Reality-check the best-at circle with outside input

Ask credible people who have seen your work directly whether you have genuine advantage — not people who love you.

Why it works

Self-assessment of comparative advantage is reliably distorted: the Dunning-Kruger effect operates at the low end, and high performers systematically underestimate their advantage due to experience effects (what is hard for others feels normal to you). Outside input from people with field-relevant reference points corrects both distortions. Collins’s criterion is not "are you good?" but "could you be the best in a specific domain with your natural endowment?" — a higher and more specific bar.

How to do it

1. Identify three to five people who have directly observed your work and who have wide enough reference points to make a comparison.
2. Ask specifically: "In what areas do you think I operate at a genuinely unusual level — where you notice a gap between me and most people you’ve seen do this work?"
3. Listen for the specific, not the flattering — generic praise carries no information about comparative advantage.
4. Note where multiple people independently identify the same area without prompting.

Evidence

Comparative self-assessment is reliably distorted by both Dunning-Kruger effects and the curse of knowledge. Calibrated external feedback is a standard recommendation in career development research and coaching. (observational)

Social desirability effects mean even honest friends may shade feedback; seek people who will give you useful information over comfortable information.

Common mistake

Asking people who are emotionally invested in you being great — they will affirm, not calibrate, and the information will be useless for Circle 2.