SPORTS · FLOW    RESEARCH LIBRARY
ARISTOTLE  ·  STATION 11 OF 12
MEGALOPSYCHIA

Knowing YourOwn Size

Aristotle's most objectionable virtue, and the one with the most useful core. The great-souled man claims what he deserves, and the whole thing turns on the accuracy of the estimate.
WRITTEN BYNoah Wickliffe
MEGALOPSYCHIA
GREATNESS OF SOUL
 
THE RING TEMPLATE
TEN PAGES

§I   The Call

Two wrong answers to one question

A folding table by the finish tent, half an hour after the heats, and someone with a recorder asks whether she can win tomorrow. She says probably not. There are faster people. She is lucky to be here.

She is second in the field on this year's times and she knows the times.

Down the corridor at the same regatta is a man with a third of her results who is certain.

Aristotle has a category for each. Megalopsychia, greatness of soul, is claiming what you actually deserve. The failure below it is undue humility, which he treats as a real defect rather than a modest virtue. The failure above it is vanity. The virtue is the accurate estimate.

Both errors are errors. Sport polices one of them constantly and rewards the other, which means the correction most athletes need is the one they will never be given. That asymmetry is why the station is in the ring.

ArenaWhat it looks like there
SelectionThe athlete who will not put themselves forward and should.
RacingThe tactical decision made from a self-estimate that is wrong.
CoachingThe staff member who never applies.
NegotiationContracts, sponsorship, and what people ask for.
Any arenaEvery room where someone's contribution and their claim on it do not match.

§II   Two Failures

The two ways this goes wrong

Undue humility, treated as a virtue

The first failure is the sculler. Sport rewards the appearance of modesty heavily, so athletes learn to underclaim publicly, and the underclaiming migrates inward. Aristotle is unusual in treating this as a defect and not a lesser version of goodness, and on this specific point he is useful in an environment that systematically produces it.

Vanity, which is easier to see

The second failure needs less description because everyone can identify it. The relevant point is that both are errors of estimation, and the culture only polices one.

§III   The Line

The line

The person who thinks themselves worthy of great things, being worthy of them, is great-souled. The one who underestimates themselves is unduly humble, whatever they are worthy of.AFTER ARISTOTLE, NICOMACHEAN ETHICS IV

Both halves are errors and the second half is the one that gets called modesty. Aristotle's structure treats accuracy as the virtue, in both directions, which is the part worth keeping.

§IV   The Story

The story

The portrait he then draws is the problem. The great-souled man moves slowly, speaks in a deep voice, is not given to admiration because nothing is great to him, does not hurry, holds few things important, and is open in his hatreds because concealment is for the fearful.

It is an unattractive picture and it has embarrassed commentators for centuries. Some read it as ironic. Most read it as Aristotle describing an Athenian aristocratic ideal he had absorbed and not examined.

What is worth extracting is the structural claim and not the portrait. The accurate self-estimate is a skill, both errors are errors, and the culture around you will punish one and reward the other regardless of which one you are making.

§V   The Science

The science

Kristin Neff's self-compassion research is the most useful modern replacement. Self-compassion is associated with the outcomes self-esteem was supposed to produce, without the contingency on performance and without the defensiveness. Self-esteem requires being above average and self-compassion does not, which matters in a domain where most people are not.

The narcissism literature covers the other error. Narcissistic self-enhancement is associated with poorer long-term performance in domains requiring feedback, because the feedback is rejected. The inflated estimate protects itself by refusing the information that would correct it.

And the self-assessment accuracy literature says both errors are common and that people are poor at estimating their own standing, with the least skilled least accurate. The honest conclusion is that accurate self-estimate is difficult for structural reasons, not a matter of having the right attitude.

2errors, and the culture polices one
0requirement to be above average, in self-compassion
2ndfastest, and saying probably not
1external check, which is the only reliable route

§VI   The Case Against

The case against megalopsychia

This station requires the most explicit disclaimer in the ring and it is not only about the portrait.

Aristotle's views on who could have it are indefensible

He held that some people are slaves by nature and that women are deliberatively deficient. Those are not stray remarks; they are integrated into the ethical and political works. A ring built on Aristotle is obliged to say this plainly rather than quoting the useful parts and staying quiet.

The relevant consequence here is that megalopsychia was available to a narrow class by construction, and the portrait is a portrait of that class. Extracting the structural claim about accuracy is legitimate. Presenting the virtue whole is not.

The virtue is close to something harmful

Claiming what you deserve, in a person who overestimates, is entitlement. The framework has no independent way to establish desert, so in practice everyone applies it in their own favor. That is the general failure mode of all self-assessment and this station has no defense against it.

The undue-humility diagnosis will be misused

Telling athletes that modesty is a defect is a sentence that will be deployed selectively, and the athletes who get told to claim more are unlikely to be the same ones who are already being listened to.

Where this leaves the station The portrait is discarded. The classical framing is kept only for the structural point that both directions are errors. The practice runs on external checks and on self-compassion rather than on self-estimate, because the evidence says the internal estimate is not reliable enough to build on.

§VII   The Practice

The practice

  • Get the external number. Where do you actually stand. Results, rankings, times. The internal estimate is the thing under suspicion, so do not use it as the input.
  • Say it out loud once, accurately. Not modestly and not optimistically. The second fastest person in the field says she is the second fastest person in the field.
  • Notice which error is yours. Almost everyone has a direction. Knowing yours is more useful than any estimate.
  • Ask one person who will be honest. Not for encouragement. For their estimate of where you stand, which they will usually give more accurately than you will.
  • Use self-compassion, not self-esteem. The estimate can be accurate and unflattering and survivable. That combination is what Neff's work makes available and what the classical framing does not.

§VIII   The Deeper Block

Two weeks

Days 1–2
Write your own estimate. Where you stand, in your field, honestly. Seal it.
Days 3–5
Find the external number. Actual standings, actual times, actual selection history.
Days 6–8
Compare, and name the direction. Which way do you err. This is the fortnight's finding.
Days 9–11
Ask one person. Their estimate, given honestly. Do not argue with it in the room.
Days 12–14
Make one accurate claim. Put yourself forward for something your actual standing supports, or step back from something it does not.

§IX   For the Coach

For the coach

Police both errors. Squads correct overclaiming reflexively and never correct underclaiming, and both are inaccuracy. The sculler who says probably not is telling you something is wrong.

Supply the external number. Athletes cannot self-assess accurately and you have the data. Give it to them plainly and regularly.

Notice who you tell to claim more. It is worth auditing. The underclaimers who get encouraged are frequently not a random sample.

How to raise it

“You said probably not. You are second in the field. I am not asking you to be confident. I am asking you to be accurate.”

§X   The Turn

What this station leaves you with

Aristotle wrote a portrait of a slow-moving man with a deep voice who admires nothing, and underneath it he put a claim worth keeping: that thinking too little of yourself is an error and not a virtue, and that the work is accuracy in both directions.

She was second in the field and she said probably not, and everyone in the room heard humility.

SOURCE · Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics IV, on greatness of soul
STUDY · Neff, self-compassion versus self-esteem
STUDY · Narcissistic self-enhancement and feedback rejection
NOTE · Aristotle on natural slavery and on women; stated, not elided
RING · Aristotle, station 11 of 12