The first rule of Dunning-Kruger club...
-
-
@PJH Judging by my confidence I'm either a total n00b or middling at what I do... :)
I feel like there should be an imposter syndrome chart that just has a flat line slightly above 0% confidence
-
-
@accalia Thanks for illustrating, @r10pezaccalia :D
-
@accalia You spelled "ambiguous" correctly. Are you feeling all right?
-
@antiquarian said in The first rule of Dunning-Kruger club...:
@accalia You spelled "ambiguous" correctly. Are you feeling all right?
i am under caffinated
also i was sure i had spellared it.....
-
I've been working on a bunch of new stuff for about two weeks all told and I've already been through a spike of 'this makes sense, I totally know what I'm doing', down into the chasm of 'I know nothing and contribute nothing' and just about starting to feel like I have a handle on it again.
Next thing: meta-Dunning-Kruger. The less confident you are, the more you assume you must be good because you know about Dunning-Kruger, which falsely bolsters your confidence until you wind up on the front page of TDWTF because you thought you knew what you were doing.
-
That's not what the Dunning-Kruger effect is about. Specifically, it's nowhere near as absolute as people typically portray it. What the researchers found is that some people of low competence believe themselves to be more competent than they are because they don't know what they don't know, and some people of great competence believe themselves to be less competent than they are because they know enough to be painfully aware of what they don't know.
The problem is, people have gotten ahold of a dumbed-down version of it where "anyone who thinks they're competent at something probably actually sucks and knows just enough to be dangerous." And that leads to a very dangerous category of logical fallacies in which a person asserting X can be used as evidence of not-X.
To understand why this is such a pernicious idea, apply it to a criminal trial. If a denial of guilt can be interpreted as proof of guilt, how is a true innocent to defend himself?
Filed under: See also: The Blub Paradox
-
@masonwheeler said in The first rule of Dunning-Kruger club...:
The problem is, people have gotten ahold of a dumbed-down version of it where "anyone who thinks they're competent at something probably actually sucks and knows just enough to be dangerous." And that leads to a very dangerous category of logical fallacies in which a person asserting X can be used as evidence of not-X.
Anti-intellectuals are prone to logical fallacies. In other news, tequila increases the likelihood of drunken brawls. Film at 11.
-
@masonwheeler The way I read it, it's not about belief but rather about competence.
Being able to judge the level of your competence in an area is a related competence in and of itself.
Which means that if you are incompetent in an area, it's also likely that you're similarly incompetent to accurately judge your level of incompetency. The "unknown unknowns", so to speak ;)
-
@masonwheeler said in The first rule of Dunning-Kruger club...:
That's not what the Dunning-Kruger effect is about. Specifically, it's nowhere near as absolute as people typically portray it. What the researchers found is that some people of low competence believe themselves to be more competent than they are because they don't know what they don't know, and some people of great competence believe themselves to be less competent than they are because they know enough to be painfully aware of what they don't know.
The problem is, people have gotten ahold of a dumbed-down version of it where "anyone who thinks they're competent at something probably actually sucks and knows just enough to be dangerous." And that leads to a very dangerous category of logical fallacies in which a person asserting X can be used as evidence of not-X.
To understand why this is such a pernicious idea, apply it to a criminal trial. If a denial of guilt can be interpreted as proof of guilt, how is a true innocent to defend himself?
Filed under: See also: The Blub Paradox
Dude, we have whole threads devoted to that.
-
@CarrieVS said in The first rule of Dunning-Kruger club...:
I've been working on a bunch of new stuff for about two weeks all told and I've already been through a spike of 'this makes sense, I totally know what I'm doing', down into the chasm of 'I know nothing and contribute nothing' and just about starting to feel like I have a handle on it again.
So...
https://i.imgur.com/jj16ThL.jpg
???
(Replace
Eve: The Second Genesis
with desired label)
Filed under: Damn, that image is old
-
@masonwheeler said in The first rule of Dunning-Kruger club...:
Filed under: See also: The Blub Paradox
Meh...that paradox ain't that great. I certainly don't need it.
-
@masonwheeler said in The first rule of Dunning-Kruger club...:
That's not what the Dunning-Kruger effect is about. Specifically, it's nowhere near as absolute as people typically portray it. What the researchers found is that some people of low competence believe themselves to be more competent than they are because they don't know what they don't know, and some people of great competence believe themselves to be less competent than they are because they know enough to be painfully aware of what they don't know.
The problem is, people have gotten ahold of a dumbed-down version of it where "anyone who thinks they're competent at something probably actually sucks and knows just enough to be dangerous." And that leads to a very dangerous category of logical fallacies in which a person asserting X can be used as evidence of not-X.
To understand why this is such a pernicious idea, apply it to a criminal trial. If a denial of guilt can be interpreted as proof of guilt, how is a true innocent to defend himself?
Filed under: See also: The Blub Paradox
Facts a to memes.
-
@masonwheeler said in The first rule of Dunning-Kruger club...:
That's not what the Dunning-Kruger effect is about. Specifically, it's nowhere near as absolute as people typically portray it. What the researchers found is that some people of low competence believe themselves to be more competent than they are because they don't know what they don't know, and some people of great competence believe themselves to be less competent than they are because they know enough to be painfully aware of what they don't know.
Ok - a more accurate graph (from http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect) than the OP would be:
But it spoils the funnies.
-
@Magus said in The first rule of Dunning-Kruger club...:
@masonwheeler said in The first rule of Dunning-Kruger club...:
That's not what the Dunning-Kruger effect is about. Specifically, it's nowhere near as absolute as people typically portray it. What the researchers found is that some people of low competence believe themselves to be more competent than they are because they don't know what they don't know, and some people of great competence believe themselves to be less competent than they are because they know enough to be painfully aware of what they don't know.
The problem is, people have gotten ahold of a dumbed-down version of it where "anyone who thinks they're competent at something probably actually sucks and knows just enough to be dangerous." And that leads to a very dangerous category of logical fallacies in which a person asserting X can be used as evidence of not-X.
To understand why this is such a pernicious idea, apply it to a criminal trial. If a denial of guilt can be interpreted as proof of guilt, how is a true innocent to defend himself?
Filed under: See also: The Blub Paradox
Dude, we have a whole
threadscategory devoted to that.FTFY
See Also: Mafia
-
The first ruel of the Dunning-Kruger club is that you admit yourself because you know you meet all the membership criteria, then instantly take on a role on the leadership committee.
-
@masonwheeler said in The first rule of Dunning-Kruger club...:
people have gotten ahold of a dumbed-down version
So we're observing the DK effect with respect to understanding the DK effect?
@masonwheeler said in The first rule of Dunning-Kruger club...:
If a denial of guilt can be interpreted as proof of guilt, how is a true innocent to defend himself?
By pleading guilty.
-
@masonwheeler said in The first rule of Dunning-Kruger club...:
If a denial of guilt can be interpreted as proof of guilt, how is a true innocent to defend himself?
something something something?
-
@masonwheeler said in The first rule of Dunning-Kruger club...:
If a denial of guilt can be interpreted as proof of guilt, how is a true innocent to defend himself?
Mafia is
-
@Yamikuronue said in The first rule of Dunning-Kruger club...:
@masonwheeler said in The first rule of Dunning-Kruger club...:
If a denial of guilt can be interpreted as proof of guilt, how is a true innocent to defend himself?
Mafia is
Reading is a to being d
-
@abarker said in The first rule of Dunning-Kruger club...:
Reading is a to being d
Reading is a city in Pennsylvania.
-
@masonwheeler said in The first rule of Dunning-Kruger club...:
@abarker said in The first rule of Dunning-Kruger club...:
Reading is a to being d
Reading is a city in Pennsylvania.
And in Berkshire.
-
@PJH said in The first rule of Dunning-Kruger club...:
@masonwheeler said in The first rule of Dunning-Kruger club...:
@abarker said in The first rule of Dunning-Kruger club...:
Reading is a to being d
Reading is a city in Pennsylvania.
And in Berkshire.
And Ohio:
And Massachusetts:
And Michigan:
And several other places.
Filder Under: This joke has been beaten into the ground thanks to the letter U and the number 3.
-
@abarker what I want to know, do any of them have laws against s?
-
@anotherusername Probably, but no one can ever seem to find them...
-
@anotherusername No, they just have lots of s
-
@Onyx said in The first rule of Dunning-Kruger club...:
@CarrieVS said in The first rule of Dunning-Kruger club...:
I've been working on a bunch of new stuff for about two weeks all told and I've already been through a spike of 'this makes sense, I totally know what I'm doing', down into the chasm of 'I know nothing and contribute nothing' and just about starting to feel like I have a handle on it again.
So...
https://i.imgur.com/jj16ThL.jpg
???
(Replace
Eve: The Second Genesis
with desired label)
Filed under: Damn, that image is old