Also, is it just me or do the posts here seem to suggest that if you suffer from DK, you have a character flaw or are a bad person and not just having a bias (as everyone has biases, but this seems to suggest you're "badder" than average).
Thoughts on the Dunning-Kruger effect
- Thread starter MRC_Hans
- Start date
Daylightstar
Philosopher
Severe character flaws do seem to come out of the woodwork with at least some of those who feel a need to empty handedly defend their unsubstantiable idea(s) against critical- or skeptical enquiry.
The bigger their idea(s) and the more they are psychologically attached to it and the more they fail to convince, the clearer these flaws appear, it seems to me.
When the skeptical enquiry makes way for non-critical or non-skeptical enquiry, these flaws may appear to disappear instantly.
Is such a person bad? Or would their be a more accurate and useful description?
Almo
Masterblazer
<stuff deleted>
So of course they dismiss what you tell them. You're still limited to the narrow, confused obsession with minutia epitomized by those pages of formulas. What important thing could you possibly tell them? If only you'd open your eyes . . .
They really do seem to think like this. It's frustrating.
So am I right in:
1. you're probably a pretty bad person if you're a "believer",
2. the DKF is not just an ordinary bias, and speaks more about he person's character than other biases do
?
Last edited:
Daylightstar
Philosopher
bad if you "believe" or bad if you suffer from DK?
See my question above:
The DK effect is not a bias with respect to ideas which are subject to the DK effect.
Last edited:
More specifically about DK. But if DK is not a bias, what is it? And DK doesn't just apply to "ideas", it can apply in any case in which one is asked to estimate their skill level at something.
Daylightstar
Philosopher
I would then still refer you to my question:
I'd say it's a kind of behavior, the 'why' behind it would be most interesting.
I'd say it's a kind of behavior, the 'why' behind it would be most interesting.
Sure the Dunning-Kruger effect does exist and there are plenty of examples of it.
It is just in my experience most people are well aware that there are things they have no idea about and even if they do not understand the extend of their ignorance they realise it is there.
My best example is electricity, where almost all laymen keep their hands off and leave it to professionals. Some of the exceptions are stingy farmers making some really creative (and dangerous) installations.
It is just in my experience most people are well aware that there are things they have no idea about and even if they do not understand the extend of their ignorance they realise it is there.
My best example is electricity, where almost all laymen keep their hands off and leave it to professionals. Some of the exceptions are stingy farmers making some really creative (and dangerous) installations.
DeathDart
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2011
- Messages
- 1,251
Neanderthals and Cro Magnon? man coexisted for thousands of years without either gaining the advantage.
Man has the most efficient cooling system of any land animal. Many large prey can be fatally overheated by pursuit.
The Neanderthals were stronger, but physically incapable of long pursuit. There bodies required more calories and were adapted to cold weather.
Mentally the Neanderthals may have been comparable, based on brain mass. There brains may have allowed for more precise musculature control or better visual processing. The rear of their brain developed while humans frontal lobes were being developed.
Environmental change appears to have defeated the Neanderthals. Ambush hunters needed forests, while humans could function on the open plains. Europe experienced a long drying out that shrunk the forests. Humans got lucky.
There is uncertain evidence that modern humans brains have shrunk from pre-civilization levels. Wolves have twice the brain size of dogs.
Wolves are a threat.
In Dilbert, brains are a threat to the hair pointed boss. Brains were a threat to kings and tyrants (most of human history was under these conditions). Intelligence was bred out. Idiocracy
Although the whole story is more complicated. Asians rate high on brain size AND they have been under strict civilizations for a longer period of time than many other groups.
Yes total, crushing, and irrefutable defeat can help with humility, if you survive.
Man has the most efficient cooling system of any land animal. Many large prey can be fatally overheated by pursuit.
The Neanderthals were stronger, but physically incapable of long pursuit. There bodies required more calories and were adapted to cold weather.
Mentally the Neanderthals may have been comparable, based on brain mass. There brains may have allowed for more precise musculature control or better visual processing. The rear of their brain developed while humans frontal lobes were being developed.
Environmental change appears to have defeated the Neanderthals. Ambush hunters needed forests, while humans could function on the open plains. Europe experienced a long drying out that shrunk the forests. Humans got lucky.
There is uncertain evidence that modern humans brains have shrunk from pre-civilization levels. Wolves have twice the brain size of dogs.
Wolves are a threat.
In Dilbert, brains are a threat to the hair pointed boss. Brains were a threat to kings and tyrants (most of human history was under these conditions). Intelligence was bred out. Idiocracy
Although the whole story is more complicated. Asians rate high on brain size AND they have been under strict civilizations for a longer period of time than many other groups.
Yes total, crushing, and irrefutable defeat can help with humility, if you survive.
From the "question", it looks like you are indeed saying they can reasonably be called "bad". Very bad.
But in that post you seemed to be describing a crank. But DKF can happen to anyone, not just cranks and experiencing DKF does not automatically mean you are seriously character-flawed or otherwise disreputable, derelict, corrupt, or "bad".
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
And you'll notice I said that option as identified was perfectly legitimate.
I am not offering unfounded claims. In case you have forgotten there is a little component within the scientific process that says leave the door open for new evidence, some might be out there.Gaah! That was the favorite argument of another incorrigible DK sufferer I spent too much time with! Essentially: If you won't accept my unfounded claims you are closing the door to the patent office.
Hans
And no, I'm not suggesting you leave your mind open enough for your brains to fall out. That metaphor is not relevant here. Has it not crossed your mind that there may be approaches to these problems of belief and ignorance no one has yet tried?
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
I don't think it is as you are describing here at all. I see DK as a different problem in thinking that confirmation bias though the two can certainly exist together.
I still see DK as a form of believing you have sufficient knowledge to draw a conclusion when in reality you do not. But because you lack awareness of your expertise deficit you are unaware you lack the knowledge.
A simple example would be believing there is a missing link in the evolutionary fossil record while being unaware there is a whole body of genetic evidence confirming evolution theory. Since you are unaware of genetic science you are unaware your conclusion about the doubt in evolution theory is wrong.
Confirmation bias, OTOH, would be a person who was aware of genetic science but chose to discount its validity or evidentiary value.
That's my interpretation anyway. But I could lack expertise in DK I am unaware I lack, or be assuming it is something it isn't due to my confirmation bias.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
I don't think there is a single person on the planet who holds even a solid overview of the entire knowledge of humanity, and I doubt there ever was.
So whenever someone says 'we' (humanity) know, it almost inevitably implies some level of experts, at least for anything complicated.
The difference, as you do note, is that most accept that expertice, at least till it is somehow challenged.
Hans
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
I hope I made my position on this clear, but here it is again:
- To some degree I am sure we all sugger from DK, regarding some subjects. I think it has a survival value to not always worry overly about your own competencies.
- For some, it becomes an issue, becaue they so grossly overestimate their own authority that it becomes noticeable.
- Finally, some, and those can be sid to 'suffer' from the effect, it becomes an obsession. These people appear to have some character flaw, but is is not just the DK effect, I think they have some confounding condition.
- I don't think any of these are bad, but those in the third category certainly have a problem.
Hans
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
No. It is not rational to be a believer, but it doesn't make you a bad person. Likewise, rational behaviour does not, in itself make you a good person.
It is not an ordinary bias, if only due to its higher complexity: It is a sort of vicious circle, as you lack the competency to realize your lack of competency.
Hans
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
Yes, I noticed.
Sure.
It was the expression about 'closing the door to the patent office' that quite specifically ticked me off. However, let me elaborate:Keeping the door open to the patent office does not imply letting just any fool in. I know you don't, but this is a false premise often claimed by those people we like to call 'woos': They think that keeping the door open to new ideas means that we must consider everything on equal terms. In reality, you can have an open door, and still dismiss a lot of claims as, shall we say: "Not immidiately worthy of examination".
Hans
Last edited:
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
Yes, that is very clearly the way it has been described, and how at least I have recognized it, on several occasions.
Good example. If we were to link it to one of the classic fallacies, it would be 'argument from ignorance', IMO.
Confirmation bias, OTOH, would be a person who was aware of genetic science but chose to discount its validity or evidentiary value.
That's my interpretation anyway. But I could lack expertise in DK I am unaware I lack, or be assuming it is something it isn't due to my confirmation bias.
I think the DK is weak with this one.
Hans
Daylightstar
Philosopher
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
Your confirmation bias added "letting just any fool in" which was not in what I said.Sure.
Keeping the door open to the patent office does not imply letting just any fool in. I know you don't, but this is a false premise often claimed by those people we like to call 'woos': They think that keeping the door open to new ideas means that we must consider everything on equal terms. In reality, you can have an open door, and still dismiss a lot of claims as, shall we say: "Not immidiately worthy of examination".
Hans