We might have misunderstood the Dunning Kruger effect

(Shows a vague cloud of dots.) "If we drew a line here..." Modern science in one picture.

😂

I mean, it's not a surprise they struggle with reproducibility. There is nothing to reproduce in the first place.

What if the data analysts were the idiots we met along the way?

yes

Hmm maybe Dunning & Kruger thought they were smarter than they really were then they came up with this "effect"

if i don’t read Psychology studies, saving my brain, i will get things more right just by chance alone

Truth is everyone can be idiots.. Crystalised intelligence isnt intelligence its memory that it can be recalled upon..

We thought we understood it very well, but that's just because we barely understood it, a meta Dunning-Kruger effect.

Brilliant. This should be the introduction to how to lie with statistics

Another stupid psychology paper proving another stupid psychology paper is stupid. In other words, another normal day in science.

Nice blob. If it wasn't the system problem, I'd find energy to laugh instead of eye bleeding. Bros at Cornell don't know how to calc the simple Poissonian error bar ±√N for each data point to invalidate own work. Two possibilities: 1) either the entire blob becomes a precisely defined single data point and cannot be fitted; 2) or each point as a single measurement acquires a 100% uncertainty error bar, letting the error cover the whole blob.

What I've noticed is the the Dunning Kruger effect requirers persistent incorrectness. Idiots today mix match knowledge of something they do know and have great interest in while in the same sentence or conversation make an ignorant confident conviction of a claim they know noting about.

Haha, I run across folks using Dunning-Kruger or similar mechanisms by folks in higher positions of authority insisting they know best at home because of age, at work because of rank, or in communication with well-read recital academics who never understood the basic principles but could recite a textbook version verbatim and all the names associated with them, unfortunately, though they can't improvise and engage with the content of a question and so run the Dunning-Kruger of authority to gain some kind of superiority instead of just sharing information. By the time you get older, you realise that time is only an opportunity to learn something. Not everyone uses their time to learn so the home rank-by-age system is busted, and not every high-ranking officer at work got their position from learning the ropes, busted again. As far as academics go, using their post letters or Dunning-Kruger, they simply don't know enough to engage with the content intelligently, or they are just rude twats whose answers would most likely be geared to belittle others. Ironically, I have recently seen a few years ago a classic of an old knowledge pursuit institute that may not be recognised as being quite astute in the pursuit as a university but still has quite some sway in the economy. A speech that included a clear and present dismissal of higher authorities of universities for their arrogance in not listening to what their higher officers had to offer, like a cry of having been Dunning-Krugered, but later in the speech regarded their own hierarchy of knowledge to be sacred and insisted that you of lower rank will never be more right than an officer of a higher-ranked officer and proceeded to recite a Dunning-Kruger equivalent. My conclusion of this is that some people can become conflicted with their own insecurities and will use cheap tools of degradation to feel higher by diminishing others. They don't seem to realise that almost everyone in the room sees it for what it is but very rarely calls it out. The good thing is, though, that not everyone is like this, so you generally find the info you need if you ask enough folks or find the right notes.

Next up: Can 2 people who know nothing about a topic know less than 1 person who knows nothing? Give a listen!

Nah . . lets just simplify it Shit talkers always deliver shit People who work don't have for shit talk because they are working To talk shit, you have have to be ignorant about the actual subject . . thats why its shit Apply it to the project life cycle You get this

Dunning Kruger is such a mass hit with the normies, because everyone knows people with delusions of adequacy. It's one of the most basic "Yea, no shit" observations.

Some more than others. I think there is a graph that might explain why...

I saw this and thought that there must be something I'm not seeing here that makes sense to them. I'm just a builder and line cook so I don't have the education.... Nope. A real scientist looks at it and is wondering the same thing. "look at the data!"😆.

It depends on the category. Dunning Kruger effect won’t apply to arm wrestling. But it will apply to card games like poker.

I've thought they were projecting since day one.

looking at the raw data, there is only one thing to conclude: the bottom right corner is remarkably empty. There is no such thing as scoring at the top while having zero confidence. Everything else is just all over the place, as you already noticed.

Love your hair lately.

I have painful Dunning-Kruger memories related to Italian cooking. People who ignore the basics cook "creative" recipes either picked on the web or of their own making. Then they proudly exhibit the dismaying results. God bless them, but please don't ask me how it tastes.

This is along the lines of my argument in this domain. My starting point has always been that of a “fair witness” as defined in sci-fi literature. [Stranger in a Strange Land] The idea of being that you just report the facts that you see or apprehend. The example being, when asked what color is the car that you see, the proper answer is the car is green on this side. I think the category I just raised is a third alternative to the Dunning Kruger effect.

Even the authors must have known it was BS (based on the methods and test cohort) - and they said so in the conclusion, in a self- ironic way. Could they have predicted how viral it would get? Probably not, but they setup everything correctly.

"You know nothing. You know less than nothing. If you knew that you knew nothing, it would be something ... ... but you don't" [Point Break]

Only that? well..I guess that’s a start. Remember those ancient vehicles that everyone use to wind up to start ‘?’ its a little ironic ‘don’t you think’ that their end was also their wind up. Especially when they were always only ever blowing wind up their own rear ends. Cranky?

> asking the wrong question > best in a different way

Lmao yup Why don't they first get the actual estimate minus the predicted self assessment on and individual basis first and then look for a correlation after that? Also of course they need to look at other factors.

The misnomer is a misconception that came in part from an assumption that a person who knows they're better than others (strictly mode of comparison is the evasive rubrics of appraisal normal within an under/compensated system) won't fail at times to articulate thus meant growth.

Are you sure you don’t mean

They literarily got it backwards. 😉