5 ms·
It seems like the people who want to disprove Dunning-Kruger are falling victim to it. I honestly think people take it way too seriously and apply it too gener
by aaaronic 4y ago
It seems like the people who want to disprove Dunning-Kruger are falling victim to it.
I honestly think people take it way too seriously and apply it too generally. Quantifying "good" is hard if you don't know much about the field you're quantifying. Getting deep into a particular field is humbling -- Tetris seems relatively simple, but there are people who could fill a book with things _I_ don't know about it, despite playing at least a few hundred hours of it.
Is there an answer to that humility gained by being an expert in one field being translated to better self-assessment in other fields? I feel myself further appreciating the depth and complexity of fields I "wrote off" as trivial and uninteresting when I was younger as I get deeper into my own field (and see just how much deeper it is too).
- ncmncm 4y ago"Most citations of D-K are examples of it."
- robocat 4y agoOr perhaps your comment is the relatively rare meta-meta-DK effect.
- jasonhansel 4y ago> Is there an answer to that humility gained by being an expert in one field being translated to better self-assessment in other fields? I think that often the opposite is true: people who become experts in one domain often assume that they are automatically experts in completely unrelated fields. I suspect that this is the cause of "Nobel disease": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_disease
- lamontcg 4y agohttps://xkcd.com/793/ https://xkcd.com/793/ "there's nothing more annoying than a physicist encountering a new subject"