You most likely do not know yourself as well as you believe.

Things You Don't Know about yourself

• 1. You have a distorted view of yourself.
• 2. Your motivations are frequently a complete mystery to you.
• 3. Outward appearances tell people a lot about you.
• 4. Getting some space can help you get to know yourself better.
• 5. We have a tendency to overestimate our abilities.
• 6. People who tear themselves down are more likely to suffer setbacks.
• 7. You deceive yourself without realizing it.
• 8. Your “true self” is beneficial to you.
• 9. People who are insecure tend to be more moral.
• 10. If you think of yourself as flexible, you will do much better.

1. You have a distorted view of yourself.

Your “self” is like an open book in front of you. Simply look inside and read: who you are, your likes and dislikes, your hopes and fears are all there, waiting to be understood. This popular belief is almost certainly false! According to psychological research, we do not have privileged access to our true selves. When we assess ourselves accurately, we are poking around in a fog.

The “introspection illusion,” according to Princeton University psychologist Emily Pronin, specializes in human self-perception and decision-making. Our perception of ourselves is distorted, but we are unaware of it. As a result, our actions have surprisingly little to do with our self-image. For example, even if we are completely convinced that we are compassionate and generous, we may still walk right past a homeless person on a cold day.

According to Pronin, the reason for this distorted view is quite simple. We assume that we are not stingy, arrogant, or self-righteous because we do not want to be any of these things. She cites our differing perspectives on ourselves and others as evidence. We have no trouble recognizing when one of our coworkers is prejudiced or unfair to another. But we never consider that we might behave similarly: because we want to be morally good, it never occurs to us that we, too, might be prejudiced.

Pronin evaluated her thesis through a series of experiments. She had her study participants complete a test that involved matching faces with personal statements, ostensibly to assess their social intelligence. Following that, some of them were told they had failed and were asked to identify flaws in the testing procedure. Although the subjects’ opinions were almost certainly skewed (not only had they allegedly failed the test, but they were also asked to critique it), the majority of the participants claimed their assessments were completely objective. It was similar when judging works of art, though subjects who used a biased strategy to assess the quality of paintings still believed that their own judgment was balanced. Pronin contends that we are primed to mask our own biases.

Is the term “introspection” just a metaphor? Could it be that, contrary to what the Latin root of the word implies, we are creating a flattering self-image that denies the flaws that we all have? This conclusion is supported by a large body of evidence from self-knowledge research. Although we believe we are clearly observing ourselves, our self-image is influenced by unconscious processes.

2. Your motivations are frequently a complete mystery to you.

How well do people understand themselves? In answering this question, Researchers run into the following issue: in order to assess a person’s self-image, researchers must first know who that person is. To answer such questions, investigators employ a variety of techniques. For example, they compare test subjects’ self-assessments to their behavior in laboratory settings or in everyday life. They may also ask other people, such as relatives or friends, to evaluate subjects. They also use specialized methods to investigate unconscious tendencies.

Psychologists can use the implicit association test (IAT), which was developed in the 1990s by Anthony Greenwald of the University of Washington and his colleagues, to uncover hidden attitudes. Since then, numerous variations have been developed to assess anxiety, impulsiveness, and sociability, among other characteristics. The approach assumes that instantaneous reactions do not necessitate reflection; as a result, unconscious aspects of the personality emerge.

Notably, experimenters want to know how closely words that are important to a person are linked to specific concepts. For example, in one study, participants were instructed to press a key as quickly as possible when a word describing a characteristic such as extroversion (such as “talkative” or “energetic”) appeared on a screen. They were also instructed to press the same key whenever they saw a word on the screen that related to them (such as their own name). When an introverted characteristic (such as “quiet” or “withdrawn”) appeared or when the word involved someone else, they were to press a different key. Of course, the words and key combinations were changed throughout the many test runs. When a word associated with the participant was followed by “extroverted,” for example, it was assumed that extroversion was probably integral to that person’s self-image.

These “implicit” self-concepts generally correspond only weakly to self-assessments obtained through questionnaires. People’s responses to emotionally charged words have little to do with the image they present in surveys. And, especially when nervousness or sociability is involved, a person’s implicit self-image is often quite predictive of his or her actual behavior. Questionnaires, on the other hand, provide more information about characteristics such as conscientiousness and openness to new experiences. Methods designed to elicit automatic reactions, according to psychologist Mitja Back of the University of Münster in Germany, reflect the spontaneous or habitual components of our personality. Conscientiousness and curiosity, on the other hand, necessitate some thought and can thus be evaluated more easily through self-reflection.

3. Outward appearances tell people a lot about you.

Many studies show that our loved ones often see us better than we see ourselves. According to psychologist Simine Vazire of the University of California, Davis, two conditions, in particular, may make it easier for others to recognize who we really are: first, when they can “read” a trait from outward characteristics, and second when a trait has a clear positive or negative valence (intelligence and creativity are obviously desirable, for instance; dishonesty and egocentricity are not). When it comes to more neutral characteristics, our assessments of ourselves most closely match those of others. The characteristics that have the greatest influence on our behavior are those that are most visible to others. People who are naturally sociable, for example, like to talk and seek out company; insecurity frequently manifests itself in behaviors such as hand-wringing or averting one’s gaze. Brooding, on the other hand, is generally internal, unfolding within the confines of one’s mind.

We are frequently unaware of the impact we have on others because we are oblivious to our own facial expressions, gestures, and body language. I’m not even aware that my blinking eyes indicate stress or that the sag in my posture indicates how much something weighs on me. Because it is so difficult to observe ourselves, we must rely on the observations of others, particularly those who are well acquainted with us. It is difficult to know who we are unless others tell us how we affect them.

4. Getting some space can help you get to know yourself better.

Keeping a diary, pausing for self-reflection, and engaging in probing conversations with others have a long history, but whether these practices help us know ourselves is debatable. In fact, doing the opposite, such as letting go, can be more beneficial because it provides some distance. Erika Carlson, now at the University of Toronto, conducted a literature review in 2013 to determine whether and how mindfulness meditation improves self-awareness. It aids in overcoming two major obstacles, she says distorted thinking and ego protection. Mindfulness practice teaches us to let our thoughts drift by and to identify with them as little as possible. After all, thoughts are “only thoughts,” not absolute truth. Stepping outside of oneself in this way and simply observing what the mind does fosters clarity.

Understanding our unconscious motivations can improve our emotional well-being. According to Oliver C. Schultheiss of Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg in Germany, our sense of well-being increases as our conscious and unconscious goals become more aligned or congruent. For example, we should not toil away at a job that provides us with money and power if these objectives are unimportant to us. But how do we achieve such equilibrium? For example, by imagining. Try to imagine how things would be if your most fervent wish came true as vividly and precisely as possible. Would it truly make you happy? We frequently succumb to the temptation to set lofty goals without considering all of the steps involved.

5. We have a tendency to overestimate our abilities.

Do you know what the Dunning Kruger effect is? It asserts that the more incompetent people are, the less aware of their incompetence they are. The effect is named after the University of Michigan’s David Dunning and New York University’s Justin Kruger.

Dunning and Kruger administered a series of cognitive tasks to their test subjects and asked them to estimate how well they performed. Only a quarter of the participants viewed their performance realistically; the rest overestimated themselves. The quarter of subjects who performed the worst on the tests significantly overestimated their cognitive abilities. Is it possible that boasting and failing are the same things?

As the researchers emphasize, their findings highlight a general feature of self-perception: we all tend to overlook our cognitive shortcomings. According to University College London psychologist Adrian Furnham, the statistical correlation between perceived and actual IQ is only 0.16—to put it mildly. In comparison, the correlation between height and gender is approximately 0.7.

So, why is the gap between potential and actual performance so wide? Isn’t it in everyone’s best interest to be honest with themselves? It would certainly save us a lot of time and possibly some embarrassment. The answer appears to be that a moderate increase in self-esteem has some advantages. Rose-colored glasses, according to psychologists Shelley Taylor of the University of California, Los Angeles, and Jonathon Brown of the University of Washington, tend to increase our sense of well-being and performance. People suffering from depression, on the other hand, tend to be brutally honest with themselves. An enhanced self-image appears to help us weather life’s ups and downs.

6. People who tear themselves down are more likely to suffer setbacks.

Although most of our contemporaries have overly positive perceptions of their honesty or intelligence, some people have the opposite distortion: they denigrate themselves and their efforts. Childhood experiences of contempt and belittlement, which are frequently associated with violence and abuse, can trigger this type of negativity, which can limit what people can accomplish, leading to distrust, despair, and even suicidal thoughts.

It may appear logical to believe that people with a negative self-image would want to overcompensate. However, as psychologists working with William Swann of the University of Texas at Austin discovered, many people who are self-conscious seek confirmation of their distorted self-perception. Swann described this phenomenon in a study on marital contentment. He questioned couples about their own strengths and weaknesses, how they felt supported and valued by their partner, and how satisfied they were with their marriage. As expected, those who had a more positive attitude toward themselves found greater satisfaction in their relationship the more they received praise and recognition from their other half. Those who pick at themselves on a regular basis, on the other hand, felt safer in their marriage when their partner reflected their negative image back to them. They made no request for respect or appreciation. On the contrary, they desired to hear their own assessment of themselves: “You’re incompetent.”

Swann based his self-verification theory on these findings. According to the theory, we want others to see us as we see ourselves. In some cases, people intentionally provoke others to respond negatively to them in order to demonstrate their worthlessness. Masochism is not always present in this behavior. It is a symptom of the desire for coherence: if others respond to us in a way that confirms our self-image, then everything is fine.

Similarly, people who consider themselves failures will go out of their way not to succeed, actively contributing to their own demise. They will regularly miss meetings, fail to complete assigned tasks, and end up in hot water with the boss. Swann’s approach contradicts Dunning and Kruger’s overestimation theory. However, both camps are probably correct: inflated egos are common, but negative self-images are not uncommon.

7. You deceive yourself without realizing it.

According to one popular theory, our tendency to deceive ourselves stems from our desire to impress others. To appear convincing, we must first be convinced of our own abilities and honesty. This theory is supported by the observation that successful manipulators are frequently quite self-confident. Good salespeople, for example, exude contagious enthusiasm; those who doubt themselves, on the other hand, are generally not good at sweet talking. Lab research is also beneficial. In one study, participants were offered money if they could convincingly claim to have aced an IQ test during an interview. The more effort the candidates put into their performance, the more they came to believe they had a high IQ, despite their actual scores being more or less average.

Our self-deceptions have been demonstrated to be quite malleable. We frequently adapt them to new situations in a flexible manner. Brown University’s Steven A. Sloman and colleagues demonstrated this adaptability. Their subjects were instructed to move a cursor as quickly as possible to a dot on a computer screen. If the participants were told that above-average performance in this task indicated high intelligence, they immediately focused on the task and performed better. They did not appear to have put in more effort, which the researchers interpret as evidence of successful self-deception. However, if the test subjects were convinced that only idiots excelled at such stupid tasks, their performance plummeted precipitously.

But is it even possible to deceive oneself? Can we learn about ourselves on some level without being aware of it? Absolutely! The following research design is used to gather experimental evidence: Audiotapes of human voices, including their own, are played to subjects, who are asked to indicate whether or not they hear themselves. The recognition rate varies with the clarity of the audiotapes and the volume of the background noise. When brain waves are measured simultaneously, specific signals in the reading indicate whether or not the participants heard their own voices.

The majority of people are embarrassed to hear their own voices. Ruben Gur of the University of Pennsylvania and Harold Sackeim of Columbia University used this reticence in a classic study, comparing test subjects’ statements with their brain activity. Without subjects explicitly identifying a voice as their own, the activity frequently signaled, “That’s me!” Furthermore, if the researchers threatened the participants’ self-image—say, by telling them they had performed poorly on another (irrelevant) test—they were even less likely to recognize their own voice. In any case, their brain waves revealed the truth.

In a more recent study, researchers assessed students’ performance on a practice test designed to help students assess their own knowledge and fill in gaps. Subjects were instructed to complete as many tasks as possible in the allotted time. Given that the purpose of the practice test was to provide students with information, it made little sense for them to cheat; on the contrary, artificially inflated scores could have led to them neglecting their studies. Those who attempted to improve their scores by working beyond the time limit would only be hurting themselves.

However, many of the volunteers did exactly that. They simply wanted to look good, unconsciously. As a result, the cheaters explained their running over time as being distracted and wanting to make up for lost seconds. Or they claimed that their manipulated results were closer to their “true potential.” According to the researchers, such explanations confuse cause and effect, with people incorrectly believing, “Intelligent people usually do better on tests.” So if I manipulate my test score by simply taking a little longer than allowed, I’m also one of the smart ones.” People performed less diligently if they were told that doing well increased their chances of developing schizophrenia. This is referred to by researchers as diagnostic self-deception.

8. Your “true self” is beneficial to you.

Most people believe they have a strong essential core, a true self. Their true self is primarily revealed through their moral values and is relatively stable; other preferences may change, but the true self remains constant. Rebecca Schlegel and Joshua Hicks of Texas A&M University, as well as their colleagues, looked into how people’s perceptions of their true selves affect their self-esteem. The test subjects were asked to keep a diary of their daily activities by the researchers. When the participants had done something morally questionable, such as being dishonest or selfish, they felt the most alienated from themselves. Experiments have also revealed a connection between self and morality. When test subjects are reminded of earlier wrongdoing, their surety about themselves takes a hit.

Yale University’s George Newman and Joshua Knobe discovered that people believe humans have a virtuous true self. They presented case studies of dishonest people, racists, and the like to the subjects. Participants in the case studies generally attributed the behavior to environmental factors such as a difficult childhood—the true essence of these people must have been very different. This work demonstrates our tendency to believe that people, deep down, want what is moral and good.

Another Newman and Knobe study involved “Mark,” a devout Christian who was still attracted to other men. The researchers wanted to know how the participants perceived Mark’s predicament. Mark’s “true self” was not gay, according to conservative test subjects, and they advised him to resist such temptations. Those with a more liberal viewpoint believed he should come out of the closet. However, if Mark was presented as a secular humanist who thought homosexuality was fine but had negative feelings when thinking about same-sex couples, conservatives saw this reluctance as evidence of Mark’s true self, while liberals saw it as evidence of a lack of insight or sophistication. In other words, what we claim to be the core of another person’s personality is actually rooted in the values we hold most dear. The “true self” is revealed to be a moral compass.

The belief that the true self is moral explains why people associate personal improvements with their “true self” rather than personal deficiencies. We appear to do so actively in order to boost our own self-esteem. In several studies, Anne E. Wilson of Wilfrid Laurier University in Ontario and Michael Ross of the University of Waterloo in Ontario demonstrated that we tend to attribute more negative traits to the person we were in the past—which makes us look better in the present. Wilson and Ross contend that the further back people go, the more negative their portrayal becomes. Although growth and change are natural parts of the maturation process, it feels good to believe that one has evolved into “who one truly is.”

Assuming we have a solid core identity reduces the complexity of a constantly changing world. People around us play a variety of roles, acting inconsistently while also growing and changing. It’s comforting to know that our friends Tom and Sarah will be exactly the same tomorrow as they are today and that they are fundamentally good people—regardless of whether that perception is correct.

Is it even possible to imagine life without belief in one’s true self? This question has been investigated by researchers by comparing different cultures. In most parts of the world, people believe in a true self. Buddhism, for example, preaches to the nonexistence of a stable self. Prospective Buddhist monks are taught to see through the ego’s illusionary nature, which is constantly changing and completely malleable.

Nina Strohminger of the University of Pennsylvania and her colleagues were curious about how this perspective affects people’s fear of death. They distributed questionnaires and scenarios to approximately 200 lay Tibetans and 60 Buddhist monks. They compared the findings to those of Christians, nonreligious people, and Hindus in the United States (who, much like Christians, believe that a core of the soul, or atman, gives human beings their identity). Buddhists are commonly portrayed as deeply relaxed, completely “selfless” individuals. However, the Tibetan monks were more likely to fear death if they did not believe in a stable inner essence. Furthermore, they were significantly more selfish in a hypothetical scenario in which foregoing a specific medication could extend the life of someone else. Nearly three out of every four monks rejected the fictitious option, far more than Americans or Hindus. Buddhists with self-interest and fear? Strohminger and her colleagues called the concept of the true self a “hopeful phantasm,” albeit a potentially useful one, in another paper. In any case, it is difficult to shake.

9. People who are insecure tend to be more moral.

Insecurity is commonly regarded as a disadvantage, but it is not entirely negative. People who are unsure whether they possess a positive trait tend to try to demonstrate it. Those who are unsure of their generosity, for example, are more likely to make a charitable donation. This behavior can be elicited experimentally by providing negative feedback to subjects, such as “According to our tests, you are less helpful and cooperative than the average.” People dislike hearing such judgments and thus contribute to the donation box.

Drazen Prelec, a psychologist at MIT, explains such findings with his theory of self-signaling: what a particular action says about me is often more important than the action’s actual objective. Many people have stuck to a diet because they don’t want to appear weak-willed. Those who are certain that they are generous, intelligent, or sociable, on the other hand, make less effort to prove it. Too much self-assurance makes people complacent and widens the gap between their imagined and actual selves. As a result, those who believe they know themselves well are more likely to know themselves less well than they believe.

10. If you think of yourself as flexible, you will do much better.

People’s beliefs about who they are influence their behavior. As a result, one’s self-image can easily become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Carol Dweck of Stanford University has spent a significant amount of time studying such effects. Her takeaway: when we see a trait as mutable, we are more likely to work on it. However, if we believe that a trait, such as IQ or willpower, is largely unchangeable and inherent, we will do little to improve it.

Dweck discovered a fundamental principle in her studies of students, men, women, parents, and teachers: people with a rigid sense of self react negatively to failure. They see it as proof of their limitations and fear it; fear of failure, on the other hand, can cause failure. Those who understand that a particular talent can be developed, on the other hand, view setbacks as an invitation to do better the next time. Dweck thus recommends a growth-oriented attitude. When in doubt, we should assume that we have more to learn and that we can grow and improve.

Even people with a strong sense of self are not rigid in every aspect of their personality. Even when people describe their strengths as completely stable, they tend to believe that they will outgrow their weaknesses sooner or later, according to psychologist Andreas Steimer of the University of Heidelberg in Germany. When we try to imagine how our personality will look in a few years, we tend to lean toward statements like, “Level-headedness and clear focus will still be part of who I am, and I’ll probably have fewer self-doubts.”

Overall, we tend to perceive our personalities as more static than they are, presumably because this assessment provides security and direction. We want to be aware of our unique characteristics and preferences so that we can act accordingly. In the end, the image we create of ourselves serves as a kind of safe haven in an ever-changing world.

And what is the story’s moral? According to researchers, self-awareness is even more difficult to achieve than previously thought. The notion that we can know ourselves objectively and definitively has been fundamentally challenged in contemporary psychology. It has demonstrated that the self is not a “thing,” but rather a continuous process of adaptation to changing circumstances. And the fact that we frequently perceive ourselves to be more capable, moral, and stable than we actually are helps our ability to adapt.