a set of stocks that at the time were appreciating very quickly. Netflix was both the smallest and the first to slow of that group, so that's why they now seem out of place.
>I usually use FAAMG instead of FAANG because I don't understand what Netflix is doing in there.
FAANG is about the pay, not the prestige of the company. They pay so far above the rest of the market that they are really only competing for talent with themselves. Average total comp at Netflix is well north of $500k for an individual contributor.
FAANG is about the pay, not the prestige of the company. They pay so far above the rest of the market that they are really only competing for talent with themselves. Average total comp at Netflix is well north of $500k for an individual contributor.
Then does Amazon belong there? I didn’t get the impression it’s at the level of the others, but closer to Microsoft.
Amazon is lower than Google, FB, and Netflix, but still quite a bit higher than MS. According to levels.fyi for engineers all at the same level (~5ish YOE):
- MS: $185k
- Amazon: $230k
- Google: $267k
- MS: $185k
- Amazon: $230k
- Google: $267k
Don't think those MS numbers are accurate, esp. once you throw in GitHub and LinkedIn.
LinkedIn is definitely higher (dunno about GitHub), but in almost every discussion I've seen about comps, LinkedIn is always talked about separately from MS. On levels.fyi, for example, LinkedIn is in it's own section separate from MS.
This is the middle to lower end of Amazon L5 comp for an SDE. I don’t know about the other companies - it might be mid to lower end for them as well or maybe high end depending on where they hire at.
Lower than Microsoft prestige-wise.
Highly debatable. While Amazon is more likely to be on the shit-list of Joe Public, in technical circles it comes down to AWS vs MS. Frankly if MS hadn't bought GitHub to distract magpie developers, there would be no contest.
Amazon has the lowest hiring bar because of high turnover. AWS vs Azure is besides the point.
Having worked for both, I would dispute the hiring bar point - but I'm sure it is team dependent.
I’ve been curious about this. Is there a list of companies that pay way and above outside of FAANMG?
I work for a large media company as at Sr director level equivalent engineer. The pay is certainly not north of 500k
I work for a large media company as at Sr director level equivalent engineer. The pay is certainly not north of 500k
Who pays more than FANG outside of FANG?
In the U.S., financial services shops that figured out tech is money. Or, rather, that time is money and tech shrinks time. Think banks’ trading groups, hedge funds, etc.
Along with those, a larger sector of FS bitten with the transformation bug. Even in the non trading related financial services, if a company’s emphasis is on figuring out how to tech before getting eaten by challengers or juggernauts, the pay may indicate how existential the need.
On the other hand, many in the financial industrial complex haven’t realized this yet, and are still trying to “take costs out”, doing reductions in force of knowledgable workers, offshoring any roles not understood by the executives, etc., or paying bottom dollar domestically for coders and IT support, rather than well enough for software or systems engineers.
Large companies are likely to have a mix of these models all at the same time, so understand what type of group you’re looking at.
Also note that financial titles are often inverse ranks of engineering titles, with SVPs below directors and VPs as the junior-most roles.
Note(1): Pro-employee compensation disclosure laws are starting to get passed where (a) you don’t have to say what you used to earn, and (b) a company may have to disclose the comp for your role and similar roles the moment you ask, not after you make it to offer. Check the laws governing both your zip code and the company’s and know your rights to help even out information asymmetry.
Note(2): Performance multipliers are worth paying for. Automation is worth paying for. Anything thought through and written once to do work, that then does that work many times in less time, or for many people in less time, or both, is worth paying for. FANG code runs at staggering scale. FS code makes staggering money in milliseconds. Look for places where each line of code is multiplying output — how many fold drives how much that code, and its engineers, should be worth.
In the U.S., financial services shops that figured out tech is money. Or, rather, that time is money and tech shrinks time. Think banks’ trading groups, hedge funds, etc.
Along with those, a larger sector of FS bitten with the transformation bug. Even in the non trading related financial services, if a company’s emphasis is on figuring out how to tech before getting eaten by challengers or juggernauts, the pay may indicate how existential the need.
On the other hand, many in the financial industrial complex haven’t realized this yet, and are still trying to “take costs out”, doing reductions in force of knowledgable workers, offshoring any roles not understood by the executives, etc., or paying bottom dollar domestically for coders and IT support, rather than well enough for software or systems engineers.
Large companies are likely to have a mix of these models all at the same time, so understand what type of group you’re looking at.
Also note that financial titles are often inverse ranks of engineering titles, with SVPs below directors and VPs as the junior-most roles.
Note(1): Pro-employee compensation disclosure laws are starting to get passed where (a) you don’t have to say what you used to earn, and (b) a company may have to disclose the comp for your role and similar roles the moment you ask, not after you make it to offer. Check the laws governing both your zip code and the company’s and know your rights to help even out information asymmetry.
Note(2): Performance multipliers are worth paying for. Automation is worth paying for. Anything thought through and written once to do work, that then does that work many times in less time, or for many people in less time, or both, is worth paying for. FANG code runs at staggering scale. FS code makes staggering money in milliseconds. Look for places where each line of code is multiplying output — how many fold drives how much that code, and its engineers, should be worth.
https://www.levels.fyi/2020/ is a decent resource. The numbers are fairly accurate, IME. You can also lurk around Blind if you want to get a sense of salaries in tech (warning though: Blind is completely obsessed with salaries, to the point where its unhealthy).
You'll actually notice that none of the FAANG are on the top 10 of that list. FAANGs definitely pay well, but these days "FAANG" is outdated, IMO. I've seen it "FAANGMULA" sometimes (FAANG + Microsoft, Uber, Lyft, Airbnb) but even that still leaves out other high payers like Stripe, Box, Bytedance, etc.
You'll actually notice that none of the FAANG are on the top 10 of that list. FAANGs definitely pay well, but these days "FAANG" is outdated, IMO. I've seen it "FAANGMULA" sometimes (FAANG + Microsoft, Uber, Lyft, Airbnb) but even that still leaves out other high payers like Stripe, Box, Bytedance, etc.
[deleted]
I would think that Microsoft and Amazon only seem quite a bit lower because of the lower cost of living in Seattle right? Also though taking a looks at levels.fyi salary information none of the FAANG companies are really included in the top paying list.
It sounds way better in conversation.
My tongue-in-cheek definition of FAAN(M)G is "does the company have sufficient resources and technical wits to have entire team(s) dedicated to stress-testing and breaking their internal systems proactively to ensure uptime and low latency?" Netflix with Chaos Monkey definitely applies, and Microsoft does as well. Arguably Salesforce would be there too, if not for their meme-worthy historical failure at the low-latency part.
Could you elaborate on the low-latency part and the historical failure? I don't know a lot about Salesforce, so I'm not quite sure how they fit into FAANG.
People underestimate how hard it is to do streaming that well.
Has to do with blue chip tech stocks apparently
When Jim Cramer coined it (originally as FANG) and began pumping it on his show regularly, it was just a batch of large, sector dominant tech stocks he thought should be bought at that time (with the letter ordering being convenient for memory). That's all it was. There is no greater definition, and it's bizarre to see people argue over that aspect routinely on HN, given it was nothing more than a stock pumping promotion by a slightly vacuous tv bobblehead.
Yeah it's literally just a short list of companies that people see as being the big kahunas of the tech industry. In the '80s it would've been Intel, Microsoft, IBM, and maybe even companies like Lotus or WordPerfect. In the '90s it would've been more like, Intel, Microsoft, AOL, Sun, maybe Oracle, maybe still IBM? Hell maybe even Ebay. Lots of those companies are still around but the ones that are tend to be more mature, less volatile, and less influential on the rest of the industry now, and get correspondingly less press.
But yeah, that's all FAANG is and I'm amazed anyone thinks it's anything more standardized or meaningful or precisely defined. It's shorthand for the biggest and most influential companies in the tech industry at the moment, at least from the perspective of people on the outside looking in. If someone wants to the throw an M into FAANG I totally get it.
But yeah, that's all FAANG is and I'm amazed anyone thinks it's anything more standardized or meaningful or precisely defined. It's shorthand for the biggest and most influential companies in the tech industry at the moment, at least from the perspective of people on the outside looking in. If someone wants to the throw an M into FAANG I totally get it.
all else equal they pay more than the other 4 so yeah i get it
Using all the bandwidth on the interwebs.
Plenty of discussions and comments from the people who originally coined the term FANG / FAANG why they would want to update the term today.
Never heard of FAAMNG though.
FAGMA or FAAM have been suggested as updated terms in light of the metrics / characteristics that initially led to the term FA(A)NG being coined.
These terms were certainly not originally intended to describe high salaries for engineers ;)
Never heard of FAAMNG though.
FAGMA or FAAM have been suggested as updated terms in light of the metrics / characteristics that initially led to the term FA(A)NG being coined.
These terms were certainly not originally intended to describe high salaries for engineers ;)
[deleted]
swiley(4)
GP listed six companies instead of identifying their employer. If they do work at Microsoft, it's cruel of you to out them. If they don't work at Microsoft, it makes sense that they'd want to list more companies rather than fewer.
what is MS?
[deleted]
yes, it's FAAMG not FAANG. Used to work at G and I always correct people this way.
I do
because I wouldn't put video streaming service among tech behemoths that create operating systems, compilers, programming languages, databases, put shitton into ML research and many, many other
I'm not saying that video streaming is easy, but I believe any of those could do it easily from technical standpoint.
Google, Facebook and Amazon already do, idk about Apple and MS.
because I wouldn't put video streaming service among tech behemoths that create operating systems, compilers, programming languages, databases, put shitton into ML research and many, many other
I'm not saying that video streaming is easy, but I believe any of those could do it easily from technical standpoint.
Google, Facebook and Amazon already do, idk about Apple and MS.
AppleTV+? Microsoft Stream?
LOL. Without revealing any further, I'm not at M ;)
Yeah, I assumed they were Microsoft because I’ve never heard FAAMNG before
>My fallacy is that there is a billion things that I am good at, but I don't consider them difficult (how could they be, if I am good at them)
It's like the paradox of AI, which is that as soon as we've reduced something previously regarded as 'intelligent' to something that can be coded in software, it ceases to be thought of as intelligence any longer.
It's like the paradox of AI, which is that as soon as we've reduced something previously regarded as 'intelligent' to something that can be coded in software, it ceases to be thought of as intelligence any longer.
I wonder how long until we run out of types-of-intelligence to automate, and realise that “humans have a unique spark (a soul?) that makes them fundamentally different to machines” was a dream all along...
What if we build an AI that believes it has a soul? How would it be functionally different from a human with that same faith?
Well, in the AIs case we could E-Mail the creator and ask: "Did you build a soul into this thing?"
I don't know.
If you look at something like chess, which was often thought of as very difficult, the first thing we designed that was really good at the game made us realize that you needed next to no logic to win if you had a computer fast enough to try a billion moves. But we thought object recognition would be super easy, far less than AI tier, and we still can't do it reasonably well.
I'm much more convinced that humans suck at estimating the hardness of problems, and not very convinced we keep cheating the classification of AI.
If you look at something like chess, which was often thought of as very difficult, the first thing we designed that was really good at the game made us realize that you needed next to no logic to win if you had a computer fast enough to try a billion moves. But we thought object recognition would be super easy, far less than AI tier, and we still can't do it reasonably well.
I'm much more convinced that humans suck at estimating the hardness of problems, and not very convinced we keep cheating the classification of AI.
> I am not as good in the technical areas I care about as those I measure myself against.
This for sure. I find too often that I’ve been at this stuff longer than actual teenagers that blow me away nowadays.
This for sure. I find too often that I’ve been at this stuff longer than actual teenagers that blow me away nowadays.
> Why? Because I measure myself against 1) role models that are ahead of me in many ways - I've always done that, and it's how I grow, 2) against those with strengths in areas that I have weaknesses.
I don’t think this is why you feel like an imposter, rather this is a rationalisation for why you feel like an imposter.
It’s possibly to do 1 and 2 and not feel like an imposter, so this can’t be the whole reason. It might be necessary for some people some of the time, but it’s not a sufficient explanation.
You even called yourself out on it later in your comment where you say it’s a fallacy.
I’d hazard a guess the real issue is some kind of underlying generalised anxiety.
I don’t think this is why you feel like an imposter, rather this is a rationalisation for why you feel like an imposter.
It’s possibly to do 1 and 2 and not feel like an imposter, so this can’t be the whole reason. It might be necessary for some people some of the time, but it’s not a sufficient explanation.
You even called yourself out on it later in your comment where you say it’s a fallacy.
I’d hazard a guess the real issue is some kind of underlying generalised anxiety.
> Luckily I get this just often enough that I don't fall into a catatonic mess of anxiety.
So this is the sticking point for me: is it really _impostor syndrome_ if it's not disproportionate and negatively impactful? What you're describing just seems like normal, mostly healthy, reasonable critical self reflection?
To me the syndrome part of it is the overwhelming runaway thoughts part.
So this is the sticking point for me: is it really _impostor syndrome_ if it's not disproportionate and negatively impactful? What you're describing just seems like normal, mostly healthy, reasonable critical self reflection?
To me the syndrome part of it is the overwhelming runaway thoughts part.
Like people who get sad occasionally comparing themselves to people with major depression?
It's a hard thing to quantify - how do you measure one person's feelings against another?
I feel like it's not unhealthy - exactly as you describe. I've spoken to many peers who all feel the same at one point or another.
So is it that we don't have impostor syndrome because we've normalized it? Or is it the same feelings but we are just better at dealing with them?
I think it's the latter. The more you know, the more you know you don't know. With seniority comes the burden of that knowledge. You can easily become lost - where you can no longer measure your output by direct lines of code written, and you also get exposed to more and more top minds that make you feel small.
I think the feelings are exactly the same that a junior engineer faces at their first job where they are overwhelmed and feel like everyone else is smarter than them.
The difference is that once you've been through it enough times, you have the confidence that the emotion isn't valid, and you have competence to fall back on eventually.
I feel like it's not unhealthy - exactly as you describe. I've spoken to many peers who all feel the same at one point or another.
So is it that we don't have impostor syndrome because we've normalized it? Or is it the same feelings but we are just better at dealing with them?
I think it's the latter. The more you know, the more you know you don't know. With seniority comes the burden of that knowledge. You can easily become lost - where you can no longer measure your output by direct lines of code written, and you also get exposed to more and more top minds that make you feel small.
I think the feelings are exactly the same that a junior engineer faces at their first job where they are overwhelmed and feel like everyone else is smarter than them.
The difference is that once you've been through it enough times, you have the confidence that the emotion isn't valid, and you have competence to fall back on eventually.
I've said it before: I wish I was actually good enough to have ok imposter syndrome.
Honest question, imagine if at your company tomorrow they decide to fire one principal engineer. Would you find it fair that the one is you? Would yo find it fair if you were among the 10% they fire? The 20%? The 30%?
I ask you that because it is much simpler to answer to a binary question like, do I have imposter syndrome? Or put in other words, am I modest?
You can make the link with how people see themselves. A lot of very attractive people tell you they are not very beautiful, and spend their time trying to get validation from others. But they internally think they are the top 5%.
My opinion is a lot of those things exists because people are not honest with each other. So you can't really trust what people tell you about you. And you are always wondering how people see you.
I ask you that because it is much simpler to answer to a binary question like, do I have imposter syndrome? Or put in other words, am I modest?
You can make the link with how people see themselves. A lot of very attractive people tell you they are not very beautiful, and spend their time trying to get validation from others. But they internally think they are the top 5%.
My opinion is a lot of those things exists because people are not honest with each other. So you can't really trust what people tell you about you. And you are always wondering how people see you.
Interesting way to think about it. I’ve noticed that often people underestimate themselves, sure, but they also grossly over estimate everybody else.
Uh, no, don't do that.
Anyone who has survived a round of layoffs is very familiar with survivor's guilt, which manifests as an intense form of impostor syndrome. "Why was it X instead of me? How did I manage to trick my way into staying when X (and Y and Z) went?"
It doesn't have much to do with your honest self-evaluation. It's kind of unavoidable. Whether or not it's accurate doesn't really matter.
Anyone who has survived a round of layoffs is very familiar with survivor's guilt, which manifests as an intense form of impostor syndrome. "Why was it X instead of me? How did I manage to trick my way into staying when X (and Y and Z) went?"
It doesn't have much to do with your honest self-evaluation. It's kind of unavoidable. Whether or not it's accurate doesn't really matter.
> Honest question, imagine if at your company tomorrow they decide to fire one principal engineer. Would you find it fair that the one is you? Would yo find it fair if you were among the 10% they fire? The 20%? The 30%?
That's an interesting thought experiment. Though not as straightforward as it sounds like at first.
For example, I think I'm pretty good at what I do, but I'm also pretty expensive.
But more importantly, companies don't have a good handle on people's performance. They have biased estimates, at best. See https://sockpuppet.org/blog/2015/03/06/the-hiring-post/ for an exploration of this topic from a hiring point of view, but it also exists to a lesser extent when people are already working for you.
That's an interesting thought experiment. Though not as straightforward as it sounds like at first.
For example, I think I'm pretty good at what I do, but I'm also pretty expensive.
But more importantly, companies don't have a good handle on people's performance. They have biased estimates, at best. See https://sockpuppet.org/blog/2015/03/06/the-hiring-post/ for an exploration of this topic from a hiring point of view, but it also exists to a lesser extent when people are already working for you.
Furthermore, it's unlikely that a company would simply drop X% of employees based on performance.
For example, one could be better than 90% of employees, but if they're highly specialized on a team/product that is getting phased out and they don't have transferable skills to move internally, they may get laid off even if they're not in the bottom % of whoever was getting laid off.
It definitely is an interesting thing to think about, but I agree that there are some holes to the logic.
For example, one could be better than 90% of employees, but if they're highly specialized on a team/product that is getting phased out and they don't have transferable skills to move internally, they may get laid off even if they're not in the bottom % of whoever was getting laid off.
It definitely is an interesting thing to think about, but I agree that there are some holes to the logic.
Many people accept as virtue what is more luck or fate. In many, many cases stuff like layoffs are determined by inscrutable factors.
Hiring too. If you’re not in the magic club of universities or don’t have an in, your abilities don’t matter at all.
Hiring too. If you’re not in the magic club of universities or don’t have an in, your abilities don’t matter at all.
Imposter syndrome can also manifest via factual evidence even when it isn’t indicative of being an imposter.
I got a FAANG position without completing a degree. All my peers had degrees in CS. I thought I didn’t belong because I lacked formal accreditation. Having skill wasn’t as measurable as having a degree.
Thankfully, I’ve learned to see getting there while self-taught as validation since then.
I got a FAANG position without completing a degree. All my peers had degrees in CS. I thought I didn’t belong because I lacked formal accreditation. Having skill wasn’t as measurable as having a degree.
Thankfully, I’ve learned to see getting there while self-taught as validation since then.
I went ahead and did the experiment: I felt like I was contributing nothing of value at my last job after seven years and just slowed things down, so I ended up giving 5 weeks notice. My employer agreed I was useless and decided to turn that into 9 days notice.
The result: they are even further behind than they were with me, and occasionally people still contact me from the old company for tech advice. I guess it was imposter syndrome after all!
The result: they are even further behind than they were with me, and occasionally people still contact me from the old company for tech advice. I guess it was imposter syndrome after all!
Accelerating notice is not always indication that your employer doesn't find you valuable, I almost always prefer to do that, especially with highly productive people: once an employee knows they are leaving and has announced it, anything they do other than tie up loose ends is more liability than benefit, and good people will do more. But their head is not 100% in it, they don't expect to have to maintain what they build, and most importantly they won't be around to ask questions of if things go wrong later, so it's almost always better to get them out the door ASAP.
I have left _alot_ of jobs.
Never once were exit activities well-considered and useful.
sometimes I think most management failures are because they are acting like they are supposed to and not how they should
Never once were exit activities well-considered and useful.
sometimes I think most management failures are because they are acting like they are supposed to and not how they should
> My employer agreed I was useless and decided to turn that into 9 days notice.
Did they say you were useless and changed the notice to 9 days, or are you inferring the former from the latter?
Did they say you were useless and changed the notice to 9 days, or are you inferring the former from the latter?
Inference. My direct supervisor tried very hard to keep me but the CTO could not be convinced.
The CTO shouldn’t even be involved in that conversation imo. If I was your supervisor I would told the CTO about 3 weeks into your 5 weeks and off-boarded you with other engineers if needed.
I think I agree with your description.
I'm currently sitting on three job offers - I originally thought it would be easy to choose, but I find myself absolutely paralyzed right now with an inability to make a decision on any of them because I feel as though I will be expected to know more than I think I know, or to perform at a level beyond what I feel comfortable performing at. I've had a lot of great feedback from my peers and those in more junior roles, as well upper management, but still do not feel confident.
How do you if you are capable of moving from a familiar set applications and systems to one where you've never worked with any of the applications and only know the system by theory?
Some folks are pushing me to move entirely out of code and into management but my passion is writing code, working in databases, and designing systems but the opportunities I have before me now pay more for management rather than getting my hands dirty in the code.
Can't sleep or eat because of constant anxiety over "what if I can't perform to their expectations and get fired?"
- How do others deal with this?
I'm currently sitting on three job offers - I originally thought it would be easy to choose, but I find myself absolutely paralyzed right now with an inability to make a decision on any of them because I feel as though I will be expected to know more than I think I know, or to perform at a level beyond what I feel comfortable performing at. I've had a lot of great feedback from my peers and those in more junior roles, as well upper management, but still do not feel confident.
How do you if you are capable of moving from a familiar set applications and systems to one where you've never worked with any of the applications and only know the system by theory?
Some folks are pushing me to move entirely out of code and into management but my passion is writing code, working in databases, and designing systems but the opportunities I have before me now pay more for management rather than getting my hands dirty in the code.
Can't sleep or eat because of constant anxiety over "what if I can't perform to their expectations and get fired?"
- How do others deal with this?
It's your job in interviews to accurately describe your abilities and talents. It's the company's job to determine if that's the right fit for them.
If they sent you an offer, I'd just assume I don't have a clear enough picture on what they will expect of me and when, and just trust that they did their due diligence in my evaluation.
Of course, if it doesn't work out, you had three offers so you'll likely be able to get a new job no problem.
If they sent you an offer, I'd just assume I don't have a clear enough picture on what they will expect of me and when, and just trust that they did their due diligence in my evaluation.
Of course, if it doesn't work out, you had three offers so you'll likely be able to get a new job no problem.
Expectations and company culture can be difficult to communicate during an interview. Sometimes the interviewer doesn't even realize what would be relevant to the jobseeker.
If the company fails their 'job', you end up with the black mark of a missing block of time on your resume, plus the major hassle of switching jobs and re-interviewing. It isn't "No problem" as you say. It's a major problem that could set you back by months.
If the company fails their 'job', you end up with the black mark of a missing block of time on your resume, plus the major hassle of switching jobs and re-interviewing. It isn't "No problem" as you say. It's a major problem that could set you back by months.
Care less, stop comparing yourself.
And read this: https://stepsandleaps.wordpress.com/2017/10/17/feynmans-brea...
And read this: https://stepsandleaps.wordpress.com/2017/10/17/feynmans-brea...
This was actually really helpful and a fun read on my favorite physicist! I appreciate your response, this helped me come to a decision!
1. Don't move into management because of any external pressure because you "ought to". Also don't do it just because you are tired of writing code. Do it when you feel like you have more to offer by building and leading teams and delivering through your people than with your individual delivery. Ideally, get a chance to try it on an interim basis at a company you already have trust in. There is a LOT of stuff about management that is invisible - it's not just telling your reports what to do. Managing upwards is a terrible irritating part of the job, and you can easily become the manager you yourself would hate if you are not careful.
2. I think career progression and satisfaction is all about balancing and trading off playing to your strengths, then focusing on your weaknesses.
If you only play to your strengths, you won't grow in breadth enough. You can become a top subject matter expert, but your utility will be limited to that domain.
If you only focus on your weaknesses, you will become well rounded, but not good at anything, and you won't stand out from the pack in any way.
Only you know which of these two you more need today. Good luck with the decision :)
3. Someone else already mentioned - it's not your job to determine if you are qualified for a position. The company hiring you is. If the work is interesting to you, and they're making you an offer, and you didn't lie - then you are qualified. Learning and stretching yourself would be part of the job.
4. Nothing I say above will fix a foundational anxiety like "what if i'm not good enough and get fired". What helps me with this class of extreme worry is to consider the worst case scenario, visualize it, and recognize that ultimately it's not that bad.
So what if you get fired? Again, assuming you didn't misrepresent yourself, the company would be just as guilty of the mismatch in fit as you. You won't be blacklisted. They might even be willing to give you a referral. But if not, you got 3 offers once. You can get 3 offers again after you get fired. The worst case scenario isn't that awful.
2. I think career progression and satisfaction is all about balancing and trading off playing to your strengths, then focusing on your weaknesses.
If you only play to your strengths, you won't grow in breadth enough. You can become a top subject matter expert, but your utility will be limited to that domain.
If you only focus on your weaknesses, you will become well rounded, but not good at anything, and you won't stand out from the pack in any way.
Only you know which of these two you more need today. Good luck with the decision :)
3. Someone else already mentioned - it's not your job to determine if you are qualified for a position. The company hiring you is. If the work is interesting to you, and they're making you an offer, and you didn't lie - then you are qualified. Learning and stretching yourself would be part of the job.
4. Nothing I say above will fix a foundational anxiety like "what if i'm not good enough and get fired". What helps me with this class of extreme worry is to consider the worst case scenario, visualize it, and recognize that ultimately it's not that bad.
So what if you get fired? Again, assuming you didn't misrepresent yourself, the company would be just as guilty of the mismatch in fit as you. You won't be blacklisted. They might even be willing to give you a referral. But if not, you got 3 offers once. You can get 3 offers again after you get fired. The worst case scenario isn't that awful.
I wanted to thank you for your advice and the time you took out of your day to respond with such a thoughtful reply. I really took it into account with my decision making. Just today, I decided to take a more coding-oriented position and turned down the management roles.
I'm saving your reply into a Word doc so that I can use it going forward. What stood out specifically was your first sentence - I'm not tired of writing code and still feel more passionate about developing rather than managing. It pays less but I feel as though I will be happier in the end.
In any case, I wanted to thank you kind stranger, for your words!
I'm saving your reply into a Word doc so that I can use it going forward. What stood out specifically was your first sentence - I'm not tired of writing code and still feel more passionate about developing rather than managing. It pays less but I feel as though I will be happier in the end.
In any case, I wanted to thank you kind stranger, for your words!
I’ve found it useful to think of not-deciding as a decision. Right now you’re feeling paralysed and unable to decide. But, in a strange way, your decision is to avoid making a decision. Maybe that’s going to protect you from pain. Or maybe it’s going to close doors. Maybe it’ll do both. But thinking about not-deciding as a decision has helped me consider whether that decision to not-decide is working for me. YMMV, of course. I hope things work out for you, whatever route you take.
That's why I always fail to write blog posts. "This looks super interesting" -> do research/think about it-> "I understand it, so it must be trivial and nobody else will care"
Edit: phone auto correct
Edit: phone auto correct
You have fooled them all. The fallacy of imposter syndrome is not that you are better than you think you are, but that others are worse.
You have fooled them, but you discount the fact that they have fooled you too.
You have fooled them, but you discount the fact that they have fooled you too.
I can relate to most of the things you've said
for me, my imposter syndrome comes mainly when I look around and see everyone working hard and struggling to do stuff well and I feel like I'm not even in 2nd gear and doing as well.
So I think I feel like I'm only putting in less then 25% effort and getting 100% of the normal results (relative to others) - it feels wrong,
it's like finishing a test or exam too soon and looking around seeing everyone only half way through the same exam. I then start to worry what have I done wrong?
with many years of contract work, I've realised It's not me!!
I used to try and hide it since no-one likes a smart arse - especially a contractor. but now I do blow a my little trumpet now and then
for me, my imposter syndrome comes mainly when I look around and see everyone working hard and struggling to do stuff well and I feel like I'm not even in 2nd gear and doing as well.
So I think I feel like I'm only putting in less then 25% effort and getting 100% of the normal results (relative to others) - it feels wrong,
it's like finishing a test or exam too soon and looking around seeing everyone only half way through the same exam. I then start to worry what have I done wrong?
with many years of contract work, I've realised It's not me!!
I used to try and hide it since no-one likes a smart arse - especially a contractor. but now I do blow a my little trumpet now and then
I am going to use this for my humble brag training next week.
I should have added:
I really do think I have ADHD and I do become obsessive about things,
my job is my hobby, so I probably put more time in to things than what i realise,
but I still do feel like an imposter occasionally (less so with getting older)
I really do think I have ADHD and I do become obsessive about things,
my job is my hobby, so I probably put more time in to things than what i realise,
but I still do feel like an imposter occasionally (less so with getting older)
Used to be a midrange programmer who others thought as brilliant. It was hard to start two decades ago, but always looking for a challenge meant consistent growth for years. After five years it felt too easy, like cheating. My peers would struggle for a week with what I could deliver in an afternoon.
Seeking better opportunities I migrated to web development, and boy, it's hard to be a novice again. Everyone I worked with was better than me at everything. It's hard to feel like the impostor when you know you're the less skilled one.
Now web development doesn't pay that well, so the natural path was cybersecurity. Still learning, and I feel like this will be my last career change because it takes years to stop feeling dumb and start feeling like an impostor again.
Seeking better opportunities I migrated to web development, and boy, it's hard to be a novice again. Everyone I worked with was better than me at everything. It's hard to feel like the impostor when you know you're the less skilled one.
Now web development doesn't pay that well, so the natural path was cybersecurity. Still learning, and I feel like this will be my last career change because it takes years to stop feeling dumb and start feeling like an impostor again.
> Now web development doesn't pay that well, so the natural path was cybersecurity. Still learning, and I feel like this will be my last career change because it takes years to stop feeling dumb and start feeling like an impostor again.
Does cybersecurity pay better, at least in certain markets/contexts I was under the impression that doing web dev would land you several thousands more salary wise, though I'd certainly settle to work on the parts of security I'm not smart enough to lmao.
Does cybersecurity pay better, at least in certain markets/contexts I was under the impression that doing web dev would land you several thousands more salary wise, though I'd certainly settle to work on the parts of security I'm not smart enough to lmao.
At the same level, development always pays better. I had the fortune to be promoted from senior developer to CISO when the area was formally opened at a small company.
To be honest, I feel the change came before I felt proficient at web development, but I'm happy because I was always complaining about unsafe practices, and now I get to write the policies.
To be honest, I feel the change came before I felt proficient at web development, but I'm happy because I was always complaining about unsafe practices, and now I get to write the policies.
the money is ok/ good in the field I've choosen, so moving would mean a decrease in money,
I do work with a lot of cybersec people and boy are they under a lot of pressure with badly designed applications - saying that it's amazing how many of the sec people do not even bother with learning the very basics eg like how TLS really works
I do work with a lot of cybersec people and boy are they under a lot of pressure with badly designed applications - saying that it's amazing how many of the sec people do not even bother with learning the very basics eg like how TLS really works
It sounds like you are not being challenged enough. Look for a new role or a new company?
I'm a contractor/ consultant I do spend about 1-2 years at different companies and I do pick the most challenging projects - typically modifying old stuff with no documentation
It is possible that people are only slacking when you can't see them. If all of them had impostor syndrome they would pretend to work hard around you.
This is me exactly. I feel like 10x and 0.1x at the same time, depending on the area.
I'm in the same exact boat, generalist to the extreme, lots of technical role models, big company, hard to find a value there.
But more and more I get that I m put in places where nobody cares what I ll code but that instead I ll enthusiastically push everyone around, make them try new fun ideas, and have a general blindness to boredom - I guess being an idiot means everything sounds fascinating and I unblocked more than a few dead end just trying or proposing stupid ideas.
But more and more I get that I m put in places where nobody cares what I ll code but that instead I ll enthusiastically push everyone around, make them try new fun ideas, and have a general blindness to boredom - I guess being an idiot means everything sounds fascinating and I unblocked more than a few dead end just trying or proposing stupid ideas.
Interesting - I just always blindly focus on the end goal... wonder if that is in someway also a impostor syndrome thing?
I'm in a strange position. I'm burnt out on every side of every candles from trying too hard too long with no results (due to life chaos, lack of luck, bad choices, who knows).
To survive I took brainless jobs and I find myself in a different form of pain, being eroded by uneducated, learning-resistant cogs.
Right now reading you say "measuring my self against people ahead of me" feels tempting, even after all the problems I got. It's a bit like exercise .. my brain needs it or it shrivels.
ps: I didn't know generalists could fare well
pps: have all your workplaces well accepting of your working style ?
To survive I took brainless jobs and I find myself in a different form of pain, being eroded by uneducated, learning-resistant cogs.
Right now reading you say "measuring my self against people ahead of me" feels tempting, even after all the problems I got. It's a bit like exercise .. my brain needs it or it shrivels.
ps: I didn't know generalists could fare well
pps: have all your workplaces well accepting of your working style ?
re: PPS. More than you know, but going into detail about my weird and unorthodox working style would reveal too much personal info.
re: PS. I should clarify. I was a damn good programmer who could pump out clean, readable, maintainable code, faster than most. But only once I found myself in a job I loved surrounded by people who encouraged learning, were curious, and loved to teach me. You gotta find your tribe. Don't let your brain rot.
re: PS. I should clarify. I was a damn good programmer who could pump out clean, readable, maintainable code, faster than most. But only once I found myself in a job I loved surrounded by people who encouraged learning, were curious, and loved to teach me. You gotta find your tribe. Don't let your brain rot.
> But only once I found myself in a job I loved surrounded by people who encouraged learning, were curious, and loved to teach me. You gotta find your tribe. Don't let your brain rot.
I have a corollary: badly managed companies make good people go bad.
Even worse is the delusion where you believe awareness of bad influences protects you from the consequences...some things can not be mitigated. For example “the culture of mediocrity” :<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257623179_The_Cultu...>.
I have a corollary: badly managed companies make good people go bad.
Even worse is the delusion where you believe awareness of bad influences protects you from the consequences...some things can not be mitigated. For example “the culture of mediocrity” :<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257623179_The_Cultu...>.
I often have the 'find the right tribe' idea in my head; it's staggering how important it is to find the right people.
If you present yourself as equal to one of your role models, you are an imposter.
If you present yourself as the BEST (in the world?) at something, then you are an imposter.
If you present yourself as a perfectly rounded engineer, then you are an imposter.
But if you present yourself as good at the billion things you are good at (even if you find them easy), then you are not an imposter.
5 year old little brother looks up to 8 year old big sister, and turns to her for guidance and protection - and it is right that he should do so.
If you present yourself as the BEST (in the world?) at something, then you are an imposter.
If you present yourself as a perfectly rounded engineer, then you are an imposter.
But if you present yourself as good at the billion things you are good at (even if you find them easy), then you are not an imposter.
5 year old little brother looks up to 8 year old big sister, and turns to her for guidance and protection - and it is right that he should do so.
Here's an unpopular opinion: this whole thing about impostor syndrome honestly seems like a thinly veiled humble brag. The narrative seems to be "nobody's perfect, but I am aware that I have imperfections so brownie points for me". IMHO, there's no real correlation between confidence and ability.
There are extremely capable athletes with terrible ego problems and there are people that legitimately fall into death spirals. There are those that talk the talk but don't walk the walk, as well as those that quietly sweat away in their pursuit of mastery.
Lacking confidence in something, judging oneself, etc are just being human. Pretty much everyone goes through that. Sure, some might project confidence in the face of the unknown, but that's just one of many coping mechanisms we have. "Laughing to not cry", screaming in fear when startled by a spider, YOLO, panic lies, etc are other similar mechanisms where we do seemingly illogical things in response to the respective stimulus.
And of course, people are multidimensional and topics/disciplines are multidimensional. You can't possibly be great at everything, but most are certainly capable of getting very good at something (even if that something is being a generalist in software engineering - which is itself a form of specialization in the grand scheme of society). And you might experience impostor syndrome at work but still be one of those people that think they're above average drivers or some such. Or you might experience it and be confident about your looks. Etc.
When you consider that reality isn't a flat 2D grayscale spectrum, it seems fairly normal that one would experience discomfort with their lackings when compared against one of infinite arbitrary scales.
There are extremely capable athletes with terrible ego problems and there are people that legitimately fall into death spirals. There are those that talk the talk but don't walk the walk, as well as those that quietly sweat away in their pursuit of mastery.
Lacking confidence in something, judging oneself, etc are just being human. Pretty much everyone goes through that. Sure, some might project confidence in the face of the unknown, but that's just one of many coping mechanisms we have. "Laughing to not cry", screaming in fear when startled by a spider, YOLO, panic lies, etc are other similar mechanisms where we do seemingly illogical things in response to the respective stimulus.
And of course, people are multidimensional and topics/disciplines are multidimensional. You can't possibly be great at everything, but most are certainly capable of getting very good at something (even if that something is being a generalist in software engineering - which is itself a form of specialization in the grand scheme of society). And you might experience impostor syndrome at work but still be one of those people that think they're above average drivers or some such. Or you might experience it and be confident about your looks. Etc.
When you consider that reality isn't a flat 2D grayscale spectrum, it seems fairly normal that one would experience discomfort with their lackings when compared against one of infinite arbitrary scales.
This opinion is comparable to saying: "Depression is not real, everybody gets sad sometimes" or "ADHD is not real everybody gets distracted sometimes".
Just because some attribute exists in normal doses in most people, does not mean that it can exist in debilitating doses in a minority.
Of course, a big difference between imposter syndrome and the aforementioned illnesses is that imposter syndrome is not in the DSM-5. But if you look at the history of the DSM-5, you will notice that adding a new illness is a very slow and politicized process. And a large number of psychologists are treating it a bit to seriously for it to be just a "humble brag".
That doesnt mean everybody talking about their imposter syndrome would really classify as having it. Similarly people who checked webmd and now believe that they have cancer, also do not necessarily have cancer. That still doesnt mean that every cancer-sufferer is a fraud.
Just because some attribute exists in normal doses in most people, does not mean that it can exist in debilitating doses in a minority.
Of course, a big difference between imposter syndrome and the aforementioned illnesses is that imposter syndrome is not in the DSM-5. But if you look at the history of the DSM-5, you will notice that adding a new illness is a very slow and politicized process. And a large number of psychologists are treating it a bit to seriously for it to be just a "humble brag".
That doesnt mean everybody talking about their imposter syndrome would really classify as having it. Similarly people who checked webmd and now believe that they have cancer, also do not necessarily have cancer. That still doesnt mean that every cancer-sufferer is a fraud.
I'm not aware of impostor syndrome being considered anywhere on the same level as actually diagnosed depression/ADHD by physicians, nor of it being considered for addition into the DSM, slow and bureaucratic as it may be.
The variety I'm referring to is the one that comes from people like the one I originally responded to, who, by all accounts, is a successful functioning member of society. So, yeah, I think it's fair to say "claiming impostor syndrome is just describing a normal feeling" in contexts where the person is clearly not overwhelmed to the point of dysfunction.
Even if there is such a thing as actually crippling impostor syndrome, that's not what I see being brought up in these kinds of discussions.
The variety I'm referring to is the one that comes from people like the one I originally responded to, who, by all accounts, is a successful functioning member of society. So, yeah, I think it's fair to say "claiming impostor syndrome is just describing a normal feeling" in contexts where the person is clearly not overwhelmed to the point of dysfunction.
Even if there is such a thing as actually crippling impostor syndrome, that's not what I see being brought up in these kinds of discussions.
If by "this whole thing about imposter syndrome" you are referring to people talking about imposter syndrome the way your parent comment talked about it, than yeah I agree completly: its just a humble brag, nothing else.
I originally understood your comment to mean impostor syndrome is never used in a valid way. I have seen these statements being made about mental health disorders, including very serious once like depression. I think they can be really damaging, since they convince people not to seek help. This is why I disagreed.
I originally understood your comment to mean impostor syndrome is never used in a valid way. I have seen these statements being made about mental health disorders, including very serious once like depression. I think they can be really damaging, since they convince people not to seek help. This is why I disagreed.
Ah, yeah, sorry for not being clear. I completely agree that downplaying serious mental disorders is a problem.
I guess anyone can interpret it however they want. If you’re challenging yourself in your career, you will eventually find yourself in a position where you legitimately don’t know what you’re doing, and people are depending on you to figure it out. Early in my career I thrived in these situations, because they mirrored my experiences in college. Later in my career, the problems got bigger and I found myself wondering if I would ever figure these things out, saying to myself, maybe I’m actually not smart enough, maybe I took the wrong career path? But, if you keep your composure, read the docs, ask the right people for help, you figure it out and move on. I always assumed that’s what people meant. Seems like young people today have much more anxiety that we used to though, so maybe the definition has shifted.
I think your description seems pretty spot on. But the way I see the term being used sometimes, it seems some people take it as some sort of shame-but-actually-pride badge (the connotation being that if you have the syndrome, then you're secretly not an impostor, hence a "humble brag")
IMHO, you could leverage that uncomfortable feeling positively (e.g. seeking the right people to help you, etc as you said), negatively (e.g. give up) or in a beside-the-point way (bragging about the cup being half-full). None of this has really anything to do with acting maliciously/destructively like the article seems to suggest, though.
IMHO, you could leverage that uncomfortable feeling positively (e.g. seeking the right people to help you, etc as you said), negatively (e.g. give up) or in a beside-the-point way (bragging about the cup being half-full). None of this has really anything to do with acting maliciously/destructively like the article seems to suggest, though.
That's not imposter syndrome though. That's fear of failure, self doubt concerning your success of accomplishing some new challenge.
Imposter syndrome would involve feeling like all your past achievements were pure luck, you have no merit, and your collegues were going to find out.
There's nuance to the definition; people use the term like they use the term OCD. Not understanding what it actually means. Vanity.
Imposter syndrome would involve feeling like all your past achievements were pure luck, you have no merit, and your collegues were going to find out.
There's nuance to the definition; people use the term like they use the term OCD. Not understanding what it actually means. Vanity.
But most people with imposter syndrome don't talk about it I assume? And the people who do are mostly just trying to say that it is normal to feel like that.
i agree i think who you're measuring yourself against is responsible for it. comparison is the thief of joy but in a professional competitive setting it becomes a rather vicious and pernicious thief, thankfully once you realise the only competition is with your past/present self, it subsides.
> I'm a Principal Engineer at a FAAMNG company
Since when one's employer becomes a secret?! And in fact, a principal engineer title in these corps mean vastly different skill and prestiges.
For example, a principal engineer in Google is usually treated as equivalent to a Google director. While a principal in Amazon is just a more senior engineer than a Senior engineer. Because there is no staff level at Amazon, while Google has staff and senior staff...
In msft, a principal probably means just a senior engineer in other places.
Since when one's employer becomes a secret?! And in fact, a principal engineer title in these corps mean vastly different skill and prestiges.
For example, a principal engineer in Google is usually treated as equivalent to a Google director. While a principal in Amazon is just a more senior engineer than a Senior engineer. Because there is no staff level at Amazon, while Google has staff and senior staff...
In msft, a principal probably means just a senior engineer in other places.
> My fallacy is that there is a billion things that I am good at, but I don't consider them difficult (how could they be, if I am good at them)
I see you've rediscovered Rothbard's law: "People tend to specialise in what they're worst at." (Because anything too easy seems like it's not worth doing)
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jul/27/change-...
I see you've rediscovered Rothbard's law: "People tend to specialise in what they're worst at." (Because anything too easy seems like it's not worth doing)
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jul/27/change-...
Impostor syndrome is only a problem if you need to sell yourself. If you are a freelance developer or a salesman in an outsourcing company you absolutely need to make every effort and probably work with professionals to get rid of it because it's killing your life. But you are not. I don't think in your case it's a problem at all.
I totally empathise with the thought "I know this, so how can it be difficult to know". The only thing to do is to continually learn new things, and become the BEST at that.
I feel the same way and being a 'Generalist' mostly because of my ability to adapt any environment is both amazing and terrible.
The terrible part is mostly because I got too many roles and zero help to grow (I'm often the icebreaker of a tech or role), which lead me to myself doing the actual criticism to ensure I'm doing my best.
On the other hand this kind of continuous self-doubt is stressing, so reading a comment like yours is a relief :)
Thanks for writing it :)
The terrible part is mostly because I got too many roles and zero help to grow (I'm often the icebreaker of a tech or role), which lead me to myself doing the actual criticism to ensure I'm doing my best.
On the other hand this kind of continuous self-doubt is stressing, so reading a comment like yours is a relief :)
Thanks for writing it :)
And thanks for writing your comment about his comment.
I think I sail the same kind of ship as you, at work I'm like a jack of all trades and pretty isolated. Took me long to realize it wasn't my fault if management put too much on my shoulder and I have no peer to share with. It's a management issue if our bus factor is 1 on many project.
While I often get praise from my CEO the impostor syndrome is part of my daily routine.
Out of work, I'm currently in the process of finally releasing to GitHub a half-baked side-project I invested 100+ hours of personal time but was really too ashamed of to publish. It's not perfect, it'll never be and it's ok. Maybe it will even help me migrate to a better workplace.
Lot's of comment int his thread ring a bell for me!
Thank you all!
I think I sail the same kind of ship as you, at work I'm like a jack of all trades and pretty isolated. Took me long to realize it wasn't my fault if management put too much on my shoulder and I have no peer to share with. It's a management issue if our bus factor is 1 on many project.
While I often get praise from my CEO the impostor syndrome is part of my daily routine.
Out of work, I'm currently in the process of finally releasing to GitHub a half-baked side-project I invested 100+ hours of personal time but was really too ashamed of to publish. It's not perfect, it'll never be and it's ok. Maybe it will even help me migrate to a better workplace.
Lot's of comment int his thread ring a bell for me!
Thank you all!
Summed it up quite well.
Me too
Top tier humble brag.
> My fallacy is that there is a billion things that I am good at, but I don't consider them difficult (how could they be, if I am good at them)
This reminds me on a cartoon in which a rocket scientists plays down his work "it's not brain surgery, after all", while in the next picture the neurosurgeon says "it's just brain surgery, not rocket science".
This reminds me on a cartoon in which a rocket scientists plays down his work "it's not brain surgery, after all", while in the next picture the neurosurgeon says "it's just brain surgery, not rocket science".
I can't relate with these at all. I realize that most people have an internal measure of "worth", but why? I don't assess myself, in interviews I detail facts about what I've achieved and let others do the assessment themselves. What good does it do to say (or even just feel) that I'm not good enough for a job that someone thinks I'm great for?
I just do my best and hope that's enough. If not, they can always fire me. Why worry about it?
I just do my best and hope that's enough. If not, they can always fire me. Why worry about it?
Just keep the lie going.
I keep writing shit code - i am just lucky it doesn‘t look or run like shit, so nobody realizes. And i charge way too much for things that make my clients rich and work pretty good but are actually not good enough. And these idiots are falling for it happily and come back. I always thought of myself as an honest guy, though it seems that I am not. But then: who is.
Honestly: I just hope some day this feeling parts.
I keep writing shit code - i am just lucky it doesn‘t look or run like shit, so nobody realizes. And i charge way too much for things that make my clients rich and work pretty good but are actually not good enough. And these idiots are falling for it happily and come back. I always thought of myself as an honest guy, though it seems that I am not. But then: who is.
Honestly: I just hope some day this feeling parts.
I guess I just don't really believe this. It sounds nice, and it might even be a good falsehood to tell yourself for personal motivation—but that doesn't make it true.
Yes, of course if you're an actual fraudster intending to commit fraud, you're probably comfortable with committing fraud. But feeling "impostor syndrome" colloquially means second-guessing whether you're good enough to deserve your position.
There are absolutely lots of people who are better at their jobs than they think they are. But I have to imagine there are also lots of people who are just as bad as they think they are, if not worse.
Yes, of course if you're an actual fraudster intending to commit fraud, you're probably comfortable with committing fraud. But feeling "impostor syndrome" colloquially means second-guessing whether you're good enough to deserve your position.
There are absolutely lots of people who are better at their jobs than they think they are. But I have to imagine there are also lots of people who are just as bad as they think they are, if not worse.
Agree, specially because everyone has above average IQ. That being said this conversation always feels to me like "are soldiers afraid before a battle" type discussion. Either they are or they aren't has no bearing on what they do. They have to be brave and get out there. Same here, just realise everyone has doubts, and instead of spending time making a big thing of it and "dealing with it", just put your head down and work hard. Everyone has doubts, focusing on them is pointless.
The issue in these cases is that you have a hard time not focusing on them. These intrusive thoughts come all the time, take up mental energy and time. It would be best to just focus on actually building things, but it's not always as simple.
It may alleviate the thoughts if you knew for sure that you are not an impostor from a source you can trust or perhaps it will require therapy. Or maybe you can actually push through it, as you said. Anxiety, depression and low self esteem however can take a strong enough toll that simply pushing through and dealing with it may be too difficult without help.
It may alleviate the thoughts if you knew for sure that you are not an impostor from a source you can trust or perhaps it will require therapy. Or maybe you can actually push through it, as you said. Anxiety, depression and low self esteem however can take a strong enough toll that simply pushing through and dealing with it may be too difficult without help.
Having a very hard time not focusing on intrusive thoughts is a symptom of OCD.
Yeah, but this is depression and anxiety too. Constantly having to deal with negative thoughts. In theory, just change brain chemistry slightly and you will have fewer negative thoughts and more positive. Not everyone has similar amount of doubts.
So an outsider who says "just deal with it", won't know the ratio and magnitude of negative to positive thoughts, someone else might have.
Everyone has doubts, but frequency and strength may vary.
So an outsider who says "just deal with it", won't know the ratio and magnitude of negative to positive thoughts, someone else might have.
Everyone has doubts, but frequency and strength may vary.
Ah yes, keep it all bottled up and under no circumstances talk about it. Totally leads to improved quality of life.
[deleted]
I also believe this. I think "imposter syndrome" has been associated with actual abilities not aligning with lower expectations, with the implication that if you match the description of someone with imposter syndrome, you're just overthinking things and will be just fine.
I cannot see how this logically follows in every circumstance that someone feels like an imposter. If you're expected to learn something by someone but don't learn it, because of motivation or other reasoning, but are then put in front of other people by your superior with the assumption that you have gained that knowledge in the meantime, you'd both feel like an imposter and actually be one.
My bias is to believe that if I don't feel that I'm qualified for something, then claiming that it will all be fine in the end is dishonest, and a fully realized version of the imposter syndrome with actual consequences for failure. The bias itself, as in most always feeling like an imposter no matter what your qualifications are, is what I would consider the intent of a concept like imposter syndrome. But it is still possible to go too far in the other direction and mistakenly believe you're simply worrying too much.
I feel that hiding behind a notion of imposter syndrome erases notions of personal responsibility when things actually go wrong, e.g. when one really is an imposter, or acted similarly without awareness or ill intent. The word "imposter" itself seems to imply that you must have ill intent to be a true imposter, which almost nobody actually is. "Unqualified" would probably be a more appropriate word, and would probably make people more hesistant to use this kind of terminology when discussing a lack of skills or confidence.
I cannot see how this logically follows in every circumstance that someone feels like an imposter. If you're expected to learn something by someone but don't learn it, because of motivation or other reasoning, but are then put in front of other people by your superior with the assumption that you have gained that knowledge in the meantime, you'd both feel like an imposter and actually be one.
My bias is to believe that if I don't feel that I'm qualified for something, then claiming that it will all be fine in the end is dishonest, and a fully realized version of the imposter syndrome with actual consequences for failure. The bias itself, as in most always feeling like an imposter no matter what your qualifications are, is what I would consider the intent of a concept like imposter syndrome. But it is still possible to go too far in the other direction and mistakenly believe you're simply worrying too much.
I feel that hiding behind a notion of imposter syndrome erases notions of personal responsibility when things actually go wrong, e.g. when one really is an imposter, or acted similarly without awareness or ill intent. The word "imposter" itself seems to imply that you must have ill intent to be a true imposter, which almost nobody actually is. "Unqualified" would probably be a more appropriate word, and would probably make people more hesistant to use this kind of terminology when discussing a lack of skills or confidence.
> I feel that hiding behind a notion of imposter syndrome erases notions of personal responsibility when things actually go wrong
Can you say where your sense of personal responsibility comes from? Did you have any personal influences or role models who taught you this protocol? Are there any examples that come to mind that you can succinctly describe here, in a way that shows relevance to the main points you are making?
Can you say where your sense of personal responsibility comes from? Did you have any personal influences or role models who taught you this protocol? Are there any examples that come to mind that you can succinctly describe here, in a way that shows relevance to the main points you are making?
Succinctly, writing this response.
I don't always feel that I have the necessary skills to make properly reasoned arguments in general, but instead tend to have a habitual drive to just say whatever is on my mind in the hopes that it will be heard but not necessarily challenged, maybe in the way some bloggers treat their content as a feed of stream-of-consciousness thought. When someone does want to discuss what I say, the dynamic for me changes and I feel the urge to respond more carefully, which wasn't usually something I considered when first commenting.
In many cases, I am tempted to just not respond because it is the easiest option, but I feel that would essentially mean not taking responsibility for my own words. Actually debating someone is not something I'm used to, and is at times frightening to me, but I still feel that I ought not to ignore it when I am the cause.
Also, I think that I have a tendency to try not to say things with the intention of starting arguments, leaving the more subjective statements to the people that happen to find something relatable in what I consider to have actually happened to me, regardless of value or intent. But, as in this case, there are exceptions.
So my sense of responsibility has a long way to go, admittedly. And I might or might not be justified in my anxiety in wondering if what I'm typing out right now makes enough sense in the context of my other comment, but the way I'm feeling right now, it's hard to tell.
This is also one of the reasons I'm rather disillusioned with journaling if what I journal isn't my lived experience, which so long as my memory is capable enough usually isn't something that someone else would question. If it's something that can be debated, writing down my thoughts or opinions and leaving them in the confines of my private journal makes it sound like I'm just agreeing with myself.
My guess for how I developed this way of thinking would be my upbringing. There were no labels I could use that carried any value as far as protecting my sense of self-worth went. I wouldn't even consider the people I knew to be role models. Success or failure was solely determined based on whether I did something correctly or not, not how I approached the problem. Even with the labels that I've been given today, ones that are in my mind much more justifiable than the ones I gave myself long ago, that mindset continues to rule a lot of my life. I tend to accept the mistakes I make as my responsibility to correct, but because I prevent myself from entering into situations where mistakes are likely (as in, areas where I feel unqualified), I'm less tolerant to getting over mistakes after they've happened, because I've insulated myself from mistakes and their impact.
If none of this supports my original points, my belief is that it would be because of my lack of knowledge, regardless of what I was thinking when I impulsively wrote my first comment. By commenting, I tend to think that whatever fears I have about speaking in a public space are outweighed by me contributing another viewpoint or experience to the conversation, so I look past my fears and decide to comment. If my expectation was to have my thoughts taken seriously by others, maybe I would feel more justified in believing that initial anxiety was actually warranted the next time I intend to press "reply", and I would be better off not trying to be a part of a conversation I myself am not prepared to take seriously.
Anyway, I hope that, in some sense, this response was worth listening to. And I don't intend to come off as condescending or unwilling to converse with you; that was just the first thing that entered my mind.
I don't always feel that I have the necessary skills to make properly reasoned arguments in general, but instead tend to have a habitual drive to just say whatever is on my mind in the hopes that it will be heard but not necessarily challenged, maybe in the way some bloggers treat their content as a feed of stream-of-consciousness thought. When someone does want to discuss what I say, the dynamic for me changes and I feel the urge to respond more carefully, which wasn't usually something I considered when first commenting.
In many cases, I am tempted to just not respond because it is the easiest option, but I feel that would essentially mean not taking responsibility for my own words. Actually debating someone is not something I'm used to, and is at times frightening to me, but I still feel that I ought not to ignore it when I am the cause.
Also, I think that I have a tendency to try not to say things with the intention of starting arguments, leaving the more subjective statements to the people that happen to find something relatable in what I consider to have actually happened to me, regardless of value or intent. But, as in this case, there are exceptions.
So my sense of responsibility has a long way to go, admittedly. And I might or might not be justified in my anxiety in wondering if what I'm typing out right now makes enough sense in the context of my other comment, but the way I'm feeling right now, it's hard to tell.
This is also one of the reasons I'm rather disillusioned with journaling if what I journal isn't my lived experience, which so long as my memory is capable enough usually isn't something that someone else would question. If it's something that can be debated, writing down my thoughts or opinions and leaving them in the confines of my private journal makes it sound like I'm just agreeing with myself.
My guess for how I developed this way of thinking would be my upbringing. There were no labels I could use that carried any value as far as protecting my sense of self-worth went. I wouldn't even consider the people I knew to be role models. Success or failure was solely determined based on whether I did something correctly or not, not how I approached the problem. Even with the labels that I've been given today, ones that are in my mind much more justifiable than the ones I gave myself long ago, that mindset continues to rule a lot of my life. I tend to accept the mistakes I make as my responsibility to correct, but because I prevent myself from entering into situations where mistakes are likely (as in, areas where I feel unqualified), I'm less tolerant to getting over mistakes after they've happened, because I've insulated myself from mistakes and their impact.
If none of this supports my original points, my belief is that it would be because of my lack of knowledge, regardless of what I was thinking when I impulsively wrote my first comment. By commenting, I tend to think that whatever fears I have about speaking in a public space are outweighed by me contributing another viewpoint or experience to the conversation, so I look past my fears and decide to comment. If my expectation was to have my thoughts taken seriously by others, maybe I would feel more justified in believing that initial anxiety was actually warranted the next time I intend to press "reply", and I would be better off not trying to be a part of a conversation I myself am not prepared to take seriously.
Anyway, I hope that, in some sense, this response was worth listening to. And I don't intend to come off as condescending or unwilling to converse with you; that was just the first thing that entered my mind.
Thank you for sharing that.
I think the dialog you describe would be familiar to other people from their own thoughts.
I think the dialog you describe would be familiar to other people from their own thoughts.
>second-guessing whether you're good enough to deserve your position.
Often with an element of "what will they do when they realise".
I've come to understand, though, that I'd been worrying about the answer to the wrong problem. I know I'm not as good as I could (maybe should) be, and I know that for any given metric I have peers who can and do outperform me. But the word "expectations" is a loaded one: when suffering from imposter syndrome it's important to stop worrying about what expectations I have for myself and instead look at the expectations set in the specification for my role.
I also remember that the company spends quite a lot of money on me every single month. So when they tell me that they're really happy with that arrangement and that they believe that I'm meeting their expectations, that helps me to set aside my expectations.
Conversely, if your manager tells you that there's a problem and you're not meeting their expectations, they are definitely correct that there's a problem. They might not be correct in their diagnosis, but you can't simply ignore the issue.
Often with an element of "what will they do when they realise".
I've come to understand, though, that I'd been worrying about the answer to the wrong problem. I know I'm not as good as I could (maybe should) be, and I know that for any given metric I have peers who can and do outperform me. But the word "expectations" is a loaded one: when suffering from imposter syndrome it's important to stop worrying about what expectations I have for myself and instead look at the expectations set in the specification for my role.
I also remember that the company spends quite a lot of money on me every single month. So when they tell me that they're really happy with that arrangement and that they believe that I'm meeting their expectations, that helps me to set aside my expectations.
Conversely, if your manager tells you that there's a problem and you're not meeting their expectations, they are definitely correct that there's a problem. They might not be correct in their diagnosis, but you can't simply ignore the issue.
> Conversely, if your manager tells you that there's a problem and you're not meeting their expectations, they are definitely correct that there's a problem. They might not be correct in their diagnosis, but you can't simply ignore the issue.
But there may also be nothing you can do about it either. I think a huge part of the problem is that I suspect the typical experience of hearing "there's a problem" is that by the time anyone is saying that, things are already in motion you may not be able to fix anyway.
But there may also be nothing you can do about it either. I think a huge part of the problem is that I suspect the typical experience of hearing "there's a problem" is that by the time anyone is saying that, things are already in motion you may not be able to fix anyway.
This. This actually hits the nail of my imposter syndrome precisely on the head. I've advanced to a pretty good position, and I'm definitely good at a fair number of things; but there are also things I am very much not good at, and I often worry that I got promoted to this point by "lucky" breaks that leveraged my strengths, but keeping the position will require me to do things that I don't even know how to develop.
> good enough to deserve your position
What does this mean? What qualifies as "good enough"?
If you're not fired, you're good enough for your boss.
There are billions of people from poor regions who would put in way more effort than you. Many of them are smarter too. You make $100K / year to spend 35 hours / week drinking coffee and writing JavaScript, they make like $10K / year to spend 60 hours / week physical labor and getting yelled at. You'll never be good enough for them.
Also, there are 7+ billion people in the world. That means there are millions if not billions more talented than you. You're probably not even the most talented in your group.
But why does any of that matter? Literally nobody is good enough by those standards.
There's no objective "good enough". Those people from poor regions who work their asses off deserve more, you don't deserve less. In my eyes, don't be an asshole, contribute to society in some way, and you're good enough.
Except maybe one objective "good enough": if you're not fired, you're good enough for your boss. Honestly, some bosses have unrealistic standards so even that doesn't count.
What does this mean? What qualifies as "good enough"?
If you're not fired, you're good enough for your boss.
There are billions of people from poor regions who would put in way more effort than you. Many of them are smarter too. You make $100K / year to spend 35 hours / week drinking coffee and writing JavaScript, they make like $10K / year to spend 60 hours / week physical labor and getting yelled at. You'll never be good enough for them.
Also, there are 7+ billion people in the world. That means there are millions if not billions more talented than you. You're probably not even the most talented in your group.
But why does any of that matter? Literally nobody is good enough by those standards.
There's no objective "good enough". Those people from poor regions who work their asses off deserve more, you don't deserve less. In my eyes, don't be an asshole, contribute to society in some way, and you're good enough.
Except maybe one objective "good enough": if you're not fired, you're good enough for your boss. Honestly, some bosses have unrealistic standards so even that doesn't count.
It means that the employee is able to fulfill their tasks firstly according to industry and then company standards.
Having a job or even launching a successful project does not mean that one is good enough - especially in software where having a job doesn’t convince anyone to offer one a job without grueling interviews and where most of the software produced is riddled with bugs and security holes.
If one considers the hiring practices of top companies, they are absolutely claiming that the great majority of applicants are imposters.
Having a job or even launching a successful project does not mean that one is good enough - especially in software where having a job doesn’t convince anyone to offer one a job without grueling interviews and where most of the software produced is riddled with bugs and security holes.
If one considers the hiring practices of top companies, they are absolutely claiming that the great majority of applicants are imposters.
What if the industry doesn’t even know how that task should be fulfilled or the company. There are some many projects/experiments/products are companies that good be delivered in some many ways.
> If one considers the hiring practices of top companies, they are absolutely claiming that the great majority of applicants are imposters.
It’s a logical fallacy that leetcode is only to filter imposters. And separately, gamification of interviews can definitely lead to real imposters.
> If one considers the hiring practices of top companies, they are absolutely claiming that the great majority of applicants are imposters.
It’s a logical fallacy that leetcode is only to filter imposters. And separately, gamification of interviews can definitely lead to real imposters.
The title is somewhat misleading, because it's talking about two different types of imposter.
The "imposter" of "imposter syndrome" believes others didn't figure what they really are, that they're flawed, underskilled, will fail, etc. ; and that makes you somewhat of a fraud, i.e. an imposter, because they're secretly not the skilled person that was hired.
The "actual imposter" from the "imposter syndrome" would be someone who actually lied about their skills and flaws, or at the very least don't have these skills. I don't know if these "imposters" have the imposter syndrome or not - but for the sake of argument I would assume that they have the same doubts as everyone else and that they do have imposter syndrome.
The "actual imposter" who the author is mentioning is a con, someone who was secretly malfeasant and there for their own benefit. What's more is that from what the author is saying, they seem pretty skilled, and confident. So of course they don't have imposter syndrome: they fixed an organization, bring in money, their plan is going well.
The "imposter" of "imposter syndrome" believes others didn't figure what they really are, that they're flawed, underskilled, will fail, etc. ; and that makes you somewhat of a fraud, i.e. an imposter, because they're secretly not the skilled person that was hired.
The "actual imposter" from the "imposter syndrome" would be someone who actually lied about their skills and flaws, or at the very least don't have these skills. I don't know if these "imposters" have the imposter syndrome or not - but for the sake of argument I would assume that they have the same doubts as everyone else and that they do have imposter syndrome.
The "actual imposter" who the author is mentioning is a con, someone who was secretly malfeasant and there for their own benefit. What's more is that from what the author is saying, they seem pretty skilled, and confident. So of course they don't have imposter syndrome: they fixed an organization, bring in money, their plan is going well.
Thank you for pointing that final point out: as I read the article, I was feeling that something was off with the labelling of the imposter.
Shark vs charlatan.
Maybe he did have imposter syndrome too? He probably went home at night thinking "Why is this con taking so long to pull-off? I'm terrible at this, what do all my conman buddies really think of me?!"
Another type of imposter is due to the Dunning–Kruger effect. The one who thinks they are an expert, but are not yet. Like an overconfident driver who has just passed their test.
Hmm. I don't usually get imposter syndrome.
Wait, does that mean this is saying I am an imposter? Oh no, what if I am?
But wait, wasn't that thought imposter syndrome? That means I'm not an imposter.
Wait, now I'm back to not having imposter syndrome. Oh no.
Wait, does that mean this is saying I am an imposter? Oh no, what if I am?
But wait, wasn't that thought imposter syndrome? That means I'm not an imposter.
Wait, now I'm back to not having imposter syndrome. Oh no.
Your comment is an example of a logical fallacy called "affirming the consequent." Borrowing from Wikipedia, a good example of affirming the consequent is:
1. If an animal is a dog, then it has four legs.
2. My cat has four legs.
3. Therefore, my cat is a dog.
The problem is the conclusion is the result of a reversal of the conditional statement. Similarly, you've said, essentially,
1. If I am an imposter, then I will not feel like an imposter.
2. I do not feel like an imposter.
3. Therefore I am an imposter.
The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
ETA: If your comment was a joke, then forget everything I wrote – which does not mean that if you forget everything I wrote, then your comment was a joke. :-)
1. If an animal is a dog, then it has four legs.
2. My cat has four legs.
3. Therefore, my cat is a dog.
The problem is the conclusion is the result of a reversal of the conditional statement. Similarly, you've said, essentially,
1. If I am an imposter, then I will not feel like an imposter.
2. I do not feel like an imposter.
3. Therefore I am an imposter.
The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
ETA: If your comment was a joke, then forget everything I wrote – which does not mean that if you forget everything I wrote, then your comment was a joke. :-)
Watch out for zebra crossings.
Or Zebras crossing
At zebra crossings, watch out for zebras crossing?
But how are zebras on topic? Am I missing something
But how are zebras on topic? Am I missing something
Ask yourself, if philosophers go on strike, who will it inconvenience?
And never, ever, cross a zebra.
[deleted]
There is a subtle difference though, in that imposter syndrome exists based on an individuals beliefs, which could be altered by reading about it regardless of whether or not that thought process is rational. So it could be reality created by a fallacy in a way.
That being said it was probably just a joke and now we’ve both overanalyzed it lol
That being said it was probably just a joke and now we’ve both overanalyzed it lol
What a clever way to finish of your point. It made my day.
Is this related to mistaking an "if" statement in math as "if and only if" ?
Well, sort of - but we use "if" in day-to-day as a different thing to the material implication in logic. I've yet to run into a person using 'if and only if' in a way that doesn't map to the material equivalence, though, but I'm sure it must happen
Actually, this wikipedia article for has got a specific section about that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditional
Edit: I also just learned abou the 'Wason selection task' from that link. Cool stuff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wason_selection_task
Actually, this wikipedia article for has got a specific section about that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditional
Edit: I also just learned abou the 'Wason selection task' from that link. Cool stuff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wason_selection_task
I think so. The loosey-goosey language of "if" is usually (would need to actually check this) interpreted as an implication relationship
"B if A" or "If A, then B" interpreted as
A -> B
The fallacy would then be to do the following
A -> B
B
------------
A
On the other hand, iff is interpreted as A <=> B
i.e. A -> B and B -> A
So you can get A or B if you have B or A respectively.
"B if A" or "If A, then B" interpreted as
A -> B
The fallacy would then be to do the following
A -> B
B
------------
A
On the other hand, iff is interpreted as A <=> B
i.e. A -> B and B -> A
So you can get A or B if you have B or A respectively.
yes, "if" statments in proofs are the "p->q" forms from logic, if you have p you also have q (therefore if no q then no p). If you imagine the set of all possible logical propositions as nodes in a graph, p->q tells you that q is reachable from p. If you prove that q is not reachable from whatever axioms you have (i.e. false), then p is false too by necessity, because otherwise q would be reachable and we know that's not the case. But if all you have is that q is reachable, that's not enough to assert that p is also reachable. Because you have no reason to believe that the road from p to q is the only one, it might very well be that p is false but q is reachable from another statment s or something.
"if and only if" is "p->q and q->p" (also equivalent to "p->q and not(p)->not(q), the more intuitive sense of the phrase), it basically establishes equivalence: any proof that requires p also requires q and vice versa, any proof that guarantees p also guarantees q and vice versa.
"if and only if" is "p->q and q->p" (also equivalent to "p->q and not(p)->not(q), the more intuitive sense of the phrase), it basically establishes equivalence: any proof that requires p also requires q and vice versa, any proof that guarantees p also guarantees q and vice versa.
It's a long way to say P => Q is not the same as Q => P or P <=> Q.
Agreed! I considered writing something along the lines of what you wrote, but I don't think most people would understand it who haven't already studied at least some logic.
No, it's a more accessible way of saying it.
I don't really agree. I find the long-winded version confusing, and as I am not sure if there is a gotcha somewhere in there, I have to read the whole thing and follow the whole argument. You don't necessarily have to use math symbols, but it really helps to be terse.
Why waste time say lot word when few do trick?
For anyone with even a passing knowledge of symbolic logic, what you provided is clear. But the explanation wouldn't be required for those people who are going to be familiar with that Fallacy anyway. It's for those who aren't aware of it. In that case, the symbolic version is of no help and the longer verbal explanation is important.
For anyone with even a passing knowledge of symbolic logic, what you provided is clear. But the explanation wouldn't be required for those people who are going to be familiar with that Fallacy anyway. It's for those who aren't aware of it. In that case, the symbolic version is of no help and the longer verbal explanation is important.
What about starting with a TL;DR for those who know symbols, then the detailed explanation?
But oh no, I think the edit window has closed for @ARandomerDude
But oh no, I think the edit window has closed for @ARandomerDude
There's no reason to use symbolic logic on a mixed-audience webboard, it's just a flex.
Pure solipsism.
I supposed it was a pseudo-Godellian joke.
I don't think it's comparable to the first example and I don't think it's affirming the consequent.
It's more like a paradox where you start to loop. Similar to a sentence such as "I always lie".
Or it's kind of like a Dunning-Kruger where the premise would be that:
1. Smart people think they are dumb.
2. Dumb people think they are smart.
So you start to loop between those never being able to figure out if you are actually smart or dumb.
It's more like a paradox where you start to loop. Similar to a sentence such as "I always lie".
Or it's kind of like a Dunning-Kruger where the premise would be that:
1. Smart people think they are dumb.
2. Dumb people think they are smart.
So you start to loop between those never being able to figure out if you are actually smart or dumb.
I reckon the point of the comment was to illustrate how the article's premise is rooted in the logical fallacy you describe, and how said fallacy then results in an inability to determine whether oneself is an impostor.
You're probably not an impostor, but that's still kinda sus. ඞ ඞ ඞ ඞ ඞ් ඞ ඞ ඞ
Congratulations! You have managed to put an emoji on HN!
that was always allowed ( ͡º ͜ʖ͡º)
the way that lenny face renders is a little cursed
> emoji
*laughs in Sinhalese*
*laughs in Sinhalese*
[deleted]
I’m an actual imposter (well somewhat) and I sort of get it, but not fully.
Most of us have worked with the person who thinks they know everything. Part of being a good engineer/software developer/scientist is knowing it’s impossible to know everything and being open to new ideas.
So, we have a group of people who lack sufficient skills for their job, and we have another group who _feel like_ they lack sufficient skills for their job. The author is claiming that these groups have no overlap whatsoever. There's absolutely no way that could be true. Considering how many people are bad at what they do, and how many people feel like they aren't good enough, surely there's at least one person in the world who is poor at their job and realizes it. The author supports their outlandishly broad generalization with nothing more than anecdotes. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not anecdotes.
Surely there is one person in the world: that would be the anecdote to the data. We can't disregard something if there is one conflicting data point, unless we're talking about maths or proofs.
With that being said: if someone is feeling bad because they think they're an impostor, first they should:
1. Reflect if they really are 2. If yes, improve 3. If can't improve, either embrace it or quit
With that being said: if someone is feeling bad because they think they're an impostor, first they should:
1. Reflect if they really are 2. If yes, improve 3. If can't improve, either embrace it or quit
> Surely there is one person in the world: that would be the anecdote to the data. We can't disregard something if there is one conflicting data point, unless we're talking about maths or proofs.
The claim here was "no single counter-datapoint can possibly exist", so in this case, one counter-datapoint is indeed sufficient to prove the claim false.
The claim here was "no single counter-datapoint can possibly exist", so in this case, one counter-datapoint is indeed sufficient to prove the claim false.
I disagree with this article and most things I read about imposter syndrome. There's usually some good advice in there about self care. But, I think it ends up missing the mark because it leaves out half the story: It is healthy and normal to question if you're over-representing yourself.
A constant feeling of "Am I as good as people think and I say?" is only imposter syndrome if the answer is yes. Otherwise, yeah, you're an imposter.
I've spoken with and mentored many new software engineers. Some of them tell me they're struggling with imposter syndrome. Do I tell them they're wrong and they shouldn't feel that way, baselessly invalidating their beliefs? No! I look for evidence that they can write code. Some live coding, a project that's not a copy-pasted tutorial, just something.
Then, the conversation goes one of two ways. If they can code, then we have a talk about expectation setting. No one knows everything, everyone expects a junior to make lots of mistakes, googling stuff is fine, etc. If they can't code, it's more like "Yeah, you're right. Your feelings aren't just valid but pointing at a truth. Let's work on teaching you to code."
Let's say I'm race car driver, but I feel like I'm no good. Some day I'll be found out. Do I have imposter syndrome? Who knows! Let's look at the standings. If over a season, I sometimes crash, sometimes end up in the middle, and sometimes get on the podium, yeah I'm definitely a race car driver. My worries of being found out are baseless. But, if I'm always coming in dead last and I barely even race anymore, then these concerns seem pretty grounded.
The unfortunate reality is that most things aren't as clear cut as the standings of a race. You can still look outward for external evidence, instead of inward to your own feelings. What do I think someone in this position should be able to do? How good do people with similar experience (very important qualifier) in this role tend to be? How am I compared to that?
I don't think it's healthy and I don't think it's useful to just sweep these feelings under the rug. Which is what you're doing when you share them with someone else and they reactively tell you not to worry. I have never seen that work for myself or anyone else. You have to face these feelings honestly and openly, see if they match reality, and adjust accordingly.
A constant feeling of "Am I as good as people think and I say?" is only imposter syndrome if the answer is yes. Otherwise, yeah, you're an imposter.
I've spoken with and mentored many new software engineers. Some of them tell me they're struggling with imposter syndrome. Do I tell them they're wrong and they shouldn't feel that way, baselessly invalidating their beliefs? No! I look for evidence that they can write code. Some live coding, a project that's not a copy-pasted tutorial, just something.
Then, the conversation goes one of two ways. If they can code, then we have a talk about expectation setting. No one knows everything, everyone expects a junior to make lots of mistakes, googling stuff is fine, etc. If they can't code, it's more like "Yeah, you're right. Your feelings aren't just valid but pointing at a truth. Let's work on teaching you to code."
Let's say I'm race car driver, but I feel like I'm no good. Some day I'll be found out. Do I have imposter syndrome? Who knows! Let's look at the standings. If over a season, I sometimes crash, sometimes end up in the middle, and sometimes get on the podium, yeah I'm definitely a race car driver. My worries of being found out are baseless. But, if I'm always coming in dead last and I barely even race anymore, then these concerns seem pretty grounded.
The unfortunate reality is that most things aren't as clear cut as the standings of a race. You can still look outward for external evidence, instead of inward to your own feelings. What do I think someone in this position should be able to do? How good do people with similar experience (very important qualifier) in this role tend to be? How am I compared to that?
I don't think it's healthy and I don't think it's useful to just sweep these feelings under the rug. Which is what you're doing when you share them with someone else and they reactively tell you not to worry. I have never seen that work for myself or anyone else. You have to face these feelings honestly and openly, see if they match reality, and adjust accordingly.
>I've spoken with and mentored many new software engineers. Some of them tell me they're struggling with imposter syndrome. Do I tell them they're wrong and they shouldn't feel that way, baselessly invalidating their beliefs? No! I look for evidence that they can write code. Some live coding, a project that's not a copy-pasted tutorial, just something.
Soooo much this. The right response to "I feel like an impostor" should always be, "okay let's run over some heuristics to see if that doubt is justified". Some people actually are impostors, while some are just mis-judging themselves.
Reflexively dismissing all doubt as impostor syndrome is how you create the Elizabeth Holmeses of the world. Earlier comments on the point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19214306
Soooo much this. The right response to "I feel like an impostor" should always be, "okay let's run over some heuristics to see if that doubt is justified". Some people actually are impostors, while some are just mis-judging themselves.
Reflexively dismissing all doubt as impostor syndrome is how you create the Elizabeth Holmeses of the world. Earlier comments on the point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19214306
The key part of impostor syndrome is that you think you're bad at something, but somehow nobody else can tell. You keep getting compliments for the thing you're worried about.
If you think you're bad at coding, and people can tell right away in a short coding interview, then you're not an impostor, you're just bad at it. If you're coming in last in every race, then you're not an impostor, everyone knows you're bad. If you're consistently on the podium but you tell yourself you don't really deserve it and those races were all flukes, that's imposter syndrome.
It is healthy and normal to question your own abilities and how you represent yourself, but it's not healthy to question to such a point that you ignore all positive evidence. If you mentor someone who's great at coding, and you tell them that, and they still think to themselves that they're actually bad and just got lucky this time, that's impostor syndrome.
tldr: "Am I bad at this" and "am I a fraud that has everyone fooled" are very different.
If you think you're bad at coding, and people can tell right away in a short coding interview, then you're not an impostor, you're just bad at it. If you're coming in last in every race, then you're not an impostor, everyone knows you're bad. If you're consistently on the podium but you tell yourself you don't really deserve it and those races were all flukes, that's imposter syndrome.
It is healthy and normal to question your own abilities and how you represent yourself, but it's not healthy to question to such a point that you ignore all positive evidence. If you mentor someone who's great at coding, and you tell them that, and they still think to themselves that they're actually bad and just got lucky this time, that's impostor syndrome.
tldr: "Am I bad at this" and "am I a fraud that has everyone fooled" are very different.
To further your example, when the mentor gives the feedback that the programmer is _good_, they don't take it as evidence they are good, instead it is rationalized away. "The mentor only told me I was good because they didn't want to hurt my feelings, but of course she knows I'm really not," Or "The mentor only told me I was good because they don't really see how much time I spend googling things. Real Engineers should have their code jump from their heads like Athena from Zeus."
Part of the problem is that the standard to say something is "good" can vary wildly, and often does end up becoming quite low. See inflation of grades, video game reviews, Yelp ratings, etc. If I see a 3 star restaurant I'm highly skeptical of it, even though 3 stars should be considered perfectly acceptable by intended definition.
On Google performance reviews scores could range from 1 to 5, with 2 being "meets expectations". A 2/5 sounds pretty bad, but the description sounds like the person is doing their job fine and is not an impostor. So what does it actually mean? But that depends from manager to manager anyway. IME many of them end up inflating and "exceeds expectations" loses meaning.
Point being, I think you need a lot more context to determine what "good job" actually means. If feedback is sufficiently detailed you can make a pretty good estimate right off the bat, but unfortunately people are bad at giving feedback in general. So especially when new to a team and you don't have any priors for how they use language, it makes sense to have some doubts.
I'm sure this can become pathological, but is the unhealthy version actually as prevalent as all the talk about impostor syndrome?
On Google performance reviews scores could range from 1 to 5, with 2 being "meets expectations". A 2/5 sounds pretty bad, but the description sounds like the person is doing their job fine and is not an impostor. So what does it actually mean? But that depends from manager to manager anyway. IME many of them end up inflating and "exceeds expectations" loses meaning.
Point being, I think you need a lot more context to determine what "good job" actually means. If feedback is sufficiently detailed you can make a pretty good estimate right off the bat, but unfortunately people are bad at giving feedback in general. So especially when new to a team and you don't have any priors for how they use language, it makes sense to have some doubts.
I'm sure this can become pathological, but is the unhealthy version actually as prevalent as all the talk about impostor syndrome?
The anecdote at the start of the story seems off-target since that scam-artist wasn't an "imposter" of the sort discussed in "imposter syndrome".
To compare:
* Imposter-syndrome is when someone worries that they're incompetent/unworthy/whatever, when others probably wouldn't agree. They feel like others would look down upon them if (what they believe to be) the truth of their incompetence/unworthiness were to be revealed.
* An actual imposter would be someone actually incompetent. For example, someone who got hired to a role that they're actually bad at, but their incompetence hasn't been realized yet.
* The scam-artist discussed at the start of the story seems to have been more malicious than incompetent. While this would make them an "imposter" in a sense, it's not really what "imposter syndrome" is about.
To compare:
* Imposter-syndrome is when someone worries that they're incompetent/unworthy/whatever, when others probably wouldn't agree. They feel like others would look down upon them if (what they believe to be) the truth of their incompetence/unworthiness were to be revealed.
* An actual imposter would be someone actually incompetent. For example, someone who got hired to a role that they're actually bad at, but their incompetence hasn't been realized yet.
* The scam-artist discussed at the start of the story seems to have been more malicious than incompetent. While this would make them an "imposter" in a sense, it's not really what "imposter syndrome" is about.
This reminds me of my favorite joke about impostor syndrome.
A young grad student is suffering from a bout of impostor syndrome.
One day, the student (after weeks of mustering up the required courage) walks into their professor's office.
"Professor, may I ask you a question?" says the grad student.
"Of course" says the professor, barely looking up from their papers.
"What do you think about impostor syndrome? I...hear that most grad students have it at some point."
"Balderdash! I can tell you the vast majority of students here do not have impostor syndrome!" says the professor.
"Really?"
"Of course. For it to be impostor syndrome, they'd actually have to be good"
A young grad student is suffering from a bout of impostor syndrome.
One day, the student (after weeks of mustering up the required courage) walks into their professor's office.
"Professor, may I ask you a question?" says the grad student.
"Of course" says the professor, barely looking up from their papers.
"What do you think about impostor syndrome? I...hear that most grad students have it at some point."
"Balderdash! I can tell you the vast majority of students here do not have impostor syndrome!" says the professor.
"Really?"
"Of course. For it to be impostor syndrome, they'd actually have to be good"
Impostor syndrome seems like it is seen in people who can self reflect. Now there are people who cannot self reflect, these people are always right and they can't ever make mistakes. They are blind to their own mistakes. If something wrong has happened like in relationship you must have done it. This is how they are wired inside to not see their own faults. These are narcissists.
This implies narcissist never gets impostor syndrome. In other words narcissists are impostors which is actually true.
This implies narcissist never gets impostor syndrome. In other words narcissists are impostors which is actually true.
I have seen Imposter Syndrome refereed to as "Fragile Narcissism" which only increases the discomfort.
This blog post may not have imposter syndrome, but it is an imposter — an advertisement for the over-mentioned host domain, wrapped in an anodyne non-opinion perfect for sharing on your LinkedIn.
The basis of this claim is that the author knows many smart people who feel imposter syndrome, and met one fraud who seemed extremely confident. It’s not exactly the scientific evidence readers were hoping for
Worse, that one fraud wasn't really an imposter in the usual sense of being incompetent. He was actually highly capable at his job. Of course he was confident in his abilities when he was creating so much success.
I'm a bit tired of hearing about imposter syndrome, honestly. It's become trendy to claim you have it, and I feel like the actual number of people suffering from it is much smaller than the self-diagnosed sample.
Like a lot of things on the internet, it just seems like we like to find a sense of community by labelling ourselves or building an identity. And I'm sure there is an impostor syndrome support group out there somewhere.
In a deeper sense, I feel like there's also a growing desire to express vulnerability, and so hearing people talk more openly about this stuff doesn't mean it's a trend or that it's invalid in some form, it's instead bucking the trend of dealing in silence.
The truth would sit somewhere between those angles.
http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html
In a deeper sense, I feel like there's also a growing desire to express vulnerability, and so hearing people talk more openly about this stuff doesn't mean it's a trend or that it's invalid in some form, it's instead bucking the trend of dealing in silence.
The truth would sit somewhere between those angles.
http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html
There has always been something extremely off putting about this term, "imposter syndrome" and I haven't been able to articulate it until now.
IMO it is a defense mechanism (as is having unchallenged confidence). Claiming you have imposter syndrome is a way people with a 'fixed mindset' to avoid confronting harsh realities.
Whenever they make a mistake or lack knowledge in something, their whole identity of being an expert, high performing individual or "winner" gets challenged and they experience a loss of their identity. Claiming imposter syndrome is an extremely self-indulgent way to keep their positive identity in tact by rationalizing that their bad feelings in light of failure are somehow false and that all competent people feel the same way. In some ways, someone with arrogant, unwarranted confidence is doing the exact same thing in a different way.
The original sin so to speak is tying success to one's identity instead of viewing it as the multivariate and stochastic process that it is. In order to achieve a goal or a result, you will necessarily have to be thrown into foreign situations where you know close to nothing and start off as a beginner. The outcome doesn't care about your self-righteous "imposter syndrome", you either get the thing done or get someone else to get the thing done. If this involves being humble and studying something, do it. If it involves putting your ego aside and deferring to people who demonstrably know more and learning from them, do it. This calculus has no space to cry about imposter syndrome.
The people who harp on and on about imposter syndrome are more likely to justify insecure behaviors that don't move you closer to the end result in my experience. To iterate, the end result doesn't care about your feelings or self-identity, develop a growth mindset and focus on achieving the outcome in the most effective way possible instead of worrying about who is an "imposter". If you fail at a job and are unable to deliver, there are many factors at play, most of which were already probably predetermined before you accepted the role. The best thing you can do if you find yourself in this situation is to fix it instead of behaving defensively.
IMO it is a defense mechanism (as is having unchallenged confidence). Claiming you have imposter syndrome is a way people with a 'fixed mindset' to avoid confronting harsh realities.
Whenever they make a mistake or lack knowledge in something, their whole identity of being an expert, high performing individual or "winner" gets challenged and they experience a loss of their identity. Claiming imposter syndrome is an extremely self-indulgent way to keep their positive identity in tact by rationalizing that their bad feelings in light of failure are somehow false and that all competent people feel the same way. In some ways, someone with arrogant, unwarranted confidence is doing the exact same thing in a different way.
The original sin so to speak is tying success to one's identity instead of viewing it as the multivariate and stochastic process that it is. In order to achieve a goal or a result, you will necessarily have to be thrown into foreign situations where you know close to nothing and start off as a beginner. The outcome doesn't care about your self-righteous "imposter syndrome", you either get the thing done or get someone else to get the thing done. If this involves being humble and studying something, do it. If it involves putting your ego aside and deferring to people who demonstrably know more and learning from them, do it. This calculus has no space to cry about imposter syndrome.
The people who harp on and on about imposter syndrome are more likely to justify insecure behaviors that don't move you closer to the end result in my experience. To iterate, the end result doesn't care about your feelings or self-identity, develop a growth mindset and focus on achieving the outcome in the most effective way possible instead of worrying about who is an "imposter". If you fail at a job and are unable to deliver, there are many factors at play, most of which were already probably predetermined before you accepted the role. The best thing you can do if you find yourself in this situation is to fix it instead of behaving defensively.
yes, it is the people who have unchallenged confidence who experience imposter syndrome, not the people who have work hard and encounter powerful "experts" pretending to know what they are talking about.
and who cares if your work environment or your boss or is bad. you either worked hard enough or you didn't. if it were me, i would have simply worked hard enough to overcome such challenges
and who cares if your work environment or your boss or is bad. you either worked hard enough or you didn't. if it were me, i would have simply worked hard enough to overcome such challenges
Yeah people think it's like some kind of psychological illness like bipolar disorder just because it has "syndrome" in the name. It's not a syndrome. When you're feeling nervous at a job interview do you have "interview syndrome"? No. That is dumb. This is all dumb.
I admire your confidence.
> Pruning plants and writing — they're instincts. They're skills I have because I've done them a lot. I can't point to any teachers who showed me how, and I couldn't explain the mechanics of it if I tried.
How a smart person performs a skill is “obvious” to them, but they often can’t explain their process, or sometimes their explanations don’t fit their actions.
Smart people subconsciously learn difficult skills, and they themselves are often completely unaware of their hidden thought processes or don’t understand how they make their choices.
The next level up are people that consciously are aware of their abilities, and can teach their skills to others. Not so many people can do that.
How a smart person performs a skill is “obvious” to them, but they often can’t explain their process, or sometimes their explanations don’t fit their actions.
Smart people subconsciously learn difficult skills, and they themselves are often completely unaware of their hidden thought processes or don’t understand how they make their choices.
The next level up are people that consciously are aware of their abilities, and can teach their skills to others. Not so many people can do that.
The brilliant people I know are constantly looking for more challenging work and smarter people to work with. Usually they don’t find it and feel, well… like they haven’t lived up to their potential. The idea that you’re a genius because you work at Zapier and have impostor syndrome is… just weird.
In fraud analysis, we look for these red flags! Fraudsters come to the office earlier and stay later than others. They take on as much as possible to expand their access and take no vacations to make it so that others never review their work.
Fraudsters looks a lot like a great employee! To avoid this, implement healthy segregation of duties. Trust is great but also the fraudsters greatest weapon.
Fraudsters looks a lot like a great employee! To avoid this, implement healthy segregation of duties. Trust is great but also the fraudsters greatest weapon.
Actual impostors don't have imposter syndrome because they are talented at the only thing that matters to them: Screwing over everyone else for personal gain. And they have a track record proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that they know exactly what they are doing in that regard.
Talented people get imposter syndrome in part because it's hard to find good metrics to be confident in when people around you say "It can't be done" and then don't believe you when you say "It can be done. I know because I've done it."
Talented people often find their limits by slamming into a metaphorical wall at 100 miles an hour because they have so often heard "You can't do that" when they could that actually hitting their limit is the only real test. But doing that comes at a psychological, emotional and sometimes social cost. It hurts like a bitch and not something you want to keep doing.
It's easy to steal from other people. It's hard to study something for years, contemplate how it works, find a way to benefit without shafting other people.
And if no one believes you, no one adopts your thing. If it doesn't get adopted, you have no proof you are right.
Etc.
It can be hard to do something original in the real world. Much easier to be a con artist and to feel confident you know exactly what you are doing because all the other fools bought your BS and people are still buying it.
Talented people get imposter syndrome in part because it's hard to find good metrics to be confident in when people around you say "It can't be done" and then don't believe you when you say "It can be done. I know because I've done it."
Talented people often find their limits by slamming into a metaphorical wall at 100 miles an hour because they have so often heard "You can't do that" when they could that actually hitting their limit is the only real test. But doing that comes at a psychological, emotional and sometimes social cost. It hurts like a bitch and not something you want to keep doing.
It's easy to steal from other people. It's hard to study something for years, contemplate how it works, find a way to benefit without shafting other people.
And if no one believes you, no one adopts your thing. If it doesn't get adopted, you have no proof you are right.
Etc.
It can be hard to do something original in the real world. Much easier to be a con artist and to feel confident you know exactly what you are doing because all the other fools bought your BS and people are still buying it.
> Actual impostors don't have imposter syndrome
Actual imposters van have imposter syndrome (though it will be relative to being an imposter, not the thing they are pretending to be.)
> because they are talented at the only thing that matters to them: Screwing over everyone else for personal gain.
(1) Just because you are an imposter doesn't mean that is the only thing that matters to you.
(2) Just because you are an imposter doesn't mean you are talented at it; there's lots of talentless imposters who aren't very successful at it.
(3) And, most importantly, just because you are talented at the thing that matters to you doesn't mean you can't have imposter syndrome relative to it.
Actual imposters van have imposter syndrome (though it will be relative to being an imposter, not the thing they are pretending to be.)
> because they are talented at the only thing that matters to them: Screwing over everyone else for personal gain.
(1) Just because you are an imposter doesn't mean that is the only thing that matters to you.
(2) Just because you are an imposter doesn't mean you are talented at it; there's lots of talentless imposters who aren't very successful at it.
(3) And, most importantly, just because you are talented at the thing that matters to you doesn't mean you can't have imposter syndrome relative to it.
There was a post the other day on reddit - https://www.reddit.com/r/cscareerquestions/comments/oxdwd3/w...
The thing that this particular comment brought up was the mindset of someone not beset by imposter syndrome.
So, from that post:
* Able to determine their own self-worth
* Does not compare themselves to determine their value
* Does not see failure as a bad thing, rather they see it as an opportunity for growth
* Confidence in their ability to deal with anything that may come their way, regardless of whether or not the outcome is favorable (like getting fired, for example)
* Does not worry about things they have no control over and accepts them instead
* Knows that doing their best is all they can do
* Does not derive their value from the opinions of others
* Does not let fear control their actions
---
I'd like to blame social media for the prevalence of some of the problems that establish a contrary mindset to the above... but... get off my lawn.
The thing that this particular comment brought up was the mindset of someone not beset by imposter syndrome.
So, from that post:
* Able to determine their own self-worth
* Does not compare themselves to determine their value
* Does not see failure as a bad thing, rather they see it as an opportunity for growth
* Confidence in their ability to deal with anything that may come their way, regardless of whether or not the outcome is favorable (like getting fired, for example)
* Does not worry about things they have no control over and accepts them instead
* Knows that doing their best is all they can do
* Does not derive their value from the opinions of others
* Does not let fear control their actions
---
I'd like to blame social media for the prevalence of some of the problems that establish a contrary mindset to the above... but... get off my lawn.
Imposter syndrome is the gluten allergy or OCD self-diagnosis of the tech world. People should just get over themselves. You have a skillset that commands a high salary? Congrats. Get to work.
On that topic it is worth watching the TV show Dr Death. Horrible directing (Christopher Nolan-style random timeline), but good cast, amazing story and it actually happened. A neuro-surgeon as incompetent as over-confident that botched dozens of procedures, severely injured most patients, and killed some of them.
A lot of tech interviews screen for the ability to quickly solve whiteboard problems.
But the problems you solve on the job rarely if ever resemble those problems.
Perhaps we have a lot of impostor syndrome because we have a lot of people who aren't the right fit for their job. (This has been my personal experience.)
But the problems you solve on the job rarely if ever resemble those problems.
Perhaps we have a lot of impostor syndrome because we have a lot of people who aren't the right fit for their job. (This has been my personal experience.)
The article doesn't make sense. It's at best a clickbait, and at worse the author doesn't understand impostor syndrome at all, because an actual 'impostor' in an 'impostor syndrome' would be some under-skilled, not a con-artist.
> It's a hard feeling to get over, but every time I feel it, I think about Brazil. He could confidently state something that's objectively not true and would double down if you questioned him about it. I know because this happened to me. I doubted things I knew to be true because he was that confident and that persuasive. I'll never know what was going on inside his head, but I don't think he spent a moment questioning himself.
That sounds exactly like Steve Jobs.
His RDF was amazing.
I used to say that he could not only convince a cartographer that the world was flat, but sell tickets to them for a boat ride to the edge.
That sounds exactly like Steve Jobs.
His RDF was amazing.
I used to say that he could not only convince a cartographer that the world was flat, but sell tickets to them for a boat ride to the edge.
It sounds like a cool super power but it sounds like an absolute curse as well. For one, there are people that are relatively unaffected by your RDF, and those people will always see you as a fraud (which you are, if you're doubling down on falsehoods). For two, if you can convince yourself and those around you of anything/everything, it diminishes your innate ability to know what is right. After all, if you can convince yourself of anything, "right" is whatever is convenient at the time. Sounds kind of miserable.
I don’t think these were problems for Steve Jobs. He was quite “self-sufficient.”
I think the example given in this is ridiculous. How about someone who is instead not a criminal, but actually has zero evidence of their efficacy in a job or is constantly told otherwise, by means of losing their job or failing to get them, but does feel capable at performing some of the core duties. There is zero to think about after reading it, because apparently if I'm not deliberately trying to steal from my company, then I'm brilliant.
I ask myself this question constantly, because I haven't landed a job in over a year, but I rarely compare myself to others because I don't really believe in it.
I ask myself this question constantly, because I haven't landed a job in over a year, but I rarely compare myself to others because I don't really believe in it.
I object to the concept in its entirety.
Your feelings of "inadequacy" are there you to motivate you to get better at what you do.
If you label these feelings in a way that makes them seem like some sort of psychological ailment that needs cured .. you are just making life harder for yourself.
Of course, if you have reached your limit and can't get any better .. it makes sense to just accept that.
If you _can_ get better and you it, then these feelings will stay there as long as you are not working on improving yourself.
Your feelings of "inadequacy" are there you to motivate you to get better at what you do.
If you label these feelings in a way that makes them seem like some sort of psychological ailment that needs cured .. you are just making life harder for yourself.
Of course, if you have reached your limit and can't get any better .. it makes sense to just accept that.
If you _can_ get better and you it, then these feelings will stay there as long as you are not working on improving yourself.
You don't have to be an actual impostor. It's well known that while the highly able tend to underestimate themselves, the less able tend to overestimate themselves.
While there is probably some benefit to the concept of impostor syndrome being discussed now and then, most discussions wreak of false humility.
Very rarely are coveted positions acquired by merit alone, getting there required some degree of Machiavellianism, some amount of self-promotion, and some level of calculated risk taking.
Imagine hiring/promoting someone who wasn't in that headspace -- it would be a major risk because of the risk that the person's ego is not going to be able to handle it.
Humans telegraph subtle signs of Machiavellianism during the selection process as a way of conveying a lack of naivete.
But humans also telegraph hints of impostor syndrome to counteract the possibility that they be perceived as overly Machiavellian.
Statistically, most social, business and political leaders are high in "dark triad" personality traits. This is not an accident. Such traits are considered ethical and acceptable in moderation.
So per the article, a real "impostor" is someone trying to deceive. By definition, impostor syndrome is someone who is not trying to misrepresent her skills/qualifications.
I suspect that a psychological test that measured the desire to conceal dark triad traits would find a correlation between such concealment and the deliberate display of insecurity about impostor syndrome.
Imagine Usain Bold holding his head in his hands and saying "I don't think I'm really the fastest, how did I get here?" It wouldn't happen because Bolt has nothing to gain from saying that to anyone.
Very rarely are coveted positions acquired by merit alone, getting there required some degree of Machiavellianism, some amount of self-promotion, and some level of calculated risk taking.
Imagine hiring/promoting someone who wasn't in that headspace -- it would be a major risk because of the risk that the person's ego is not going to be able to handle it.
Humans telegraph subtle signs of Machiavellianism during the selection process as a way of conveying a lack of naivete.
But humans also telegraph hints of impostor syndrome to counteract the possibility that they be perceived as overly Machiavellian.
Statistically, most social, business and political leaders are high in "dark triad" personality traits. This is not an accident. Such traits are considered ethical and acceptable in moderation.
So per the article, a real "impostor" is someone trying to deceive. By definition, impostor syndrome is someone who is not trying to misrepresent her skills/qualifications.
I suspect that a psychological test that measured the desire to conceal dark triad traits would find a correlation between such concealment and the deliberate display of insecurity about impostor syndrome.
Imagine Usain Bold holding his head in his hands and saying "I don't think I'm really the fastest, how did I get here?" It wouldn't happen because Bolt has nothing to gain from saying that to anyone.
I coined the phrase "reverse imposter syndrome" during my later years at Google.
Reverse imposter syndrome is when you think you're good enough to be there, but you're not.
At s company gets bigger and bigger, the talent level has to revert to the population mean. Especially when all FAAMNG companies also covet the highly talented, no one of them can fill its hiring goals without lowering its standards.
Reverse imposter syndrome is when you think you're good enough to be there, but you're not.
At s company gets bigger and bigger, the talent level has to revert to the population mean. Especially when all FAAMNG companies also covet the highly talented, no one of them can fill its hiring goals without lowering its standards.
Exactly, and when those folks don't measure up they blame everyone and everything for their problems.
I think it comes down to knowing what you don’t know and thinking it’s a limitation or ignorance of the unknown thus assuming you know it all.
If I get asked how good I am at something I try to elaborate on how I was able to use it to solve all my problems but I’m aware there are components that I have never had a reason to touch. With reason, I could probably figure it out like I have before is my mindset.
If I get asked how good I am at something I try to elaborate on how I was able to use it to solve all my problems but I’m aware there are components that I have never had a reason to touch. With reason, I could probably figure it out like I have before is my mindset.
[deleted]
Growth usually means operating outside the confines of our previous experience to some extent.
Tech careers are, hopefully, about growing - yes using new technologies, but also trying out new roles like management, architecture, sales, building a company...
The more senior tech people get, the more they are doing outside the box they were initially hired in, until they are not doing that thing at all.
As a result, everyone is doing some percentage of things they have little experience or training in, while they try to backfill that experience and training. Often there isn't someone better at it around either - that's why they ended up doing it in the first place. As soon as they actually get good at it they are pulled and pushed onto the next step.
So, most people don't know what they are doing part of the time. I wouldn't want to label that imposter syndrome. We need to recognize our real limitations so we know what to learn and can control the risks.
Tech careers are, hopefully, about growing - yes using new technologies, but also trying out new roles like management, architecture, sales, building a company...
The more senior tech people get, the more they are doing outside the box they were initially hired in, until they are not doing that thing at all.
As a result, everyone is doing some percentage of things they have little experience or training in, while they try to backfill that experience and training. Often there isn't someone better at it around either - that's why they ended up doing it in the first place. As soon as they actually get good at it they are pulled and pushed onto the next step.
So, most people don't know what they are doing part of the time. I wouldn't want to label that imposter syndrome. We need to recognize our real limitations so we know what to learn and can control the risks.
It is entirely possible to feel like an impostor and actually be one. Apparently, if you suffer from the syndrome (although I hesitate calling it that), then you’re not really an impostor. However, the symptoms would presumably feel the same.
The author provides an incorrect definition of the term “impostor” to work around this problem.
The author provides an incorrect definition of the term “impostor” to work around this problem.
I don’t think it’s imposter syndrome that’s the problem. It’s mutual dishonesty. When an employer asks for 10 years experience with a technology that has only existed for 5, they’re being dishonest. ( no I don’t think it’s a simple mistake). It’s impossible to satisfy the requirement and they’re being dishonest asking so the logical response is to simply be dishonest in your response. Yes, I have 10 years experience.
This extends to other things as well. When they say we are going to start using technology X. They don’t want to hear, “I don’t know it but I can probably get up to speed in a couple of weeks.” They want to hear,”oh ya, I’ve been working with that on my nights and weekends for about six months now. They’ll usually know no one knows it because they’ve been looking foe people for the last couple of months but can’t find anyone who has worked with x.
This extends to other things as well. When they say we are going to start using technology X. They don’t want to hear, “I don’t know it but I can probably get up to speed in a couple of weeks.” They want to hear,”oh ya, I’ve been working with that on my nights and weekends for about six months now. They’ll usually know no one knows it because they’ve been looking foe people for the last couple of months but can’t find anyone who has worked with x.
This person doesn't appear to be qualified to write about imposter syndrome. Irony much?
> Because actual impostors don't experience impostor syndrome. They don't wonder if they're qualified for their current position, or if they measure up with their peers. They just lie, lie, lie, until they have access to what they want, then they take it—and leave.
This is just silly. The author of this article is perpetrating a logical fallacy of equivocation revolving the multiple semantics of the word "impostor".
Impostor syndrome is the fear that one is an undiscovered incompetent, promoted into their position by luck.
Impostor syndrome is not the fear that one is a literal impostor: someone who consciously takes on a false identity and lies to get what he wants, yet is somehow not aware of this! (That would be pretty serious psychiatric disorder!)
Impostor meaning "incompetent person in an undeserved position" is different from "someone who lies and disguises their identity to gain what he wants".
Of course impostors of this second kind, the conscious liars and pretenders, know what they are. That is completely irrelevant to impostor syndrome.
Impostors, the incompetents, often do not know they are incompetent. This is known as the Dunning-Kruger effect.
However, incompetents sometimes do know that they are incompetent.
Whether or not you think you are incompetent actually has no bearing on whether or not you are. All four combinations of think/are are possible.
If you suspect you're incompetent, you've avoided the Duning-Kruger effect; but that doesn't prove you're competent. You simply could be right.
This is just silly. The author of this article is perpetrating a logical fallacy of equivocation revolving the multiple semantics of the word "impostor".
Impostor syndrome is the fear that one is an undiscovered incompetent, promoted into their position by luck.
Impostor syndrome is not the fear that one is a literal impostor: someone who consciously takes on a false identity and lies to get what he wants, yet is somehow not aware of this! (That would be pretty serious psychiatric disorder!)
Impostor meaning "incompetent person in an undeserved position" is different from "someone who lies and disguises their identity to gain what he wants".
Of course impostors of this second kind, the conscious liars and pretenders, know what they are. That is completely irrelevant to impostor syndrome.
Impostors, the incompetents, often do not know they are incompetent. This is known as the Dunning-Kruger effect.
However, incompetents sometimes do know that they are incompetent.
Whether or not you think you are incompetent actually has no bearing on whether or not you are. All four combinations of think/are are possible.
If you suspect you're incompetent, you've avoided the Duning-Kruger effect; but that doesn't prove you're competent. You simply could be right.
I feel that what has helped me a lot with any sense of doubt about my capabilities is assisting and mentoring junior/mid-level developers; you really get a reality check on how much you've learned over the years.
I actually had a conversation a few months back with some CS students close to graduating. I kinda felt that, but then the job market reverted that feeling real quick.
What about the job market exactly? The endless leetcode grind?
There’s that for sure, but also I’m probably at a 50% rejection rate having at the HR screening level, in fairness though the latter is somewhat my fault.
Working in data science I can safely say that that vast majority of people who feel like that have impostor syndrome at the very least really don't know what they are doing. A true imposter theoretically knows they don't know enough, and wants to get away with it. I think it's fair to say people with "impostor syndrome" aren't truly malicious impostors.. but there is this frequent assumption having "impostor syndrome" means "I actually do know what I'm doing".
I find the real issue is that being an expert no longer matters in most roles, so true experts increasingly have disappeared except in a few, mostly academic or skilled trade areas.
This is glaringly obvious in data science where I have been to many large, respectable companies where nobody understands any of the real fundamentals of what they're doing. It's just a bunch of automatons feeding data they don't understand, into models they don't understand, to be used in products they don't understand. But it's ridiculous to blame individuals for this. This is so pervasive in the culture that I have often found myself needing to guess which incorrect or not quite right answer to give in job interviews.
People working at places like this are right to feel that they don't know what they're doing, because they rushed through a boot camp to learn the basics and stopped there. At the same time they shouldn't feel like impostors because they aren't succeeding from some malicious intent, but because the system is broken. Most of them are dying for an expert to give them advice, but because of the broken system this is impossible.
It's not just tech either. We see this in "skilled" trades (to be clear, the quotes aren't because I don't believe these trades require skill, but because they have been transformed into something that increasing does not... even when it should). Plumbing for example used to be a field where it was a big deal to have connections with an experienced, expert plumber who could correctly solve your problem. Currently most "plumbers" are giant companies with a few real plumber's having their "assistants" who can hardly tell a leak from a faucet looking perplexedly at the drip in your ceiling take care of all the calls.
If you really care about knowing something today, the burden is all on you to learn it and there will be no reward other than your personal satisfaction. It may even cause you hardship from time to time when you have to pretend you don't understand something to do your job in a satisfactory way.
I find the real issue is that being an expert no longer matters in most roles, so true experts increasingly have disappeared except in a few, mostly academic or skilled trade areas.
This is glaringly obvious in data science where I have been to many large, respectable companies where nobody understands any of the real fundamentals of what they're doing. It's just a bunch of automatons feeding data they don't understand, into models they don't understand, to be used in products they don't understand. But it's ridiculous to blame individuals for this. This is so pervasive in the culture that I have often found myself needing to guess which incorrect or not quite right answer to give in job interviews.
People working at places like this are right to feel that they don't know what they're doing, because they rushed through a boot camp to learn the basics and stopped there. At the same time they shouldn't feel like impostors because they aren't succeeding from some malicious intent, but because the system is broken. Most of them are dying for an expert to give them advice, but because of the broken system this is impossible.
It's not just tech either. We see this in "skilled" trades (to be clear, the quotes aren't because I don't believe these trades require skill, but because they have been transformed into something that increasing does not... even when it should). Plumbing for example used to be a field where it was a big deal to have connections with an experienced, expert plumber who could correctly solve your problem. Currently most "plumbers" are giant companies with a few real plumber's having their "assistants" who can hardly tell a leak from a faucet looking perplexedly at the drip in your ceiling take care of all the calls.
If you really care about knowing something today, the burden is all on you to learn it and there will be no reward other than your personal satisfaction. It may even cause you hardship from time to time when you have to pretend you don't understand something to do your job in a satisfactory way.
The premise of this article is complete BS (and it's a particular type of BS thats become very common, but I digress).
Imposters aren't even the thing they are faking at, so comparing them to that is totally absurd.
They likeky see themselves as being some degree of successful criminals/social system hackers or as successful impostors. Or maybe they don't feel successful. But they obviously don't see themselves as a legitimate but inexperienced employee struggling to legitimize their presence. Why the hell would they??
Imposters aren't even the thing they are faking at, so comparing them to that is totally absurd.
They likeky see themselves as being some degree of successful criminals/social system hackers or as successful impostors. Or maybe they don't feel successful. But they obviously don't see themselves as a legitimate but inexperienced employee struggling to legitimize their presence. Why the hell would they??
[deleted]
That's just bad impostors.
Good impostors can fake impostor syndrome as well.
Good impostors can fake impostor syndrome as well.
I am not sure if this is true, there was more than one occasion where I felt like an imposter because on some level I was imposting. E.g. when as a freelancer I took jobs that felt to far out for my abilities. I still had to tell the customer that it is doable, I totally knew that I had no idea how to do it and I told them I did anyways (and I felt stressed about it).
To all fairness I managed to deliver in all of these cases, so I maybe don't fit the role of an "actual imposter" very squarely.
To all fairness I managed to deliver in all of these cases, so I maybe don't fit the role of an "actual imposter" very squarely.
This concept is so tired! If you grind for years to mastery under the tutelage of true masters, you feel no imposter syndrome - you feel confident and complete in yourself. Temet Nosce
I am usually fairly confident. But then I will come across something where I realize I have missed a whole field in what I do. That is when it kicks in for me. Then I realize oh wait I can do this just need to put some time into it. Just like the previous five thousand times...
Don't confuse bad impostors who sabotage important project with their incompetence, like architecting buildings or bridges without a proper engineering degree, and coasters who get easy money in oil or ads industries. I'm totally fine with the latter category. I'd even argue that they are a net good for society because otherwise their salaries would just end up in the Bezos' pocket.
In fraud analysis, we look for too much access (what we call improper segregation of duties). This is pretty common at smaller organizations, so it can help to look for additional red flags. Fraudsters commonly show up earlier and stay later. They rarely take vacations. The goal is to control as much as possible and avoid having others review your work!
Same as: people who suspect they have dementia, don't generally have dementia.
People who suspect they may be a narcissist, are not a narcissist.
People who suspect they may be a narcissist, are not a narcissist.
Right. People who suspect they are a con-artist are not con-artists. However, I don't think it works for incompetence -- people who suspect they are incompetent may very well be incompetent.
I am completely baffled by the imposter syndrome talk.
Guess what? We are all imposters, all of the time! Our whole lives are filled with times we are thrown into situations that we have no idea how to handle, and the act of just living them makes us imposters.
Like who wasn't an fucking "imposter" the first day of kindergarten? Do you stress about that? How about first day of high school? Your First date? Yes without a doubt you could be classified as an imposter in all of these cases.
And yes...at times during work you are going to be expected to know more than you do, and its your fucking job to deal with those feelings and get shit done. That doesn't make you an imposter, it just makes you someone who need to learn something they don't know yet.
Why in the world would you bother to think that your being an imposter? I don't understand why you would waste even 5 seconds stressing about this.
You were almost surely hired not only for what you know, but for your perceived ability to quickly realize what you DON'T know, and then to research options and select the one that solves the current issue.
It's called "learning",,,not "imposter syndrome".
Guess what? We are all imposters, all of the time! Our whole lives are filled with times we are thrown into situations that we have no idea how to handle, and the act of just living them makes us imposters.
Like who wasn't an fucking "imposter" the first day of kindergarten? Do you stress about that? How about first day of high school? Your First date? Yes without a doubt you could be classified as an imposter in all of these cases.
And yes...at times during work you are going to be expected to know more than you do, and its your fucking job to deal with those feelings and get shit done. That doesn't make you an imposter, it just makes you someone who need to learn something they don't know yet.
Why in the world would you bother to think that your being an imposter? I don't understand why you would waste even 5 seconds stressing about this.
You were almost surely hired not only for what you know, but for your perceived ability to quickly realize what you DON'T know, and then to research options and select the one that solves the current issue.
It's called "learning",,,not "imposter syndrome".
Let me get this straight. People who are unqualified will always judge themselves to be qualified, and only people who are actually qualified will judge themselves to be unqualified.
It is never the case that someone finds themselves in a situation where they correctly judge that they're in over their head?
It is never the case that someone finds themselves in a situation where they correctly judge that they're in over their head?
glad we sorted this out conclusively and I can be sure I'm not an imposter forever now. wait a minute..
[deleted]
I think the author is a bit confused. His example of an "actual impostor," the person named Brazil, is rather a psychopath. It's not that psychopaths don't experience impostor syndrome -- they can't experience impostor syndrome.
There's more than just two variables to this, can't really plot everyone on a XY-plane. Skill, confidence, self-awareness, honesty, etc. are all variables/features which can determine the outcome.
I had impostor syndrome for years and eventually stopped caring what other people think. I have a fancy title. I say dumb stuff in meetings and smart people roll their eyes. I am an actual impostor now.
I feel like this just falls into the mold of “what we’ve always believed and intuitively feel is wrong”. I want to buy it but the sample/n values are always tiny.
It's hard to be an impostor.
I always doubted myself in this role.
But over time and with a lot of practice, I got better at both. Actually, I'm quite good at it.
It helps to internalize that they're both just social games.
;-)
I always doubted myself in this role.
But over time and with a lot of practice, I got better at both. Actually, I'm quite good at it.
It helps to internalize that they're both just social games.
;-)
This is an obvious take. It's like consciousness, you have to be aware of consciousness in order to be conscious.
The only way to be an impostor is to be aware that you are one.
The only way to be an impostor is to be aware that you are one.
Breaking news;
"Actual impostors don't get impostor syndrome"
"Rabbits who are pretending to be ducks don't get anxiety over when they will lay their next egg"
"Actual impostors don't get impostor syndrome"
"Rabbits who are pretending to be ducks don't get anxiety over when they will lay their next egg"
The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.
-Bertrand Russell
It makes sense that a con artist conning people wouldn’t feel impostor syndrome since their self-identity is in fact a con artist.
This is definitely not true. Sometimes people accurately evaluate their own skill level and are disappointed at the evaluation.
[deleted]
So now what, the non-imposter stops worrying about being an imposter because they asked it. Now they don’t bother asking.
I used to have imposter syndrome. Now I just don't care. I do my best and whatever happens, happens.
I'm pretty sure an imposter can have the imposter syndrome about how good his imposter skills are.
As Piers Anthony once said, "Only those with souls worry over whether or not they have them."
I propose that impostor syndrome sometimes has more to do with the system rather than the individual. A well-meaning and bright individual working within a fraudulent system will catch glimpses of the fraud: "things my superiors tell me don't quite make sense" - and blame themselves: "I guess I'm just not smart enough"
[deleted]
No we don't.
But now that you've let the cat out of the bag, we might learn how to fake it. ;)
But now that you've let the cat out of the bag, we might learn how to fake it. ;)
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Ive never had imposter syndrome and now I’m wondering if this is why, eeeek
There are people who are impostors who don't get impostor syndrome, impostors who do get impostor syndrome, non-impostors who get impostor syndrome, and non-impostors who don't get impostor syndrome.
The first category is often full of narcissists, who think they know more despite evidence, or literal cons like described in the post.
The second category is people who are unfortunately correct about their situation, but perhaps they should be happy they've got the job they've got. If they detached their sense of worth from their work they might be a lot happier.
The third category is people who think they're in category 2 but are more competent than they know. They underestimate their own abilities, either because of a belief that their skills are misplaced and they won't transfer to what they're doing now, or they have some unresolved anxiety issue, or something traumatic happened in their past, or they're out of place in terms of culture and fit, or a dozen other reasons.
The final category is where we all want to be. Sometimes people in category 1, in service of helping category 3 and hurting category 1, try to make it seem like they actually don't know what they're doing. I don't think this is healthy though. If you know something, you should be proud of knowing it. Furthermore, if you have power, you should recognize it, if only because you should know before you hurt someone else.
IMHO this is why we've ended up in a society where no one takes responsibility for their own lives. Everyone wants someone else to take responsibility - usually either a company or a politician. Everyone wants to stop climate change but no one will stop eating meat or flying on planes. Everyone wants a more equitable situation but most people donate hardly any part of their salary at all, even if they could. People want privacy, and to use social media services for free, with an unending list of features. I could go on and on about what people will do to shift the blame onto someone else.
I don't want to say there's no such thing as structural issues, there are economic issues and political issues which legitimately need solutions that are global/social/political. Just because someone flies somewhere once a year doesn't mean that they should die from heat stroke. It also doesn't mean that a company should be allowed to pollute 1000x that single flight every minute of every single day. It's just that these are the logical consequences of a society where no one takes responsibility.
Deciding to not take responsibility because you think that you are not capable of being responsible sounds responsible/good/morally correct - but it isn't if you actually are capable of being responsible. And I guess that's my gripe with impostor syndrome, it feels a little like a dodge or like an excuse. I'm never sure how to evaluate that excuse, and compare it to other excuses, and which excuses are real and which ones are fake. I'd like to live in a culture where people with impostor syndrome were helped, but the condition wasn't glorified, so I could always presume the excuse was real. Maybe our culture should just be more clinical about these sorts of things.
The final question then would be, how to create a culture that is more clinical, or more objective about certain conditions. How do you talk about performance in an objective way? How do you talk about (mental) health in an objective way? We're really far off from being able to do that, but at least it puts everything into context. It also gives a fairly simple actionable plan to those with impostor syndrome - how can you objectively measure your results? How about other peoples results in a similar position? What metrics would even make up an objective evaluation? This is where you have to be very careful, after all, if you are in category 3 you are likely to design metrics that punish you at the benefit of others. You don't know as much about other people's mistakes as you do your own. You have to be very very careful not to do this. After doing this, you will know for sure if you are an impostor or not. Once you know, either way you won't be bothered by it anymore. You move into category 2 or category 4, and you can learn to accept what you are from there on.
Just don't sit in this in-between of pretending to be confident to other people but not actually being confident. That will eat you up inside. That will eat up the whole world, if we're not careful about it.
The first category is often full of narcissists, who think they know more despite evidence, or literal cons like described in the post.
The second category is people who are unfortunately correct about their situation, but perhaps they should be happy they've got the job they've got. If they detached their sense of worth from their work they might be a lot happier.
The third category is people who think they're in category 2 but are more competent than they know. They underestimate their own abilities, either because of a belief that their skills are misplaced and they won't transfer to what they're doing now, or they have some unresolved anxiety issue, or something traumatic happened in their past, or they're out of place in terms of culture and fit, or a dozen other reasons.
The final category is where we all want to be. Sometimes people in category 1, in service of helping category 3 and hurting category 1, try to make it seem like they actually don't know what they're doing. I don't think this is healthy though. If you know something, you should be proud of knowing it. Furthermore, if you have power, you should recognize it, if only because you should know before you hurt someone else.
IMHO this is why we've ended up in a society where no one takes responsibility for their own lives. Everyone wants someone else to take responsibility - usually either a company or a politician. Everyone wants to stop climate change but no one will stop eating meat or flying on planes. Everyone wants a more equitable situation but most people donate hardly any part of their salary at all, even if they could. People want privacy, and to use social media services for free, with an unending list of features. I could go on and on about what people will do to shift the blame onto someone else.
I don't want to say there's no such thing as structural issues, there are economic issues and political issues which legitimately need solutions that are global/social/political. Just because someone flies somewhere once a year doesn't mean that they should die from heat stroke. It also doesn't mean that a company should be allowed to pollute 1000x that single flight every minute of every single day. It's just that these are the logical consequences of a society where no one takes responsibility.
Deciding to not take responsibility because you think that you are not capable of being responsible sounds responsible/good/morally correct - but it isn't if you actually are capable of being responsible. And I guess that's my gripe with impostor syndrome, it feels a little like a dodge or like an excuse. I'm never sure how to evaluate that excuse, and compare it to other excuses, and which excuses are real and which ones are fake. I'd like to live in a culture where people with impostor syndrome were helped, but the condition wasn't glorified, so I could always presume the excuse was real. Maybe our culture should just be more clinical about these sorts of things.
The final question then would be, how to create a culture that is more clinical, or more objective about certain conditions. How do you talk about performance in an objective way? How do you talk about (mental) health in an objective way? We're really far off from being able to do that, but at least it puts everything into context. It also gives a fairly simple actionable plan to those with impostor syndrome - how can you objectively measure your results? How about other peoples results in a similar position? What metrics would even make up an objective evaluation? This is where you have to be very careful, after all, if you are in category 3 you are likely to design metrics that punish you at the benefit of others. You don't know as much about other people's mistakes as you do your own. You have to be very very careful not to do this. After doing this, you will know for sure if you are an impostor or not. Once you know, either way you won't be bothered by it anymore. You move into category 2 or category 4, and you can learn to accept what you are from there on.
Just don't sit in this in-between of pretending to be confident to other people but not actually being confident. That will eat you up inside. That will eat up the whole world, if we're not careful about it.
Some constructive criticism: this comment was useful and on-topic up until this part...
> IMHO this is why we've ended up in a society where no one takes responsibility for their own lives.
I'm not going to comment on this sentence and the many lengthy paragraphs after it, because I find it to be a distraction from the core theme and purpose of this comment page.
throw149102 -- I'd like to see you discuss your thoughts somewhere where you can get good engagement. I don't think this thread is a very good place.
> IMHO this is why we've ended up in a society where no one takes responsibility for their own lives.
I'm not going to comment on this sentence and the many lengthy paragraphs after it, because I find it to be a distraction from the core theme and purpose of this comment page.
throw149102 -- I'd like to see you discuss your thoughts somewhere where you can get good engagement. I don't think this thread is a very good place.
Thanks! I appreciate that you read any part of that gigantic wall of a comment. I actually have a blog, but I don't have anything on it yet. Maybe I'll write something longform on that instead.
I think your criticism is good - I think there is something I want to express between the relationship of a society that takes responsibility for itself and a person who takes responsibility for themselves, but what I wrote is off from what I'm really trying to express.
I think your criticism is good - I think there is something I want to express between the relationship of a society that takes responsibility for itself and a person who takes responsibility for themselves, but what I wrote is off from what I'm really trying to express.
So, if she weighs the same as a duck... she's a WITCH!
" I'll never know what was going on inside his head, but I don't think he spent a moment questioning himself. "
I hear statements like this on TV often, like "Trump clearly believed himself he won the election". That makes me wonder, isn't an impostor someone who's trying to con us all the time. So of course they would do their best to make us think that they believe their lies themselves. But if we think they do then that probably just means they have succeeded in conning us into thinking that.
I would think that in fact you can NOT be an impostor unless you can make it look like you yourself totally believe what you are saying.
I hear statements like this on TV often, like "Trump clearly believed himself he won the election". That makes me wonder, isn't an impostor someone who's trying to con us all the time. So of course they would do their best to make us think that they believe their lies themselves. But if we think they do then that probably just means they have succeeded in conning us into thinking that.
I would think that in fact you can NOT be an impostor unless you can make it look like you yourself totally believe what you are saying.
Someone has to be in the bottom 10%. Why not me?
And actual sociopaths sleep perfectly fine at night after scamming widows and kicking orphans.
What I'd like to know is what the evolutionary reason for this is.
What I'd like to know is what the evolutionary reason for this is.
The real question is why sociopaths aren't more common. Bonobos and naked mole rates are often described as eusocial, but their "communities" are built around matriarchies of sisters, which means there's a strong and simple genetic affiliation. Other proposed examples invariably turn out to have similar orthodox--from a genetic viewpoint--explanations. Humans are an exceedingly peculiar species. But we really understand very little about the origins and fundamental dynamics of our sociality. Our understanding is pre-scientific--lots of analogies, metaphors, and rationalizations, which can get you pretty far, but very little in the way of concrete, biological science that explains how empathy, guilt, etc emerge and are maintained pervasively evolutionarily.
Maybe that'll be an use for a proper AI. Maybe a human cannot take a dispassionate look at humanity and we'd need an eye with an outside perspective. We are afterall made out of meat.
> Oh my god, they're made out of meat.
Hate to admit that this has appeared in some of my social bios before...
Anyways, what would the objective of this dispassionate perspective be? Is it possible to have an objective, dispassionate perspective without it being so constrained as to be useless, or optimizes the wrong thing?
Hate to admit that this has appeared in some of my social bios before...
Anyways, what would the objective of this dispassionate perspective be? Is it possible to have an objective, dispassionate perspective without it being so constrained as to be useless, or optimizes the wrong thing?
> the evolutionary reason for this
Tribes without sociopaths get killed by other tribes' sociopaths.
Tribes without sociopaths get killed by other tribes' sociopaths.
That's called group selection, which despite 50+ years of effort is an unproven theory that doesn't fit well (though isn't necessarily contradictory) with Darwinian genetic evolution. Every time someone proposes a case example, someone else invariably identifies a simpler, genetic explanation. Humans, of course, are still an enigma.
Sadly you may have a point
Natural selection within a group of animals. Male cats can kill kittens of other cats, so their genes have better chances to exist in the future.
A sadly passed HN denizen wrote the "The Psychopath Code"
which I strongly recommend to everyone.
First to recognize the Hollywood villain you describe is not the typical case and that an appreciable fraction of the population will be blind to various hues of of the emotional gamut most of us (I hope) are aware of.
The evolutionary pressure is to not cycle through hundreds of complex, cascading emotional states before deciding to act.
[0] https://hintjens.gitbooks.io/psychopathcode/content/
First to recognize the Hollywood villain you describe is not the typical case and that an appreciable fraction of the population will be blind to various hues of of the emotional gamut most of us (I hope) are aware of.
The evolutionary pressure is to not cycle through hundreds of complex, cascading emotional states before deciding to act.
[0] https://hintjens.gitbooks.io/psychopathcode/content/
this is false. I am an actual impostor and I acknowledge it.
Actual frauds/impostors are sociopaths who don't care how they are perceived by others, and as such, wouldn't suffer from a syndrome where the person is at internal conflict in how they perceive themselves vs. how others perceive them.
Reminds me of Dunning Kruger Effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
They get so close to Dunning Kruger with this line:
> "Brilliant people tend to doubt themselves"
but leave out half the situation.
Yes, real imposters get imposter syndrome when they start to cross the line from "clueless newb" to "expert" in a field. How they react determines if they are an imposter or not.
If they stop and figure out what they do/don't know and what they do/don't need to know, they cross over into expert and hopefully get some humility.
If they don't stop and just plow forward, YES they are an imposter.
> "Brilliant people tend to doubt themselves"
but leave out half the situation.
Yes, real imposters get imposter syndrome when they start to cross the line from "clueless newb" to "expert" in a field. How they react determines if they are an imposter or not.
If they stop and figure out what they do/don't know and what they do/don't need to know, they cross over into expert and hopefully get some humility.
If they don't stop and just plow forward, YES they are an imposter.
yeah they do.. i’ve met them
Uh-oh.
Of course. Just like any sociopath...
I got up to 5th degree black belt, had my own school. Total imposter syndrome, all. the. time. One out of a million people that start learning martial arts will reach that level.
Your average person would come in off the street and are white belts. I could literally f-ck them up with the smallest flick of my hand. I've been through thousands and thousands of rounds of sparring, bag punching, etc.
But lots of imposter syndrome. I just thought I sucked no matter how much time I put into it.
Your average person would come in off the street and are white belts. I could literally f-ck them up with the smallest flick of my hand. I've been through thousands and thousands of rounds of sparring, bag punching, etc.
But lots of imposter syndrome. I just thought I sucked no matter how much time I put into it.
Steven Spielberg's Munich (2005) deals with this a bit.
They were Mossad spies who went out to kill people.
And they were useless (this is part of the story)
But they still got a movie about them and they did kill some people. Being useless doesn't mean you can't do interesting things, that bits in your hands.
They were Mossad spies who went out to kill people.
And they were useless (this is part of the story)
But they still got a movie about them and they did kill some people. Being useless doesn't mean you can't do interesting things, that bits in your hands.
But it's more nuanced than that.
I'm a Principal Engineer at a FAAMNG company. I have impostor syndrome all the time. Why? Because I measure myself against 1) role models that are ahead of me in many ways - I've always done that, and it's how I grow, 2) against those with strengths in areas that I have weaknesses.
I think my impostor syndrome is absolutely fact-based. I am not as good in the technical areas I care about as those I measure myself against.
My fallacy is that there is a billion things that I am good at, but I don't consider them difficult (how could they be, if I am good at them), or I consider them insufficient to a fully rounded engineer, if I don't also have the skills that I know I'm missing (but some of my peers are not).
It doesn't help that I'm the epitome of a 'Generalist' - I'm good at a lot of things, but I don't know if I'm the BEST at anything.
I get lots of positive reinforcement - from my management chain, and from those more junior than me. But it never resonates. I always think "damn, I've actually fooled them all". And then I feel guilty that the management is putting so much trust in me, and that the juniors actually look up to a fraud.
The only feedback that resonates is from my technical peers. Luckily I get this just often enough that I don't fall into a catatonic mess of anxiety. And sometimes I believe it...