Live data from Hacker News

What the Dunning-Kruger effect is and isn’t (2010)

talyarkoni.org

61–70 of 102 posts

Re: What the Dunning-Kruger effect is and isn’t (2010)

#61
post #58

An explanation I am not seeing: People may self-report opinions of their own performance that they feel are socially acceptable or socially protective of themselves. So it reverts to the mean because it remains within The Overton Window so to speak. If your objective performance falls far outside the norm, even if you know it and are confident this is true, people may not accept that fact and trying to insist on gett…

I’m a little worried about supplying any explanation because the DK paper didn’t study the general population at all, and nobody who participated was incompetent or lacking meta cognitive skills or representative of any of the other exaggerated terms they used. The participants were all Cornell undergrads volunteering for extra credit. That alone is such a huge red flag on the validity of this study that presumes to…

I’m not sure if the things I’m pointing out support your theory or not.

It's not a theory. It's a comment on a public forum, not a PhD thesis.

I've had some pertinent classes, like Intro to Psychology, Social Psychology, and Negotiation and Conflict Management. In my youth, I spent about 3.5 years in therapy to sort out baggage from childhood trauma. I've journaled and blogged for a lot of years, so introspection and trying to figure out what makes me tick is a longstanding habit.

I raised two special-needs sons who don't intuitively understand social stuff, so trying to explain things to them really helped hone my understanding of some things. I had to up my game by quite a lot to help them get a meaningful and useful understanding of social phenomenon.

Social phenomenon are inherently hard to find good information about. Studies tend to be really bad. People who know they are participating in a study almost by definition don't behave like the do "normally."

I continue to talk with my sons about social phenomenon because it remains an ongoing area of interest. My sons and I talk fairly often about what constitutes a good source of social insight and what doesn't. I comment about it sometimes on HN because I hang here and sometimes people find my comments of value.

It's my opinion. My opinions on such topics seem to generally be on more solid footing than average. They usually aren't, per se, backed up by some kind of scientific study, though they are generally informed by gathering solid tidbits of useful info over the years.

If you don't agree with it, it's totes fine.

Re: What the Dunning-Kruger effect is and isn’t (2010)

#62
post #60

Doesn'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/

The abstract mentions women self-assess more accurately than men. As a man and thinking about my own mindset with self assessment, I wonder if the definition of “self-assessment” itself might differ between men and women on average. For myself, if you ask me to do a task in a discipline I know little about, I might assess myself as being capable of doing so even without the prior experience, because I figure “I can f…

No offense, but this mostly just reads as very sexist.

>...we are more confident we can learn it even if we don’t know it.

I’m confident women can learn things they aren’t familiar with, and as quickly as a man can. Your whole comment reeks of bias, actually.

Re: What the Dunning-Kruger effect is and isn’t (2010)

#63
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The abstract mentions women self-assess more accurately than men. As a man and thinking about my own mindset with self assessment, I wonder if the definition of “self-assessment” itself might differ between men and women on average. For myself, if you ask me to do a task in a discipline I know little about, I might assess myself as being capable of doing so even without the prior experience, because I figure “I can f…

No offense, but this mostly just reads as very sexist. >...we are more confident we can learn it even if we don’t know it. I’m confident women can learn things they aren’t familiar with, and as quickly as a man can. Your whole comment reeks of bias, actually.

He didn’t say they can’t learn things, he said they are less confident. He actually used the word “hubris” while describing men. Stop making it into sexism, it’s the opposite if anything.

Re: What the Dunning-Kruger effect is and isn’t (2010)

#64
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m a little worried about supplying any explanation because the DK paper didn’t study the general population at all, and nobody who participated was incompetent or lacking meta cognitive skills or representative of any of the other exaggerated terms they used. The participants were all Cornell undergrads volunteering for extra credit. That alone is such a huge red flag on the validity of this study that presumes to…

I’m not sure if the things I’m pointing out support your theory or not. It's not a theory . It's a comment on a public forum, not a PhD thesis. I've had some pertinent classes, like Intro to Psychology, Social Psychology, and Negotiation and Conflict Management. In my youth, I spent about 3.5 years in therapy to sort out baggage from childhood trauma. I've journaled and blogged for a lot of years, so introspection an…

Sorry, I meant theory casually, as a synonym for the word you used, explanation.

I think I’m agreeing with you, and I think it’s an interesting explanation and a valuable comment. I have no doubt that you’re right that people are socially protective, and some people pull back publicly to fit in. It’s just that as a response to DK or to Tal, I feel like it might be mostly orthogonal and independent. I’m pretty sure that the DK study itself didn’t experience or measure this kind of social self-protection, because of the methods described in the paper.

What I disagree with is the DK paper. They make broad generalizations and speculations about behavior throughout that their own data do not support. And the paper seems to be almost completely misinterpreted. Despite the data and the statements in the paper, everyone seems to think that the paper shows confidence being an indicator of lack of skill. It doesn’t help that the paper’s title misleadingly walks you right into that idea.

> Studies tend to be really bad.

You can say that again.

Re: What the Dunning-Kruger effect is and isn’t (2010)

#65
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The abstract mentions women self-assess more accurately than men. As a man and thinking about my own mindset with self assessment, I wonder if the definition of “self-assessment” itself might differ between men and women on average. For myself, if you ask me to do a task in a discipline I know little about, I might assess myself as being capable of doing so even without the prior experience, because I figure “I can f…

No offense, but this mostly just reads as very sexist. >...we are more confident we can learn it even if we don’t know it. I’m confident women can learn things they aren’t familiar with, and as quickly as a man can. Your whole comment reeks of bias, actually.

Read it again. The comment you are mindlessly bashing is talking about men having more confidence in the ability to learn on the fly, not having more ability to learn on the fly.

Re: What the Dunning-Kruger effect is and isn’t (2010)

#66
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure if the things I’m pointing out support your theory or not. It's not a theory . It's a comment on a public forum, not a PhD thesis. I've had some pertinent classes, like Intro to Psychology, Social Psychology, and Negotiation and Conflict Management. In my youth, I spent about 3.5 years in therapy to sort out baggage from childhood trauma. I've journaled and blogged for a lot of years, so introspection an…

Sorry, I meant theory casually, as a synonym for the word you used, explanation. I think I’m agreeing with you, and I think it’s an interesting explanation and a valuable comment. I have no doubt that you’re right that people are socially protective, and some people pull back publicly to fit in. It’s just that as a response to DK or to Tal, I feel like it might be mostly orthogonal and independent. I’m pretty sure th…

[deleted]

Re: What the Dunning-Kruger effect is and isn’t (2010)

#67

Dunning 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,…

> they're so dumb they are too dumb to know they are dumb!

It’s really too bad Dunning & Kruger’s data didn’t show anyone being too dumb to know it, nor did it even show anyone being dumb at all. So maybe the meaning isn’t as precise as you think? All the participant scores were relative to their peer group (no way to know if they were dumb or smart), and all the participants were Ivy League college kids. That doesn’t mean there were no dummies in the group, but it is certainly not a random sample of the population.

> I’ve never seen someone cast themselves as the one that might be overestimating their ability.

The DK paper shows a positive correlation between confidence and skill. While I have seen people suggest they might be overestimating (in social situations where doing that might add credibility), if you believe in the DK effect and trust their data, then saying out loud that you’re overestimating your ability is the same as saying you think you might be dumber than you are, right?

Re: What the Dunning-Kruger effect is and isn’t (2010)

#68
I wonder to what extent people are substituting their estimated score with their estimated relative position.

Let's say a 50% score at a test puts you in the 1. percentile and 70% in the 99th. I would actually expect people to estimate their relative position roughly in line with their results.

Re: What the Dunning-Kruger effect is and isn’t (2010)

#69
post #60

Doesn'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/

The abstract mentions women self-assess more accurately than men. As a man and thinking about my own mindset with self assessment, I wonder if the definition of “self-assessment” itself might differ between men and women on average. For myself, if you ask me to do a task in a discipline I know little about, I might assess myself as being capable of doing so even without the prior experience, because I figure “I can f…

No, it is not different definition. Women think they can learn things too. However, if you ask them how good they are in something or whether they already know it, they are more likely to provide accurate answer.

Also true story: if I am solving a problem and ask dude whether he knows the solution, he says yes I do, takes away my keyboard, starts googling and then refuses to return keyboard back, it is serious wtf annoying.

Also, people react different to overconfidence from woman - in my repeated experience, if woman claims she can do something technical she then starts figuring it on the fly, she will be butt of jokes. I mean, I cant figure technical stuff out on the fly in presence of some people, cause they will seriously mess into it.

Re: What the Dunning-Kruger effect is and isn’t (2010)

#70
post #60

Doesn'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/

The abstract mentions women self-assess more accurately than men. As a man and thinking about my own mindset with self assessment, I wonder if the definition of “self-assessment” itself might differ between men and women on average. For myself, if you ask me to do a task in a discipline I know little about, I might assess myself as being capable of doing so even without the prior experience, because I figure “I can f…

I don't know how they conducted the experiment, but they mention something about a science assessment. If you ask about math and science, men are going to believe they're more competent than they actually are because they've been socialized to believe they're better at it.

If they asked about cooking or cleaning, you'd probably get the opposite reaction.

Of course men aren't inherently better at math nor are women better at cleaning. It's just that we socialize them to think they are.

Post reply on HN