4 ms·
You can't call out a percentage of people you plucked from thin air on not understanding something, then qualify your understanding as your own interpretation.
by 0xEF 3y ago
You can't call out a percentage of people you plucked from thin air on not understanding something, then qualify your understanding as your own interpretation.
Are you aware that your whole post just said "Nobody understands the version of this thing in my head?" This us a studied thing. You need sources and conclusions drawn from them, not your own speculation (not that it was horribly off the mark, but come on, man)
- kevmo314 3y agoSure they can, it's called a joke.
- 0xEF 3y agoOh my god. I'll see myself out.
- NeoTar 3y agoFair point - I just didn't want to make a post saying '95% of people get this wrong, but I'm not going to tell you how!' - the message is presenting, in my own simplified form, what I understand is the popular understanding of Dunning Kurger, versus how I understand the effect manifested in the study. Of course my understanding is also based on some probably misremembered media, combined with a five minute refresher on the Wikipedia page, so it may be equally erronious. Please do you own research.
- forgetfulness 3y agoI await your peer-reviewed study on the Journal of Redditometrics and Hacker Newsodynamics on the relative frequency of people misusing the Dunning Kruger effect. In the meantime, I think I'll stick with my own perception of people misusing the result routinely to mean that stupid people think they're geniuses, because that's all I ever see myself.
- kbelder 3y agoBut he's correct. The original paper demonstrated an effect that has been widely miscommunicated and misinterpreted. The exact percentage of people getting it wrong was plucked out of the air, but that's not the important part of his comment.