Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)

mcgill.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 191 posts

Re: The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)

#131

Post by throwawaythekey »

cyanregiment wrote: post #117

It makes a lot more sense if you think of it as a mere “effect” and not a “syndrome” the way it’s used. Simply: Anytime anyone overestimates their ability, they will perform worse than if they had approached it with humility (on average). Rather than speaking it like people “have Dunning Kruger” Just a fact (heuristic) of behavior that anyone can fall subject to

> Simply: Anytime anyone overestimates their ability, they will perform worse than if they had approached it with humility (on average).

Do you have a basis for that?

It seems like in life some tasks reward overconfidence, e.g. starting a business, and some tasks reward underconfidence e.g. retirement savings.

I'm not sure there is a strong bias one way or the other.

Re: The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)

#133

Post by 0xWTF »

I first ran across the Dunning-Kruger effect in my own data: a survey of my classmates which asked them 34 questions about their study habits, and a question in the middle asked them what quintile of the class they believed they stood in.

Even in this completely self-reported sample, the data strongly pointed to a Lake Wobegon bias in self-assessment - everyone self-assessed as above average, despite having more than half the class reporting. Statistically impossible, and not at all subtle.

I think about that study a lot. Particularly when I think I understand a something.

Re: The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)

#134

Post by throwawaythekey »

Aurornis wrote: post #11

The strict academic definition hasn’t followed the colloquial usage for a long time. Maybe ever: If a specific novice is over-confident and out of their depth, we say “Dunning-Kruger” If a specific is under-confident and performing better than their self-estimate, that’s not commonly considered Dunning Kruger, in the colloquial use. It’s called imposter syndrome, or not labeled at all. The researchers aren’t really d…

I think people overlook the natural experience of Dunning-Kruger we all have.

You think you are good at chess because you win against your neighbour, then eventually a class mate absolutely embarrasses you multiple times and you realize there is a whole world you don't know, and before now you didn't know that world existed. Then you eventually beat your classmate before getting whomped by the beginner in the chess club and the whole cycle happens again. After this happens a few times, you should begin to find each time less surprising than the last.

To me this is the essence of DK and not really something to be proven/disproven by maths. You don't know what you don't know, and it takes some learning before you are wise enough to realize there are unknown unknowns.

> instead showed that both experts and novices underestimate and overestimate their skills with the same frequency. “It’s just that experts do that over a narrower range,” he wrote to me.

I think this is trying too hard on the researcher's part... if the data were reinterpreted such that small estimation errors are considered correct then the effect would reappear.

Re: The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)

#136

Post by belviewreview »

The reason people find the DK effect persuasive is that everyone has run into this many times in their own lives. Like with an idiot boss who thinks he knows your job better than you do, or an article by someone that gets things completely wrong about a topic that you yourself know very well, through personal experience or extensive study. And we have all been dismayed about the impact such people can have, like through their decisions or influencing each other.

If the research can't demonstrate the DK effect, then the research is bad, like poorly designed.

Re: The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)

#137

Post by cyanregiment »

throwawaythekey wrote: post #131
cyanregiment wrote: post #117

It makes a lot more sense if you think of it as a mere “effect” and not a “syndrome” the way it’s used. Simply: Anytime anyone overestimates their ability, they will perform worse than if they had approached it with humility (on average). Rather than speaking it like people “have Dunning Kruger” Just a fact (heuristic) of behavior that anyone can fall subject to

> Simply: Anytime anyone overestimates their ability, they will perform worse than if they had approached it with humility (on average). Do you have a basis for that? It seems like in life some tasks reward overconfidence, e.g. starting a business, and some tasks reward underconfidence e.g. retirement savings. I'm not sure there is a strong bias one way or the other.

It's estimating one's own ability at performing a task - not "confidence" in a personality sense.

Someone can estimate their own ability at something at 0 and because of their own confidence and determination, they - to your point - may outperform a less confident person who also estimates their ability at 0.

The point of the study was that those who estimate their ability higher generally performed worse (regardless of confidence, impulsiveness, which we more broadly attribute to general "confidence" in personalities).

Re: The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)

#138

Post by rootusrootus »

belviewreview wrote: post #136

The reason people find the DK effect persuasive is that everyone has run into this many times in their own lives. Like with an idiot boss who thinks he knows your job better than you do, or an article by someone that gets things completely wrong about a topic that you yourself know very well, through personal experience or extensive study. And we have all been dismayed about the impact such people can have, like thro…

Maybe the problem is that DK isn't about individuals, but about topics? I.e. perhaps everyone exhibits the phenomenon about topics they are most ignorant about.

(and I am ignorant about DK, so...)

Re: The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)

#140

Post by falcor84 »

filoleg wrote: post #124
falcor84 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also the idea on the other side of the coin - whereby experts on a topic underestimate how much they know about it compared to the average person. And of course there's a relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/2501/

Imo it would be more accurate to say that topic experts overestimate how much the average person knows about it.

Sorry, I'm confused. My formulation "experts on a topic underestimate how much they know about it compared to the average person" and your "topic experts overestimate how much the average person knows about it" seem semantically identical to me, just from a different side of the relation. What nuance did I miss?
Post reply on HN