Dunning-Kruger Effect Might Not Be Real

*SD*

Administrator
Staff member
I've skimmed the article, I'll read it in more depth later if needed but for the time being -

I understand the DK effect to be a set of behaviours and/or character traits exhibited by, basically narcissists. Narcissism is a diagnosable condition, with (I believe) nine criteria, not all of which need to be met, I think it's more than six or something like that. As for DK specifically, I'm not sure in what sense it wouldn't be "real". Perhaps in a diagnosable sense? As in not a medical or psychological/pathological condition? It seems to be "real" in every way that really matters, in that there are people who exhibit the traits described. Usually a grandiose sense of self importance, authority and Earth shattering deepness of knowledge on a particular topic. Having encountered many such people over the years, I'd say it's very real. I could even drop names, but I won't, save to say there are many threads on this very forum wherein now absent members exhibit what I understand to be the DK effect to the Nth degree.
Calling those who point out their errors idiots, morons and many other colourful names even when faced with direct falsifying evidence that they are, in fact, wrong.

Just my two cents worth :)
 

he_who_is_nobody

Well-Known Member
BT_20190518_LLDKEP1_3784237_0.jpg

Thoughts? I know some circles I hang out in, including this one, like to lean on Dunning-Kruger a bit when it comes to talking to (or about) people who don't know as much about something as they think they do.

I have never liked that Dunning-Kruger has entered the lexicon as nothing more than another way to insult someone for being stupid. According to the Dunning-Kruger effect, everyone is somewhere on the line for every subject. I have always seen Dunning-Kruger as more of a humbling observation and should never be used as an insult. Remember that you are just as ignorant (and perhaps as arrogant) as a creationist or flat earther for another subject.

Now that is beyond whether or not the actual effect is a result of statistical noise or not. If it is accurate, we are all on it for different subjects at one point or another.
 

We are Borg

Administrator
Staff member
I've skimmed the article, I'll read it in more depth later if needed but for the time being -

I understand the DK effect to be a set of behaviours and/or character traits exhibited by, basically narcissists. Narcissism is a diagnosable condition, with (I believe) nine criteria, not all of which need to be met, I think it's more than six or something like that. As for DK specifically, I'm not sure in what sense it wouldn't be "real". Perhaps in a diagnosable sense? As in not a medical or psychological/pathological condition? It seems to be "real" in every way that really matters, in that there are people who exhibit the traits described. Usually a grandiose sense of self importance, authority and Earth shattering deepness of knowledge on a particular topic. Having encountered many such people over the years, I'd say it's very real. I could even drop names, but I won't, save to say there are many threads on this very forum wherein now absent members exhibit what I understand to be the DK effect to the Nth degree.
Calling those who point out their errors idiots, morons and many other colourful names even when faced with direct falsifying evidence that they are, in fact, wrong.

Just my two cents worth :)
Its 8 criteria and if you have at least 5 your on the spectrum of NPD (Narcissistic Personality Order). It’s something a person can be helped with, the problem with NPD is that some think they are always right.
 

mechtheist

Member
DK is specific, it's that people who know less and less about some subject will more and more overestimate their knowledge of it, ascertained by testing, while those with a lot of knowledge will tend to underestimate their scores on being tested. The reason the data looked so good and it took this long to figure out is it sounds so good but mainly because the basic data used for scoring and analysis was distorted by floor and ceiling effects. Their conclusion is fairly inescapable, they used a process that could simulate the data but was essentially random and they got results that looked the same. It's quite sad that it very likely isn't true. I keep thinking it seems so perfect that there is something going on.
 
Top