Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Dunning-Kruger Effect Is Probably Not Real

mcgill.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–75 of 75 posts

Re: The Dunning-Kruger Effect Is Probably Not Real

#71

Post by jonnycomputer »

jonnycomputer wrote: post #25
kkwteh wrote: post #15

The supposed smoking gun in the article is that if we plot random values for perceived and actual ability we get a chart that looks a lot like the chart in the original study. I don't see how you make the leap from there to saying that the Dunning-Kruger effect is probably not real. The headline is totally overblown if you ask me.

I guess they could just be more epistemically modest and say that the data doesn't support the existence of the Dunning-Kruger effect, but doesn't make it not real.

My goodness, two downvotes for distinguishing between a failure to show something exists and proof that it doesn't exist.

Re: The Dunning-Kruger Effect Is Probably Not Real

#72

Post by apple4ever »

Shacklz wrote: post #48

Not sure if the Dunning-Kruger effect can be applied to everything (such as: humour, grammar, etc., as listed in the article), but I think pretty much everyone who has played any kind of video game (Dota, LoL, Star Craft, CS:GO, etc.) in a competitive "try-hard" environment for long enough will assure you that the Dunning-Krueger effect is indeed real. "It's not my fault for losing this; I am clearly better than the…

But you need to differentiate what people outwardly project is their ability and what they actual think is their ability.

And then there is also the reaction in the moment vs the reaction after sometime of thinking about it.

Re: The Dunning-Kruger Effect Is Probably Not Real

#73

Post by AstralStorm »

scotty79 wrote: post #46
Lxr wrote: post #26

The article doesn't explain what is actually going on to produce the second chart, but here is a guess. Assume people have a true ability x , an estimated ability y which is x + some unbiased noise, and a test score z which is also x + some unbiased noise. If you take a sample and collect the lowest quartile of test scores z , then the average of the estimated abilities y in that group is higher than z because the y…

So it's just artifact of testing. Lowest test scores come from low ability plus bad luck and as such are lower than just low ability and highest test scores come from high ability and great luck and as such are higher than just high ability.

Easily verified by testing more. (Via law of big numbers.)

Unless the test is biased which means we're back to square one - discerning bias of the test from bias of respondent.

To do that you'd have to produce a specifically biased test in a different way, see how the noises add.

Post reply on HN