4 ms·

Surely the metric should be "Do they know more than me?" Or are you concerned that you'll move towards the apex of the Dunning Kruger chart?

• IncRnd 9y ago
  > Surely the metric should be "Do they know more than me?" That's not a good metric. A better metric would be, "are they trustworthy and correct?" > Or are you concerned that you'll move towards the apex of the Dunning Kruger chart? Disqus is over there.
  • JetSpiegel 9y ago
    > are they trustworthy and correct? So well-meaning idiots trump experts that might be trying to trick you?
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    • ric2b 9y ago
      If the experts are both incorrect and untrustworthy, of course.
  • bovine3dom 9y ago
    Why is that a better metric? There are levels of correctness. Do you sincerely believe that each article you read will push you backwards in knowledge? Even an untrustworthy source can contain valuable information; just ask an historian. The Dunning Kruger joke was only partially a joke - I was trying to explain that there are levels of expertise. My view is that anything that increases my knowledge is good; I was trying to elicit a response as to why someone might think otherwise.