What the Dunning-Kruger effect is and isn’t (2010)(talyarkoni.org)
talyarkoni.org
What the Dunning-Kruger effect is and isn’t (2010)
http://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2010/07/07/What-the-Dunning-Kruger-effect-Is-and-Isnt/
101 comments
Doesn't seem to be any discussion of Nuhfer's findings, which showed that you could recreate the effect with just random data. The bias comes from the process of manipulating normalized data: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/numeracy/vol10/iss1/art4/
The abstract mentions women self-assess more accurately than men. As a man and thinking about my own mindset with self assessment, I wonder if the definition of “self-assessment” itself might differ between men and women on average. For myself, if you ask me to do a task in a discipline I know little about, I might assess myself as being capable of doing so even without the prior experience, because I figure “I can figure it out reasonably well on the fly”.
This is a convoluted way of saying men may just be overconfident, but importantly not because we assume we k ow everything, but because we are more confident we can learn it even if we don’t know it.
Maybe me writing all this while self-assessing myself is yet more male self-assessment hubris...
This is a convoluted way of saying men may just be overconfident, but importantly not because we assume we k ow everything, but because we are more confident we can learn it even if we don’t know it.
Maybe me writing all this while self-assessing myself is yet more male self-assessment hubris...
I don't know how they conducted the experiment, but they mention something about a science assessment. If you ask about math and science, men are going to believe they're more competent than they actually are because they've been socialized to believe they're better at it.
If they asked about cooking or cleaning, you'd probably get the opposite reaction.
Of course men aren't inherently better at math nor are women better at cleaning. It's just that we socialize them to think they are.
If they asked about cooking or cleaning, you'd probably get the opposite reaction.
Of course men aren't inherently better at math nor are women better at cleaning. It's just that we socialize them to think they are.
> men are going to believe they're more competent ... because they've been socialized to believe they're better at it.
That's one of the central dogmatic feminist talking points that are just spouted off uncritically, along with other things men are supposedly socialised for, like wage negotiation and preferences for violence, taking up space and technical subject matter. Included is the starting position that women and men are the same and if women are perceived to be behind, it's because something was done to them irrespective of their own agency and accountability as individuals and adults. It's a conspiracy theory, and an infantilising one at that.
In social sciences, this becomes social and/or (modern) historical determinism, leaning heavily towards assuming everything's a construct and caused by historical precedent, ignoring biology (other animals, hormones, sexual attraction, evolution), long-term history and global invariability of gender roles. Sure, that's a feel good narrative, but is it a rational stance supported by evidence?
> If they asked about cooking or cleaning, you'd probably get the opposite reaction.
If this is about socialisation, the simpler explanation is that men are socialised to project confidence, because that's what romantically/sexually rewarded. The link towards granular, per-topic confidence is more tenuous and requires you accept a lot of feminist baggage at face value or provide an alternate explanation.
> Of course men aren't inherently better at math nor are women better at cleaning.
No, but perhaps they are more interested in maths by virtue of the topic itself, or due to ancillary effects like future status and wages, like women are more interested in nesting than men. Similarly, men are generally more drawn to the concepts of service and duty than women are, which is why vastly more men work logistics, manufacturing, law enforcement, fire departments and the military.
Personally, I find feminist axioms to be a very poor predictor of reality because they fail to account for mating strategies, personal choice, responsibility and preference - which is ironic for a movement that was initially about women's choices in the reproductive sphere.
That's one of the central dogmatic feminist talking points that are just spouted off uncritically, along with other things men are supposedly socialised for, like wage negotiation and preferences for violence, taking up space and technical subject matter. Included is the starting position that women and men are the same and if women are perceived to be behind, it's because something was done to them irrespective of their own agency and accountability as individuals and adults. It's a conspiracy theory, and an infantilising one at that.
In social sciences, this becomes social and/or (modern) historical determinism, leaning heavily towards assuming everything's a construct and caused by historical precedent, ignoring biology (other animals, hormones, sexual attraction, evolution), long-term history and global invariability of gender roles. Sure, that's a feel good narrative, but is it a rational stance supported by evidence?
> If they asked about cooking or cleaning, you'd probably get the opposite reaction.
If this is about socialisation, the simpler explanation is that men are socialised to project confidence, because that's what romantically/sexually rewarded. The link towards granular, per-topic confidence is more tenuous and requires you accept a lot of feminist baggage at face value or provide an alternate explanation.
> Of course men aren't inherently better at math nor are women better at cleaning.
No, but perhaps they are more interested in maths by virtue of the topic itself, or due to ancillary effects like future status and wages, like women are more interested in nesting than men. Similarly, men are generally more drawn to the concepts of service and duty than women are, which is why vastly more men work logistics, manufacturing, law enforcement, fire departments and the military.
Personally, I find feminist axioms to be a very poor predictor of reality because they fail to account for mating strategies, personal choice, responsibility and preference - which is ironic for a movement that was initially about women's choices in the reproductive sphere.
The issue at hand is that working women make considerably less money overall than working men. This is due to any number of factors including sexism, social effects, and the necessity of being present at, key, moments of the child rearing process. In the current iteration of our capitalist system it's required for nearly everyone to work, especially in the lower classes. Women have all the same needs that men have, and they have to cope in a society that, for many reasons, pays them 30% less.
Identifying those factors and working to minimize or eliminate their affect is a noble goal. But there are some factors that can't be eliminated, and we wouldn't want to live in a world where they were.
Feminists are right that there is a problem, this is a demonstrably unfair society. It doesn't matter what the reason is as much as it matters what the solution is. People spend a huge amount of time arguing about the problem, who's fault is it, what factors come into play.
I don't want to live in a world where women are men. Where they can't take time to start a family and properly care for their children, because keeping the money flowing is a more immediate need.
I want to live in a world where you can't just take time off to raise a child, but also to do art, or to travel, or to simply be a human who exists outside their office.
TLDR: Why matters very little, the income gap exists and we should fix it.
Identifying those factors and working to minimize or eliminate their affect is a noble goal. But there are some factors that can't be eliminated, and we wouldn't want to live in a world where they were.
Feminists are right that there is a problem, this is a demonstrably unfair society. It doesn't matter what the reason is as much as it matters what the solution is. People spend a huge amount of time arguing about the problem, who's fault is it, what factors come into play.
I don't want to live in a world where women are men. Where they can't take time to start a family and properly care for their children, because keeping the money flowing is a more immediate need.
I want to live in a world where you can't just take time off to raise a child, but also to do art, or to travel, or to simply be a human who exists outside their office.
TLDR: Why matters very little, the income gap exists and we should fix it.
> The issue at hand is that working women make considerably less money overall than working men
When people tout the "30% less" statistic, it often refers to lifelong earnings, not hourly wage, in a study that didn't control for experience, sector, location or education.
It's 18% less when just comparing median wages. When controlled for the same job and qualifications, women earn 98 cents on the dollar (0). Women (as a group) work more part-time and in less profitable sectors like education, NGOs, government and nursing. They are less interested in high-profile and/or high status roles. Again, it feels good to say that women earn less due to discrimination and less so when it's because of their own choices.
You could argue (and I would agree) that some professions should be paid more. I think Covid has shown all of us which professions provide actual value, amongst whom definitely nursing and teaching.
> Women have all the same needs that men have
Women have the same basic needs, but there are differences in preferences, needs unique to women, needs unique to men and gender-specific dreams/wants that aren't needs.
> the necessity of being present at, key, moments of the child rearing process
Sure, but there is also a greater preference towards staying at home and having the man provide. It's simplistic to say "women are being forced" or "men aren't taking up their fair share" - this is a multivariate analysis. Specifically when it comes to a family, two thirds of the divorces are initiated by women. So not only are women staying home more often, they are choosing not to have a man be there at all. That might be for legitimate reasons, or it might not - but a divorce will impact your life balance.
> Feminists are right that there is a problem, this is a demonstrably unfair society
The problem, according to modern feminism, is different outcomes. As I see it, that's not a problem as long as opportunity is equal. Where women earn less on average per annum, they also have almost none of the workplace related deaths, lower suicide rates, homelessness, depression, incidence of burnouts, etc. In the younger generation, women outperform men both in wages and education. To me, it's not so clear if there is a better deal, and if so who has it.
> It doesn't matter what the reason is
I couldn't disagree more. If the claim is the problem lies with men or "the patriarchy", then the onus is on the claimant to prove that position, starting with a solid definition and falsifiable demonstration of patriarchy. That said, if you don't understand the reason for your outcome, you're powerless to change it. In a very concrete sense, you won't know what policy to implement when you topple the status quo and get to power. Among third wave feminists, I'm not hearing about how women architect their own fates and the importance of choices. I do among second wave feminists.
Would you say "it doesn't matter what the reason is" if all your relationships are short-lived, if you keep getting fired or if you keep failing your driving exam?
> this is a demonstrably unfair society
Yes, because of unequal access to money and genetics. Therefore there are class issues first and foremost, some sexism, some racism and the other forms of discrimination. To claim all (or even most) of women's problems are due to sexism, systemic or not, is a reductio ad absurdum.
> I don't want to live in a world where women are men. Where they can't take time to start a family and properly care for their children, because keeping the money flowing is a more immediate need.
Neither do I. But if that's what you want, you can't be opposed to earning less, either. Those are the consequences of your choices. Child rearing is unpaid, unless you're nannying as a service.
> I want to live in a world where you can't just take time off to raise a child, but also to do art, or to travel, or to simply be a human who exists outside their office.
Going out on a limb, I'm going to assume you mean where you can take time off. I'm fully with you there. That comes with a trade-off: you're going to be less "successful" in the conventional, square, monetary sense. You're sacrificing compensation for added fulfillment. That might entail any of: being less resistant to economic downturns, a smaller house, less of a pension, no or fewer kids, less social credit, fewer available/compatible dating partners, more limited career chocies, etc. It might also mean more laughing wrinkles, good moments, average happiness, life expectancy, better relationships, and so on.
That's why I said modern feminism is infantilising: it refuses to acknowledge that life is a struggle, filled with compromise and sacrifice. It's the Disney princess that won't grow up and the college kid that won't stop shouting from the barricades long enough to get on with writing their final dissertation. You have to pick and choose, mostly because no one owes you a damn thing. That is, until we've achieved fully automated luxury space communism à la Roddenberry. We don't live in a post-scarcity world yet by any stretch of the imagination.
> as much as it matters what the solution is
TL;DR: If the cause/reason is unimportant and the solution is key, what do you think is/are some good next step(s)?
[0] https://www.payscale.com/data/gender-pay-gap
When people tout the "30% less" statistic, it often refers to lifelong earnings, not hourly wage, in a study that didn't control for experience, sector, location or education.
It's 18% less when just comparing median wages. When controlled for the same job and qualifications, women earn 98 cents on the dollar (0). Women (as a group) work more part-time and in less profitable sectors like education, NGOs, government and nursing. They are less interested in high-profile and/or high status roles. Again, it feels good to say that women earn less due to discrimination and less so when it's because of their own choices.
You could argue (and I would agree) that some professions should be paid more. I think Covid has shown all of us which professions provide actual value, amongst whom definitely nursing and teaching.
> Women have all the same needs that men have
Women have the same basic needs, but there are differences in preferences, needs unique to women, needs unique to men and gender-specific dreams/wants that aren't needs.
> the necessity of being present at, key, moments of the child rearing process
Sure, but there is also a greater preference towards staying at home and having the man provide. It's simplistic to say "women are being forced" or "men aren't taking up their fair share" - this is a multivariate analysis. Specifically when it comes to a family, two thirds of the divorces are initiated by women. So not only are women staying home more often, they are choosing not to have a man be there at all. That might be for legitimate reasons, or it might not - but a divorce will impact your life balance.
> Feminists are right that there is a problem, this is a demonstrably unfair society
The problem, according to modern feminism, is different outcomes. As I see it, that's not a problem as long as opportunity is equal. Where women earn less on average per annum, they also have almost none of the workplace related deaths, lower suicide rates, homelessness, depression, incidence of burnouts, etc. In the younger generation, women outperform men both in wages and education. To me, it's not so clear if there is a better deal, and if so who has it.
> It doesn't matter what the reason is
I couldn't disagree more. If the claim is the problem lies with men or "the patriarchy", then the onus is on the claimant to prove that position, starting with a solid definition and falsifiable demonstration of patriarchy. That said, if you don't understand the reason for your outcome, you're powerless to change it. In a very concrete sense, you won't know what policy to implement when you topple the status quo and get to power. Among third wave feminists, I'm not hearing about how women architect their own fates and the importance of choices. I do among second wave feminists.
Would you say "it doesn't matter what the reason is" if all your relationships are short-lived, if you keep getting fired or if you keep failing your driving exam?
> this is a demonstrably unfair society
Yes, because of unequal access to money and genetics. Therefore there are class issues first and foremost, some sexism, some racism and the other forms of discrimination. To claim all (or even most) of women's problems are due to sexism, systemic or not, is a reductio ad absurdum.
> I don't want to live in a world where women are men. Where they can't take time to start a family and properly care for their children, because keeping the money flowing is a more immediate need.
Neither do I. But if that's what you want, you can't be opposed to earning less, either. Those are the consequences of your choices. Child rearing is unpaid, unless you're nannying as a service.
> I want to live in a world where you can't just take time off to raise a child, but also to do art, or to travel, or to simply be a human who exists outside their office.
Going out on a limb, I'm going to assume you mean where you can take time off. I'm fully with you there. That comes with a trade-off: you're going to be less "successful" in the conventional, square, monetary sense. You're sacrificing compensation for added fulfillment. That might entail any of: being less resistant to economic downturns, a smaller house, less of a pension, no or fewer kids, less social credit, fewer available/compatible dating partners, more limited career chocies, etc. It might also mean more laughing wrinkles, good moments, average happiness, life expectancy, better relationships, and so on.
That's why I said modern feminism is infantilising: it refuses to acknowledge that life is a struggle, filled with compromise and sacrifice. It's the Disney princess that won't grow up and the college kid that won't stop shouting from the barricades long enough to get on with writing their final dissertation. You have to pick and choose, mostly because no one owes you a damn thing. That is, until we've achieved fully automated luxury space communism à la Roddenberry. We don't live in a post-scarcity world yet by any stretch of the imagination.
> as much as it matters what the solution is
TL;DR: If the cause/reason is unimportant and the solution is key, what do you think is/are some good next step(s)?
[0] https://www.payscale.com/data/gender-pay-gap
I understand that women tend to make choices that cause them to earn less money. However, as a society, we benefit hugely from people making these choices for which we do not properly compensate them to the tune of $1.2 billion a year.
> For 2018 (the most recent data available), the dollar value of women’s unpaid work in the U.S. was equal to 86% of all the economic activity recorded in the state of New York. In other years—say, the late 1990s and late 2000s—the value of women’s unpaid work even surpassed New York state GDP. And keep in mind this value is at the low end of the possible range because we use the federal minimum wage and not, for example, higher state minimum wages let alone market wages that correspond to the specific work being done.
> The UNDP Women and Development Report of 1995 conducted a time-use study that analyzed the amount of time women and men spend on paid and unpaid household and community work in thirty-one countries across the world, including countries classified as 'industrial, 'developing' and 'transition economies.'[12] They found that in almost every country studied women worked longer hours than men but received fewer economic rewards. The study found that in both the 'developing' and 'industrialized world', men received the "lion's share of income and recognition" for their economic inputs, while women's work remained "unpaid, unrecognized, and undervalued."[12]
The fact that we don't pay as much for the things women tend to do is the problem. We've created a world where if you choose to spend your life sitting in a cubicle, you can support yourself. But if you spend your life caring for the people around you, you cannot, your labor still has value, it's simply not compensated. This is a really bad incentive scheme. We want parents to spend time with their children, not just because children with present parents perform better, but because of course we do. We want smart, capable people to become social workers and teachers and pediatricians without sabotaging their finances. To put another way, the world would be made worse, if 20% of the people who are currently working in their homes, decided to become software engineers instead. The world would become better if 20% of software engineers decided they'd rather contribute to their homes and communities.
https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2020/03/calculating-the-valu... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unpaid_work#Gender_and_unpaid_...
> For 2018 (the most recent data available), the dollar value of women’s unpaid work in the U.S. was equal to 86% of all the economic activity recorded in the state of New York. In other years—say, the late 1990s and late 2000s—the value of women’s unpaid work even surpassed New York state GDP. And keep in mind this value is at the low end of the possible range because we use the federal minimum wage and not, for example, higher state minimum wages let alone market wages that correspond to the specific work being done.
> The UNDP Women and Development Report of 1995 conducted a time-use study that analyzed the amount of time women and men spend on paid and unpaid household and community work in thirty-one countries across the world, including countries classified as 'industrial, 'developing' and 'transition economies.'[12] They found that in almost every country studied women worked longer hours than men but received fewer economic rewards. The study found that in both the 'developing' and 'industrialized world', men received the "lion's share of income and recognition" for their economic inputs, while women's work remained "unpaid, unrecognized, and undervalued."[12]
The fact that we don't pay as much for the things women tend to do is the problem. We've created a world where if you choose to spend your life sitting in a cubicle, you can support yourself. But if you spend your life caring for the people around you, you cannot, your labor still has value, it's simply not compensated. This is a really bad incentive scheme. We want parents to spend time with their children, not just because children with present parents perform better, but because of course we do. We want smart, capable people to become social workers and teachers and pediatricians without sabotaging their finances. To put another way, the world would be made worse, if 20% of the people who are currently working in their homes, decided to become software engineers instead. The world would become better if 20% of software engineers decided they'd rather contribute to their homes and communities.
https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2020/03/calculating-the-valu... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unpaid_work#Gender_and_unpaid_...
I was talking about compensation in a professional capacity in the West. In that context, women are very much not paid unequally. Sectors compensate differently, but that's true for women and men. If you want to pivot to unpaid labour: sure, I'll go along.
> But if you spend your life caring for the people around you, you cannot, your labor still has value, it's simply not compensated. This is a really bad incentive scheme.
That's true, but that goes for any type of activity in the trade economy, whether you're raising kids, doing the shopping for someone, building their shed, teaching them to drive, troubleshooting their devices, fixing their flat tire, etc. That incentive scheme is evidence of a mercantilist attitude in society: social capital is just not valued in monetary terms.
Calling it sexism is reductive, because there are a lot of things men do for free, too. That's also my problem with your first link, which didn't examine men's unpaid labour at all as far as I could tell. I'm unable to tell what the picture looks like on balance.
> We want smart, capable people to become social workers and teachers and pediatricians without sabotaging their finances.
Public sector jobs will always be subject to government budget whims, "cost saving" initiatives and the like. What's needed there isn't feminism but collective bargaining and lobbying. It's also worth remembering that the rest of the West isn't like the US: in Europe, teachers can make median income or above.
As to pediatricians: I see no evidence of them being paid badly across the West. In fact, here in Belgium gynaecologists make more than ER doctors, and pediatricians make more than neurologists and oncologists, but less than ER doctors.
Sadly, the recurring theme everywhere seems to be nursing, which is just undervalued, micro-managed and thankless in general. Nurses can generally get somewhat better wages when they get some extra certificates. Of all examples I know, this one is the most suspiciously low across the board. Then again, I don't think it would be considered less menial or low-status if men did most of it.
> We want parents to spend time with their children, not just because children with present parents perform better, but because of course we do.
When a woman stays at home taking care of the kids, does she not enjoy the same lifestyle as the man? How is that not being compensated? When they get divorced, is she not entitled to half the money and how is that not getting paid? Is she not entitled to child support? Women aren't being disadvantaged simply because they don't get a payslip every month. Now that definitely isn't true everywhere else yet, so globally there's an argument for change towards our current status quo. That also seems to be what your second link is referring to: there is more yet to be done in the Middle East and beyond.
If you think parenting for free (as a couple) is unfair, what would be fairer? Parents already get tax cuts and benefits by virtue of having kids, so there's already a wealth transfer going on from childless people to parents. What would you do instead/additionally? In concrete terms: who should be paying what? I'm not asking for an exact solution, but would like to know what principles or policy levers you're thinking of.
> To put another way, the world would be made worse, if 20% of the people who are currently working in their homes, decided to become software engineers instead.
I agree on that too, but that is also not evidence of sexism but of a machinistic, homo economicus kind of collective philosophy. It's admirable to dream of and take action in order to create a better world, but I'm not sure how we'd get there, in terms of re-evaluating what's fundamentally important. Perhaps restructuring money creation itself (pivoting from loan-based to UBI based) would get us there, but I don't think that movement is anywhere near critical mass.
> The world would become better if 20% of software engineers decided they'd rather contribute to their homes and communities.
The assumption being that they don't, right? There's more to it than raising kids. Let's also please not pretend like men do none of that, or that being a stay at home parent is a full-time job at all kids' ages. I mean: do professional women not contribute to their homes and communities?
> But if you spend your life caring for the people around you, you cannot, your labor still has value, it's simply not compensated. This is a really bad incentive scheme.
That's true, but that goes for any type of activity in the trade economy, whether you're raising kids, doing the shopping for someone, building their shed, teaching them to drive, troubleshooting their devices, fixing their flat tire, etc. That incentive scheme is evidence of a mercantilist attitude in society: social capital is just not valued in monetary terms.
Calling it sexism is reductive, because there are a lot of things men do for free, too. That's also my problem with your first link, which didn't examine men's unpaid labour at all as far as I could tell. I'm unable to tell what the picture looks like on balance.
> We want smart, capable people to become social workers and teachers and pediatricians without sabotaging their finances.
Public sector jobs will always be subject to government budget whims, "cost saving" initiatives and the like. What's needed there isn't feminism but collective bargaining and lobbying. It's also worth remembering that the rest of the West isn't like the US: in Europe, teachers can make median income or above.
As to pediatricians: I see no evidence of them being paid badly across the West. In fact, here in Belgium gynaecologists make more than ER doctors, and pediatricians make more than neurologists and oncologists, but less than ER doctors.
Sadly, the recurring theme everywhere seems to be nursing, which is just undervalued, micro-managed and thankless in general. Nurses can generally get somewhat better wages when they get some extra certificates. Of all examples I know, this one is the most suspiciously low across the board. Then again, I don't think it would be considered less menial or low-status if men did most of it.
> We want parents to spend time with their children, not just because children with present parents perform better, but because of course we do.
When a woman stays at home taking care of the kids, does she not enjoy the same lifestyle as the man? How is that not being compensated? When they get divorced, is she not entitled to half the money and how is that not getting paid? Is she not entitled to child support? Women aren't being disadvantaged simply because they don't get a payslip every month. Now that definitely isn't true everywhere else yet, so globally there's an argument for change towards our current status quo. That also seems to be what your second link is referring to: there is more yet to be done in the Middle East and beyond.
If you think parenting for free (as a couple) is unfair, what would be fairer? Parents already get tax cuts and benefits by virtue of having kids, so there's already a wealth transfer going on from childless people to parents. What would you do instead/additionally? In concrete terms: who should be paying what? I'm not asking for an exact solution, but would like to know what principles or policy levers you're thinking of.
> To put another way, the world would be made worse, if 20% of the people who are currently working in their homes, decided to become software engineers instead.
I agree on that too, but that is also not evidence of sexism but of a machinistic, homo economicus kind of collective philosophy. It's admirable to dream of and take action in order to create a better world, but I'm not sure how we'd get there, in terms of re-evaluating what's fundamentally important. Perhaps restructuring money creation itself (pivoting from loan-based to UBI based) would get us there, but I don't think that movement is anywhere near critical mass.
> The world would become better if 20% of software engineers decided they'd rather contribute to their homes and communities.
The assumption being that they don't, right? There's more to it than raising kids. Let's also please not pretend like men do none of that, or that being a stay at home parent is a full-time job at all kids' ages. I mean: do professional women not contribute to their homes and communities?
No, it is not different definition. Women think they can learn things too. However, if you ask them how good they are in something or whether they already know it, they are more likely to provide accurate answer.
Also true story: if I am solving a problem and ask dude whether he knows the solution, he says yes I do, takes away my keyboard, starts googling and then refuses to return keyboard back, it is serious wtf annoying.
Also, people react different to overconfidence from woman - in my repeated experience, if woman claims she can do something technical she then starts figuring it on the fly, she will be butt of jokes. I mean, I cant figure technical stuff out on the fly in presence of some people, cause they will seriously mess into it.
Also true story: if I am solving a problem and ask dude whether he knows the solution, he says yes I do, takes away my keyboard, starts googling and then refuses to return keyboard back, it is serious wtf annoying.
Also, people react different to overconfidence from woman - in my repeated experience, if woman claims she can do something technical she then starts figuring it on the fly, she will be butt of jokes. I mean, I cant figure technical stuff out on the fly in presence of some people, cause they will seriously mess into it.
As a man I did the take away keyboard thing many times in the past. In SOME of the instances the people asked for help were incompetent. Regardless, I think a better approach should be spending time helping them do it themselves instead.
In that particular situation, saying "no I don't know" would be only acceptable behavior, imo.
If I am asking for my keyboard back, I should not have to physicality touch or fight you to get it back. Regardless of what you think about me.
If I am asking for my keyboard back, I should not have to physicality touch or fight you to get it back. Regardless of what you think about me.
We're all just really smart monkeys here, and communication is complicated. "He's always trying to fix things when I just want to talk" is this same interaction just in a home context. Same communication error. There's a gap, you're saying "Do you know, at this moment, how to do this" to which the answer is clearly no. However, men are hearing "Can you solve this problem for me". Giving you back the keyboard means admitting that I failed to fix it.
EDIT: In my head, I feel like you've given up on the idea that I can help you, and you're probably going to go find someone smarter and more competent than me. In this context, a guy who doesn't want to give the keyboard back is afraid of admitting failure.
EDIT: In my head, I feel like you've given up on the idea that I can help you, and you're probably going to go find someone smarter and more competent than me. In this context, a guy who doesn't want to give the keyboard back is afraid of admitting failure.
It is absolutely not and I hate that phrase. If I ask whether you know something, I am not trying to "just talk". If you know the answer, I am asking for it.
If you don't know answer, the normal response is no. I don't want you to highjack my computer and completely prevent me from working. That is ridiculous. And it is not solution either - it is literally preventing me to solve it.
> However, men are hearing "Can you solve this problem for me". Giving you back the keyboard means admitting that I failed to fix it.
Then men should fcking learn how to parse human language. Because based on this, betweem them not being able to interpret direct speech and then supposedly being unable to interpret hints, there is not much space. How exactly am I supposed to communicate? And none of this is believable, because above interaction rarely happens against other men.
The whole "he is trying to fix it while women just want to talk" is insulting in situation when he is preventing me to solve thing, when he is not solving anything and I was not chatty at all.
If you don't know answer, the normal response is no. I don't want you to highjack my computer and completely prevent me from working. That is ridiculous. And it is not solution either - it is literally preventing me to solve it.
> However, men are hearing "Can you solve this problem for me". Giving you back the keyboard means admitting that I failed to fix it.
Then men should fcking learn how to parse human language. Because based on this, betweem them not being able to interpret direct speech and then supposedly being unable to interpret hints, there is not much space. How exactly am I supposed to communicate? And none of this is believable, because above interaction rarely happens against other men.
The whole "he is trying to fix it while women just want to talk" is insulting in situation when he is preventing me to solve thing, when he is not solving anything and I was not chatty at all.
Agree that phrase paints a stereotypical image of men as problem solvers and women as... talkers?
I guess the way I interpreted it wasn't "can you do this?". It's more like "we need this problem solved, and I already gave a try". Again that was younger me, these days I would just kinda query their approach instead.
It was long ago so I don't really remember if the phrasing was "do you know..." or not, but yeah now I agree that just give people direct answers and maybe an open offer like "do you need another set of eyes?" or just leave them alone.
It was long ago so I don't really remember if the phrasing was "do you know..." or not, but yeah now I agree that just give people direct answers and maybe an open offer like "do you need another set of eyes?" or just leave them alone.
The problem in the middle can also be explained by him treating your question as rhetorical instead of as an actual question
No offense, but this mostly just reads as very sexist.
>...we are more confident we can learn it even if we don’t know it.
I’m confident women can learn things they aren’t familiar with, and as quickly as a man can. Your whole comment reeks of bias, actually.
>...we are more confident we can learn it even if we don’t know it.
I’m confident women can learn things they aren’t familiar with, and as quickly as a man can. Your whole comment reeks of bias, actually.
Read it again. The comment you are mindlessly bashing is talking about men having more confidence in the ability to learn on the fly, not having more ability to learn on the fly.
I’m not mindlessly bashing anything, I’m speaking up about mindless sexism. You should read it again from the perspective that men and and women are equal, and that “men having more confidence” is a damaging psychology to have (sexist).
> from the perspective that men and and women are equal
Do you mean "identical"?
I wonder what makes you think that men and women would function precisely the same? (Apart from physical things)
People can be different, but still be equal (as in equality)
Do you mean "identical"?
I wonder what makes you think that men and women would function precisely the same? (Apart from physical things)
People can be different, but still be equal (as in equality)
He didn’t say they can’t learn things, he said they are less confident. He actually used the word “hubris” while describing men. Stop making it into sexism, it’s the opposite if anything.
How is it the opposite? His claim is that women lack confidence, something I’m confident is false. Even giving the benefit of the doubt - that men are simply “more confident” - is sexist and frankly untrue, which is what I said originally. It’s people like you, and him, that make it difficult for women to with these damaging, blanket assumptions that you just take to be true.
> Doesn't seem to be any discussion of Nuhfer's findings . . .
That's an interesting result, but I think it would be pretty surprising if your link was discussed since your link is from 2017 and the post is from 2010 and doesn't appear to have a recent update.
That's an interesting result, but I think it would be pretty surprising if your link was discussed since your link is from 2017 and the post is from 2010 and doesn't appear to have a recent update.
That explains it.
This sounds like a confirmation.
"Our results further confirm that experts are more proficient in self-assessing their abilities than novices and that women, in general, self-assess more accurately than men. The validity of interpretations of data depends strongly upon how carefully the researchers consider the numeracy that underlies graphical presentations and conclusions. Our results indicate that carefully measured self-assessments provide valid, measurable and valuable information about proficiency"
"Our results further confirm that experts are more proficient in self-assessing their abilities than novices and that women, in general, self-assess more accurately than men. The validity of interpretations of data depends strongly upon how carefully the researchers consider the numeracy that underlies graphical presentations and conclusions. Our results indicate that carefully measured self-assessments provide valid, measurable and valuable information about proficiency"
No, it's not a confirmation. Experts have a tighter distribution of self-assessment - when they miss, they miss by less. However, non-experts and experts alike overrate and underrate their competency with about equal frequency.
Because of ceiling and floor effects (it's hard to massively underrate yourself when you're already in the bottom decile of actual competency, and vice versa), non-experts have a mean self-assessment higher than their actual competency, but that doesn't mean that non-experts as a group tend to overrate themselves.
Because of ceiling and floor effects (it's hard to massively underrate yourself when you're already in the bottom decile of actual competency, and vice versa), non-experts have a mean self-assessment higher than their actual competency, but that doesn't mean that non-experts as a group tend to overrate themselves.
> non-experts have a mean self-assessment higher than their actual competency, but that doesn't mean that non-experts as a group tend to overrate themselves.
Doesn't it mean exactly that? It doesn't matter if it's caused by ceiling and floor effects, the end result is that the less competent tend to overrate themselves.
Doesn't it mean exactly that? It doesn't matter if it's caused by ceiling and floor effects, the end result is that the less competent tend to overrate themselves.
Confirmation would be if they found that those who were less competent tended to overestimate their abilities when compared to those who were more competent. They found that this was not true. Instead, they found that people tend to overestimate their abilities with the same likelihood as when underestimating.
That's not quite true, the article's section on regression to the mean[1] largely covers the same territory as Nuhfer's article (although Nuhfer never uses that precise phrase).
Random noise is a primary reason that we see regression to the mean in most contexts (the exception being actual deterministic factors, such as seasonality, the restoring force of a spring, etc.)
The chain of reasoning goes like:
Random noise is a primary reason that we see regression to the mean in most contexts (the exception being actual deterministic factors, such as seasonality, the restoring force of a spring, etc.)
The chain of reasoning goes like:
Random noise (Nuhfer)
-> can cause regression to mean (covered in the article)
-> calls into question the Dunning-Kruger effect
Presumably because the post is from 2010, and Nuhfer's article is from 2017.
It makes it the Dunning-Kruger paradox, which would force a lot of people to eat a lot of crow.
An explanation I am not seeing: People may self-report opinions of their own performance that they feel are socially acceptable or socially protective of themselves. So it reverts to the mean because it remains within The Overton Window so to speak.
If your objective performance falls far outside the norm, even if you know it and are confident this is true, people may not accept that fact and trying to insist on getting credit for it won't get you credit. It will get push-back. It will get denial. It may even result in harassment.
If your objective performance is poor, you may be subconsciously hoping to influence the outcome positively. Most forms of assessment aren't entirely objective. To whatever degree you can protect yourself from negative social consequences by suggesting to other people that your performance was within some acceptable and expected norm, it is in your best interest to do so.
People who habitually do this kind of thing at work or in other socially meaningful settings may be unable to turn that habit off for purposes of a psychological study. They may not even be consciously aware of it. It's just a thing they do without really planning it. It's what they have always done.
For easy tasks, it may have the most impact to fudge a little and say "My performance is sort of normal-ish. Nothing to see here. Move along." whether you perform abnormally well or abysmally. Those are tasks most likely to not matter so much, not have high stakes, be easily done by just about anyone and so on.
In other words, if you suck at taking out the trash, probably anyone in the office can gather up the trash and take it out. It's not likely to be a firing offense. They will just have someone else do it who doesn't drop everything everywhere all the time and never bother you about your failure to be good at it.
But if they hired you for your PhD in mathematics, your understanding of complex math actually matters. You aren't readily replaceable. Trying to fudge about how well you understand it and claim greater ability than you have is something people will take great offense at. Being a little modest about it can help you keep your job while reducing expectations.
There can be a lot of benefits to managing the expectations of other people who know you can do something that's hard but don't understand the conditions under which you can pull that off, how much prep time you need, etc. It is actively problematic for everyone to think you can do (amazing thing) anytime and all the time with no lead time and no recovery time. That's a great recipe for burn out and other disasters.
If your objective performance falls far outside the norm, even if you know it and are confident this is true, people may not accept that fact and trying to insist on getting credit for it won't get you credit. It will get push-back. It will get denial. It may even result in harassment.
If your objective performance is poor, you may be subconsciously hoping to influence the outcome positively. Most forms of assessment aren't entirely objective. To whatever degree you can protect yourself from negative social consequences by suggesting to other people that your performance was within some acceptable and expected norm, it is in your best interest to do so.
People who habitually do this kind of thing at work or in other socially meaningful settings may be unable to turn that habit off for purposes of a psychological study. They may not even be consciously aware of it. It's just a thing they do without really planning it. It's what they have always done.
For easy tasks, it may have the most impact to fudge a little and say "My performance is sort of normal-ish. Nothing to see here. Move along." whether you perform abnormally well or abysmally. Those are tasks most likely to not matter so much, not have high stakes, be easily done by just about anyone and so on.
In other words, if you suck at taking out the trash, probably anyone in the office can gather up the trash and take it out. It's not likely to be a firing offense. They will just have someone else do it who doesn't drop everything everywhere all the time and never bother you about your failure to be good at it.
But if they hired you for your PhD in mathematics, your understanding of complex math actually matters. You aren't readily replaceable. Trying to fudge about how well you understand it and claim greater ability than you have is something people will take great offense at. Being a little modest about it can help you keep your job while reducing expectations.
There can be a lot of benefits to managing the expectations of other people who know you can do something that's hard but don't understand the conditions under which you can pull that off, how much prep time you need, etc. It is actively problematic for everyone to think you can do (amazing thing) anytime and all the time with no lead time and no recovery time. That's a great recipe for burn out and other disasters.
I’m a little worried about supplying any explanation because the DK paper didn’t study the general population at all, and nobody who participated was incompetent or lacking meta cognitive skills or representative of any of the other exaggerated terms they used. The participants were all Cornell undergrads volunteering for extra credit. That alone is such a huge red flag on the validity of this study that presumes to make bold claims about general behavior, I honestly can’t understand why this paper has had so much attention or traction. The participants were self-selected, all the same age, all the same socioeconomic bracket (statistically speaking), all needed extra credit in their psych class, all admitted to a prestigious school, and all have been told by their family how smart they are.
> People may self-report opinions of their own performance that they feel are socially acceptable or socially protective of themselves. So it reverts to the mean because it remains within The Overton Window so to speak.
> If your objective performance is poor [...]
The DK paper didn’t study objective performance, it studied perceived performance. They didn’t exactly have participants opine on their own performance at all, they were asked to rank themselves within the group. That is a relative opinion, and it means the participant is evaluating the other participants’ abilities too. It also means everyone in the study was just guessing, which is the biggest reason why I think Tal is right, that this is nothing more than noise leading to regression to the mean.
> But if they hired you for your PhD in mathematics [...]
DK did not study any difficult cognitive tasks akin to research or complex math either. The paper only had 4 tasks: ability to get a joke, some standardized test logic questions, a little English grammar, and grading other people’s tests.
I’m not sure if the things I’m pointing out support your theory or not. Mostly I suspect DK is specious and contagious because it lets people justify their own negative judgements of others, so in that sense I think using DK as an explanation of someone’s behavior is a way to feel socially acceptable and be socially protective of one’s self. It’s just unfortunate that the common judgements and conclusions with this study are almost always unjustified because the paper is so widely misunderstood.
> People may self-report opinions of their own performance that they feel are socially acceptable or socially protective of themselves. So it reverts to the mean because it remains within The Overton Window so to speak.
> If your objective performance is poor [...]
The DK paper didn’t study objective performance, it studied perceived performance. They didn’t exactly have participants opine on their own performance at all, they were asked to rank themselves within the group. That is a relative opinion, and it means the participant is evaluating the other participants’ abilities too. It also means everyone in the study was just guessing, which is the biggest reason why I think Tal is right, that this is nothing more than noise leading to regression to the mean.
> But if they hired you for your PhD in mathematics [...]
DK did not study any difficult cognitive tasks akin to research or complex math either. The paper only had 4 tasks: ability to get a joke, some standardized test logic questions, a little English grammar, and grading other people’s tests.
I’m not sure if the things I’m pointing out support your theory or not. Mostly I suspect DK is specious and contagious because it lets people justify their own negative judgements of others, so in that sense I think using DK as an explanation of someone’s behavior is a way to feel socially acceptable and be socially protective of one’s self. It’s just unfortunate that the common judgements and conclusions with this study are almost always unjustified because the paper is so widely misunderstood.
I’m not sure if the things I’m pointing out support your theory or not.
It's not a theory. It's a comment on a public forum, not a PhD thesis.
I've had some pertinent classes, like Intro to Psychology, Social Psychology, and Negotiation and Conflict Management. In my youth, I spent about 3.5 years in therapy to sort out baggage from childhood trauma. I've journaled and blogged for a lot of years, so introspection and trying to figure out what makes me tick is a longstanding habit.
I raised two special-needs sons who don't intuitively understand social stuff, so trying to explain things to them really helped hone my understanding of some things. I had to up my game by quite a lot to help them get a meaningful and useful understanding of social phenomenon.
Social phenomenon are inherently hard to find good information about. Studies tend to be really bad. People who know they are participating in a study almost by definition don't behave like the do "normally."
I continue to talk with my sons about social phenomenon because it remains an ongoing area of interest. My sons and I talk fairly often about what constitutes a good source of social insight and what doesn't. I comment about it sometimes on HN because I hang here and sometimes people find my comments of value.
It's my opinion. My opinions on such topics seem to generally be on more solid footing than average. They usually aren't, per se, backed up by some kind of scientific study, though they are generally informed by gathering solid tidbits of useful info over the years.
If you don't agree with it, it's totes fine.
It's not a theory. It's a comment on a public forum, not a PhD thesis.
I've had some pertinent classes, like Intro to Psychology, Social Psychology, and Negotiation and Conflict Management. In my youth, I spent about 3.5 years in therapy to sort out baggage from childhood trauma. I've journaled and blogged for a lot of years, so introspection and trying to figure out what makes me tick is a longstanding habit.
I raised two special-needs sons who don't intuitively understand social stuff, so trying to explain things to them really helped hone my understanding of some things. I had to up my game by quite a lot to help them get a meaningful and useful understanding of social phenomenon.
Social phenomenon are inherently hard to find good information about. Studies tend to be really bad. People who know they are participating in a study almost by definition don't behave like the do "normally."
I continue to talk with my sons about social phenomenon because it remains an ongoing area of interest. My sons and I talk fairly often about what constitutes a good source of social insight and what doesn't. I comment about it sometimes on HN because I hang here and sometimes people find my comments of value.
It's my opinion. My opinions on such topics seem to generally be on more solid footing than average. They usually aren't, per se, backed up by some kind of scientific study, though they are generally informed by gathering solid tidbits of useful info over the years.
If you don't agree with it, it's totes fine.
Sorry, I meant theory casually, as a synonym for the word you used, explanation.
I think I’m agreeing with you, and I think it’s an interesting explanation and a valuable comment. I have no doubt that you’re right that people are socially protective, and some people pull back publicly to fit in. It’s just that as a response to DK or to Tal, I feel like it might be mostly orthogonal and independent. I’m pretty sure that the DK study itself didn’t experience or measure this kind of social self-protection, because of the methods described in the paper.
What I disagree with is the DK paper. They make broad generalizations and speculations about behavior throughout that their own data do not support. And the paper seems to be almost completely misinterpreted. Despite the data and the statements in the paper, everyone seems to think that the paper shows confidence being an indicator of lack of skill. It doesn’t help that the paper’s title misleadingly walks you right into that idea.
> Studies tend to be really bad.
You can say that again.
I think I’m agreeing with you, and I think it’s an interesting explanation and a valuable comment. I have no doubt that you’re right that people are socially protective, and some people pull back publicly to fit in. It’s just that as a response to DK or to Tal, I feel like it might be mostly orthogonal and independent. I’m pretty sure that the DK study itself didn’t experience or measure this kind of social self-protection, because of the methods described in the paper.
What I disagree with is the DK paper. They make broad generalizations and speculations about behavior throughout that their own data do not support. And the paper seems to be almost completely misinterpreted. Despite the data and the statements in the paper, everyone seems to think that the paper shows confidence being an indicator of lack of skill. It doesn’t help that the paper’s title misleadingly walks you right into that idea.
> Studies tend to be really bad.
You can say that again.
[deleted]
> It may even result in harassment.
Haha, I don't know why, but as soon as I read that sentence, I thought "Is this Doreen Michele?" and checked your username and it was! Something unique about your writing.
I used to have a lot of these kinds of concerns about how I'm perceived and in hindsight it held me back and I regret things I didn't do because of it. Now I have achieved things that are clearly respectable and I don't feel any need to prove myself. Instead, I'm happy to look like a fool. I also have modest enough ambitions that I don't need to worry about the consequences of people's perceptions for things like promotions or other opportunities. I create my own opportunities.
Haha, I don't know why, but as soon as I read that sentence, I thought "Is this Doreen Michele?" and checked your username and it was! Something unique about your writing.
I used to have a lot of these kinds of concerns about how I'm perceived and in hindsight it held me back and I regret things I didn't do because of it. Now I have achieved things that are clearly respectable and I don't feel any need to prove myself. Instead, I'm happy to look like a fool. I also have modest enough ambitions that I don't need to worry about the consequences of people's perceptions for things like promotions or other opportunities. I create my own opportunities.
I appreciate the careful write-up, but all it is at this point in a typical discussion is a smug way to insult someone.
I can't even read the words "Dunning-Kruger" without getting Reddit flashbacks. That and "whataboutism".
Related: This is an interview with David Dunning of Dunning-Kruger Effect. I find it highly entertaining and would recommend listening just for a few minutes in case it tickles your interest too. I've listed a couple of sources of the same podcast, just in case.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/david-dunning-on-the-d...
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cDovL2ZlZWRzLmJsb29tYmV...
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/david-dunning-on-the-d...
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cDovL2ZlZWRzLmJsb29tYmV...
I always worry about self-assessment data. Especially when an experimenter or other participants are in the room or otherwise observing or interacting with the participant during the self-assessment.
The results of Dunning-Kruger-adjacent experiments always present their results as measuring "How people think they perform" against "How they actually perform", when they seem to actually be measuring "How people tell other people they perform" against "How they actually perform".
Which seems to me like it's a slightly different thing? It seems like the pop-sci "those people are too stupid to know how stupid they are" interpretation isn't the only plausible interpretation, anyway.
The results of Dunning-Kruger-adjacent experiments always present their results as measuring "How people think they perform" against "How they actually perform", when they seem to actually be measuring "How people tell other people they perform" against "How they actually perform".
Which seems to me like it's a slightly different thing? It seems like the pop-sci "those people are too stupid to know how stupid they are" interpretation isn't the only plausible interpretation, anyway.
I wonder to what extent people are substituting their estimated score with their estimated relative position.
Let's say a 50% score at a test puts you in the 1. percentile and 70% in the 99th. I would actually expect people to estimate their relative position roughly in line with their results.
Let's say a 50% score at a test puts you in the 1. percentile and 70% in the 99th. I would actually expect people to estimate their relative position roughly in line with their results.
Does the affect account for considering different populations? For instance, maybe skilled people tend to compare themselves to other skilled people, while unskilled people compare themselves to the general population?
Good point (I think). This could slightly be a DK effect in that such unskilled people maybe were unaware that there were talented experts they could compare themselves with instead?
sanj, can you add the year to the title?
I don't believe I can; I don't see it on the UX.
@dang?
@dang?
So there is a Dunning-Kruger effect on the Dunning-Kruger effect?
How meta.
How meta.
This is an excellent podcast around the Dunning-Kruger effect, how we can all be afflicted by it, and what it actually means. Setup around a (true) airline hijacking.
https://timharford.com/2021/03/cautionary-tales-the-dunning-...
https://timharford.com/2021/03/cautionary-tales-the-dunning-...
Dunning Kruger, while it does have a precise meaning and was experimentally discovered, in common usage of the term it is just a way to say someone else is dumb without using words like 'dumb'. Not only are they dumb, they're so dumb they are too dumb to know they are dumb! Not only are they soooo dumb, I'm very smart, so smart I use words to talk like smart people, with big special words that are from science. Plus, I bet I underestimate my own skill level. How humble!
I've never seen someone cast themselves as the one that might be overestimating their ability.
I've never seen someone cast themselves as the one that might be overestimating their ability.
[deleted]
> they're so dumb they are too dumb to know they are dumb!
It’s really too bad Dunning & Kruger’s data didn’t show anyone being too dumb to know it, nor did it even show anyone being dumb at all. So maybe the meaning isn’t as precise as you think? All the participant scores were relative to their peer group (no way to know if they were dumb or smart), and all the participants were Ivy League college kids. That doesn’t mean there were no dummies in the group, but it is certainly not a random sample of the population.
> I’ve never seen someone cast themselves as the one that might be overestimating their ability.
The DK paper shows a positive correlation between confidence and skill. While I have seen people suggest they might be overestimating (in social situations where doing that might add credibility), if you believe in the DK effect and trust their data, then saying out loud that you’re overestimating your ability is the same as saying you think you might be dumber than you are, right?
It’s really too bad Dunning & Kruger’s data didn’t show anyone being too dumb to know it, nor did it even show anyone being dumb at all. So maybe the meaning isn’t as precise as you think? All the participant scores were relative to their peer group (no way to know if they were dumb or smart), and all the participants were Ivy League college kids. That doesn’t mean there were no dummies in the group, but it is certainly not a random sample of the population.
> I’ve never seen someone cast themselves as the one that might be overestimating their ability.
The DK paper shows a positive correlation between confidence and skill. While I have seen people suggest they might be overestimating (in social situations where doing that might add credibility), if you believe in the DK effect and trust their data, then saying out loud that you’re overestimating your ability is the same as saying you think you might be dumber than you are, right?
You overestimated how well you understood my comment. I was commenting on the irony of how people bring up dunning kruger to insult other people.
Why bother going to the effort trying to correct someone without bothering to take 30 seconds to even read their comment?
Why bother going to the effort trying to correct someone without bothering to take 30 seconds to even read their comment?
Relax friend, I did read your comment before replying and I was agreeing with you that it's ironic. I guess I did misunderstand your statement about precise meaning, but what exactly makes you think I was trying to insult you? I wasn't, and I apologize for giving that impression.
Maybe I'm the one that needs to slow down and read more carefully :)
[deleted]
A friend of mine and I do this regularly.
It's an interesting and well written article, but I found myself disagreeing with the interpretation of every other point in the article.
The lesson I take from Dunning-Kruger is that self evaluation is hard.
The participants in the study didn’t self-evaluate directly, they self-ranked, against the other participants (all Cornell undergrads volunteering for extra credit).
There’s a very important difference there, because self-ranking requires knowledge of other people’s skills.
Do note that the DK paper found a positive correlation between confidence and skill. Most people here and elsewhere seem to believe the DK effect shows a negative correlation.
Also note that the skills people were self-ranking were all easy. Ability to get a joke was one of the 4 tasks. How would you rank your own ability to get a joke against those around you? The question barely makes sense.
I think it’s a big mistake to take any lesson from the DK paper other than sometimes people see what they want to.
There’s a very important difference there, because self-ranking requires knowledge of other people’s skills.
Do note that the DK paper found a positive correlation between confidence and skill. Most people here and elsewhere seem to believe the DK effect shows a negative correlation.
Also note that the skills people were self-ranking were all easy. Ability to get a joke was one of the 4 tasks. How would you rank your own ability to get a joke against those around you? The question barely makes sense.
I think it’s a big mistake to take any lesson from the DK paper other than sometimes people see what they want to.
(I went and skimmed back over it) In most of the studies, they had the participants estimate how they'd do relative to others and also how they would score. Not the first one, but the rest of them.
For confidence, the positive correlation doesn't help with the problem where someone with low end confidence estimates similarly to someone with higher confidence but is much more wrong.
For confidence, the positive correlation doesn't help with the problem where someone with low end confidence estimates similarly to someone with higher confidence but is much more wrong.
Agreed, the positive correlation makes the results harder to judge, and specifically it means that one cannot reliably use confidence to predict skill, other than higher confidence is generally associated with higher skill. It's unfortunate how many people cite DK to erroneously justify linking confidence with lack of skill. Based on the paper, the only thing we can say about skill by looking at confidence is that more confident people are statistically likely to be more skilled.
You are right, they did mention self-evaluation of score. "Lest one think these results reflect erroneous peer assessment rather then erroneous self-assessment, participants in the bottom quartile also overestimated the number of test items they had gotten right by nearly 50%."
But the results and conclusions of all the studies are focusing on the rankings and not the scores. It's difficult to even understand what the absolute range of scores is, and of course we don't see the actual questions they asked, so we don't know what the scores mean.
Figures 2 and 3 say to me that zero people in the study knew how well they ranked or what their score was, the survey data is basically flat with noise. This could be explained by questions that are hard to understand, or by participants guessing at the answers. They didn't propose those explanations though, they wax on and on about how people who underperform overestimate their abilities.
How do we know the participants even tried to answer correctly? They were all undergrads getting extra credit (which suggests they needed extra credit and were within the range of grades where it might help to get extra credit... consider what that means relative to skill: it's a narrow range of students not getting an F nor getting an A.) And they were getting extra credit just for being there, not for answering correctly. What if they were lazy? What if they were told their answers didn't matter? Why should we assume they didn't answer randomly? Even if they did try, the participants were all Ivy League undergrads who have been told they're among the elite and made it through a highly selective process of admission. Of course they rate & rank themselves highly. 100% of the participants were in a single college psych class, there were no uneducated people, no morons, and nobody who actually had meaningful "deficits in metacognitive skill" relative to the general population. Why is the set of people used in this study not considered an invalidating confounding factor for the results?
You are right, they did mention self-evaluation of score. "Lest one think these results reflect erroneous peer assessment rather then erroneous self-assessment, participants in the bottom quartile also overestimated the number of test items they had gotten right by nearly 50%."
But the results and conclusions of all the studies are focusing on the rankings and not the scores. It's difficult to even understand what the absolute range of scores is, and of course we don't see the actual questions they asked, so we don't know what the scores mean.
Figures 2 and 3 say to me that zero people in the study knew how well they ranked or what their score was, the survey data is basically flat with noise. This could be explained by questions that are hard to understand, or by participants guessing at the answers. They didn't propose those explanations though, they wax on and on about how people who underperform overestimate their abilities.
How do we know the participants even tried to answer correctly? They were all undergrads getting extra credit (which suggests they needed extra credit and were within the range of grades where it might help to get extra credit... consider what that means relative to skill: it's a narrow range of students not getting an F nor getting an A.) And they were getting extra credit just for being there, not for answering correctly. What if they were lazy? What if they were told their answers didn't matter? Why should we assume they didn't answer randomly? Even if they did try, the participants were all Ivy League undergrads who have been told they're among the elite and made it through a highly selective process of admission. Of course they rate & rank themselves highly. 100% of the participants were in a single college psych class, there were no uneducated people, no morons, and nobody who actually had meaningful "deficits in metacognitive skill" relative to the general population. Why is the set of people used in this study not considered an invalidating confounding factor for the results?
It's hard to know what you don't know. Let's say, objectively you know 10 of 100 "facts" of Discipline X. But given you're a novice you believe the universe of X is say only 50 "facts." Naturally, from where you stand your 10 now doubled in value. So I would think the problem isn't the overestimation or overvalue per se. 10 is still 10. It's that you've underestimated the size of the X universe thus making your perception of the piece of pie feel bigger than it really is.
If that makes sense.
The key is to be aware that there are things you don't yet know, and not let your ignorance get the best of you.
If that makes sense.
The key is to be aware that there are things you don't yet know, and not let your ignorance get the best of you.
In short, "The lesson I take from Dunning-Kruger is that self evaluation is hard."
I've always suspected that obsessive interest in the Dunning-Kruger effect is following an inverse curve of the effect itself :)
Graph: https://twitter.com/fabianstelzer/status/1253647480966852610
[deleted]
Does the Dunning-Kruger effect apply to people's knowledge of the Dunning-Kruger effect?
The only safe answer: I don't feel I have the requisite experience to discuss this topic at an expert level.
How would you know if you were competent to determine that?
Maybe psychology in general.
But yeah, since it's a broadly applicable principle, it should apply to itself. In that people who don't understand the Dunning-Kruger principle believe they understand it better than they do.
But yeah, since it's a broadly applicable principle, it should apply to itself. In that people who don't understand the Dunning-Kruger principle believe they understand it better than they do.
I feel like the results of this research are pretty obvious.
/s
I don't need to read this, I already know all about the Dunning-Kruger effect.
people downvote you, but your post is exactly on point!
(2010)
(2010)
It's funny, if you pretend you have impostor syndrome, it can also come from a dunning kruger effect. Or vice versa.
My freelance life is a constant oscillation between impostor and DK. The trick is to match the phases when I think I am the new Da Vinci with the phase when I negotiate my rates and the phases where I think I am barely good enough to work at a sandwich shop with the actual dev.
Not the greatest for mental health, though. Now I am glad that I am working with very competent but also nice and supportive colleagues. It really is a blast to be able to have some bad days without feeling you should quit and buy a farm in the Larzac instead.
Not the greatest for mental health, though. Now I am glad that I am working with very competent but also nice and supportive colleagues. It really is a blast to be able to have some bad days without feeling you should quit and buy a farm in the Larzac instead.
What’s the name for the effect of people always bringing up the dunning kruger effect like it’s the answer to everything? I can’t go a day without reading about it
Seems like this and bloom filters. Constantly on HN. Both mostly useless
Seems like this and bloom filters. Constantly on HN. Both mostly useless
I like to think of these things as "in the know" retorts. Things that the writer appear to think are novel concepts, but we've seen them so many times that they're not.
* Dunning-Kruger
* That xkcd 10,000 People comic[0] (Getting meta in my own comment!)
* "HR is not your friend"
* "Corporations only goal is to increase share price"
* "You're the product"
I'm sure I could name another dozen or so if I had the inclination.
[0] https://xkcd.com/1053/
* Dunning-Kruger
* That xkcd 10,000 People comic[0] (Getting meta in my own comment!)
* "HR is not your friend"
* "Corporations only goal is to increase share price"
* "You're the product"
I'm sure I could name another dozen or so if I had the inclination.
[0] https://xkcd.com/1053/
What if its that thing where when you learn about something it seems like its suddenly everywhere, except it was always there, you're just noticing it now?
Baader–Meinhof phenomenon :)
I keep seeing references to the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon all over the place lately...
This could be coincidence, synchronicity or déjà vu, unless it's merely hilarious. Because if seeing the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon everywhere is in fact the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon, then it becomes recursive. I'm guessing it is hilarious.
I'm losing track of all the references to scientist named phenomena: Baader-Meinhof, Dunning-Kruger, Gell-Mann Amnesia, etc.
It seems the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon wasn't named by or after scientists, if that's what you meant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_illusion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_illusion
There's gotta be a scientist-named phenomena for that.
What is it called when somebody asks you to describe in single words only the good things that come to mind about your mother, and you shoot them?
The Voight-Kampff effect.
The Voight-Kampff effect.
The Plate of Shrimp Effect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRJ5cCP0ZPE&ab_channel=Movie...
The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRJ5cCP0ZPE&ab_channel=Movie...
The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.
The Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon
I'm thankful, honestly, that those crowded out the weekly wonderous new battery technology discovered that will revolutionize everything.
So the Dunning-Kruger effect, most often used as a sophisticated form of ad hominem to discredit some idiot on the other side of the interweb and give himself intellectual gloss, has now degenerated as scientific knowledge to the point where it can be used as an indicator of itself, right?
At the risk of replecating myself and getting a crisis, everybody with a brain like mine could have seen that coming.
Sigh...
At the risk of replecating myself and getting a crisis, everybody with a brain like mine could have seen that coming.
Sigh...
And still no sarcasm detector built into HN crowd AI...
:-)
:-)
Dunning-Kruger is Impostor Syndrome's evil twin. And it's impossible to know which one you may suffer from!
That’s not correct. Dunning-Kruger also accounts for competent people underestimating their competence (like impostor syndrome).
The entire DKE paper is trash, as most papers are in psychology.
Now I understand why so many among the woke elite pretend to have impostor syndrome. It's to virtue signal which side of the Dunning-Kruger partition they're on.
I don't believe that the Dunning-Kruger effect is very significant these days because our modern society is full of:
1. Extremely talented, hard working people who have achieved nothing because they never got very lucky.
2. Lazy idiots who have achieved a lot because they got extremely lucky.
In contradiction with the Dunning-Kruger effect, people in group #1 are less likely to feel impostor syndrome because they're been working hard for a long time and they've made an impression and received excellent, honest feedback wherever they've worked over many years and delivered excellent results by all accounts. Their past employers are praising them, ex-colleagues want to work with them, etc... this gives them confidence in their ability in spite of a lack of financial success. In our modern age, skill does not guarantee financial success because skill has limited utility value in our dysfunctional economy built on unsound money printing and asymmetric playing fields... Everyone wants to work with a genius, but genius has limited financial value. Reckless foolishness can often yield higher returns if the game is played enough times.
Also in contradiction with the Dunning-Kruger effect, people in group #2 are bound to feel like impostors because they are impostors. All their confidence is derived from their financial success. They've never delivered any lasting, meaningful results which can be attributed to their work... and they've never received any praise from any intelligent person until they became rich (then suddenly, the smart bastards all line up to give praise)... The incentives in this case aren't conducive to honest feedback. All the ingredients to feeling like an impostor are there and even with their limited intellect and underdeveloped primal ego; deep down, they can sense that something is not quite right.
I don't believe that the Dunning-Kruger effect is very significant these days because our modern society is full of:
1. Extremely talented, hard working people who have achieved nothing because they never got very lucky.
2. Lazy idiots who have achieved a lot because they got extremely lucky.
In contradiction with the Dunning-Kruger effect, people in group #1 are less likely to feel impostor syndrome because they're been working hard for a long time and they've made an impression and received excellent, honest feedback wherever they've worked over many years and delivered excellent results by all accounts. Their past employers are praising them, ex-colleagues want to work with them, etc... this gives them confidence in their ability in spite of a lack of financial success. In our modern age, skill does not guarantee financial success because skill has limited utility value in our dysfunctional economy built on unsound money printing and asymmetric playing fields... Everyone wants to work with a genius, but genius has limited financial value. Reckless foolishness can often yield higher returns if the game is played enough times.
Also in contradiction with the Dunning-Kruger effect, people in group #2 are bound to feel like impostors because they are impostors. All their confidence is derived from their financial success. They've never delivered any lasting, meaningful results which can be attributed to their work... and they've never received any praise from any intelligent person until they became rich (then suddenly, the smart bastards all line up to give praise)... The incentives in this case aren't conducive to honest feedback. All the ingredients to feeling like an impostor are there and even with their limited intellect and underdeveloped primal ego; deep down, they can sense that something is not quite right.
"Most citations of D-K are examples of D-K."
Really most of what people think is D-K is just statistics analogous to reversion to the mean: people assume they are typical, so less-skilled people naturally guess they are better, and higher-skilled guess they are less.
If D-K means anything, it has to be a variance on top of this effect. Such an effect does seem to appear, where the very least skilled imagine there is no deep skill to learn.
Really most of what people think is D-K is just statistics analogous to reversion to the mean: people assume they are typical, so less-skilled people naturally guess they are better, and higher-skilled guess they are less.
If D-K means anything, it has to be a variance on top of this effect. Such an effect does seem to appear, where the very least skilled imagine there is no deep skill to learn.
> Really most of what people think is D-K is just statistics analogous to reversion to the mean: people assume they are typical, so less-skilled people naturally guess they are better, and higher-skilled guess they are less.
If it were just that, people would rate themselves closer to the median than they actually are, but D-K found the people rated themselves closer to the 70th percentile than they are.
If it were just that, people would rate themselves closer to the median than they actually are, but D-K found the people rated themselves closer to the 70th percentile than they are.
- 3 months ago 68 comments [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25551624]
- Jan 2020 [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21984435]
- May 2018 [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17069386]
- Aug 2015, 25 comments [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10145480]
- Jul 2010, 23 comments [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1498136]
- Jul 2010 [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1494732]
- Often referenced in other high-repost DK posts like "Dunning-Kruger and other memes" and "Wikipedia: Dunning–Kruger Effect"