4 ms·
If it's not (1) then it's not Dunning-Kruger. Credentialism is a different fallacy (argumentum ad verecundiam). Saying we should flatten the curve for all defic
by notacoward 7y ago
If it's not (1) then it's not Dunning-Kruger. Credentialism is a different fallacy (argumentum ad verecundiam). Saying we should flatten the curve for all deficits of critical thinking is reading something into the article that's not actually there, no matter how worthy you or I might believe such an effort is.
- thu2111 7y agoAlright, fair enough. You could argue these writers are implicitly claiming to be meta-experts, that is, they have superior understanding of the nature and location of expertise than other people do, although they don't. But I guess this sort of subjective argument is why I don't like Dunning-Kruger as a concept. Especially given that it's an output of social psychology, a field that started to collapse once outsiders from other fields i.e. non-experts started critically thinking about the content of psychology papers. Seems kind of ironic.
- notacoward 7y agoAlso, I've heard that one of Dunning or Kruger has objected to the way the term/concept is commonly used. How ironic is that? AIUI they originally proposed that people at many levels underestimate how much they still don't know. It wasn't limited to people who believe they've jumped all the way from the novice end to the expert end, which is the more common usage.