3 ms·
This sounds like a confirmation. "Our results further confirm that experts are more proficient in self-assessing their abilities than novices and that women, i
by jvanderbot 6y ago
This sounds like a confirmation.
"Our results further confirm that experts are more proficient in self-assessing their abilities than novices and that women, in general, self-assess more accurately than men. The validity of interpretations of data depends strongly upon how carefully the researchers consider the numeracy that underlies graphical presentations and conclusions. Our results indicate that carefully measured self-assessments provide valid, measurable and valuable information about proficiency"
- bitshiftfaced 6y agoConfirmation would be if they found that those who were less competent tended to overestimate their abilities when compared to those who were more competent. They found that this was not true. Instead, they found that people tend to overestimate their abilities with the same likelihood as when underestimating.
- porb121 6y agoNo, it's not a confirmation. Experts have a tighter distribution of self-assessment - when they miss, they miss by less. However, non-experts and experts alike overrate and underrate their competency with about equal frequency. Because of ceiling and floor effects (it's hard to massively underrate yourself when you're already in the bottom decile of actual competency, and vice versa), non-experts have a mean self-assessment higher than their actual competency, but that doesn't mean that non-experts as a group tend to overrate themselves.
- jstanley 6y ago> non-experts have a mean self-assessment higher than their actual competency, but that doesn't mean that non-experts as a group tend to overrate themselves. Doesn't it mean exactly that? It doesn't matter if it's caused by ceiling and floor effects, the end result is that the less competent tend to overrate themselves.