Why people who are not intelligent and experienced in a given field can be terribly self-confident , sometimes even falsely convinced of their own wisdom when really intelligent and experienced people can be full of doubts?
Do you agree with this hypothesis? Have you encountered or regularly encountered a similar false belief in your own wisdom and knowledge?
I know when I know something and I know when I don't know something, therefore I know I don't suffer from Dunning-Kruger. Was that the question?
>Do you agree with this hypothesis
Yes. Applies to the most humans.
>encountered on myself
No. I always start at "it's starting to make sense" unless we are talking about "quantum mechanics applications on constant X on a 4-dimensional universe simulation", which I start at "huh?" And just stay there
>I always start at its starting to make sense
>being this delusional
>dunning kruger effect in practice
>what is quantum mechanics applications on constant X on a 4-dimensional universe simulation
It's just a formal, institutional version of the 'appeal to authority' fallacy.
Don't agree with it.
People never overestimate themselves, doing so is impossible because of our survival instincts. What happens in reality is people acting and lying to boost their status, nobody likes humble people, it pisses people off when you're humble. People are drawn towards the cocky ones even if they fail a lot.
This is like when incels talk about women
>Have you encountered or regularly encountered a similar false belief in your own wisdom and knowledge?
Have you, OP?
>People never overestimate themselves, doing so is impossible because of our survival instincts
what does this even mean, how do "survival instincts" prevent a person who knows very little about something like psychology from thinking they know far more than what they actually know?
This. Answer the question OP.
People need confidence to take on the challenge of learning something new.
If they act like a mopey cuck, they will never have the confidence to challenge themselves.
this. like even if people do overestimate their own abilities, by explicitly telling them this you inculcate a sense of insecurity in everyone, including the people who do actually know a lot about the field. like how exactly could someone identify if they're on the left or right end of that curve? if there's no way to distinguish each end then identifying the effect seems utterly pointless.
i think they're suggesting that the people simply act as if they know more, but deep down are still sufficiently critical of their own knowledge
also this.
t. mopey cuck
The graph is wrong, the decay is okay but the positive half of the parabola has a logarithmic slope, not linear. The log slope means the greatest expert in a field won't ever feel as confident as a person who knows almost nothing at all.
Conjecture but most people have never studied anything rigorously so they could think subjects are as shallow as their own knowledge
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis
Dunning Kruger affects everyone except people with zero self esteem but I'm not convinced that even exists. The spectrum of severity tends to decrease with intelligence, but very intelligent people can still suffer from overconfidence.
That's why an argument between someone well-educated and a person who is full of shit (anti-vaxxers, President Turnip, ...) will always devolve into an assertion of "these are the facts, so you're clearly not right" vs. "prove it!"
Where the uneducated person has taken some stand and formed an opinion based upon a subject they do not fully understand and which applies far outside the context of the evidence they believe exists; the issue is in convincing them that their supposed evidence is not applicable where they're attempting to utilize it.
They are likely to pull other irrelevant "facts" out of thin air and try to redirect the argument toward one focused on whether the facts are correct or not rather than the original argument about the relevancy of those facts.
Also; here is my judgement of humankind. I sit slightly below the "median" mark. In this case I mean "median for degree of stupidity". So take your IQ and subtract 130 (median), the result is your true intelligence.
Mine may be approximately -1.
>People never overestimate themselves
This board is proof of the contrary. Know-it-all motherfuckers.
you are the living example of the effect
You're not knowledgeable if you can't explain something and only rely on outside sources, you're the dunning Kruger effect in action
What are you referring to? You failed to quote anything I said.
Were you agreeing that utilization of purported evidence to support an unrelated assertion is evidence for lack of education or experience in the field the evidence is drawn from?
It's certainly something that adds greater perspective to anyone familiar with the concept. If nothing else, I at least remember to stay humble. And it's important to remember that DK effect doesn't equate with "stupidity." It simply means an individual is overestimating their capacity in a particular field or task.
>he can't write concisely
it is
If you explain something and the other party doesn't understand you're left with no recourse. You can only dumb things down so much
Dunning-Kruger perfectly explains the incel problem and why they think they're experts on women despite being utterly incapable of even having a conversation with one.
>DK effect doesn't equate with "stupidity."
It's common to draw the two sides of the two effects as a single curve labelled "confidence" much like in the OP.
In reality the effect documented by Dunning and Kruger themselves was based upon the observation of a correlation between poor performance and over estimation of capability. The poorer performing individuals would most over-estimate while high performing individuals would also over-estimate but less so.
Additional later studies observed the opposite effect where the more skilled an individual is in a particular field, the more modest they will become regarding their own expertise. This is not a positive however, as it relates to an UNDER ESTIMATION of the investment required to develop that level of expertise.
So someone highly skilled in a field looks down on those less skilled and questions "why are you so stupid? this is easy."
A person not at all skilled looks at themselves and says "stable genius, best of class!"
These are vaguely related but not the same effect and I'd argue it isn't at all accurate to represent these two discrete effects on a continuous curve labelled "confidence" vs "knowledge".
Idk if that diction was intentionally ironic, meta, or not. Hoping it was.
If you can't convince someone in something you believe in chances are you don't actually know shit and only go by occams razor.
>i'm 18 and i know everything about everything and think if i get the last word i instantly win
>mfw so many verbose retards flocking to this babbys first year of psych topic
Persuasiveness rarely has anything to do with logical opinions. If you look at politics they're frequently on entirely separate wavelengths.
>>he dialogs via empirical fundamentals
Innsn't?
>You can only dumb things down so much
You can try different angles and approaches.
Cool post you really convinced me about stuff I guess.
I could I convince you of anything when you already know it all? Silly user.
There are countries full of people without so much as an elementary school education and the US has plenty of people who dropped out of fucking high school
good luck finding the right angle for them
Because the low skilled/dumb person are too dumb to realize how trash they are. The person who learns more about a field will realize how difficult it is to truly become "good" at it and what their flaws are.
Ooh, I can do this too
>He confusticates the populace with highfalutin jargon because regurgitating Victorian era syntax is tantamount to acumen in his withered cranium, and mimicking obsolete stylistic prose lends a semblance of credence to his baseless blathering
Political debates are battles, you only have a set amount of time to convince someone, no one is gonna sit through some guy explaining step by step so even a grade schooler could understand the topic.
Debates like this exist but they will never be in the spotlight because it doesn't sell.
The original paper in 99 wasn't great, it was the beginning of further study which refined some of the results and confirmed others. Here is a more accurate description in graph.
My point was that I communicate via estimating the capability of my audience ... in a format which I believe has the highest efficiency.
You could state the same as: I dialog via empirical fundamentals ... optimally.
However this condensed format is non-optimal as your misunderstanding clearly demonstrates.
If they don't know shit it would be easy to teach them something new, you don't have to switch people's opinion right away.
>just infodump years of knowledge on someone who's made up their mind
either retarded or severely autistic
You adjust your choice of words depending on the audience? Wow. Need a little work there fren.
nah wordy posts are just a sign of young age.
He's young and thinks he knows everything. Though you're right, possible autismo too
Now this is 100% unfiltered autism.
Like I said you don't have to convince them right away, this rarely happens anyway, give them something to think about, a seed of doubt.
I mean not necessarily. I know some respected professors that can't speak concisely either. I think it has more to do with marketing. Plenty of intelligent people can't streamline their ideas.
>wordy posts are just a sign of young age.
I'm 35 and I type at approximately >300 wpm when I'm expressing internal dialog. I can only manage to transcribe at about 150 wpm peak, and I average near 100.
I read at approximately 700-1200 wpm with >90% average comprehension.
>give them something to think about, a seed of doubt
arguing with someone will in most cases cause them to react in the opposite way and make them more deadset on their opinions kek
We're animals first and seeking truth is something far in the periphery
Oh dear, it's r/iamverysmart in the flesh.
>i am very smert and read very smert and think very smert
while an older verbose retard will go on tangents, i think it's fair to say young people try to force random words in and create run-ons.
>arguing with someone will in most cases cause them to react in the opposite way
True but it's not impossible to communicate with people like that, gotta be subversive with them.
>I mean not necessarily. I know some respected professors that can't speak concisely either.
Being concise or terse doesn't always imply succinctness or accuracy. Communication is an optimization problem similar to informational entropy in the context of data compression.
If you have an extended dictionary of symbols (lexicon, vocabulary) that does not always mean your audience possesses a matching dictionary. The expression you choose must be selected to both be as terse as possible whilst also providing optimal accuracy.
Blithering and long-winded = loss of interest, overloading the transcription circuits in the audience's brains
Extremely terse yet open to subjectivity or relying upon obscure jargon = frequently misunderstood, gaps are filled with subject's preconceptions and prejudices
So while a professor may choose to speak in a manner which is less terse than you feel is ideal, this is most likely a symptom of you suffering from limited capability in processing vocal input.
this is the gayest thread I've ever read
you should all kill yourselves
Lovecraft kills, my dude.
For example we're currently using US-ASCII in our posts which are made up of symbols 32 to 126 out of 256 possible symbols.
So available vs. utilized symbols span only ~37% of the range.
In addition, most texts represented in a Latin alphabet and especially English contain very large amounts of redundancy within the utilized symbol ranges alone.
I don't have the numbers on hand at the moment, but the density of this post is IIRC less than 5% at best.
Honest question. Have you ever been screened for an autistic spectrum disorder?
and anti-incels commit the survivorship bias where they think all women act a certain way because they act that way to them or other men. "Oh wow this girl is nice to me, guess women are just nice in general"
plus whether the person in question is an incel themselves or not, it does not impact the validiity of their opinions, saying that "this is why your an incel" is called a red-herring fallacy
not to mention anti-incel posters often change the definition of incel within conversations. They label you an incel if you havent had sex by using the formal definition then change it when they give criticism into the informal women hating one, this is called the equivocation fallacy
bonus:
Just World Fallacy: You get out what you put in, if you dont you are not putting in enough.
Appeal to Authority: "I have a girlfriend therefore I am qualified to give you advice on how to get a girlfriend" or "I am a girl therfore..."
I could go on
Way off topic perhaps, but... It would be very interesting to undertake a study correlating IQ with the results from Shannon's early studies on redundancy in literature.
people.seas.harvard.edu
based brainlet, absolute fucking idiot
>Honest question. Have you ever been screened for an autistic spectrum disorder?
I was rejected due to "IQ too high."
Note that just because you don't recognize the relevancy of the subject to the conversation going on in this thread (and the original interpreted topic(s) of the thread) does not mean it seems equally irrelevant to those well versed in these subjects.
In this case you may not have been aware of a web of many threads (by subject) branching and merging between posts and replies. The subject of information entropy is interesting with connections to three or more contextual threads (subject) that I'm aware of within this thread.
holy shit dude you embarrass those of us who read the same rate and have the...fuck it
fuck you
10/10
I get the relevance, my man. >3SDs Stanford Binet, still don't quite understand your oddball sentence structure. It's like talking to Data from Star Trek. Uncanny valley vibes, especially if you talk this way in person.
>dunning-kruger explains the incel problem
>nuh-uh let me strawman you to prove you wrong
Every time
My grammar isn't "American" and I'm not... I'd say "obedient" to the grammatical structures I'm commonly exposed to in social settings.
My personal grammar is something that's intuitive to me. Related tangential thoughts there: creole and pidgin grammars.
I've never studied those fields but I'd be interested to know how my preferred grammar compares.
>Data from Star Trek
You can call me golden boy, some people have told me I'm a dumber more autistic version of c3p0.
youtu.be
Preferred cooking and sterilization device.
youtu.be
Good for a forehead tan.
news.bbc.co.uk
Microwaving kitchen sponges for just two minutes can kill 99% of living pathogens, a US study in the Journal of Environmental Health claims.
But Shropshire fire service warned that one fire had already occurred when someone in Telford tried the technique.
The researchers said people should ONLY try to microwave DAMP sponges.
The worst is programming. To be a good programmer you have to study and practice for a decade, but everyone calls themselves a programmer after two years of writing shitty little 1000-line programs. Don't send me your application until you've written a feature-complete Twitter clone, a secure web server with just POSIX sockets, a shell, and a dozen more equally cool things.