I don't need to read this, I already know all about the Dunning-Kruger effect.
What the Dunning-Kruger effect is and isn’t (2010)
21–30 of 102 posts
Re: What the Dunning-Kruger effect is and isn’t (2010)
#22Doesn't seem to be any discussion of Nuhfer's findings, which showed that you could recreate the effect with just random data. The bias comes from the process of manipulating normalized data: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/numeracy/vol10/iss1/art4/
This sounds like a confirmation.
"Our results further confirm that experts are more proficient in self-assessing their abilities than novices and that women, in general, self-assess more accurately than men. The validity of interpretations of data depends strongly upon how carefully the researchers consider the numeracy that underlies graphical presentations and conclusions. Our results indicate that carefully measured self-assessments provide valid, measurable and valuable information about proficiency"
Re: What the Dunning-Kruger effect is and isn’t (2010)
#23I've always suspected that obsessive interest in the Dunning-Kruger effect is following an inverse curve of the effect itself :)
Graph: https://twitter.com/fabianstelzer/status/1253647480966852610
Re: What the Dunning-Kruger effect is and isn’t (2010)
#24I don't need to read this, I already know all about the Dunning-Kruger effect.
people downvote you, but your post is exactly on point!
Re: What the Dunning-Kruger effect is and isn’t (2010)
#25Dunning-Kruger is Impostor Syndrome's evil twin. And it's impossible to know which one you may suffer from!
That’s not correct. Dunning-Kruger also accounts for competent people underestimating their competence (like impostor syndrome).
Re: What the Dunning-Kruger effect is and isn’t (2010)
#26What’s the name for the effect of people always bringing up the dunning kruger effect like it’s the answer to everything? I can’t go a day without reading about it Seems like this and bloom filters. Constantly on HN. Both mostly useless
I like to think of these things as "in the know" retorts. Things that the writer appear to think are novel concepts, but we've seen them so many times that they're not.
* Dunning-Kruger
* That xkcd 10,000 People comic[0] (Getting meta in my own comment!)
* "HR is not your friend"
* "Corporations only goal is to increase share price"
* "You're the product"
I'm sure I could name another dozen or so if I had the inclination.
Re: What the Dunning-Kruger effect is and isn’t (2010)
#27Doesn't seem to be any discussion of Nuhfer's findings, which showed that you could recreate the effect with just random data. The bias comes from the process of manipulating normalized data: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/numeracy/vol10/iss1/art4/
That's not quite true, the article's section on regression to the mean[1] largely covers the same territory as Nuhfer's article (although Nuhfer never uses that precise phrase).
Random noise is a primary reason that we see regression to the mean in most contexts (the exception being actual deterministic factors, such as seasonality, the restoring force of a spring, etc.)
The chain of reasoning goes like:
Random noise (Nuhfer)
-> can cause regression to mean (covered in the article)
-> calls into question the Dunning-Kruger effect
Re: What the Dunning-Kruger effect is and isn’t (2010)
#28Doesn't seem to be any discussion of Nuhfer's findings, which showed that you could recreate the effect with just random data. The bias comes from the process of manipulating normalized data: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/numeracy/vol10/iss1/art4/
This sounds like a confirmation. "Our results further confirm that experts are more proficient in self-assessing their abilities than novices and that women, in general, self-assess more accurately than men. The validity of interpretations of data depends strongly upon how carefully the researchers consider the numeracy that underlies graphical presentations and conclusions. Our results indicate that carefully measur…
Confirmation would be if they found that those who were less competent tended to overestimate their abilities when compared to those who were more competent. They found that this was not true. Instead, they found that people tend to overestimate their abilities with the same likelihood as when underestimating.
Re: What the Dunning-Kruger effect is and isn’t (2010)
#29Related: This is an interview with David Dunning of Dunning-Kruger Effect. I find it highly entertaining and would recommend listening just for a few minutes in case it tickles your interest too. I've listed a couple of sources of the same podcast, just in case.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/david-dunning-on-the-d...
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cDovL2ZlZWRzLmJsb29tYmV...