I feel like the whole le Dunning Kruger thing literally doesn't happen
I've never met anyone that started a hobby and think they knew everything
I've never had this thought
Yet this meme chart keeps getting thrown around all the time

It's more like you think you know what the scope of the field is, like when I was in middle/high school I thought math just went up to calculus and people just did more complicated equations and shit in the real world, even right now I'm trying to learn photography and though I know it's Dunning Krueger I still feel like that there isn't much left to learn once you get good at lighting and lenses and shit. I don't necessarily think I know all of it yet, just that I know what all of it is.

>hobby
What?? This pertains domain experience in say idk electrical engineering or something.
>I've never had this thought
Epic benchmark. Pic rel is you.

You clearly have never met people in technical roles that they have no business being in. An off the dome example would be "I've used X system therefore it's superior because it works 75% of the time across all of my projects!" instead of applying some malleability to their ego and taking a different pitched approach that has better utilization but is more novel or diverts some resources elsewhere but has much longer industry lifespan.

>>16721501 (OP)
It does happen, but that graph is retarded. The actual Dunning Kruger effect shows that, while non-experts overestimate their ability, they constantly rate themselves lower than experts.

That graph is just retarded. Nothing like the Dunning-Kruger effect, which is just noticing that people who don't know much, rate themselves as knowing more than they actually do.

>>16721501 (OP)
reminder that the OG dunning kruger paper constructed their findings from correlations on music taste and humor, lol

>>16721519
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Perceived-ability-to-recognize-humor-as-a-function-of-actual-test-performance-Study-1_fig1_12688660

>>16721501 (OP)
>I feel like
Well sure, just peg yourself to the "no" end of the IQ scale.

>>16721501 (OP)
It's just that you take the oversimplifications you're taught early on as absolute fact so you take them to their logical (but wrong) conclusion or you see an inconsistency in the oversimplification and treat it as a profound observation that the experts somehow missed.

For instance, you were taught "Dunning Kruger" means "people think they know everything about a subject when they know very little" and noted that nobody actually does this. Instead of thinking "maybe I don't understand DK very well," you conclude "DK just doesn't happen." That's the Dunning-Kruger effect speaking.

>>16721561
Cope

>>16721561
I wish there were more people like you, but the world is saturated with grifters, bullshit, misleading oversimplifications and generalizations, buzzwords, catchphrases and slogans

>>16721770
The oversimplifications are often necessary, especially when your target audience is vaguely curious teenagers with no formal background in the subject. When the goal of your lecture is to introduce people to a concept for the first time, there's a lot of rabbit holes you're gonna need to cover up to paint a cleaner picture of what's going on.
DK is like stumbling into one of those holes and concluding you're the first to ever do so.

>>16721501 (OP)
Akshually sweetie, it was all just autocorrelation.
>https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2022/04/08/the-dunning-kruger-effect-is-autocorrelation/

>>16721501 (OP)
lol people think they know everything. Especially how things work. It’s funny when they are staring at my notepad with basic linear equations and look puzzled and confused. Muhahahaha.

>>16721982
TRVKE

>>16721993
What a gay tripfag name Jesus Christ are you over 35?

>>16721501 (OP)
That's because you are on the low end of the knowledge on the subject and yet confidently state the wrong opininion on it. This is known as The Dunning–Kruger effect

>>16721501 (OP)
Dunning and Kruger and Dunning-Kruger. What qualifies them to judge competence?

>>16721540
>Picking one experimental condition out of 6
Appallingly bad faith.

>>16721982
This blog post is one of the worst I've ever read. Normally I'd accuse the author of arguing in bed faith, but given the name of the blog I assume that author is an economist and given that is actually retarded enough to think they've put up a good argument.

I’ve had some really good learning experiences where I’ve been extremely confident in my understanding and had it just absolutely demolished by someone much more knowledgeable. I usually just shut the fuck up these days unless nobody knows what’s going on though because someone else who’s more headstrong will usually hit all the wrong answers first.

>>16721501 (OP)
ime it's just people relating themselves more to the 0.1% of a field than 99% of people. Give me six months and I can get a middling undergrad in my field presenting and publishing, which technically makes them a productive scientist but there's still a lot to learn before you have enough knowledge to provide an high-level project with new insights.

Dunning writing is a figurative gold mine. In a book chapter about how people don't call out bad-faith questions but instead make something up:
>2.3.3. Reach-around knowledge defined
The reach-around knowledge is successful mirroring, where the bullshit question gets a bullshit answer and they might both get off on it.

>>16723078
it's okay to admit you misunderstood the dunning kruger effect. the ivy league authors themselves misunderstood what they did!
>>16723070
that 1/6 criterion should never have existed, and is extremely strong corroborating evidence that they merely found an autocorrelation, as demonstrated above

>>16721501 (OP)
>I know everything about Dunning-Kruger and its real life implication because of my limited personal experience with a few people.
You are literally doing it right now, smartypants, the whole point is that the people who do it are too stupid to know they are doing it, so of course you won't acknowledge you are thinking exactly the way it describes.

>>16723078
>I understand statistics and probability theory less than an economist
Ok bro

>>16721501 (OP)
If you asked the average person if 2+2 can equal 11, they would say no. If you insisted it can, they would consider you stupid and double down that it's 4. If you explained that you didn't specify the system and that it's in base 3, they would look at you funny.

>>16725789
There are 10 kinds of joke. Those that are funny and those that depend on the law of excluded middle.

>>16725789
>there's no perfect triangle because there's more than one kind
>a triangle by definition is a perfect triangle
choose one and see if you chose right

>>16721501 (OP)
you just discovered pop psychology is all about midwit copes

>>16725660
nice religion you got there, complete with an original sin and the promise of salvation through works, i am truly impressed

>>16725997
And those that conflate extrapolation with interpolation.

>>16721501 (OP)
There are two effects at play here, I think. First, without any information, the most logical estimation of your skill level is that you're average. As your competence increases, you know better and can better gauge when you're actually above average. Second, there's a well-known psychological bias where most people rate themselves as above average. Combine these two, and you get 'Dunning-Kruger effect'. (>>16721540
) Almost completely a a result of pure math, and not really due to any misbeliefs of competence of incompetent people.

>>16726191
Knock knock
Who's there?
Not knot
http://youtu.be/QcLfb0PhfO0

>>16726152
>I seent one graph, now I can has debunked 25 years of research.

>>16726152
>original sin
Yes, retard everyone, including you, was born an ignorant retarded baby that couldn't even walk or feed itself, you aren't automatically the master of all just because you were born.

>salvation through works
Yes, the only way to remedy ignorance is to work at accumulating and contextualizing facts over time.

>>16726152
>implying prot*stants aren’t a real religion
Based.

>>16721501 (OP)
my brother is that way. he'll read a bit about something, regurgitate a few factoids, and think he knows it all. if you try and point out something that he's wrong about he'll quickly become combative over it. it makes it very difficult to talk to him.

>>16727498
You don't have write permissions. I would rather get factoids than having a sibling stuck at "why can't anybody talk about", and then not have any factoids as proof of work.

I think there is a "mean effect", meaning that people rate themselves closer to the mean than they are, regardless of whether they're above or below the mean. This has been proven to occur when people estimate their own IQ, wealth, and how well they can drive a car, but I have a hunch this effect applies more widely, perhaps even (near-)universally. Dunning-Kruger is just a more specific version of that.

>>16721501 (OP)
Oh it exists. For example, my students (undergrads) are 100% sure that global warming is an imminent man-made emergency but cannot explain why winter happens.