the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

https://www.inc.com/jeff-haden/heres-ho ... think.html

TL;DR:

As my Inc. colleague Jessica Stillman says, "next time you're trying to determine if someone is actually super smart or simply bluffing, don't ask whether they're always right. Instead, ask when was the last time they changed their opinion. If they can't name lots of times they were wrong, they're probably not as smart as they want to appear."

I suppose you could ask yourself the same question to try to determine if you're an idiot about something... or in general...

Every family has at least one real idiot. If it isn't immediately and clearly obvious to you who that person is in your own family, it's probably you.

Anybody who references the Dunning-Kruger effect but who has not read the actual research is likely guilty of thinking they know much more on the subject than they actually do.

Doc Stier wrote:Every family has at least one real idiot. If it isn't immediately and clearly obvious to you who that person is in your own family, it's probably you.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm lol

Bhassler wrote:Anybody who references the Dunning-Kruger effect but who has not read the actual research is likely guilty of thinking they know much more on the subject than they actually do.

Not bad, not bad.

Honestly, though, it seems like the most common misconception in regards to the original study is the misunderstanding that those with no expertise will have higher confidence than those with expertise. In reality, the people with true expertise have the highest confidence, with those with the lowest/no expertise having the next highest confidence (well above those with middling expertise).

But, later studies done by the same authors (eg: 2013) showed that ignoramuses could and did display confidence statistically equal to those with true expertise. So, I think most people who use the term organically (rather than preemptively as it is sometimes used on this board), aren't that far off.

Then again, there are also cultural differences that have illustrated that the Dunning Kruger effect is not universal. The Japanese appear to be less full of shit, for example.

It seems in Japanese culture, you can apprentice for 50 years with an actual master and still not feel you’ve gotten it down just yet.

How refreshing it would be to have just a little of this attitude / worldview. Instead QBs and drop out media personalities and shitshow politicians are “experts”.

Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:Honestly, though, it seems like the most common misconception in regards to the original study is the misunderstanding that those with no expertise will have higher confidence than those with expertise. In reality, the people with true expertise have the highest confidence, with those with the lowest/no expertise having the next highest confidence (well above those with middling expertise).

But, later studies done by the same authors (eg: 2013) showed that ignoramuses could and did display confidence statistically equal to those with true expertise. So, I think most people who use the term organically (rather than preemptively as it is sometimes used on this board), aren't that far off.

Then again, there are also cultural differences that have illustrated that the Dunning Kruger effect is not universal. The Japanese appear to be less full of shit, for example.

Actually, there seems to be a pretty good chance that the whole thing is a statistical artefact, rather than any sort of real phenomena.

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/criti ... y-not-real

With that in mind, the article in the OP is quite hilarious.

everything wrote:It seems in Japanese culture, you can apprentice for 50 years with an actual master and still not feel you’ve gotten it down just yet.

How refreshing it would be to have just a little of this attitude / worldview. Instead QBs and drop out media personalities and shitshow politicians are “experts”.

In my experience the attitude is common among people who are passionate about a subject and have pursued it seriously for a long time (as in decades). It's much more common now to see people develop some skill in one area and then start glomming other activities onto that skillset and assuming they have mastery of both. They never know what they miss out on if they had properly learned the later stuff in it's own context rather than just assuming it's all the same. Which (unsurprisingly) goes back to other comments I've made about some who claim to have mastered all or multiple MA and present their own theories of why they are all the same.

Bhassler wrote:

Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:Honestly, though, it seems like the most common misconception in regards to the original study is the misunderstanding that those with no expertise will have higher confidence than those with expertise. In reality, the people with true expertise have the highest confidence, with those with the lowest/no expertise having the next highest confidence (well above those with middling expertise).

But, later studies done by the same authors (eg: 2013) showed that ignoramuses could and did display confidence statistically equal to those with true expertise. So, I think most people who use the term organically (rather than preemptively as it is sometimes used on this board), aren't that far off.

Then again, there are also cultural differences that have illustrated that the Dunning Kruger effect is not universal. The Japanese appear to be less full of shit, for example.

Actually, there seems to be a pretty good chance that the whole thing is a statistical artefact, rather than any sort of real phenomena.

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/criti ... y-not-real

With that in mind, the article in the OP is quite hilarious.

I had thought so too, for a while. I was first introduced to the concept through the initial paper and a rebuttal some years back in an environmental history class I was TAing for. I think there is some consensus that the original paper was flawed, as were some of the proofs carried out to support it. But, similar findings have been replicated so many times now that it would seem that there is actually something to it, at least in a given culture.

At any rate, I think the important thing to learn from it (which is cited in your link) is what Dunning says about it being "about us." Meaning, it's probably best not to use it to castigate, but rather to remember that we can all commit the crime. I'll try and remember that myself.

I see many instances of individuals being overconfident in their knowledge, skills and opinions. Of course, this can vary with different subjects and various groups, but it does seem to be intuitively correct that many people have biases (e.g., ego) that lead them to overestimate themselves. One simple example is that ~88% of Americans think that they are above average drivers (although I do not know if their self-evaluations match the D-K curve profile). Some factors (psychology?, culture?, ego?…) contribute to that misrepresentation. I doubt that the issue has been studied extensively enough to parse out the contributing factors for various specific situations, but I do think that there is something to it. One needs to have a certain level of wisdom/expertise about any subject in order to fairly evaluate that subject (and therefore one’s own skill level), and those with less experience appear to be especially bad at evaluating abilities (whether their own or other people’s). The McKnight study appears to be showing the trend that a large enough group tends to approximate things better than do individuals (all the individual over- and underestimations get averaged out). I am not convinced that McKnight is looking at the same thing as D-K seems to reflect (i.e. studying something that averages out (e.g., coin tosses) rather than something where there is a clear bias that skews the results (e.g. the USA drivers’ opinions).

I'm more interested in the test - on others or on oneself. How do I know if I'm actually an expert, have knowledge, am smart? Or am I actually quite ignorant, a beginner, or actually stupid about something? How do we know? With all the people doing "research" by listening to someone like Joe Rogan (certified stupid person), it would really seem helpful if there actually were some easy method. You would think, for example, if you did poorly in chemistry and biology, you might have some awareness you aren't qualified to do "research" on medical topics. Yet.... Welll ..... in the meantime there is always old.reddit.com/r/selfawarewolves

A man has got to know his limitations. Shame on him if he thinks he has none. Full cup and all that. If you think you know everything about anything you're wrong. But I think the issue of having confidence in one's opinion is almost universal. A wise man can learn from a fool.

it just seems a little difficult. the more intelligent you get about something, the more aware you probably are of the limitations (like einstein at the edge of physics had to know what are the known unknowns and some better sense of what might be unknown unknowns).

but what if you know almost nothing about something? and still think you're "an above average driver". it seems the only way to combat it is to assume you are really ignorant, then try to find out what it is that others might know. it's too bad most people don't approach knowledge this way. they think they are "independent thinkers" (to reference the other thread).

Um, well, intelligence isn't the same as knowledgeable. It can determine how knowledgeable someone can become, but it's randomly distributed. I.e., some people can learn calculus; some people can't. No one can tell unless they try. Otoh, people who do calculus generally know there's a limit (:)) to their ability. Einstein used other mathematician's work (Emmy Noether) to describe his theory --calling her the most important woman in the history of math. Noether's theorem is fundamental to mathematical physics.

Most people with sense will agree that they're not as intelligent as Noether. Otoh, almost anyone can learn calculus, her theorem, and cosmological physics. Otoh, how many people do you know who could reproduce everything in their sight right now. I ain't talking about a microwave oven or cellphone. How about a glass, knife, paper, etc. So, I ain't gonna tell a glassmaker I know how a better way to make glass.

I think this is also a matter of humility. If someone sat next to Dunning on a plane and started complaining about the DK effect, and was corrected. For sure, the guy would argue his case for a good while --until Dunning says "I wrote the article.":) This happens a lot.

At some point “multiple intelligences” came into vogue.

I would say there is intelligence (a natural talent) in an area , like math, or painting, then that can help you be knowledgeable in the subject or the variants.

My question is more about the intelligence.

If you have poor intelligence in chem and bio AND knowledge in those, why do you conclude you can do “research” on vaccines, for example. It makes no sense unless you don’t realize your low level of intelligence and knowledge.

Then…why is that the case?

It's the case because it can be. If it were heart surgery, how many people would say they could do research and then do a valve bypass better than a heart surgeon? It wouldn't take much intelligence to know that.

The point is this (condition) is relative to the issue. Do preachers know more about God. Otoh, there's stuff actually written in the Gospels, and then there's what the preachers say. And, then there's what people and preachers end up doing.