3 ms·

Okay I will agree with the "Yes and No". I initially clicked the source in the article, which is a broken link to wikipedia and rolled my eyes at it. After rea

Okay I will agree with the "Yes and No". I initially clicked the source in the article, which is a broken link to wikipedia and rolled my eyes at it. After reading your comment I navigated to it directly and found the first two sentences: The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias that describes the systematic tendency of people with low ability in a specific area to give overly positive assessments of this ability. The term may also describe the tendency of high performers to underestimate their skills. Unsatisfied that this was the authority, I dug up the original paper here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10626367/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10626367/ And sure enough, the emphasis in the abstract is exactly as you say. So while I stand by that the principle behind the "effect" is how confidence and competence evolve over time as someone discovers and masters a domain, I will concede that the original authors, and most people, assign the name for it to primarily the first phase. Here I was thinking the OP Author was DKing about DK, but in reality I was DKing about them DKing about DK.

pdonis 1y ago
> the real "effect" is how confidence and competence evolve over time What research is this based on?
- FloorEgg 1y ago
  Yeah that was poorly worded. I edited it even before I read your comment. However the over-time aspect is kind of self-evident. No one is born a master of any skill or subject. So while the original research was based on a snapshot of many people along a developmental journey, just because the data collection wasn't done over time doesn't mean that the principle behind the effect isn't time/effort based. The graph is really competence vs confidence, but competence can only increase over time. If this isn't self-evident enough, there is lots of research on how mastery is gained. I don't have time to throw a bunch of it at you, but I suspect you won't need me to in order to see my point.
  - pdonis 1y ago
    > the over-time aspect is kind of self-evident It's self-evident that, in order to become a master at anything, you have to pass through increasing levels of competence to get there. It is not at all self-evident, at least not to me, that while a particular person is going through that process, their estimate of their skill vs. their actual competence will be similar to what Dunning and Kruger found when they compared different people's confidence vs. competence at a single time. > just because the data collection wasn't done over time doesn't mean that the principle behind the effect isn't time/effort based. It could be, but a study that only collects data at one point in time can't possibly provide evidence either for or against any such hypothesis. > competence can only increase over time This is simply false. Skills and knowledge that aren't used can deteriorate. People can forget things they used to know. In a much narrower sense, we would hope that if a person is studying a subject with the intent of mastering it, that their competence will only increase over time. But even that's not always true. > there is lots of research on how mastery is gained. I don't have time to throw a bunch of it at you, but I suspect you won't need me to in order to see my point. Sorry, but since, as you can see from the above, I don't agree with several of your key points, you're going to have to back them up with research if you want me to consider them further. If you don't have time for that (which is fine--we're all posting here in our spare time), then we'll just have to disagree.

pdonis 1y ago

> the real "effect" is how confidence and competence evolve over time What research is this based on?

FloorEgg 1y ago
Yeah that was poorly worded. I edited it even before I read your comment. However the over-time aspect is kind of self-evident. No one is born a master of any skill or subject. So while the original research was based on a snapshot of many people along a developmental journey, just because the data collection wasn't done over time doesn't mean that the principle behind the effect isn't time/effort based. The graph is really competence vs confidence, but competence can only increase over time. If this isn't self-evident enough, there is lots of research on how mastery is gained. I don't have time to throw a bunch of it at you, but I suspect you won't need me to in order to see my point.
- pdonis 1y ago
  > the over-time aspect is kind of self-evident It's self-evident that, in order to become a master at anything, you have to pass through increasing levels of competence to get there. It is not at all self-evident, at least not to me, that while a particular person is going through that process, their estimate of their skill vs. their actual competence will be similar to what Dunning and Kruger found when they compared different people's confidence vs. competence at a single time. > just because the data collection wasn't done over time doesn't mean that the principle behind the effect isn't time/effort based. It could be, but a study that only collects data at one point in time can't possibly provide evidence either for or against any such hypothesis. > competence can only increase over time This is simply false. Skills and knowledge that aren't used can deteriorate. People can forget things they used to know. In a much narrower sense, we would hope that if a person is studying a subject with the intent of mastering it, that their competence will only increase over time. But even that's not always true. > there is lots of research on how mastery is gained. I don't have time to throw a bunch of it at you, but I suspect you won't need me to in order to see my point. Sorry, but since, as you can see from the above, I don't agree with several of your key points, you're going to have to back them up with research if you want me to consider them further. If you don't have time for that (which is fine--we're all posting here in our spare time), then we'll just have to disagree.