The Introspection Illusion

Jonathan Knowles Getty

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


On a recent trip, I stopped in at the Art Institute of Chicago, which has a marvelous collection of Impressionist paintings. Among them, a self-portrait of Vincent van Gogh, completed in 1887 and one of the dozens of self-portraits the artist would complete in his lifetime. To me, this particular version is one of the broodier iterations, with the subject’s striking blue-green eyes seeming to emanate a kind of melancholy. I couldn’t help but wonder if van Gogh’s many self-portraits were an endeavor to know himself better—or perhaps know the version that friends and passersby might describe.

To be sure, we humans are fascinated by ourselves, and yet research shows that our self-image is quite different from reality. As Steve Ayan writes in “10 Things You Don’t Know about Yourself,” our knowledge of ourselves can be distorted, and yet it can influence how we behave. But perhaps being a mystery to ourselves isn’t such a bad thing. As Ellen Hendrickson writes in “Why Everyone Is Insecure (and Why That’s Okay),” “a healthy dose of self-doubt spurs us to monitor ourselves and our interactions. It prompts introspection and helps us identify how to get along better with our fellow humans.”

Elsewhere in this issue, Alison Abbott covers a promising new area of research on the impact that immune molecules in the brain have on dementia and neurodegenerative disorders. Read more in “Is ‘Friendly Fire’ in the Brain Provoking Alzheimer’s Disease?” As always, we love your feedback!

Andrea Gawrylewski is chief newsletter editor at Scientific American. She writes the daily Today in Science newsletter and oversees all other newsletters at the magazine. In addition, she manages all special editions and in the past was the editor for Scientific American Mind, Scientific American Space & Physics and Scientific American Health & Medicine. Gawrylewski got her start in journalism at the Scientist magazine, where she was a features writer and editor for "hot" research papers in the life sciences. She spent more than six years in educational publishing, editing books for higher education in biology, environmental science and nutrition. She holds a master's degree in earth science and a master's degree in journalism, both from Columbia University, home of the Pulitzer Prize.

More by Andrea Gawrylewski
SA Mind Vol 29 Issue 4This article was published with the title “The Introspection Illusion” in SA Mind Vol. 29 No. 4 ()
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican072018-5r7FXt7DR0d6EMV1VPSOQm

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe