Thoughts on the Dunning-Kruger effect

[Skeptic Ginger]

It would be MUCH easier for your Augmented Reality glasses to broadcast a unique ID via Bluetooth, which other glasses then would use to identify you.

But what do I know, I'm just an AutoCAD monkey.

It's all about predicting the future which is an inexact science.

 

[Dr. Imago]

My premise is we need to discover new approaches to reaching people and assuming that because we did our best to impart knowledge and were unsuccessful means the task is impossible is wrong. It's new approaches we need, not longer sessions of the same approach.

Maybe. Again, my premise is that this represents a sort of "cognitive color-blindness", if you will, that you can't really "fix" (kinda like trying to make an autism-spectrum person "normal").

Whether that's nature or nurture, or perhaps both, I find that the current state of the art prevents us from ameliorating their particular impairment. And, I'm not optimistic about discovering new approaches.

~Dr. Imago

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Maybe. Again, my premise is that this represents a sort of "cognitive color-blindness", if you will, that you can't really "fix" (kinda like trying to make an autism-spectrum person "normal").

Whether that's nature or nurture, or perhaps both, I find that the current state of the art prevents us from ameliorating their particular impairment. And, I'm not optimistic about discovering new approaches.

~Dr. Imago

It appears you are making two assumptions here that I wouldn't make.

One is that everyone who does not think critically is critically thinking challenged due to nature and not nurture (or the nurture element is now fixed in place).

Two is that we have exhausted all avenues of approach to critical thinking deficits. I don't think we've even seriously tried to find alternate approaches yet, let alone exhausted them.

That doesn't mean I am saying everyone will eventually be approachable, nor am I predicting when or how many alternate approaches we will find. I am saying we haven't looked in earnest yet. We've mostly been treating every problem as a knowledge deficit. People have the knowledge but they are filtering it erroneously. We haven't done much at all to address the filters. We just keep trying to get the knowledge through those filters without assessing why it isn't getting in.

 

[MRC_Hans]

That doesn't mean I am saying everyone will eventually be approachable, nor am I predicting when or how many alternate approaches we will find. I am saying we haven't looked in earnest yet. We've mostly been treating every problem as a knowledge deficit. People have the knowledge but they are filtering it erroneously. We haven't done much at all to address the filters. We just keep trying to get the knowledge through those filters without assessing why it isn't getting in.

Very true! The approach is nearly always: "Explain to them that ..... can't be possible because ....."

In an other forum, a fellow recently posted a nice tool for comparing bible versions, to see the various differences, things that had been left out, added, or twisted around. I asked him "What can it be used for?" ... I don't think he really understood the question.

Hans

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Very true! The approach is nearly always: "Explain to them that ..... can't be possible because ....."

In an other forum, a fellow recently posted a nice tool for comparing bible versions, to see the various differences, things that had been left out, added, or twisted around. I asked him "What can it be used for?" ... I don't think he really understood the question.

Hans

I am rewarded when I read anyone saying they get what I'm saying.

On a side note, have you seen Eugenie Scott's continuum of Biblical literalism vs every other interpretation of the Bible she uses to show her college level biology science students that don't 'believe' in evolution theory that they reject other literal Biblical passages?

 

[MRC_Hans]

I am rewarded when I read anyone saying they get what I'm saying.

On a side note, have you seen Eugenie Scott's continuum of Biblical literalism vs every other interpretation of the Bible she uses to show her college level biology science students that don't 'believe' in evolution theory that they reject other literal Biblical passages?

That is a very ingenious way of teaching skepticism. First of all, it defuses the 'them vs us' dictonomy. Next, by making it a continuum, you force your listener to ponder his/her own position. Plus you use a type of reducto ad absurdum, by placing ideas like flat earth and geocentricism at one end, since most sane people will want to distance themselves from that.

Also, it is very important to decuple evolution from religion.

A very able operation indeed!

Hans