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

31–40 of 192 posts

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

#31

Post by mobeets »

ars wrote: post #17

This article does not make its case. He shows a graph of "random" data, and then just kind of keeps going. But that random data is the meat of the whole thing. Cut out 60% of the useless text, and focus on explaining why random data should look like that.

Agreed. Also it seems like, if the actual test scores and perceived test scores were both sampled iid, the “perceived” line should just be flat, with everyone being at 50th percentile. The fact that the displayed graph deviates from 50 in a way that more resembles the empirical data makes it seem like a cherry-picked random sample

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

#32

Post by majorchord »

datakan wrote: post #15

Replication 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.

> More than half of all psychology studies are not reproducible.

Do you have a source for this?

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

#33

Post by Jensson »

lokar wrote: post #12
bonzini wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that the original formulation was "most people" are unaware of being unskilled, but by now the name is used to mean "some group of people" is unaware of being unskilled. In that sense the article confirms that “a small number are", 5-6%, and therefore the effect exists in the colloquial sense but not in the scientific sense. Mentioning the Dunning-Krueger effect incorrectly is wonderfully meta...

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 seems to be off by about the same amount. So there we have evidence that people overestimate their skills at every level, and its not that different.

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

#34

Post by vehemenz »

datakan wrote: post #15

Replication 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.

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.

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

#35

Post by andy99 »

3form wrote: post #27
bonzini wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that the original formulation was "most people" are unaware of being unskilled, but by now the name is used to mean "some group of people" is unaware of being unskilled. In that sense the article confirms that “a small number are", 5-6%, and therefore the effect exists in the colloquial sense but not in the scientific sense. Mentioning the Dunning-Krueger effect incorrectly is wonderfully meta...

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.

> people skilled in a particular areas often feel they are intellectually fit in other areas

This I think is a separate phenomenon, maybe Nobel Disease but there might be a more general term, for example that includes celebrities.

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

#36

Post by al_borland »

lokar wrote: post #12
bonzini wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that the original formulation was "most people" are unaware of being unskilled, but by now the name is used to mean "some group of people" is unaware of being unskilled. In that sense the article confirms that “a small number are", 5-6%, and therefore the effect exists in the colloquial sense but not in the scientific sense. Mentioning the Dunning-Krueger effect incorrectly is wonderfully meta...

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.

This then boils down to people being generally bad at estimating their own level of ability.

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

#37

Post by Finster »

I think it's mostly misapplied. The best example of Dunning-Kruger is an intelligent, competent, Ph.D. in physics thinking 9/11 was faked because "jet fuel can't melt steel", not realizing that steel loses significant tensile strength as it heats up without necessarily melting, which I think most engineers would be aware of. His great knowledge in one area blinds him to his woeful lack of knowledge in another.

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

#39

Post by glial »

vehemenz wrote: post #34
datakan wrote: post #15

Replication 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.

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.

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

#40

Post by danielmarkbruce »

datakan wrote: post #15

Replication 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.
Post reply on HN