4 ms·

I don't understand what point he is trying to make about the Dunning-Kruger effect. The only pop-sci version of the study that I've heard is that the bottom per

by krig 12y ago

I don't understand what point he is trying to make about the Dunning-Kruger effect. The only pop-sci version of the study that I've heard is that the bottom percentile tends to overestimate their abilities while the top percentile tends to underestimate their abilities. The data shown certainly seems to support this interpretation? edit: I read the article linked in another comment below [1] and now I think I understand what claim the original article was referring to. It seems a common misunderstanding of the D-K effect is that the bottom percentile would think that they are as competent or more competent as the top percentile. However, this is not what the study says, the bottom percentile is overestimating their ability but the estimations are still relatively lower than the self-estimations of those with higher ability. [1]: http://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2010/07/07/what-the-dunning-kruger-effect-is-and-isnt/ http://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2010/07/07/what-the-dunning-k...

hasenj 12y ago
When I read pop-sci interpretations of it (which is basically all I've ever read) my impression was that the top percentile estimate themselves as worse than the lower-percentile does. The graphs cited in the article show that the top still estimate themselves better than the lower percentile, which is new to me.
lowbloodsugar 12y ago
From your cited article: "Rather, it’s that incompetent people think they’re much better than they actually are. But they typically still don’t think they’re quite as good as people who, you know, actually are good." Unfortunately, while the incompetent people may believe that they are not quite as good as people who actually are good, the problem is that they are not qualified to identify people who are actually good. From the original paper: "That is, the same incompetence that leads them to make wrong choices also deprives them of the savvy necessary to recognize competence, be it their own or anyone else’s." "As predicted, participants who scored in the bottom quartile were less able to gauge the competence of others than were their top-quartile counterparts." [2] So while the incompetent people may not believe themselves to be experts in general, they are less able to identify that the person sitting next to them is an expert. And further: "Bottom-quartile participants failed to gain insight into their own performance after seeing the more competent choices of their peers. ... [they] tended to raise their already inflated self-estimates." Not only do they fail to identify the expert next to them, but when presented with the expert's answers they will raise the own inflated estimate! Therefore, I believe that in practice, the DK paper does support the belief that less competent people believe themselves to be more competent than experts. [2] Kruger, Justin; Dunning, David (1999). "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

by krig 12y ago

hasenj 12y ago

When I read pop-sci interpretations of it (which is basically all I've ever read) my impression was that the top percentile estimate themselves as worse than the lower-percentile does. The graphs cited in the article show that the top still estimate themselves better than the lower percentile, which is new to me.

lowbloodsugar 12y ago

From your cited article: "Rather, it’s that incompetent people think they’re much better than they actually are. But they typically still don’t think they’re quite as good as people who, you know, actually are good." Unfortunately, while the incompetent people may believe that they are not quite as good as people who actually are good, the problem is that they are not qualified to identify people who are actually good. From the original paper: "That is, the same incompetence that leads them to make wrong choices also deprives them of the savvy necessary to recognize competence, be it their own or anyone else’s." "As predicted, participants who scored in the bottom quartile were less able to gauge the competence of others than were their top-quartile counterparts." [2] So while the incompetent people may not believe themselves to be experts in general, they are less able to identify that the person sitting next to them is an expert. And further: "Bottom-quartile participants failed to gain insight into their own performance after seeing the more competent choices of their peers. ... [they] tended to raise their already inflated self-estimates." Not only do they fail to identify the expert next to them, but when presented with the expert's answers they will raise the own inflated estimate! Therefore, I believe that in practice, the DK paper does support the belief that less competent people believe themselves to be more competent than experts. [2] Kruger, Justin; Dunning, David (1999). "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology