4 ms·

It's not really a citation. "Dunning-Krueger" has become shorthand for people not knowing what they don't know. Kleenex and Xerox sympathize.

by vba616 4y ago

dahart 4y ago
It certainly is a citation. What makes you say that referring to a specific paper via the name of the authors isn’t citing it? That’s the definition of the word. It’s not a formal academic citation, but it is a citation. I’m well aware of the shorthand, it was the subtitle for the paper (“unskilled and unaware of it”), and that is more or less exactly what I’m talking about, because it’s not generally true. People also tend to claim that excessive confidence signals low competence in the name of DK, which may be implied in the comment above. Both of those concepts are basically incorrect, DK didn’t broadly measure what people know or don’t know, they used 4 narrow tests, one of which was subjective(!). Nor did they measure confidence, and when it comes to normal topics that people get college degrees in, followup research has shown the effect disappears and sometimes reverses [1]. The DK paper essentially measured how well people can guess their rank amongst a small set of peers (Cornell undergrads), which unsurprisingly isn’t perfect because it’s a guess. This is why DK is probably only poor methodology measuring a regression to the mean [1][2], and not uncovering anything interesting about human behavior. [1] https://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2010/07/07/what-the-dunning-kruger-effect-is-and-isnt/ https://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2010/07/07/what-the-dunning-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect#Statistical https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect#Statisti... It’s just better to not mention DK in the first place, it’s not something you can observe on a single speaker outside of a statistical study, and it simply doesn’t apply to all topics and all people, even when one does understand what the paper did show.
- vba616 4y ago
  >It certainly is a citation That, to me, is a statement about someone else's intent.
  - dahart 4y ago
    I have no idea what you mean, would you like to elaborate?
    - vba616 4y ago
      I believe a formal citation (APA style) looks vaguely like this: gonzo41. (2023, March 22). Bard uses a Hacker News comment as source to say that Bard has shut down (By cryptoz). Hacker News. Retrieved March 26, 2023, from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35256223 Sorry if I screwed it up; that is just for the overall look. I'd agree that a citation doesn't have to be formal, but if it isn't, then the meaning of a passing mention of names has to be more inferred from context.
      - dahart 4y ago
        Right, we’re not talking about a formal academic citation, so the format is irrelevant in this context. Why does it matter if the meaning has to be inferred? An informal citation or reference is still a citation or reference to something by speaker intent, and is not defined as such by whether or not the audience understands the reference, right? In any case, citations, references, mentions, and uses of the DK effect are almost always wrong. I’ve seen a lot of them on HN, almost always to imply someone is incompetent, and I’ve yet to see one that’s correct.

It's not really a citation. "Dunning-Krueger" has become shorthand for people not knowing what they don't know. Kleenex and Xerox sympathize.

by vba616 4y ago

It's not really a citation. "Dunning-Krueger" has become shorthand for people not knowing what they don't know. Kleenex and Xerox sympathize.

dahart 4y ago

It certainly is a citation. What makes you say that referring to a specific paper via the name of the authors isn’t citing it? That’s the definition of the word. It’s not a formal academic citation, but it is a citation. I’m well aware of the shorthand, it was the subtitle for the paper (“unskilled and unaware of it”), and that is more or less exactly what I’m talking about, because it’s not generally true. People also tend to claim that excessive confidence signals low competence in the name of DK, which may be implied in the comment above. Both of those concepts are basically incorrect, DK didn’t broadly measure what people know or don’t know, they used 4 narrow tests, one of which was subjective(!). Nor did they measure confidence, and when it comes to normal topics that people get college degrees in, followup research has shown the effect disappears and sometimes reverses [1]. The DK paper essentially measured how well people can guess their rank amongst a small set of peers (Cornell undergrads), which unsurprisingly isn’t perfect because it’s a guess. This is why DK is probably only poor methodology measuring a regression to the mean [1][2], and not uncovering anything interesting about human behavior. [1] https://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2010/07/07/what-the-dunning-kruger-effect-is-and-isnt/ https://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2010/07/07/what-the-dunning-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect#Statistical https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect#Statisti... It’s just better to not mention DK in the first place, it’s not something you can observe on a single speaker outside of a statistical study, and it simply doesn’t apply to all topics and all people, even when one does understand what the paper did show.

vba616 4y ago
>It certainly is a citation That, to me, is a statement about someone else's intent.
- dahart 4y ago
  I have no idea what you mean, would you like to elaborate?
  - vba616 4y ago
    I believe a formal citation (APA style) looks vaguely like this: gonzo41. (2023, March 22). Bard uses a Hacker News comment as source to say that Bard has shut down (By cryptoz). Hacker News. Retrieved March 26, 2023, from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35256223 Sorry if I screwed it up; that is just for the overall look. I'd agree that a citation doesn't have to be formal, but if it isn't, then the meaning of a passing mention of names has to be more inferred from context.
    - dahart 4y ago
      Right, we’re not talking about a formal academic citation, so the format is irrelevant in this context. Why does it matter if the meaning has to be inferred? An informal citation or reference is still a citation or reference to something by speaker intent, and is not defined as such by whether or not the audience understands the reference, right? In any case, citations, references, mentions, and uses of the DK effect are almost always wrong. I’ve seen a lot of them on HN, almost always to imply someone is incompetent, and I’ve yet to see one that’s correct.