11–20 of 23 posts
The most interesting thing about the graphs isn't the slope, but that "perceived score" is far more tightly coupled to the individual's perception of their overall ability than their actual score. But that could be an artefact of how and when questions about ability were asked (conjecture: I haven't read the original paper)
Another one from the article: I'm arguing without empirical evidence of the superiority of good type systems (Note: I try to stay away from claims about what those are). I also think it's not possible to make controlled studies on this area - which is why it's such a contested issue. Studies use either students and/or toy problems, or irrelevant datasets such as bugs reported against github repos etc. The only way top make a valid study is to have N teams implement and maintain a product with the same spec over K years and then compare the results and try to factor out developer skill. I say it's not a feasible problem to solve. We'll have to stick to arguing type systems without evidence to back up the argumebts. But that is the best kind of arguing, after all.
The people who perform the worst have the most inflated perception of their performance, while the people who perform the best underestimate their performance.
I think people take Dunning-Kruger and apply it to their everyday anecdotes. They are thinking in terms of relative differences rather than absolute, and thus the pop-sci understanding may not be that far off from the original.
Seems paradoxical that the Dunning-Kruger effect is being applied to the Dunning-Kruger effect.
I'm sure the noble prize awarded to the Dunning and Kruger's work in psychology was just a result of a bunch of imbeciles who didn't realize it was a "bogus meme".
This article was absolute drivel.
Opinion: a log like decrease in happiness vs income is basically consistent with "more money doesn't make you happier". Sketching a graph that is completely flat is misleading however. The only question is, at what point on the log scale is the increase small enough to disregard (compared to other life factors). Another one from the article: I'm arguing without empirical evidence of the superiority of good type syste…
I think you mean log-like increase.
Assuming so, then more money does make you happier (although at a decreasing rate per dollar per year.)
Opinion: a log like decrease in happiness vs income is basically consistent with "more money doesn't make you happier". Sketching a graph that is completely flat is misleading however. The only question is, at what point on the log scale is the increase small enough to disregard (compared to other life factors). Another one from the article: I'm arguing without empirical evidence of the superiority of good type syste…
> Opinion: a log like decrease in happiness vs income is basically consistent with "more money doesn't make you happier". I think you mean log-like in crease. Assuming so, then more money does make you happier (although at a decreasing rate per dollar per year.)
Seems paradoxical that the Dunning-Kruger effect is being applied to the Dunning-Kruger effect.
This was my first thought. I'm sure the noble prize awarded to the Dunning and Kruger's work in psychology was just a result of a bunch of imbeciles who didn't realize it was a "bogus meme". This article was absolute drivel.
Opinion: a log like decrease in happiness vs income is basically consistent with "more money doesn't make you happier". Sketching a graph that is completely flat is misleading however. The only question is, at what point on the log scale is the increase small enough to disregard (compared to other life factors). Another one from the article: I'm arguing without empirical evidence of the superiority of good type syste…
> Opinion: a log like decrease in happiness vs income is basically consistent with "more money doesn't make you happier". I think you mean log-like in crease. Assuming so, then more money does make you happier (although at a decreasing rate per dollar per year.)
The money/happyness one is particularly interesting to me. If money does not equal happyness why am I so happy when I get more? I make more than 75k so obviously 75k isn't enough.
The fact that you want more is irrelevant. You may be unhappy and believe that more money will make you happier, but it could be just a false belief or a bias.
Money is not a cure for unhappiness seems like a more accurate phrase.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This was my first thought. I'm sure the noble prize awarded to the Dunning and Kruger's work in psychology was just a result of a bunch of imbeciles who didn't realize it was a "bogus meme". This article was absolute drivel.
I just did some quick googling. It seems they received the Ig-Nobel award, not an actual Nobel prize. This award is a bit strange, I don't fully understand... It's some kind of parody: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ig_Nobel_Prize