I felt like that early in my career. I used to think that being a rockstar developer was a good thing, and I'd be happy to describe myself as one.

The thing is, a lot of rockstars are really just churning out heaps of unmaintainable code. They think they have a high degree of proficiency, they're confident in their competence, but there's a disconnect between what they think and what they produce.

It can be a sign of personal improvement to question yourself when you think you're doing great. We owe it to ourselves to ask ourselves critically if we can be doing better. Because if we don't, and we just assume we're awesome, then we'll happily churn out sub-awesome cruft.

The insidious thing is that self-criticism leads to self-doubt, and imposter syndrome can be quite paralyzing. But if you learn to control your criticism instead of allowing your criticism to control you, you can achieve higher heights than rockstardom.

Well, I'm not a psychologist, so I suppose my interpretation might not be correct - the irony mounts.

But from the graphs you shared, it looks to me like the only people who underestimated themselves were the top performers. And from what I know firsthand with imposter syndrome, a competent person underestimates themselves.

I used hyperbole for effect, so I don't think that if you believe you have zero competence in something because you actually have zero competence means that you're secretly good at something. If you know nothing about plumbing, don't try to install a toilet.

But if you're working in the software factory then you don't actually have zero competence, you probably have formal education and some experience. Having that feeling that you might not be good enough is a sign that you're on the right track.