4 ms·

I think one essential question of such issues is that why certain populations are so inclined to believe a specific result. And in case you think I'm talking ab

I think one essential question of such issues is that why certain populations are so inclined to believe a specific result. And in case you think I'm talking about the field of psychology, I'm (edit: also or especially) talking about populations like HN, which consistently finds fault with almost all scientific resesarch (except research which finds fault with other research). Also, a key overlooked result of the original replication paper was that the results of the original studies were reproduced, but had lower power than the original studies reported (and of course the OP calls that conclusion into question).

spacemanmatt 4y ago
Is that one essential question answered by Dunning and Kruger's research? I keep going back to it (and not in a trivial way) because it really does shed so much light on behaviors informed (or not) by learned experience.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  Would you kindly expand on that? What research? What answer does it give? Any links? Thanks.
  - spacemanmatt 4y ago
    Obviously I can only nutshell it here for you. Their research delved into self-estimates of expertise compared with objective measurement of expertise. To an extent, they proved the old lamentation that fools are confident and wise men are cautious. I recommend starting here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
- itsdrewmiller 4y ago
  This is too perfect - that effect also is likely not real: https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/10/12/can-the-dunning-kruger-effect-be-explained-as-a-misunderstanding-of-regression-to-the-mean/ https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/10/12/can-the-du...
  - spacemanmatt 4y ago
    I think that the article you pasted supports my perspective, here. My reference to D&K here is specifically for this conclusion, from your article: "One relevant point, I guess, is that even if the observed effect is entirely a product of regression to the mean, it’s still a meaningful thing to know that people with low abilities in these settings are overestimating their <overstrike>true abilities</overstrike> how well they’ll do." I also think that you have inaccurately characterized the article, which author specifically divorces their self from judgement of "real" and "not real" in the introduction.
Chris2048 4y ago
> populations like HN, which consistently finds fault with almost all scientific research Can you give specific examples? This sounds like a pretty broad generalisation.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  Always a good question and generalizations are dangerous, but IME it's very common here: Look at the top comments regarding almost any research or similar OP here; they almost all find fault.
fullshark 4y ago
What makes you think HN is more susceptible to confirmation bias than any other social media site? Any publisher based on clicks/upvotes/likes etc is a confirmation bias engine for its user base.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  I think there is some miscommunication somewhere between our comments: I did not mean to comment on confirmation bias, I don't see how it's involved (what inherent bias would it be confirming?); I wasn't comparing HN to other sites; I'm not sure what publisher is involved here - HN didn't publish the studies, etc.
  - fullshark 4y ago
    The bias that psychology/social science is not a real science and its findings are mostly bunk. The publisher is HN which is a website/aggregator that publishes a page of links its readership enjoys reading. They promote/uprank the stuff that its readership finds particularly interesting, things like that the entire field of psychology is bunk and its findings are not reproducible. Edit: this a fun twist on that preconceived notion. Not only is it bunk but a study that you thought shows it is bunk is also bunk! It’s bunk all the way down.
    - wolverine876 4y ago
      I see what you mean now, thanks. I guess that leaps over my question: Why is HN so biased toward thinking scholarly research - including science, social science, humanities - is 'bunk'? I don't think it's limited to social science; it happens with all research. I guess that we see social science targeted more because the non-HN, Internet-wide reactionary movement specifically targets social science (presumably because the reactionaries dislike the research results), and therefore the HN population has more fodder and momentum to work with - denigrating social science is more normative than denigrating natural science, there's a social tide that carries you along, which is apparently all that's needed today to make a decision. > Edit: this a fun twist on that preconceived notion. Not only is it bunk but a study that you thought shows it is bunk is also bunk! It’s bunk all the way down. Perhaps you know already, but that is exactly the goal of trolls and more professional propagandists: Disrupt - disrupt all institutions, sources of knowledge, authority, civil society, civil conversation, social trust, etc. It's not to persuade people of their position - like reactionaries, there is no position except 'anti-' whatever is said. Bunk all the way down is exactly what they want people to think. Look at the results with vaccines. Look at the despair people have of everything, of even the notion of progress or change, of even trying to have a civil conversation.

spacemanmatt 4y ago

Is that one essential question answered by Dunning and Kruger's research? I keep going back to it (and not in a trivial way) because it really does shed so much light on behaviors informed (or not) by learned experience.

wolverine876 4y ago
Would you kindly expand on that? What research? What answer does it give? Any links? Thanks.
- spacemanmatt 4y ago
  Obviously I can only nutshell it here for you. Their research delved into self-estimates of expertise compared with objective measurement of expertise. To an extent, they proved the old lamentation that fools are confident and wise men are cautious. I recommend starting here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
itsdrewmiller 4y ago
This is too perfect - that effect also is likely not real: https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/10/12/can-the-dunning-kruger-effect-be-explained-as-a-misunderstanding-of-regression-to-the-mean/ https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/10/12/can-the-du...
- spacemanmatt 4y ago
  I think that the article you pasted supports my perspective, here. My reference to D&K here is specifically for this conclusion, from your article: "One relevant point, I guess, is that even if the observed effect is entirely a product of regression to the mean, it’s still a meaningful thing to know that people with low abilities in these settings are overestimating their <overstrike>true abilities</overstrike> how well they’ll do." I also think that you have inaccurately characterized the article, which author specifically divorces their self from judgement of "real" and "not real" in the introduction.

Chris2048 4y ago

> populations like HN, which consistently finds fault with almost all scientific research Can you give specific examples? This sounds like a pretty broad generalisation.

wolverine876 4y ago
Always a good question and generalizations are dangerous, but IME it's very common here: Look at the top comments regarding almost any research or similar OP here; they almost all find fault.

fullshark 4y ago

What makes you think HN is more susceptible to confirmation bias than any other social media site? Any publisher based on clicks/upvotes/likes etc is a confirmation bias engine for its user base.

wolverine876 4y ago
I think there is some miscommunication somewhere between our comments: I did not mean to comment on confirmation bias, I don't see how it's involved (what inherent bias would it be confirming?); I wasn't comparing HN to other sites; I'm not sure what publisher is involved here - HN didn't publish the studies, etc.
- fullshark 4y ago
  The bias that psychology/social science is not a real science and its findings are mostly bunk. The publisher is HN which is a website/aggregator that publishes a page of links its readership enjoys reading. They promote/uprank the stuff that its readership finds particularly interesting, things like that the entire field of psychology is bunk and its findings are not reproducible. Edit: this a fun twist on that preconceived notion. Not only is it bunk but a study that you thought shows it is bunk is also bunk! It’s bunk all the way down.
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    I see what you mean now, thanks. I guess that leaps over my question: Why is HN so biased toward thinking scholarly research - including science, social science, humanities - is 'bunk'? I don't think it's limited to social science; it happens with all research. I guess that we see social science targeted more because the non-HN, Internet-wide reactionary movement specifically targets social science (presumably because the reactionaries dislike the research results), and therefore the HN population has more fodder and momentum to work with - denigrating social science is more normative than denigrating natural science, there's a social tide that carries you along, which is apparently all that's needed today to make a decision. > Edit: this a fun twist on that preconceived notion. Not only is it bunk but a study that you thought shows it is bunk is also bunk! It’s bunk all the way down. Perhaps you know already, but that is exactly the goal of trolls and more professional propagandists: Disrupt - disrupt all institutions, sources of knowledge, authority, civil society, civil conversation, social trust, etc. It's not to persuade people of their position - like reactionaries, there is no position except 'anti-' whatever is said. Bunk all the way down is exactly what they want people to think. Look at the results with vaccines. Look at the despair people have of everything, of even the notion of progress or change, of even trying to have a civil conversation.