The Dunning-Kruger Effect Is Autocorrelation

Post by roguecoder » Mon, Apr 18, 2022, 5:50 PM UTC

cestith wrote: post #132

IceDane wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm definitely not even close to a statistician, but I'm also having a hard time accepting this analysis. I'll admit that part of it also comes from personal experience, at work and elsewhere. I've met some catastrophically incompetent people were completely oblivious to their own incompetence, and this has very often felt like that the more incompetent they were, the more likely they were to be try to do stuff that…

I think part of the issue here is you're talking about people estimating future accomplishment where they have no skill, and all variations of these experiments are people assessing how they performed on a test they just took. There's very likely a difference between someone doing open-ended talking wildly in a field where they don't even know what's possible and an introspective assessment of themselves on a concret…

Post by jtc331 » Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 9:34 PM UTC

caylus wrote: post #152

jtc331 wrote: post #101

Because of the effect that is actually found (variance is higher the less achievement) it follows that people you encounter who wildly overestimate their ability are more likely to people who are poor performers (the same is true for the inverse, but they obviously don't stand out anecdotally to us). IMO that explains why Dunning Kruger seems intuitively correct even if the conclusion they drew isn't actually correct…

> people you encounter who wildly overestimate their ability are more likely to people who are poor performers How is this helpful? You won't know whether someone is "overestimating" their ability until you learn both their estimated and actual performance, at which point you don't need to guess whether they're "likely" to have poor actual performance.