4 ms·

tldr; D+K's experiment was: Assign the numbers 1 thru 10 to ten people. Have each role a 10 sided die. The person assigned a 1 will roll higher than his assigne

tldr; D+K's experiment was: Assign the numbers 1 thru 10 to ten people. Have each role a 10 sided die. The person assigned a 1 will roll higher than his assigned number 90% of the time. Daniel: >It’s not a “statistical artifact” - that will be your everyday experience living in such a world. You can experience statistical effects. I think a lot of controversy comes from how Dunning and Kruger's paper leads people to interpret the data as hubris on the part of low-performers, and the statistical analysis demolishes that interpretation. Not knowing how well you performed is not the same thing psychologically as "overestimating" your performance.

jameshart 4y ago
This is such a bizarre argument. Dunning Krueger is precisely about the surprising result that people are bad at estimating their performance! If you accept the 'D-K is autocorrelation' argument, you don't get to throw out the existence of the D-K effect: you are saying Dunning + Krueger failed to show that humans have any ability to estimate how skilled they are at all. That seems like an even more radical position than the D-K thesis.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- slavik81 4y ago
  > Dunning Krueger is precisely about the surprising result that people are bad at estimating their performance Isn't DK about estimating your performance relative to the rest of the population? To do that, you need to not only know your own performance but also everyone else's. To me, guessing the performance of others sounds quite difficult.
  - notahacker 4y ago
    The implicit hypothesis is that if a test is full of questions you have no idea how to answer, you really ought to have strong priors that you're a below average performer. Tests are generally designed so that people familiar with the relevant material and methodologies can attempt answers; you dont need to know exactly how good other test takers are for it to be reasonable to assume you're in the bottom quartile if you can't. Same as you should have a lot less difficulty than most cyclists estimating whether your time trial was a good one relative to the rest of the field if you struggled to stay on the bike. Of course, there are tests where the bottom quartile find the majority of it easy and have no particular reason to assume that most others found it even easier, and circumstances in which the weak undergrad who can only answer half the questions may reasonably believe that the test is being administered to a general population full of people who won't understand any of the material at all. But in general, it's reasonable to assume that if there's a lot of stuff you don't know, other people will know better.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
anonymoushn 4y ago
The claim that skill does not exist or that people are totally unable to recognize how good they are at anything is quite radical. You are sort of smuggling in the assumption for example that Olympian medalist lifters, when asked how much they can deadlift, will have the same distribution of answers as people who never deadlift (but are aware that totally sedentary men can probably deadlift like 200lbs and totally sedentary women can probably deadlift like 150lbs). If this were true, it would be worth publishing a paper about it. It's sort of surprising to me to read your comment because TFA is an extended rebuttal of your comment. > I think a lot of controversy comes from how Dunning and Kruger's paper leads people to interpret the data as hubris on the part of low-performers, and the statistical analysis demolishes that interpretation. Not knowing how well you performed is not the same thing psychologically as "overestimating" your performance. D-K actually found that low performers were less accurate at assessing their skill than high performers, and the article you refer to obviously did not find this effect in random data, so I'm not sure how it was demolished.

jameshart 4y ago

This is such a bizarre argument. Dunning Krueger is precisely about the surprising result that people are bad at estimating their performance! If you accept the 'D-K is autocorrelation' argument, you don't get to throw out the existence of the D-K effect: you are saying Dunning + Krueger failed to show that humans have any ability to estimate how skilled they are at all. That seems like an even more radical position than the D-K thesis.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
slavik81 4y ago
> Dunning Krueger is precisely about the surprising result that people are bad at estimating their performance Isn't DK about estimating your performance relative to the rest of the population? To do that, you need to not only know your own performance but also everyone else's. To me, guessing the performance of others sounds quite difficult.
- notahacker 4y ago
  The implicit hypothesis is that if a test is full of questions you have no idea how to answer, you really ought to have strong priors that you're a below average performer. Tests are generally designed so that people familiar with the relevant material and methodologies can attempt answers; you dont need to know exactly how good other test takers are for it to be reasonable to assume you're in the bottom quartile if you can't. Same as you should have a lot less difficulty than most cyclists estimating whether your time trial was a good one relative to the rest of the field if you struggled to stay on the bike. Of course, there are tests where the bottom quartile find the majority of it easy and have no particular reason to assume that most others found it even easier, and circumstances in which the weak undergrad who can only answer half the questions may reasonably believe that the test is being administered to a general population full of people who won't understand any of the material at all. But in general, it's reasonable to assume that if there's a lot of stuff you don't know, other people will know better.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

anonymoushn 4y ago

The claim that skill does not exist or that people are totally unable to recognize how good they are at anything is quite radical. You are sort of smuggling in the assumption for example that Olympian medalist lifters, when asked how much they can deadlift, will have the same distribution of answers as people who never deadlift (but are aware that totally sedentary men can probably deadlift like 200lbs and totally sedentary women can probably deadlift like 150lbs). If this were true, it would be worth publishing a paper about it. It's sort of surprising to me to read your comment because TFA is an extended rebuttal of your comment. > I think a lot of controversy comes from how Dunning and Kruger's paper leads people to interpret the data as hubris on the part of low-performers, and the statistical analysis demolishes that interpretation. Not knowing how well you performed is not the same thing psychologically as "overestimating" your performance. D-K actually found that low performers were less accurate at assessing their skill than high performers, and the article you refer to obviously did not find this effect in random data, so I'm not sure how it was demolished.