I'm 100% confident it's real but I have no expertise on the subject. Checkmate, Atheists.
The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)
41–50 of 191 posts
Re: The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)
#42While the pop-culture notion of the Dunning-Kruger Effect is "idiots don't know they're idiots," the actual results of the paper were (essentially) that F students thought they were D students, whereas the A students thought they were B students. The argument here seems to be that the original effect is explained as essentially a kind of reversion of the mean argument (people assume themselves to be more average than…
Indeed. The true irony behind the Dunning Kruger Effect is that the pop culture understanding of it is essentially describing itself. Showing overconfidence in areas that you have little clue about.
Re: The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that the original formulation was "most people" are unaware of being unskilled, but by now the name is used to mean "some group of people" is unaware of being unskilled. In that sense the article confirms that “a small number are", 5-6%, and therefore the effect exists in the colloquial sense but not in the scientific sense. Mentioning the Dunning-Krueger effect incorrectly is wonderfully meta...
I've seen at least 3 different ideas on this topic: - people not skilled in a thing are bad at estimating their skills - people are generally bad at estimating their skills - people skilled in a particular areas often feel they are intellectually fit in other areas Out of these three I feel like there's some truth in it, at least anecdotally.
I think the third one is a separate thing. I don’t know of a name for it, but I’d call it the engineer’s (or physicist’s) blindspot or something like that.
I can’t remember of DK suggests some sort of effect where the expert has undue self-doubt, though…
Re: The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)
#44Very hard to understand the meat behind all the fluff of the article, especially as the simulation code is not available, and as the presented simulated and original graphs are effectively the same (I don't see a disagreement). It's clear that the perceived curve will be differently sloped, as no one will evaluate themselves as the topmost or the bottommost percentiles, so the edges will be biased. And if in both cas…
It's annoying they didn't plot the new and old "perceived" curves on the same figure, but if you pay attention to the y-axis, there is a very big difference.
In the old plot, the bottom quartile has about a 50 percentage point margin between actual and perceived performance while the new one is 30 percentage points, which is a 50% difference between the old and new curve. The second quartile has 3x more margin in the old version relative to the new one.
Re: The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)
#45I've always found it somewhat ironic that the people who are least familiar with the actual research on the Dunning-Kruger effect tend to be the most confident in discussing it.
It's a sort of recursive Dunning-Kruger effect.
Re: The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)
#46Replication crisis. More than half of all psychology studies are not reproducible. I'm at the point honestly, where I don't even consider psychology to be a science anymore.
> More than half of all psychology studies are not reproducible. Do you have a source for this?
There are tons going back to around 2015. Search Replication Crisis and Psychology. Only about 36-39% of studies can be replicated.
Re: The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)
#47Very hard to understand the meat behind all the fluff of the article, especially as the simulation code is not available, and as the presented simulated and original graphs are effectively the same (I don't see a disagreement). It's clear that the perceived curve will be differently sloped, as no one will evaluate themselves as the topmost or the bottommost percentiles, so the edges will be biased. And if in both cas…
Huh? The point is that the two graphs come out looking the same, making the original no more meaningful than random.
Source code is here: https://github.com/pem725/Dunning-Kruger (found here: https://pem725.github.io)
Re: The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
My experience with new CS grads was that most of them greatly overestimated what they knew, or alternatively, underestimated how much they did not know.
This then boils down to people being generally bad at estimating their own level of ability.
Which is exactly what the Dunner-Kruger effect is. Knowledgeable people statistically underestimating their knowledge and non-knowledgeable people overestimating their knowledge.
Re: The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn’t assume the cause of the replication crisis is 100% due to a lack of rigor in psychology and the other relevant fields. These fields deal with concepts and phenomena that are often abstract and difficult to measure. In some sense, it’s just harder. Besides, deciding what is and isn’t science is a question for the philosophy of science, not science itself.
Yes, that's why psychology is the hardest science.
Hard in "hard science" doesn't mean hard as in difficulty, it means hard as in not soft. Soft sciences are difficult to explore since they aren't rigid, they move around as you prod at them etc, you can't get a good grasp of its shape since they are so soft.
Physics on the other hand is hard as in unyielding. It is easy to figure out boundaries of physics and map out what is and isn't true, and the few cases were we made a mistake everyone can agree a mistake was made and that formulas needs to be updated since physics is so extremely hard that even a tiny error will get noticed.
Hope that clears it up, physics isn't hard as in difficult, its hard as in rigid. And psychology is soft, not easy.
So, your statement doesn't make sense at all in this discussion, they just said psychology has soft traits, and then you say "ok, so its hard since its soft!". No, soft is difficult, not hard.
So for example, physics is like describing the shape of a metal spoon, and psychology is like describing the shape of a pillow. You can see how describing the shape of the pillow is massively more difficult, because its not fixed, so you have to come up with a language to describe all the ways it can deform and how that would work.
Re: The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)
#50Replication crisis. More than half of all psychology studies are not reproducible. I'm at the point honestly, where I don't even consider psychology to be a science anymore.
If you ever took psych 101, it was immediately obvious it's mostly horse shit. Made up nonsense theory, with studies that have few participants and are done by people who don't know math.
A lot of them contradict each other too which is what got me going down the rabbit hole of researching it.