1 of 2
1
Dunning-Kruger effect
Posted: 15 June 2016 12:20 PM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4314
Joined  2014-06-20

I recently came across this idea for the first time. It’s quite fascinating.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 June 2016 03:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5251
Joined  2007-08-31
LoisL - 15 June 2016 12:20 PM

I recently came across this idea for the first time. It’s quite fascinating.

Yes. I regularly meet such people when discussing free will: a typical case was a posting in which somebody said something like ‘Determinism is difficult to understand’ to a learned philosopher (and moderator here) when he showed this poster was wrong. Later on it turned out that this poster did not know the most fundamental concepts in the free will discussion, and even refused to understand them.

A shining example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 Signature 

GdB

The light is on, but there is nobody at home.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2016 07:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1337
Joined  2005-01-14

“Meanwhile, students of high ability tended to underestimate their relative competence. Roughly, participants who found tasks to be easy erroneously presumed that the tasks also must be easy for others; in other words, they assumed others were as competent, if not more competent, than themselves.”——This describes me.  I used to routinely get high grades in school, and yet I always put it down to luck… they just happened to ask questions that I knew the answers to.  I have a terrible inferiority complex.  I suppose reading this assessment should make me feel better.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 June 2016 10:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1562
Joined  2012-04-25

Bertrand Russell said as much probably 100 years ago: The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.

I do enjoy though how folks in academia have this talent for making simple ideas sound complex.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 June 2016 08:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4314
Joined  2014-06-20

I sent this link to someone I know who is a regional manager of several manufacturing plants. This was his response.

“This was perfect timing. We just did a global engagement survey and this is very applicable to better understand some responses.  We definitely have this in full effect in our plants.”

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2016 12:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  288
Joined  2016-01-29

I get accused of suffering from Dunning-Kruger from time to time.

Typically it comes from a person who has made a number of rather poor arguments on some position and is unable to convince me of their correctness.  It seems to be a somewhat more sophisticated way of saying “well you’re just too stupid to realize how stupid you are” as opposed to making sound fact based rational arguments.

My takeaway from this accusation is that my arguments were irrefutably true and my opponent got frustrated by that fact and resorted to, in essence, simply calling me stupid.

Not impressive.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2016 07:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  288
Joined  2016-01-29

I must be psychic, somebody get me the number for James Randi, I want my million dollars!

“TFBW says:
July 2, 2016 at 12:27 am
@Stardusty…You are a living example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.”
https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2016/06/17/the-rambow-effect-how-moderate-views-fuel-extremism/#comment-12999

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2016 05:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6516
Joined  2010-08-15
Stardusty Psyche - 25 June 2016 12:26 PM

My takeaway from this accusation is that my arguments were irrefutably true and my opponent got frustrated by that fact and resorted to, in essence, simply calling me stupid.

Not impressive.

Perhaps, more likely,  it has to do with your inability to absorb what others are saying.

And your in inability to incorporate new information into your world view.

And your inability to look outside that echo-chamber you’ve set up within your thought process.

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2016 05:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6516
Joined  2010-08-15
Stardusty Psyche - 04 July 2016 07:23 PM

I must be psychic, somebody get me the number for James Randi, I want my million dollars!

“TFBW says:
July 2, 2016 at 12:27 am
@Stardusty…You are a living example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.”
https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2016/06/17/the-rambow-effect-how-moderate-views-fuel-extremism/#comment-12999

Absolutely. I dispense with them thus.

You objections are not sceptical. In order to be a sceptic, you must first understand that which you doubt. You have no understanding of this subject, and simply elevate your own basic intuitions to the level of “obvious truth”, then blather about it at length and without interest in being corrected (except to the extent that you, personally, as someone with no competence in the field, feel that you have made an error). You are a living example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

You demand explanations which you would then reject on the basis of your own self-assured correctness, and your ability to write a word salad which you feel qualifies as a knock-down argument then further reinforces your delusions of competence.

I’m not going to fuel your delusions any further by actually engaging your questions. The last straw has come and gone. You need education, but you are not receptive to it — not from anyone here, at least. You are here to gloat, and strut, and posture in a superior manner. Go away and learn from someone qualified that you actually respect.

Come back when your teacher is satisfied that you know the difference between various meta-ethical positions, such as cognitivism versus non-cognitivism and such like. Then we can talk — assuming you manage to also rein in your rampaging superiority complex.

A person with a healthy sense of self-skepticism would have spend a little time wondering about what truths this eloquent person might be trying share with you.
Nah, instead you - you reject it outright and haul your whining over here.  rolleyes

I for one am not impressed.    blank stare

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2016 12:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4181
Joined  2009-10-21
Stardusty Psyche - 04 July 2016 07:23 PM

I must be psychic, somebody get me the number for James Randi, I want my million dollars!

“TFBW says:
July 2, 2016 at 12:27 am
@Stardusty…You are a living example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.”
https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2016/06/17/the-rambow-effect-how-moderate-views-fuel-extremism/#comment-12999

Well, if you go around annoying people with your bad philosophy, you will get feedback like this. Not psychic.

That’s a long thread, but I worked back from your linked point and found that you had trouble with “murdering babies is evil”. I would have dropped you right there. That’s so universally bad, it’s not worth arguing. Unless you are having a very detailed discussion of how human beings came to be moral creatures, I see no point in parsing that out. You gave some sort of “god’s standard of bad” argument that I didn’t even bother finishing. There are only rare examples in nature where killing babies of your own species could even make sense. And the term “axe murder” was used, indicating killing for no justifiable reason, the murderer just liked doing it. Using that example, you could not possibly make a statement about relative morality that would add anything to that conversation.

As an aside, the blog post itself was also bad philosophy. He mis-characterized the article he linked to and Harris’ thoughts and did not understand the point made.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2016 08:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  288
Joined  2016-01-29

CC - A person with a healthy sense of self-skepticism would have spend a little time wondering about what truths this eloquent person might be trying share with you.

In terms of on point rational argumentation there is no truth content to his whole little rant, it is just one long ad hominem with no attempt to make rational arguments on the subjects under discussion on the thread.

Which is what I said.  He could not demonstrate my error with reason, he could not support his points with reason, so he just used a lot of flowery language to simply say “you are stupid”.

When a person sinks to simply telling me I am too stupid to know how stupid I am then I really am not even slightly impressed that the ad hominem is all dressed up in superficially sophisticated language.

I respect on point arguments in plain English as opposed to phony tedious pontifications containing no rational argumentation value on the subjects at hand.

[ Edited: 05 July 2016 09:25 PM by Stardusty Psyche ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2016 09:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  288
Joined  2016-01-29

Lausten - you had trouble with “murdering babies is evil”. I would have dropped you right there. That’s so universally bad, it’s not worth arguing

Ok, please provide your absolutely provable, demonstrably objective, provably real, basis for the the statement “murdering babies is evil”.

I will save you a bit of effort and just let you know many have attempted this feat and at some point they always fall back to some moral proposition that is postulated, not proved.  But by all means, give it a go, because if you somehow manage to succeed you will undoubtedly go down in history as the first moral philosopher to ever succeed in this task.

indicating killing for no justifiable reason, the murderer just liked doing it

Please prove that is evil.

Good luck, my friend, you are going to need it.

[ Edited: 05 July 2016 09:26 PM by Stardusty Psyche ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2016 01:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4314
Joined  2014-06-20
Stardusty Psyche - 05 July 2016 09:11 PM

Lausten - you had trouble with “murdering babies is evil”. I would have dropped you right there. That’s so universally bad, it’s not worth arguing

Ok, please provide your absolutely provable, demonstrably objective, provably real, basis for the the statement “murdering babies is evil”.

I will save you a bit of effort and just let you know many have attempted this feat and at some point they always fall back to some moral proposition that is postulated, not proved.  But by all means, give it a go, because if you somehow manage to succeed you will undoubtedly go down in history as the first moral philosopher to ever succeed in this task.

indicating killing for no justifiable reason, the murderer just liked doing it

Please prove that is evil.

Good luck, my friend, you are going to need it.

Luck,is not necessary. It has nothing to do with “evil.” We don’t murder babies because it’s human nature to protect the next generation and our own progeny. It has nothing to do with conscious thought.  If humans didn’t have that determining thrust, created over millennia of natural selection, the human race would not have survived.

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2016 06:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6640
Joined  2007-10-05
Stardusty Psyche - 05 July 2016 09:11 PM

Lausten - you had trouble with “murdering babies is evil”. I would have dropped you right there. That’s so universally bad, it’s not worth arguing

Ok, please provide your absolutely provable, demonstrably objective, provably real, basis for the the statement “murdering babies is evil”.

I will save you a bit of effort and just let you know many have attempted this feat and at some point they always fall back to some moral proposition that is postulated, not proved.  But by all means, give it a go, because if you somehow manage to succeed you will undoubtedly go down in history as the first moral philosopher to ever succeed in this task.

indicating killing for no justifiable reason, the murderer just liked doing it

Please prove that is evil.

Good luck, my friend, you are going to need it.

Of course there is no objective proof that murdering babies is evil. So what? That only means there is no absolute morality. This is something we agree upon as a society, and as Lois said we would not be around as a species if we could not reach these agreements. This view has evolved over millennia. Slavery was considered morally good until quite recently, but our social views have evolved past that and the vast majority of us now consider slavery morally wrong. There is no objective proof of that, just an agreed-upon social construct.

As any manipulative person, you offer nothing constructive, just criticisms and annoying questions.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2016 08:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4181
Joined  2009-10-21
Stardusty Psyche - 05 July 2016 09:11 PM

Please prove that is evil.

Good luck, my friend, you are going to need it.

I would be interested to know what philosophy you have read and who all these people are that you refer to. Philosophical arguments that are as pervasive as you say have titles and the people who postulated those best are usually well known, so it shouldn’t be hard to list them. The reason I’m asking for this, is you haven’t defined “evil”. That’s where I would need to start, but I’m not going to write a thesis on that only to find you have some other ridiculous stance and impenetrable illogic that I would have to deal with. You’re also having trouble with the word “prove”, but we can set that aside for now.

Instead, I’ll keep it simple. I don’t like getting poked at with a sharp stick. I can discuss this with others and find out they don’t like it either. Together we can make agreements about how to co-exist based on that mutual understanding. Also, we can inductively reason that babies don’t like it either. We also know babies are unable to defend themselves. We also know they grow up and take care of us when we are old. So, I think having a place where people take of each other is good. Murdering babies doesn’t contribute to that.

But I’m guessing that won’t be good enough for you. Maybe you might like trying your hand at the thread just below this one. “Why is existence preferable to non-existence?”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2016 09:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  288
Joined  2016-01-29

LoisL - Luck,is not necessary. It has nothing to do with “evil.” We don’t murder babies because it’s human nature

Indeed, evil, as a moral absolute, is irrelevant.

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1