161–170 of 191 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...)
No, I think it's about people - about us. About you, me, all of us.
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…
I don't have an opinion about Dunning-Kruger either way, but I wanted to point out that this is a pre-replication crisis mindset. Social psychology spent decades producing catchy, intuitive results that turned out not to replicate. We've learned over and over that we can't trust it when a result feels right, we need to rely on proven statistical methods.
Other wise known as "Trust the experts" effect. I understand why this has 100+ votes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...)
No, I think it's about people - about us. About you, me, all of us.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I think it's about people - about us. About you, me, all of us.
What is amusing to me is when I think about what happens when the so called "experts" have this effect? Because "experts" are people too...
Man sets out to write article on DK Effect, comes across one skeptical study, confidently writes article refuting DK Effect. It writes itself.
The key claim: "Random data actually mimics the effect really well." 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.
They're simulating randomness incorrectly: relationship between true and perceived will average 0.5, not 0; and bias will average 50%, not 0%. That's why their "random data" is sloped. Add negative relationship and negative bias, and the random data will act as intended - hovering randomly around 50%.
Is it also plausible that the relationship between true and percieved is wholly independent (as this presumes)?
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…