I have heard it said time and again, but is it really true? How can people who aren’t around us all the time know us better than we do? Where is the proof (as they have said their is research to prove it).
Who says this about whom? Who is this “they” that says there is research?
The first few paragraphs I believe.
Maybe start by picking up the book mentioned in your cite:
In his fascinating book Strangers to Ourselves, psychologist Timothy Wilson summarizes decades of research on what he calls our adaptive unconscious, showing us just how much of what we do during every moment of every day — what we think, how we feel, the goals we pursue and the actions we take — is happening below our conscious awareness. Some of it we can notice if we engage in a little self-reflection, but much of it we simply cannot — it’s not directly accessible to us at all.
That doesn’t really answer my question. I have read about the subconscious and know about that. But it also said that no one knows you better than others. I want to know what research says that.
I knew you would be asking this question at some point.
Did you?
Does his book cite any research?
Certainly not a General Question. Moved to IMHO.
samclem, moderator
Since it got moved ------ the premise that I remember from college psych is that others know us better than we know ourselves in terms of the application or traits of behavior but we know the background in our lives that caused those. So partly the answer to the question is a different question - what part of know you are you most interested in?
To A Louse:
[Quote=Robert Burns]
O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
[/quote]
If you really believe that to be true, why are you even asking the question?
More generally speaking, do you ever have to call an expert (doctor, lawyer, plumber, whoever) for their professional opinion?
Do you think that whatever your particular situation is, it might not be unique and someone else might have an outside objective opinion on it?
Psychology Today is not a credible source for psychological research.
If this article represents your understanding of ‘‘psychology’’ then I suggest you spend more time reviewing academic papers and books supported by peer-reviewed literature, and less time reading pop science magazines.
Sorry, that came off harsher than I intended. I’ve just heard you argue a lot against ‘psychology’ and I don’t think you have a very firm grasp on what ‘psychology’ means to the average researcher. You aren’t going to get at the heart of any of these issues by maintaining such a superficial view of the field. You are asking massively complex questions (also in a rather vague way.) When a researcher approaches such a question, they must operationally define everything involved. They must get specific.’'How well do we really know ourselves?" is not a research question. It’s a philosophical question.
“Do most people have an inflated sense of their own competency?” is a research question, provided we operationally define what we mean by ‘inflated’ and ‘competency.’
(The bulk of the evidence points to yes. So there is one way, at least, in which it appears people are ignorant to their own selves.)
Your question as stated is too general to be answered by psychological research. What, specifically, do you want to know?
Well I was wondering where the research was to back such a claim. They say it’s there but I can’t fine it
…
Totally depends on the person. Some people engage in a lot of introspection and know themselves fairly well. Anyone who’s able to make a joke at their own expense has pretty much got it down. Then you’ve got the other end of the spectrum where you find the egregiously unaware. A perfect example would be Trump at last night’s charity dinner.
Actually they als said that introspection is flawed as we are just using our own biased lens