Thoughts on the Dunning-Kruger effect

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Seems to support my view of the problem. Do you see it otherwise?

 

[Halfcentaur]

I think it's worth qualifying that something akin to the DK effect being beneficial to spreading your genes is also meant to be examined in today's world, not ancient times. The benefits make much more sense in a contemporary model to me. But if behaviors like this can be hereditary, not long after Idiocracy is realized and we run out of Brondo, mammoths will return from their slumber in the middle of the Earth and devour us all with their recently evolved carnivorous tendencies.

 

[dlorde]

URL="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.64.2655&rep=rep1&type=pdf"]Dunning and Kruger's actual paper[/URL] (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.

You're right - the underestimation of competence in the top performers is probably due to the 'false-consensus' effect, which is basically what I said, which therefore makes me a top psychologist... no, wait, maybe it was just a lucky guess...[/humble]

 

[r-j]

I see people who after hearing about the effect, assume they are immune to it, and can recognize it immediately in others, and seem to be experts on everything, except their own failings.

 

[Ladewig]

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?

I've seen Jack Russels and dachshunds adopt this attitude. But I also have an unsupported hypothesis about very small dogs. Many chihuahuas are so simple minded that they see something and give a single bark. The sound of the bark then reaches their ears. Unfortunately they are not smart enough to know that they bark they heard is their own bark. So they then think, "another dog is barking, I better bark louder and faster." That approach of course sends the tiny dog into an uncontrolled barking frenzy.

We could build atlatls,

How bizarre. I learned that word close to 32 years ago and have never heard it used. Thanks.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

How bizarre. I learned that word [atlatls] close to 32 years ago and have never heard it used. Thanks.

Unearthed Arcana?

 

[jimbob]

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.

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.

AFIK, Neanderthal skeletons tend to show evidence of more (healed) injuries than Cro Magnon skeletons and the explanation I have seen is that the Neanderthal hunting technique was at closer quarters (and thus more dangerous) than the techniques practiced by modern humans.

 

[Donn]

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. ..

Great post. Thanks. If I had thought about it for two minutes, instead of posting under the illusion that I had a clue, I'd have realized some of what you just said.

Not sure where that leaves the DK effect ITO evolution. Maybe it's a more modern (post agriculture-ish) affliction?

 

[jimbob]

Great post. Thanks. If I had thought about it for two minutes, instead of posting under the illusion that I had a clue, I'd have realized some of what you just said.

Not sure where that leaves the DK effect ITO evolution. Maybe it's a more modern (post agriculture-ish) affliction?

It seems to be cultural. Some societies seem to have the reverse.

 

[JJM 777]

All you guys are full of D-K effect.

You think you are good at something. You think you understand or know something.

It is nothing compared to the skills and knowledge of gods.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hans, understanding the DK effect is not going to help the cause for changing minds. It is a brilliant summary of the observed incorrect perceptions people have for themself or for something they do. However, like everything else, talking sense into them and explaining "The reason you think this way is the DK effect. You should look it up and think critically about yourself." is not going to get them to change their mind.

Of course not. I would not dream of that. What may make them change is if you can show them that they are mistaken.

Hans

 

[Dr. Imago]

Longtime fan of the Dunning-Kruger effect back even to when it was originally published and won Harvard's dubious "Ig Nobel" award. The hallmark of it is, as was pointed out by bjornart's quote, that the person has no insight - the dual burden - because they are incompetent. Therefore, you can't really reason with them. They fail, and lack the ability to recognize their failures, or to understand cause-and-effect.

So, a lot of the "natural selection" examples don't really apply because it is not about having the "instinct", if you will, to run away from the sabre-toothed tiger. It is more along the lines of inability of higher cognitive function.

Read the original paper. There is a cute anecdote about a bank robber in Buffalo, NY that underscores exactly what the effect means.

Unfortunately, we saw this occasionally during my residency. There is almost a co-requisite arrogance that goes along with the other personality traits of the sufferers. Mostly, the ones who suffered from the DK-effect were weeded out of my specialty (anesthesiology) where they could really could've killed someone if left to their own devices without supervision, and shepherded into specialties where hopefully this was less likely.

The person who truly suffers from the DK-effect cannot be reasoned with, because they completely lack the insight to see what how, what, or why they are doing what they are doing is ineffective or wrong. So, as is often the case with them, banging your head against a wall as opposed to trying to rationalize with them is usually more productive.

~Dr. Imago

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

AFIK, Neanderthal skeletons tend to show evidence of more (healed) injuries than Cro Magnon skeletons and the explanation I have seen is that the Neanderthal hunting technique was at closer quarters (and thus more dangerous) than the techniques practiced by modern humans.

And the reason for that? Modern humans were more intelligent perhaps leading to better weapons?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
The person who truly suffers from the DK-effect cannot be reasoned with, because they completely lack the insight to see what how, what, or why they are doing what they are doing is ineffective or wrong. So, as is often the case with them, banging your head against a wall as opposed to trying to rationalize with them is usually more productive.

~Dr. Imago

Some people are likely not open to evaluating their expertise deficits. But I don't like the conclusion "cannot be reasoned with". I prefer the hypothesis they can, but we may not have the skills yet to effectively do that.

 

[r-j]

The person who truly suffers from the DK-effect cannot be reasoned with, because they completely lack the insight to see what how, what, or why they are doing what they are doing is ineffective or wrong.

That used to be called human nature.

 

[Mojo]

AFIK, Neanderthal skeletons tend to show evidence of more (healed) injuries than Cro Magnon skeletons and the explanation I have seen is that the Neanderthal hunting technique was at closer quarters (and thus more dangerous) than the techniques practiced by modern humans.

And the reason for that? Modern humans were more intelligent perhaps leading to better weapons?

No, just different strategies. Hence also the different body shapes, with Neanderthals stockier and more powerfully built. According to Clive Finlayson's The Humans Who Went Extinct: Why Neanderthals died out and we survived, Neanderthal hunting was probably based around close-quarters ambushing using thrusting spears.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, just different strategies. Hence also the different body shapes, with Neanderthals stockier and more powerfully built. According to Clive Finlayson's The Humans Who Went Extinct: Why Neanderthals died out and we survived, Neanderthal hunting was probably based around close-quarters ambushing using thrusting spears.

While the true answer remains speculative, "different strategies" suggest you are saying the cause of different strategies was random. I don't think the evidence bears that out. Modern humans had a lot more than Neanderthals in terms of art and technology suggesting more brain.

 

[bjornart]

Seems to support my view of the problem. Do you see it otherwise?

I said the actual paper covered the issues better, not that it contained different conclusions.

 

[Roboramma]

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 think you are severely underestimating the importance of knowledge, skill, and intelligence in hunter-gatherer societies.

 

[Roboramma]

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.

Great post Dinwar: as a minor addition I'd like to add the use of tracking. Skill, knowledge and real detective work are required, and were an important part of any hunter's ability to get a kill.