It’s not that we know nothing about ourselves. But our understanding is obstructed by blind spots, created by our wishes, fears, and unconscious motives — the greatest of which is the need to maintain a high (or if we’re neurotic, low) self-image.
But it's not that we should rely purely on others' judgments to correct our own:
There are aspects of personality that others know about us that we don’t know ourselves, and vice-versa. To get a complete picture of a personality, you need both perspectives.
What I've long wanted to know is for what things, exactly, it's best to rely on others' judgments vs. relying on self-judgments. Here are some tentative answers:
Anxiety-related traits, such as stage fright, are obvious to us, but not always to others. On the other hand, creativity, intelligence, or rudeness is often best perceived by others. That’s not just because they manifest themselves publicly, but also because they carry a value judgment — something that tends to affect self-judgment.
But improving self-knowledge is not as easy as just asking others' for their perceptions:
People are complex, social cues are many, perceptions of others are clouded by our own needs and biases. Plus, the information isn’t easy to access.
“It’s amazing how hard it is to get direct feedback.”
It's tempting to conclude that self-judgments are systematically inflated, but that may not be the case:
The world is not always the harsher critic. Others tend to give us higher marks for our strengths than we credit ourselves with.
I'm not sure how to reconcile this with the earlier points. If self-judgment is skewed because of our need to maintain a high self-imagine, then why would others tend to give us systematically higher marks than we give ourselves? Maybe it's just for our strengths? Maybe others also tend to give us lower marks for our weaknesses than we credit ourselves with?
