3 ms·

I’m a little worried about supplying any explanation because the DK paper didn’t study the general population at all, and nobody who participated was incompeten

by dahart 6y ago

I’m a little worried about supplying any explanation because the DK paper didn’t study the general population at all, and nobody who participated was incompetent or lacking meta cognitive skills or representative of any of the other exaggerated terms they used. The participants were all Cornell undergrads volunteering for extra credit. That alone is such a huge red flag on the validity of this study that presumes to make bold claims about general behavior, I honestly can’t understand why this paper has had so much attention or traction. The participants were self-selected, all the same age, all the same socioeconomic bracket (statistically speaking), all needed extra credit in their psych class, all admitted to a prestigious school, and all have been told by their family how smart they are. > People may self-report opinions of their own performance that they feel are socially acceptable or socially protective of themselves. So it reverts to the mean because it remains within The Overton Window so to speak. > If your objective performance is poor [...] The DK paper didn’t study objective performance, it studied perceived performance. They didn’t exactly have participants opine on their own performance at all, they were asked to rank themselves within the group. That is a relative opinion, and it means the participant is evaluating the other participants’ abilities too. It also means everyone in the study was just guessing, which is the biggest reason why I think Tal is right, that this is nothing more than noise leading to regression to the mean. > But if they hired you for your PhD in mathematics [...] DK did not study any difficult cognitive tasks akin to research or complex math either. The paper only had 4 tasks: ability to get a joke, some standardized test logic questions, a little English grammar, and grading other people’s tests. I’m not sure if the things I’m pointing out support your theory or not. Mostly I suspect DK is specious and contagious because it lets people justify their own negative judgements of others, so in that sense I think using DK as an explanation of someone’s behavior is a way to feel socially acceptable and be socially protective of one’s self. It’s just unfortunate that the common judgements and conclusions with this study are almost always unjustified because the paper is so widely misunderstood.

DoreenMichele 6y ago
I’m not sure if the things I’m pointing out support your theory or not. It's not a theory. It's a comment on a public forum, not a PhD thesis. I've had some pertinent classes, like Intro to Psychology, Social Psychology, and Negotiation and Conflict Management. In my youth, I spent about 3.5 years in therapy to sort out baggage from childhood trauma. I've journaled and blogged for a lot of years, so introspection and trying to figure out what makes me tick is a longstanding habit. I raised two special-needs sons who don't intuitively understand social stuff, so trying to explain things to them really helped hone my understanding of some things. I had to up my game by quite a lot to help them get a meaningful and useful understanding of social phenomenon. Social phenomenon are inherently hard to find good information about. Studies tend to be really bad. People who know they are participating in a study almost by definition don't behave like the do "normally." I continue to talk with my sons about social phenomenon because it remains an ongoing area of interest. My sons and I talk fairly often about what constitutes a good source of social insight and what doesn't. I comment about it sometimes on HN because I hang here and sometimes people find my comments of value. It's my opinion. My opinions on such topics seem to generally be on more solid footing than average. They usually aren't, per se, backed up by some kind of scientific study, though they are generally informed by gathering solid tidbits of useful info over the years. If you don't agree with it, it's totes fine.
- dahart 6y ago
  Sorry, I meant theory casually, as a synonym for the word you used, explanation. I think I’m agreeing with you, and I think it’s an interesting explanation and a valuable comment. I have no doubt that you’re right that people are socially protective, and some people pull back publicly to fit in. It’s just that as a response to DK or to Tal, I feel like it might be mostly orthogonal and independent. I’m pretty sure that the DK study itself didn’t experience or measure this kind of social self-protection, because of the methods described in the paper. What I disagree with is the DK paper. They make broad generalizations and speculations about behavior throughout that their own data do not support. And the paper seems to be almost completely misinterpreted. Despite the data and the statements in the paper, everyone seems to think that the paper shows confidence being an indicator of lack of skill. It doesn’t help that the paper’s title misleadingly walks you right into that idea. > Studies tend to be really bad. You can say that again.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

by dahart 6y ago

DoreenMichele 6y ago

I’m not sure if the things I’m pointing out support your theory or not. It's not a theory. It's a comment on a public forum, not a PhD thesis. I've had some pertinent classes, like Intro to Psychology, Social Psychology, and Negotiation and Conflict Management. In my youth, I spent about 3.5 years in therapy to sort out baggage from childhood trauma. I've journaled and blogged for a lot of years, so introspection and trying to figure out what makes me tick is a longstanding habit. I raised two special-needs sons who don't intuitively understand social stuff, so trying to explain things to them really helped hone my understanding of some things. I had to up my game by quite a lot to help them get a meaningful and useful understanding of social phenomenon. Social phenomenon are inherently hard to find good information about. Studies tend to be really bad. People who know they are participating in a study almost by definition don't behave like the do "normally." I continue to talk with my sons about social phenomenon because it remains an ongoing area of interest. My sons and I talk fairly often about what constitutes a good source of social insight and what doesn't. I comment about it sometimes on HN because I hang here and sometimes people find my comments of value. It's my opinion. My opinions on such topics seem to generally be on more solid footing than average. They usually aren't, per se, backed up by some kind of scientific study, though they are generally informed by gathering solid tidbits of useful info over the years. If you don't agree with it, it's totes fine.

dahart 6y ago
Sorry, I meant theory casually, as a synonym for the word you used, explanation. I think I’m agreeing with you, and I think it’s an interesting explanation and a valuable comment. I have no doubt that you’re right that people are socially protective, and some people pull back publicly to fit in. It’s just that as a response to DK or to Tal, I feel like it might be mostly orthogonal and independent. I’m pretty sure that the DK study itself didn’t experience or measure this kind of social self-protection, because of the methods described in the paper. What I disagree with is the DK paper. They make broad generalizations and speculations about behavior throughout that their own data do not support. And the paper seems to be almost completely misinterpreted. Despite the data and the statements in the paper, everyone seems to think that the paper shows confidence being an indicator of lack of skill. It doesn’t help that the paper’s title misleadingly walks you right into that idea. > Studies tend to be really bad. You can say that again.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]