The lesson I take from Dunning-Kruger is that self evaluation is hard.
What the Dunning-Kruger effect is and isn’t (2010)
31–40 of 102 posts
Re: What the Dunning-Kruger effect is and isn’t (2010)
#32Doesn'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…
No, it's not a confirmation. Experts have a tighter distribution of self-assessment - when they miss, they miss by less. However, non-experts and experts alike overrate and underrate their competency with about equal frequency.
Because of ceiling and floor effects (it's hard to massively underrate yourself when you're already in the bottom decile of actual competency, and vice versa), non-experts have a mean self-assessment higher than their actual competency, but that doesn't mean that non-experts as a group tend to overrate themselves.
Re: What the Dunning-Kruger effect is and isn’t (2010)
#33What’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'm thankful, honestly, that those crowded out the weekly wonderous new battery technology discovered that will revolutionize everything.
Re: What the Dunning-Kruger effect is and isn’t (2010)
#34"Most citations of D-K are examples of D-K."
Really most of what people think is D-K is just statistics analogous to reversion to the mean: people assume they are typical, so less-skilled people naturally guess they are better, and higher-skilled guess they are less.
If D-K means anything, it has to be a variance on top of this effect. Such an effect does seem to appear, where the very least skilled imagine there is no deep skill to learn.
Re: What the Dunning-Kruger effect is and isn’t (2010)
#35Now I understand why so many among the woke elite pretend to have impostor syndrome. It's to virtue signal which side of the Dunning-Kruger partition they're on.
I don't believe that the Dunning-Kruger effect is very significant these days because our modern society is full of:
1. Extremely talented, hard working people who have achieved nothing because they never got very lucky.
2. Lazy idiots who have achieved a lot because they got extremely lucky.
In contradiction with the Dunning-Kruger effect, people in group #1 are less likely to feel impostor syndrome because they're been working hard for a long time and they've made an impression and received excellent, honest feedback wherever they've worked over many years and delivered excellent results by all accounts. Their past employers are praising them, ex-colleagues want to work with them, etc... this gives them confidence in their ability in spite of a lack of financial success. In our modern age, skill does not guarantee financial success because skill has limited utility value in our dysfunctional economy built on unsound money printing and asymmetric playing fields... Everyone wants to work with a genius, but genius has limited financial value. Reckless foolishness can often yield higher returns if the game is played enough times.
Also in contradiction with the Dunning-Kruger effect, people in group #2 are bound to feel like impostors because they are impostors. All their confidence is derived from their financial success. They've never delivered any lasting, meaningful results which can be attributed to their work... and they've never received any praise from any intelligent person until they became rich (then suddenly, the smart bastards all line up to give praise)... The incentives in this case aren't conducive to honest feedback. All the ingredients to feeling like an impostor are there and even with their limited intellect and underdeveloped primal ego; deep down, they can sense that something is not quite right.
Re: What the Dunning-Kruger effect is and isn’t (2010)
#36I appreciate the careful write-up, but all it is at this point in a typical discussion is a smug way to insult someone.
Re: What the Dunning-Kruger effect is and isn’t (2010)
#37Doesn'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/
It makes it the Dunning-Kruger paradox, which would force a lot of people to eat a lot of crow.
Re: What the Dunning-Kruger effect is and isn’t (2010)
#38The lesson I take from Dunning-Kruger is that self evaluation is hard.
It's hard to know what you don't know. Let's say, objectively you know 10 of 100 "facts" of Discipline X. But given you're a novice you believe the universe of X is say only 50 "facts." Naturally, from where you stand your 10 now doubled in value. So I would think the problem isn't the overestimation or overvalue per se. 10 is still 10. It's that you've underestimated the size of the X universe thus making your perception of the piece of pie feel bigger than it really is.
If that makes sense.
The key is to be aware that there are things you don't yet know, and not let your ignorance get the best of you.
Re: What the Dunning-Kruger effect is and isn’t (2010)
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Baader–Meinhof phenomenon :)
I keep seeing references to the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon all over the place lately...
This could be coincidence, synchronicity or déjà vu, unless it's merely hilarious. Because if seeing the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon everywhere is in fact the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon, then it becomes recursive. I'm guessing it is hilarious.
Re: What the Dunning-Kruger effect is and isn’t (2010)
#40Dunning Kruger, while it does have a precise meaning and was experimentally discovered, in common usage of the term it is just a way to say someone else is dumb without using words like 'dumb'. Not only are they dumb, they're so dumb they are too dumb to know they are dumb! Not only are they soooo dumb, I'm very smart, so smart I use words to talk like smart people, with big special words that are from science. Plus, I bet I underestimate my own skill level. How humble!
I've never seen someone cast themselves as the one that might be overestimating their ability.