Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doh corollary doesn't mean what I thought. I learned something thank you. I meant the opposite.
Perhaps you meant contrary?
Nah I meant opposite. Just incompetent and unaware, there should be a name for it ;-)
I can't let go of “The Dunning-Kruger Effect is Autocorrelation”
91–100 of 308 posts
Re: I can't let go of “The Dunning-Kruger Effect is Autocorrelation”
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's not forget though that a great deal of "science" is in fact trash[1]. The problem isn't really people being anti-science or pro-science. The problem is science being done poorly, whether by scientists in the credentialed sense, or amateurs. There is no pat "trust science more" or "trust amateurs less" answer here. The actual answer is that if you want to understand research, you need to actually understand math…
I think there's two extremes here. One is the issue covered well above. There is a great deal of junk science that gets published. That is a problem and it does erode trust. But in some ways it's also how the sausage gets made, there's going to be room for things to get published they later gets refuted. People rightly so have distrust for results coming out in fields they don't have good knowledge in. Without becomi…
> People rightly so have distrust for results coming out in fields they don't have good knowledge in. Without becoming an expert yourself it's very difficult to know who or what to trust.
A problem here is that there are fields of science that are almost certainly bogus in themselves. One very likely candidate is nutrition, which seems to be fumbling in the dark and has a long history of producing worse recommendations than doing nothing (e.g. replace fat with sugar). More controversially, the entire field of economics is seen by some to be very suspect from a basic foundations view.
Re: I can't let go of “The Dunning-Kruger Effect is Autocorrelation”
#93As a novice on DK, it seems to me that, for DK to be 'suprising' (in the parlance of the OP), four phenomena must hold: 1) an incompetent person is poorer than average at self assessment of their skill 2) as a person's competence increases at a skill, their ability to self-assess improves, until they become 'expert' which is defined by underappreciating their own skill (or overappreciating the skill of others) 3) DK…
What does "suffering from DK" even means?
Re: I can't let go of “The Dunning-Kruger Effect is Autocorrelation”
#94As a novice on DK, it seems to me that, for DK to be 'suprising' (in the parlance of the OP), four phenomena must hold: 1) an incompetent person is poorer than average at self assessment of their skill 2) as a person's competence increases at a skill, their ability to self-assess improves, until they become 'expert' which is defined by underappreciating their own skill (or overappreciating the skill of others) 3) DK…
>it seems to me that, for DK to be 'surprising' (in the parlance of the OP), four phenomena must hold: The surprising things about DK, to me at any rate, is how unvarying it is in application. Under DK people who are poor at something never think wow I really suck at this, or if they do they are such a minuscule part of the population that we can discount them. I've known lots of people who were not good at particula…
That is because DK does not day "incompetent people see themselves as pros". It says "they overestimate their abilities". They rate themselves low, but in fact their competence is even lower.
Re: I can't let go of “The Dunning-Kruger Effect is Autocorrelation”
#95The conclusion in the article: > Why so angry? I know I’ve taken this far too personally. I have no illusions that everything I read online should be correct, or about people’s susceptibility to a strong rhetoric cleverly bashing conventional science, even in great communities such as HN. But frankly, for the last few years, the world seems to be accelerating the rate at which it’s going crazy, and it feels to me a l…
Most social science is shoddy, fake, or otherwise misleading (i.e. it proves nothing meaningful despite the claims of the researchers). If you believed every social science study you heard about, you'd be more wrong about the world than if you disbelieved them all.
Yep, it's the worst approach to this subject matter, except for all the alternatives.
Re: I can't let go of “The Dunning-Kruger Effect is Autocorrelation”
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
I fall back to Sturgeon’s Law and assume 90% of everything, including me, is shit.
Even though I lack a medical degree I have a high degree of confidence that the intestines of most people are not sufficiently large enough to support that amount of faeces.
Based on your two comments in this thread I want to live in the world that coincides with your world view. It gives me hope.
Re: I can't let go of “The Dunning-Kruger Effect is Autocorrelation”
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's not forget though that a great deal of "science" is in fact trash[1]. The problem isn't really people being anti-science or pro-science. The problem is science being done poorly, whether by scientists in the credentialed sense, or amateurs. There is no pat "trust science more" or "trust amateurs less" answer here. The actual answer is that if you want to understand research, you need to actually understand math…
Completely agreed. While I strongly believe in citizen science and people's right (and perhaps obligation) to critique established science, there is just so much poor analyses done by people to criticize some scientific findings they do not approve, motivated emotionally or otherwise. This phenomenon does not bring us closer to finding scientific facts or resolving the replication crisis. People should learn some bas…
Scientific facts do not exist, scientific observations do.
Re: I can't let go of “The Dunning-Kruger Effect is Autocorrelation”
#98I can't believe nobody has pointed out that the original article debunking the DK effect is in fact an example of the effect. Truly poetic.
Re: I can't let go of “The Dunning-Kruger Effect is Autocorrelation”
#99If you measure competence as relative performance, a person cannot know how competent they are compared to others... because to do that correctly, they would not only have to know how much they know but also know how much other people know... preferably in relation to them.
This is not possible, so the self-assessment data will be random because it is a random guess... so it does not correlate to actual performance or anything else for that matter. Hence, DK effect has to be a result of faulty statistical analysis.
I believe we'd have completely different results if the question was framed differently: "how many do you believe you got right?". Then, more confident people, regardless of competence, would answer that they got more right and less confident people, again regardless of competence, would believe that they must have gotten more wrong than they did.
Re: I can't let go of “The Dunning-Kruger Effect is Autocorrelation”
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see what you did and I am completely uninformed in my certainty that Dunning-Kruger is wrong!
I fall back to Sturgeon’s Law and assume 90% of everything, including me, is shit.
This sounds like an extreme illustration of the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon.