What percentage of the public think they can take a bear in a fight.
The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)
171–180 of 191 posts
Re: The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)
#172Replication 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.
The overwhelming majority doesn't survive 20 years, when someone tries to replicate it the results disappears. Some of it takes longer than that but it almost all falls eventually. Its just not a rigorous field and alas that doesn't stop the newspapers printing sensational headlines about it claiming effects that are a bit of a stretch given how they actually studied the participants.
Re: The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 this correct? I was fairly certain that the correlation between random data points approached 0. Is it also plausible that the relationship between true and percieved is wholly independent (as this presumes)?
I mean in their code the simulation is incorrect. Someone found the source: https://github.com/pem725/Dunning-Kruger
They're sampling slope and bias for the line from U[0,1] and U[0,100], the expected values of which will be 0.5 and 50. That's why they get what they get.
They say that randomness is any positively sloped line with any positive bias. So they assume dependence, just a very high variance of it. It's incorrect as they miss the negative half of the parameters - it would then correctly yield zeroes, for the presumed independence.
Re: The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)
#174Anyone who is desperatelly trying to downplay Dunning-Kruger effect is a perfect example of Dunning-Kruger effect.
Re: The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)
#175Interesting, maybe the fact that it is replicated by random noise is actually confirming the theory though. The article claims "completely random guessing replicates the DK graph". But that is compatible with "the ability to assess one's skill is not correlated with measured skill". If random guesses reproduce DK, it implies that people might be randomly guessing at their level of skill.
As a result people with little knowledge over-estimate their ability because a random dice roll will tend to be higher than their low ability (and the converse for people of high ability).
If you look at the DK graph, its close to random, maybe a very slight positive slope -- but ultimately the DK theory would be even stronger if it was truly random, because it means people have NO ability to assess their skill (0 correlation). I think the claim in DK is slightly weaker, that people at least have some ability, just not as much as we like to think.
Re: The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)
#176The 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…
Related: The Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect. In Michael Crichton's own words: "Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents th…
Michael Crichton also was an outspoken skeptic of climate crisis.
Crichton's Law: unwittingly serving as the best example of one's own snarky law.
Re: The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this correct? I was fairly certain that the correlation between random data points approached 0. Is it also plausible that the relationship between true and percieved is wholly independent (as this presumes)?
I mean in their code the simulation is incorrect. Someone found the source: https://github.com/pem725/Dunning-Kruger They're sampling slope and bias for the line from U[0,1] and U[0,100], the expected values of which will be 0.5 and 50. That's why they get what they get. They say that randomness is any positively sloped line with any positive bias. So they assume dependence, just a very high variance of it. It's inco…
[deleted]
Re: The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)
#178The 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…
> If the research can't demonstrate the DK effect, then the research is bad, like poorly designed.
It’s the opposite problem. The research is bad because it “demonstrates the DK effect” even for cases where it cannot possibly be true. Like “people who tend to roll lower dice rolls overestimate their own ability to roll high dice values and people who tend to roll higher values tend to underestimate their own ability”
Which is just obviously incorrect and the true result should have been “there’s no correlation between people’s estimate of their ability to roll dice and their actual outcomes”
If you want to demonstrate an actual effect like DK, you have to set up an experiment such the if it truly doesn’t exist then the experiment tells you so. A great way of checking this is to throw random data at it in which case it should come out saying “I saw no correlation” but that’s no the case with their setup.
Re: The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)
#179Earlier 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 means rigorous methodology and experimentally verifiable predictions. Psychology achieves neither, ergo it is a soft science, or more precisely, opinion masquerading as fact.
Re: The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)
#180Interesting, maybe the fact that it is replicated by random noise is actually confirming the theory though. The article claims "completely random guessing replicates the DK graph". But that is compatible with "the ability to assess one's skill is not correlated with measured skill". If random guesses reproduce DK, it implies that people might be randomly guessing at their level of skill. As a result people with littl…
So your claim is that if there is no correlation between A and B then it proves that there is in fact negative correlation between A and B because there is no correlation?
And so the Dunning Kruger effect becomes true of all things that are uncorrelated?