But what if that is the Dunning-Kruger effect?
[deleted]
The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)
121–130 of 192 posts
Re: The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)
#122It’s obviously real, at least as used in conversation, whether it meets some rigorous definition I’m sure there’s an out, but we’ve all known these people. With vibe coding they’re everywhere. Is this going to be a modern “begging the question” where everyone knows what you mean but someone pipes up that actually the technical meaning is different?
With all due respect, being cocksure enough to declare that the Dunning-Kruger effect is definitely a thing, even when more careful analysis shows that the study conclusions were in error due to faulty analysis in the original study, kinda sounds like the perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect...
The one that doesn't exist?
Re: The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)
#123Damn, I remember I worked through the whole damn thing some years ago when I read this article for the first time, and it didn't hold up to it's claim. I was actually contemplating to do a write-up, but it wasn't really important to me so I didn't. Seeing the same article re-appear on HN for the second time now I really wish that I did. Unfortunately I've forgotten the details by now.
Re: The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Re: The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)
#125Very 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 )
Line 272 of SimDK.R is where they produced the quartiles for top and bottom performers. But their code for generating both is exactly the same.
Code>
# Lowest performers t.low.t # Highest performers t.hi.t
Re: The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
With all due respect, being cocksure enough to declare that the Dunning-Kruger effect is definitely a thing, even when more careful analysis shows that the study conclusions were in error due to faulty analysis in the original study, kinda sounds like the perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect...
The one that doesn't exist?
Yes, that one.
Re: The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
RationalWiki calls the third one 'Ultracrepidarianism', and says it's rather common with engineers in general: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ultracrepidarianism (the Wikipedia article has that as a subheading on the Ne supra crepidam page instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ne_supra_crepidam#Ultracrepida... ) But I'd say it's a subtype of the Dunning-Krueger effect rather than part of the general definition. Perso…
>RationalWiki calls the third one 'Ultracrepidarianism'
LOL because RationalWiki was written by engineers. I've often seen it referred to as "Engineer's Disease" for how it's commonly encountered.
Re: The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's called "engineer's disease" which is pretty appropriate for this community: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/engineer%27s_disease
My experience has been that this isn't limited to engineers. I'm sure most people here have had people from other departments tell them how they need to do their jobs in one way or another. For example, there are always at least a few people who you have to consult regularly because their tickets are always written how they perceive a problem should be solved rather than explaining the underlying problem to be solved…
>My experience has been that this isn't limited to engineers.
To some extent, but the most severe form does seem fairly unique to engineers, specifically programmers. That is, I've met many arrogant lawyers and doctors, but never a lawyer or doctor who assumes they could program a computer due to their legal or medical expertise. But I've seen many a programmer assume that because they are proficient in programming they can confidently and authoritatively expound on all other areas of human endeavor (those being obviously inferior and trivial in the face of their own).
Re: The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)
#129There's already been responses to this argument by Dunning: https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/dunning-kruger-effect-an...
Re: The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)
#130Earlier 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.
My experience with every person was that most of them overestimate what they know regardless of experience level. You just notice that more in new grads since its easier to tell when people are wrong about simple things than when they are wrong about more difficult things. Software engineers tend to repeat the mantra "you cannot make accurate time estimates". That is true regardless of experience level, and everyone…
It’s my experience that I should over-estimate what I know otherwise I miss out on assignments that take me about 1-2 focused days of studying to get to sufficient level.
Ie I was once perfect for a project except for point 7 out of 10 which was experience with Keycloak (if you’re higher via an HR dept it’s even worse, they just tick boxes, who cares if you are smart and have broad knowledge).
So I’m now proudly Dunning-Krugering around, and use LLMs for super-charged learning. If I underestimated something I take the cost/time myself. So far it hasn’t happened to a significant degree.