Imposter syndrome has historically been viewed from a pathologizing lens that is not trauma-informed. I wrote this article to address why I believe that viewing imposter syndrome as "inaccurate thinking" is a red herring.
Excerpts:
When someone has received hundreds of thousands of corrective/negative comments by their 20s, I would propose that most people, neurotypical or otherwise, will have internalized some forms of nervous system distress and cognitive distortion. That seems normal to me, that our bodies and brains react in defensive ways in order to survive psychologically unsafe environments. I see no benefit to pathologizing people who have experienced this form of disprivilege or promoting the idea that we need to “fix” what is a completely normal physiological adaptation, a part of how our bodies fundamentally operate.
Even the idea that “everyone thinks I’m competent but they’re mistaken and when they find out they’ll hate me and reject me” can come from some real basis in past experience. This has never happened to Bob, so when Alice shares this with him, Bob thinks Alice is out of touch with reality. However, this archetypal scenario has played out at least once, if not several times in Alice’s life.
[...] when people take chaotic/creative/unconventional paths to success, there are no efficient ways to reduce epistemic uncertainty about one’s capabilities (even more so in a comparative sense). Self-doubt is natural and logical. Cognitive strategies miss the point and do not lead to resolution or acceptance.
Hi Victor, thanks for writing this. I'm also in a phase of questioning the narrative around IP.
I didn't quite understand a part of you writing, so I gave Claude your article and asked it, "... isn't being irrational (from an instrumental sense) an accurate description of a person who takes an action that is harmful to oneself when there are healthier alternative actions available? Even if these actions were developed as a protective mechanism that were rational and healthy in the past."
This was its response:
------
" What the author seems to be arguing against is the approach of simply labeling someone's imposter feelings as "irrational" and expecting that recognition alone to fix the problem. They're suggesting that:
1. Simply telling someone their feelings are irrational often doesn't help because these responses are deeply physiological, not just cognitive
2. These feelings developed for legitimate reasons (past experiences of rejection, criticism, etc.)
3. The person might actually be accurately perceiving real social risks in some contexts
The author's issue isn't with recognizing that imposter syndrome behaviors may be currently harmful, but with approaches that dismiss these experiences as merely faulty thinking without addressing the underlying nervous system responses and real past experiences that shaped them.
So while "instrumentally irrational" might be technically accurate in describing behaviors that no longer serve someone well, the author is advocating for a more holistic understanding of why these patterns exist and how to address them effectively.
------
Do you think Claude's interpretation is accurate? What would you change?
Claude's interpretation is consistent with my view. I would add further emphasis to your description of some actions being instrumentally irrational.
Firstly, it's not obvious to me that many behaviors that get called irrational really are accurately described as irrational. I have a lot of arguments for why it's not so clear cut, but I'll put this aside since my next point stands regardless.
My main point is whether asking if a behavior is irrational is instrumentally useful. I believe that in many cases, it's not a useful question and has the risk of leading to "false insight" and distracting from more sustainably actionable insights. If you could only ever ask one question to learn from a past scenario, I can't imagine it ever being worthwhile asking.
Better questions to consider:
So my opinion is, in the context of behavioral change, labelling the behavior as rational or irrational offers limited utility. Fixating on this distinction has some risk of being net negative, and in some cases being significantly harmful (e.g. when used in relationships and therapy).
Maybe in our achievement-driven, how-are-you-contributing-to-unrelenless-growth society. Indigenous cultures don't exhibit self-doubt. Neither do Buddhists. I just talked about this on my podcast.
Excerpt from The Awakened Ape