51–60 of 191 posts
Replication 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.
Earlier 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 seem, then, in just this little thing to be wiser than this man at any rate, that what I do not know I do not think I know either."
Very 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…
This makes some sense. If people are asked to guess a number between 1 and 6 and then roll a die, the people who roll low are more likely to overestimate and the people who roll high are more likely to underestimate. But the key is precisely how well random data mimics the effect.
Even if it isn’t true, it’s got the feeling of truthiness (1). I don’t expect it to ever go out of the public consciousness. Like other things that were never real like Stockholm Syndrome I suspect it’s just stuck in the zeitgeist now. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness
It seems like the overlap between "real psychological effect" and "subtle enough that it requires research to discover" is vanishingly small. I guess that's not really surprising.
UPD: probably this one https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2022/04/08/the-dunning-k...
The article in the post is older though
Earlier 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.
And of course there's a relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/2501/
Earlier 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.