Proposed mechanism of imposter syndrome

Academia, in more places than many workplaces, is a petri dish for imposter syndrome. Many incoming students are warned;

"Don't let other people's negativity get to you"

"Find your tribe and support each other"

"Even professors feel imposter syndrome, so you are not alone"

"As a (insert minority identifier or two), you may experience it more than your colleagues"

etc. etc...

But all these warnings only serve as just that - warnings. A cautionary tale that no child believes in until they face it themselves. No amount of preparation or warning will shield you - if it happens, it happens, and there is no "un-doing" per se. So in a way, these warnings are genuine, they come from a sincere place, and yet they don't mean much once you have to face yourself. How many people were actually given solace by the reassurance that they are not the first or the last one to face this problem? Not me, at least.

Funny enough, I thought I went through "enough" hardship in my life prior to grad school. I was far from a straight-A student, and contrary to my friends' belief, I don't do physical chemistry because I am innately good at it. I simply find it a difficult yet interesting problem worthy of one's career. And so long as life gives me opportunities to keep being involved in the fascinating world of light and matter, I will probably hold on to it. So I thought I was immune from all the competitive BS that plagues academia. I have my own goal that is unique to me. I have hobbies so I don't JUST do academic things. I was AWARE that imposter syndrome is prevalent, so I thought I should be able to defend myself. Little did I know that being AWARE of it is far from knowing how to handle/co-exist with it, and most of all to protect my sanity, as well as others who were dear to me.

I went to the campus therapist to ask for help - had a cathartic cry session but that was about it. I teared up in front of my PI who had nothing to offer but a kimwipe (which I graciously accepted). I was aware that I am not alone - every corner in my Chemistry building was an imposter putting on a brave face to go about his/her day. I had multiple great support systems - though many had no idea what it means to feel inadequate in academia, where the inhabitants collectively or coaxed-ly agreed that the only currency is your intellectual competency.

Illustration by Gérard DuBois from New Yorker article

A New Yorker article (not even a recent one lol) I came across by a total chance made me frame imposter syndrome in a completely different way, which is why I decided to document my findings here.

The article discusses confirmation bias, and how humans are prone to believe in our own perception of the reality more than the reality itself. The article shows multiple studies that demonstrate the power of confirmation bias, and how, even in the most unlikely situation, it can kick in. In short, we LOVE what we believe in whether it is positive or negative to us, and don't want to admit it when our belief is challenged. The worst part? The self-proclaimed logical ones (like many of us in academia!) are just as equally if not more susceptible to confirmation bias.

My humble hypothesis for the high susceptibility to confirmation bias amongst academics is this; we have deep-rooted yet often unfounded confidence in our cognitive ability. We know we are in a Ph.D. program because we were more detailed oriented than Sam from high school you had to dissect a frog with. We know we are here because we met the (albeit arbitrary) standard in our logic processing ability in SAT or GRE or what have you. When in reality, our parents probably paid for decent high school education. Sure, we had to work hard but we were not born in poverty. In my opinion, most of us are here because we lucked out big time, and had enough tenacity (not to undermine tenacity though).

But my hypothesis aside, let's think about what happens when these samples - highly educated people susceptible to confirmation bias, are placed in academia, where your worth is measured by your ability to convince others how smart you are.

Case 1: You have a single incident where your intellect is questioned.

You immediately jump onto the thought that says "My prof is unhappy with my intellectual ability."

From then on, you see the signs to confirm that confirmation bias even more. Remember that time you couldn't understand a thing on someone's slide? Well, it may have been a terrible slide, but no, you are just going to think "Shit. I don't understand a thing on this slide", which quickly develops into "Shit. I don't understand ANYTHING about this talk", and then to "Shit. I don't know ANYTHING about (insert your research niche)".

But hey, I thought my ONLY worth in this community was my intellect! Now I'm properly stupid! My mom says I'm smart - well no shit, she's my mom! My peers think I'm smart - they don't know I'm just really good at googling. My partner says I'm smart - he/she just doesn't want to deal with my 103208342143678098th breakdown.

And there is no Case 2, just the variations of Case 1's. So it seems like the recipe to full-blown imposter syndrome is as follows.

1) Have a single, statistically anomalous event that questions your worth.

2) Keep the confirmation bias rolling, and collect more and more *perceived* evidence on why your worth should be questioned.

3) Ta-da! Congratulation, you are officially diagnosed with imposter syndrome.

After I read the article and had some chat with my friends, I realized that the part I was missing about HOW to tackle imposter syndrome was the lack of understanding of its mechanism. It just seemed too prevalent and impacting so many *smart* people, it seemed too giant. It seemed like something I just have to come to terms with. But really, I think it boils down to those ingredients listed above.

Now, knowing the mechanism is not a cure. But it's a step towards understanding what might be an effective intervention to cut the loop, and what might be a practical response when you catch yourself going down the spiral.

For me, I will start with this.

1) Not confusing an incident from my reaction to the incident. They are separate things, and I can control the latter.

2) Once I successfully separate my reaction from the incident, observe. Why was my immediate reaction such a way? What other things that happened previously have led to such a reaction? Is this purely on me? Can the other person also be at least partially at fault?

More often than not, I find myself isolating the problem away from "me" and associating with the "SITUATION that I happened to be involved in" by doing this. This is not to eliminate my own contribution to the negative outcome, but it is a way to re-distribute the fault. And what this process really buys is TIME. Time to go back to neutral, where your executive function is a little bit better than when you are emotionally distressed.