Thoughts on the Dunning-Kruger effect

[dasmiller]

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.

Concur. You almost* never want to play the prey's game: you don't want to chase a rabbit or a bird, you don't want to fight a warthog, you don't want to swim after a fish. To avoid playing the prey's game, you need to surprise your prey; ideally, you don't want the prey to know it's being pursued until it's already been defeated. And that, in turn, is a very brains-intenstive process because prey species pay a lot of attention to their surroundings so that they can avoid being caught in just that manner.

*There are exceptions. Cursorial hunters, for example, don't rely on surprising their pray. Or if you can easily defeat the prey's defenses, you may not care if it uses them. A tortoise's shell may provide it with fine protection againts a wolf, but to a human, that shell is simply a handy container for the tasty tortoise meat inside.

 

[The Norseman]

Unearthed Arcana?

You, sir, win a +3 Rapier of Wit!

(Mainly because that's exactly where I first learned much of my prodigious vocabulary -- Mr. Gygax was truly the prime delver and conjurer of dweomers!)

 

[The Norseman]

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.

Evidence?

 

[r-j]

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

That's because they know almost nothing about hunting, much less gathering. It's a DK funfest in here already.

 

[tensordyne]

Psuedo-skeptics and Woo-masters alike.

Hmmm, in response to the OP, it is interesting. I myself would probably on one or two topics be considered by some members here to be wooish (on the topics of the existence of Black Holes (I do not believe GR predicts BH's) and the relevance of current Economic understanding (Neoclassical Econ I think is probably nonsense) [I will not respond about either of these topics in this thread because it is off topic. I include the info here only for completeness reasons]). I have come to the conclusion that most people accept current thinking about a subject, either implicitly or explicitly. Tell a Fundy Xtian that their child has their eyes and laugh inside as they shake their head in agreement, as they have just implicitly agreed to a major part The Theory of Evolution.

The weird thing is, most people do not know how to doubt their own thinking in a constructive manner. This applies just as much to the person who tows the company line (mostly I think this sort usually have a superficial understanding of a subject and believe what they believe in because others believe it, which is fine by me, as long as one is honest about it) as to the most woo'ed out poster who spouts on about Quantum Zen Healing or some such nonsense.

One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision...
-- Bertrand Russell

How very, very true. Just my take for what it is worth.

 

[jimbob]

Concur. You almost* never want to play the prey's game: you don't want to chase a rabbit or a bird, you don't want to fight a warthog, you don't want to swim after a fish. To avoid playing the prey's game, you need to surprise your prey; ideally, you don't want the prey to know it's being pursued until it's already been defeated. And that, in turn, is a very brains-intenstive process because prey species pay a lot of attention to their surroundings so that they can avoid being caught in just that manner.

*There are exceptions. Cursorial hunters, for example, don't rely on surprising their pray. Or if you can easily defeat the prey's defenses, you may not care if it uses them. A tortoise's shell may provide it with fine protection againts a wolf, but to a human, that shell is simply a handy container for the tasty tortoise meat inside.

I find the whole area of persistence hunting very interesting.

It basically says to the prey, "you can run but you can't hide" and tracking is a vital component.

I'd go further and say that many mammalian hunting strategies use intelligence.

Look at this for example:



or this

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/denis036/thisweekinevolution/2007/03/teenage_chimps_with_spears_and.html

 

[MRC_Hans]

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.

Funny, my imression of exactly chihuahuas is that they are quite smart.

But they do tend to get carried away, barking, so maybe you are right.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

To get back a little to my original idea (the other sides mentioned of this are also interesting) I have thought of a couple of extant examples of DK effect here, no doubt coupled with some personality issues. I will not mention names, but one is into astrophysics, the other homeopathy. Both consider their own, self admitted, lack of learning in the respective subjects to be an asset. They feel it frees them from the brainwashing of conventional knowledge, and their basic argument is really:

We ¹⁾ know next to nothing about this, so my idea is at least as valid as the conventional explanation, perhaps even more, because it is makes more sense ²⁾.

1) The poster means 'we' as in humanity, but is really only referring to their own missing knowledge, which they insist on projecting to everybody else. When it is explained that we (as in the rest of us) actually know quite a lot about the subject, they demand to have it explained, predictable fail to understand the explanation, and stand confirmed in their belief that 'we' understand nothing.

2) Their explanation makes more sense to themselves, because they don't understand the real explanation and they are unable to spot the incongruencies in their own thesis.

Hans

 

[zooterkin]

To get back a little to my original idea (the other sides mentioned of this are also interesting) I have thought of a couple of extant examples of DK effect here, no doubt coupled with some personality issues. I will not mention names, but one is into astrophysics, the other homeopathy. Both consider their own, self admitted, lack of learning in the respective subjects to be an asset. They feel it frees them from the brainwashing of conventional knowledge, and their basic argument is really:

We ¹⁾ know next to nothing about this, so my idea is at least as valid as the conventional explanation, perhaps even more, because it is makes more sense ²⁾.

I can think of another, in the field of mathematics. Knowing conventional maths is seen as a straightjacket preventing one from using "verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills".



ETA: Bizarre coincidence of the day. I suddenly had doubts about the spelling of 'straightjacket', so picked up my dictionary, and opened it. At the page with the word on. Spooky, or what? (It turns out the word is normally spelt without the 'gh', but it is a less common variant so I've left it.)

 

[MRC_Hans]

I can think of another, in the field of mathematics. Knowing conventional maths is seen as a straightjacket preventing one from using "verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills".

I'm sure we have half a dozen or so, at any one time, but I restrained myself to mention those with whom I had close first-hand experience.

ETA: Bizarre coincidence of the day. I suddenly had doubts about the spelling of 'straightjacket', so picked up my dictionary, and opened it. At the page with the word on. Spooky, or what?

My dictionary always does that.

....

Oh, a book?

Hans

 

[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 could introduce you to a few people.

~Dr. Imago

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I could introduce you to a few people.

~Dr. Imago

Do you really think I haven't met them?

My point is not that this is not a difficult problem. My point is that if we start with the assumption there is no answer, we lose before we play the game.

Now, it's fine to say, I don't want to play, I've looked at the effort it would take to win and choose to do something else with my time.

But to assume the game is unwinnable is like saying we've invented all there ever is to invent, might as well close the patent office.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

BTW, along that same line of thinking, the people who are researching how to influence people to believe in woo are certainly using the science of persuasion successfully. Does it make sense such research is only applicable in making people think uncritically?

 

[mike3]

George St-Pierre or Anderson Silva on the other hand can have years of fighting experience, discipline, conditioning and be in incredible physical shape. But being someone who has the knowledge of what it actually takes to fight, they understand their limitations far better than the small boy since they constantly find themselves pushed to their limit. They also have the pride and sense of worth in their accomplishments of what they have done through hardship which can fuel their cognitive process to humbly conclude that even they are not invincible. Second to none perhaps, but still mortal.

So does this mean that pride and humility are not opposed after all?

Also, I'm curious: does one need a lot of "fighting power" to have "courage"?

 

[mike3]

1) The poster means 'we' as in humanity, but is really only referring to their own missing knowledge, which they insist on projecting to everybody else. When it is explained that we (as in the rest of us) actually know quite a lot about the subject, they demand to have it explained, predictable fail to understand the explanation, and stand confirmed in their belief that 'we' understand nothing.

As in the experts, you mean. As the "average" joe may not know any more than they do. E.g. the "average" joe probably knows equally as much/little about QM as the poster. They just might not go and spout goofy theories.

 

[mike3]

The weird thing is, most people do not know how to doubt their own thinking in a constructive manner. This applies just as much to the person who tows the company line (mostly I think this sort usually have a superficial understanding of a subject and believe what they believe in because others believe it, which is fine by me, as long as one is honest about it) as to the most woo'ed out poster who spouts on about Quantum Zen Healing or some such nonsense.

Isn't that a very serious problem with the world -- if most people lack that? How much better off would the world be if most people had it and the ones who lacked it were in the minority?

 

[mike3]

I found this:

http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/overestimate.aspx

Regardless of how pervasive the phenomenon is, it is clear from Dunning's and others' work that many Americans, at least sometimes and under some conditions, have a tendency to inflate their worth. It is interesting, therefore, to see the phenomenon's mirror opposite in another culture. In research comparing North American and East Asian self-assessments, Heine of the University of British Columbia finds that East Asians tend to underestimate their abilities, with an aim toward improving the self and getting along with others.

(...)

Conversely, East Asians' self-improving or self-critical stance helps them maintain their "face," or reputation, and as a result, their interpersonal network. But the cost is they don't feel as good about themselves, he says. Because people in these cultures have different motivations, they make very different choices, Heine adds. If Americans perceive they're not doing well at something, they'll look for something else to do instead. "If you're bad at volleyball, well fine, you won't play volleyball," as Heine puts it. East Asians, though, view a poor performance as an invitation to try harder.

Hmm. So this seems to suggest there is a significant amount of free-play here and it's not just a fundamental, unalterable fact of human psychology. Could it be possible to have a culture that would not create a bias in either direction and so permit for a fully-honest, or at least very close since humans are not perfect beings, self-assessment? As that would seem to be the most desirable.

I'm also curious about this. It says: "East Asians, though, view a poor performance as an invitation to try harder." So how do you know when you truly just don't have the talent?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Do you really think I haven't met them?

My point is not that this is not a difficult problem. My point is that if we start with the assumption there is no answer, we lose before we play the game.

Now, it's fine to say, I don't want to play, I've looked at the effort it would take to win and choose to do something else with my time.

If you have met mine, you may have noticed that I literally spent years trying to turn them around before I gave up. I'm not even concluding that they cannot be changed, I just conclude that I will not spend more energy on that task.

But to assume the game is unwinnable is like saying we've invented all there ever is to invent, might as well close the patent office.

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. Yahh, come back wnen you can demonstrate your perpetuum mobile to me.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

As in the experts, you mean. As the "average" joe may not know any more than they do. E.g. the "average" joe probably knows equally as much/little about QM as the poster. They just might not go and spout goofy theories.

I think I meant 'we' as in humanity as such. Of course, that will often mean the experts, since we have been relying more and more on experts, ever since we came down from the trees.

Hans

 

[mike3]

I think I meant 'we' as in humanity as such. Of course, that will often mean the experts, since we have been relying more and more on experts, ever since we came down from the trees.

Hans

But the phrasing seems to imply that somehow everyone else has the knowledge, when in fact it's only the experts. As I said, your average Joe probably knows equally as much as the crank. It's just that they're, well, not a crank.