Where I think we disagree is that I would say impostor syndrome doesn't simply go away when you get better at something. This is because as you get better, you will encounter people better than you (especially if your career is advancing etc). To perfectionists or self-critical people this is hell.
You basically say "don't say you're good at something unless you really are", but have no threshold for this. This quote from your article highlights this:
> If you don’t want to be a fraud, or feel like one, do the hard work of learning(...)
There's no upper bound on the level of knowledge required here. Am I "good" with Python because I can understand basic syntax and scoping rules? Do I need to know all of the standard library by heart? Python 2 and 3?
Impostor syndrome isn't when you are a fraud, it's when you think you are but really aren't.
I don't think there's an upper bound on knowledge at all to begin with -- the pool of known facts for just about anything non-trivial is huge, and there's the known unknowns, and there's the unknown unknowns. If that's true, then it follows that it might be hard (if possible) to find an upper bound on the knowledge for python. There are so many ways you could use python (and related concepts and technology), a combinatoric explosion of complication and unique experience is guaranteed.
To go with this, an intended (but maybe not properly conveyed) second point of the post was to stop saying "I'm an expert at X" and start saying "I'm familiar with X and have used it to do Y, and deal with Z -- spending a long time debugging problem A when it came up".
The only way you can "know" a piece of code is by reading it, I would consider that table stakes, so for me "knowing" python means reading the interpreter code. But, I think it doesn't stop there because you could consider "expert"-level pythonistas to also include a working model of the system underlying to write super efficient python code.
The point was that rather than claiming you're "good" with python, get more specific about what you know about it, and it should be relatively easy to note what you do and don't know, and cut down on the feeling that there's a world you don't know (which there almost always is).
> Want to solve your impostor syndrome? Repeat after me (preferably in a tech interview): “While I wouldn’t consider myself an expert on A, I have read about A and done X, Y, and Z with it so I’m confident I can solve problems with it and debug it when things go wrong.”
This line makes me cringe (and I wrote it), but the point I was trying to make is that we should stop boiling down language familiarity to terms like "good" and "expert", it's subjective, and depends on the application a lot of the time, just be able to recount the bits of knowledge you've gained with experience that you're sure about.
You basically say "don't say you're good at something unless you really are", but have no threshold for this. This quote from your article highlights this:
> If you don’t want to be a fraud, or feel like one, do the hard work of learning(...)
There's no upper bound on the level of knowledge required here. Am I "good" with Python because I can understand basic syntax and scoping rules? Do I need to know all of the standard library by heart? Python 2 and 3?
Impostor syndrome isn't when you are a fraud, it's when you think you are but really aren't.