I don't know.
Above average- better than the rest. What rest; given the 94% who think they're above average, if everybody else is below average, in order to balance the average out? Paradoxical juxtaposition, I would say.
Self- satisfaction is hard driven to mean elevation above the majority. But an average value does not have a majority and a minority- it simply is. It balances out to extrapolate a mean of mediocrity- or so it is deemed. Thenceforth, being above average means being better than the rest.
Could (almost) mean being the best.
So we have ninety-four out of every hundred people believing that they are better than everyone else. A hundred-person population from which six people are humbled (or too embarrassed) to admit that they are of mediocre value, or even below it.
A society of big headed people, which feed off the vulnerability of those six percent.
But how can we self-classify?
How can I be so ecstatically satisfied with myself that I echelon myself above the rest of the people? Above average?
I am not one of these self-confessed above-averagers, hence I will cowardly admit that I cannot fathom a solution to the presented dilemma.
I am not wise and knowing beyond comparison. I am average.
I will not allow myself to self-determine. Because what prevents me from reporting a wrong classification? Is it my self-esteem? And would that be based on how others view me, therefore meaning that it is ultimately not self-reporting, but rather a mirroring of the critics? And if it were so, how is it possible that 94% would report to being above average, with all this hate in the world?
Would others judge me- since they feel that they are above me, deeming my self-attestation wrong? And does that make their self-affirmation correct? Would I be too below average (or too average for that matter) to have a say in the issue?
I don't know.