Thoughts on the Dunning-Kruger effect

[Skeptic Ginger]

... The worse you are at something, the more you'll tend to overestimate your ability. People who aren't absolutely terrible still overestimate their ability to some extent, just not so much as the people who are that bad.

Not necessarily. The continuum part of what you said is probably a given but the rest is unsubstantiated. It suggests no one knows when they lack knowledge in a field and clearly lots of people recognize such shortcomings.

 

[Donn]

Makes you wonder how a forum could be written to take the DK effect into account, to show others just how black their eye is, how bashed their teeth. To employ the metaphor from above, if not the sentiment.

Is this the kind of idea behind Stack Exchange (a website)? I never looked too closely.

I always thought that the endless stack-like reply system of classis forums (like this one) was confusing - great posts get buried, along with the noise.

For one thing, I'd like a way for the language awards to stick around - visibly. Another, awards for reason/logic and debunking. And educating!

Would little votes on a per-post basis not help raise the good ones to a surface? I say 'a' surface, it can be a results page from a link.

I dunno. What do you think?

 

[Halfcentaur]

Funnily enough, the Dunning Krueger Effect seems to be an advantage in getting your DNA spread to the next generation. An inflated sense of confidence and competence is just what the doctor ordered.

 

[Donn]

OK, OK; better now?

Actually, yes. If you gotta change, then being Obelix's favourite snackfood is not a bad way to go.

 

[Brombadil]

Funnily enough, the Dunning Krueger Effect seems to be an advantage in getting your DNA spread to the next generation. An inflated sense of confidence and competence is just what the doctor ordered.

That pack of mammoth's over there are pushovers. I have my spear and thats more than enough to get the job done. I will not only feed the village for months but I will be praised for my bravery and be rewarded with infinite girlfriends.

 

[Donn]

That pack of mammoth's over there are pushovers. I have my spear and thats more than enough to get the job done. I will not only feed the village for months but I will be praised for my bravery and be rewarded with infinite girlfriends.

Well, throw enough blow-hards at a mammoth and one eventually comes back with mammoth steaks.

Maybe this is why there are many warriors and only one or two shamans in a village. (Going back a bit.) I think Dennet mentioned this too, in "Breaking the spell." Lots of big brave and somewhat dumb (but certain!) brutes, and a few smart conmen.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

John Cleese drops a name (3:30 in, but I enjoyed the whole thing)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8Afv3U_ysc&feature=youtu.be

He does confuse elderberries and elderflowers

 

[Brombadil]

Well, throw enough blow-hards at a mammoth and one eventually comes back with mammoth steaks.

Maybe this is why there are many warriors and only one or two shamans in a village. (Going back a bit.) I think Dennet mentioned this too, in "Breaking the spell." Lots of big brave and somewhat dumb (but certain!) brutes, and a few smart conmen.

Knowledge, wisdom and general "thinking about stuff" is not valued in a society where you spend most of your time getting tough or getting dead.
If my well being was decided 90% of the time by how hard I can swing my club, knowledge is definetly going to take a back seat.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

In situations where there is a very clear result of one's actions then the DK effect quickly disappears -

1/ The longer it is since I last played football (soccer), the more I think that I can't be that bad. Then I play, and I'm reminded just how bad I am. I don't get better, just that I have a frame of reference.
2/ I'm not bad at badminton, one of the best at an average local league club. This isn't DK as I know who I can beat and who I can't and will be right most of the time. We have people turn up on a club night and claim to be able to play, but it soon becomes clear that they are shockingly bad. However, 99%* of them soon realise just how bad they are because they get beaten heavily all night.


*I can only remember one lad who kept coming back even though he was shocking and there was no way he was ever going to get better**. In order to avoid a revolt of club members someone had to explain to him that he might be better off with a beginners' group.

**I coach a bit, too

 

[dlorde]

Interestingly we discovered this a long time ago during job interviews.

One of the things that I always ask people to do is rate their own competence in a subject. Invariably those with expert level knowledge were more circumspect about where they fall on the scale. Those without a clue would often give themselves high(ish) ratings but be utterly clueless.

This matches my experience - the DK effect works in both directions; sometimes, the more expertise and knowledge someone has in a field, the more they recognise how much more there is to know, and the more they assume that others have similar levels of competence; as a result, they may seriously underestimate their capabilites. In the software development world, I often found it was the empty vessels that made most noise, and the quiet ones who were the stars.

Often, but not always. The worst were the clever ones who knew it and wanted everyone else to know it too.

 

[Halfcentaur]

That pack of mammoth's over there are pushovers. I have my spear and thats more than enough to get the job done. I will not only feed the village for months but I will be praised for my bravery and be rewarded with infinite girlfriends.

It often would lead to hilarious bungled events such as this throughout history, but there's enough people suffering from the cognitive dissonance in such a myriad of examples that they make up for it different ways.

Exhibit A:

http://duggarfamily.com/

 

[jimbob]

Or small dogs that bark their little heads off; in their own mind they are the largest predator on the bloc, and the others leave them alone, because .... who knows?

Well, because as far as they are concerned, a dog is a dog. And if a dog can convince itself that it is the baddest dog on the block, it will probably have the body language to convince the others.

Similar idea here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/grrlscientist/2012/feb/11/1

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Knowledge, wisdom and general "thinking about stuff" is not valued in a society where you spend most of your time getting tough or getting dead.
If my well being was decided 90% of the time by how hard I can swing my club, knowledge is definetly going to take a back seat.

I do believe the fact modern humans survived and the Neanderthals did not may contradict your evolution hypothesis.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

In situations where there is a very clear result of one's actions then the DK effect quickly disappears -

1/ The longer it is since I last played football (soccer), the more I think that I can't be that bad. Then I play, and I'm reminded just how bad I am. I don't get better, just that I have a frame of reference.
2/ I'm not bad at badminton, one of the best at an average local league club. This isn't DK as I know who I can beat and who I can't and will be right most of the time. We have people turn up on a club night and claim to be able to play, but it soon becomes clear that they are shockingly bad. However, 99%* of them soon realise just how bad they are because they get beaten heavily all night.


*I can only remember one lad who kept coming back even though he was shocking and there was no way he was ever going to get better**. In order to avoid a revolt of club members someone had to explain to him that he might be better off with a beginners' group.

**I coach a bit, too

I don't think that is the effect being described. Maybe I'm wrong but it is more like the guy who believes the Intelligent Design bad science because he doesn't realize he has a poor understanding of radio-isotope dating and geology. He is unaware of the science but believes he is fully knowledgeable. It is logical to this person that his conclusions about the geological record supporting Noah's flood and YEC myths are valid conclusions. He is unaware that his knowledge of geology is inadequate.


Of course it could be pure confirmation bias on my part since I've been searching for a reference on the problem of not knowing what you don't know and this is not the phenomena after all.

 

[zooterkin]

It often would lead to hilarious bungled events such as this throughout history, but there's enough people suffering from the cognitive dissonance in such a myriad of examples that they make up for it different ways.

Exhibit A:

http://duggarfamily.com/

[qimg]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v84/evilknick/duggar-family.jpg[/qimg]

Well, there's certainly something they seem to be good at.

 

[bjornart]

I'd suggest people go and actually read Dunning and Kruger's actual paper (pdf). It's not very long, it's interesting, and it covers a lot of the issues mentioned in this thread a whole lot better than you lot.

Concluding Remarks
In sum, we present this article as an exploration into why people
tend to hold overly optimistic and miscalibrated views about
themselves. We propose that those with limited knowledge in a
domain suffer a dual burden: Not only do they reach mistaken
conclusions and make regrettable errors, but their incompetence
robs them of the ability to realize it. Although we feel we have
done a competent job in making a strong case for this analysis,
studying it empirically, and drawing out relevant implications, our
thesis leaves us with one haunting worry that we cannot vanquish.
That worry is that this article may contain faulty logic, methodological
errors, or poor communication. Let us assure our readers
that to the extent this article is imperfect, it is not a sin we have
committed knowingly.

 

[Brombadil]

I do believe the fact modern humans survived and the Neanderthals did not may contradict your evolution hypothesis.

How so? I would suggest that knowledge was a consequence and not so much a pursuit.

Actually, if you could recommend any books about the behavior of early ancestors and how we developed at a very primitive level, I'd love to read it.
This has always fascinated me.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Well, there's certainly something they seem to be good at.

To be Frank, I was not seriously submitting the claim that the D-K effect is an advantage in behavior being selected in natural selection with preparation to defend the position, but in the snide joke there is an implied topic I think that at least makes for an interesting concept to ponder. Sure, you can cite any number of scenarios where an unfounded confidence in something can kill you, but there are also plenty of examples that do not.

I think I was watching a very recent discussion this week with Dawkins and Krauss where this idea about the DK Effect being selected for (in modern society) was brought up in a sort of tongue and cheek context.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH9UvnrARf8&feature=g-all-u&context=G239f867FAAAAAAAAAAA

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How so? I would suggest that knowledge was a consequence and not so much a pursuit.

Actually, if you could recommend any books about the behavior of early ancestors and how we developed at a very primitive level, I'd love to read it.
This has always fascinated me.

The archeological record supports the conclusion modern humans were better armed and better equipped to adapt to changing conditions, both competing hypotheses AFAIK. Both suggest brains won out over brawn. A Google search is all I can offer you at the moment. Don't have any book recommendations.

 

[Dinwar]

Knowledge, wisdom and general "thinking about stuff" is not valued in a society where you spend most of your time getting tough or getting dead.
If my well being was decided 90% of the time by how hard I can swing my club, knowledge is definetly going to take a back seat.

I take it you've never actually fought someone, or killed something. 90% of any combat is mental--knowing where to swing your club. Sure, brute force CAN be helpful--but I've taken out a lot of guys that could bench-press me when I'm in full armor, because I knew where to hit them and they didn't know where to hit me. And when it comes to subsistance living, that knowledge is CRITICAL. You don't have the luxury of being able to live to fight another day--you win or you die. Which means you fight smart or you die.

I'm going to present a hypothesis: There has never, in the history of the human family, been a sentient organism that lived by brute force alone. I'll go further: There has never been, in the history of the human family, been a sentient organism that survived PRIMARILY through brute force.

Imagine what we were up against. Short-faced bears weren't uncommon. Saber-toothed cats, lions, and other large cats were common. Dogs that could rip modern wolves to shreds were typical sites. Our prey included things like mammoths (got direct evidence of that--a bone projectile point in a mammoth rib), huge horses, bigger camels, sloths with claws like swords and armor plating, and all sorts of other fun critters that had millions of years to evolve ways to give predators bigger, stronger, and faster than us a really, REALLY bad day. If humans relied on their brute force alone, or even predominantly, they'd have ended up being just a red smear on the savana. The ONLY advantage we had was our brains. We could build atlatls, and learn to use them. We could ambush our prey in novel ways, adapting to the prey. We could figure out new ways to kill them with minimal risk to ourselves. We could use new tools, like fire, to protect ourselves.

Check out "Peopleing of the New World" (Jonathon E. Ericson, R. E. Taylor, Rainer Berger eds., Ballena Press Anthropological Papers No. 33) to see ample evidence of humans relying on brains rather than brawn in the time you're talking about.