The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)
21–30 of 191 posts
Re: The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)
#22Re: The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)
#23Can they measure things or do they just guess? Are they willing to seek evidence? Even if evidence is immediately available will they use it? Everybody has bias, but is their bias primarily self-oriented?
The consequences for poor objectivity are profound and measurable, but then its an invisible failure for people that struggle with this in the first place. In many industries poor objectivity can result in termination, law suits, criminal penalties, physical harm, and more. Software just seems to pretend this is vapor.
Re: The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)
#24The strict academic definition hasn’t followed the colloquial usage for a long time. Maybe ever: If a specific novice is over-confident and out of their depth, we say “Dunning-Kruger” If a specific is under-confident and performing better than their self-estimate, that’s not commonly considered Dunning Kruger, in the colloquial use. It’s called imposter syndrome, or not labeled at all. The researchers aren’t really d…
Re: The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)
#25> The Dunning-Kruger Effect Is Probably Not Real Self-deception by any other name is still self-deception. The Dunning-Kruger effect also applies to smart people. You don't stop when you are estimating your ability correctly. As you learn more, you gain more awareness of your ignorance and continue being conservative with your self-estimates. But overall I think real intelligence by definition requires empathy and hu…
Re: The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)
#26Re: The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)
#27It’s obviously real, at least as used in conversation, whether it meets some rigorous definition I’m sure there’s an out, but we’ve all known these people. With vibe coding they’re everywhere. Is this going to be a modern “begging the question” where everyone knows what you mean but someone pipes up that actually the technical meaning is different?
The problem is that the original formulation was "most people" are unaware of being unskilled, but by now the name is used to mean "some group of people" is unaware of being unskilled. In that sense the article confirms that “a small number are", 5-6%, and therefore the effect exists in the colloquial sense but not in the scientific sense. Mentioning the Dunning-Krueger effect incorrectly is wonderfully meta...
- people not skilled in a thing are bad at estimating their skills
- people are generally bad at estimating their skills
- people skilled in a particular areas often feel they are intellectually fit in other areas
Out of these three I feel like there's some truth in it, at least anecdotally.
Re: The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)
#28I think the only conclusion you can draw from that plot is everyone thinks they'll be in the third quartile.
Re: The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)
#29I find references to the effect in pop culture are almost always used in an insulting, smug manner.