This was very interesting and thought-provoking, but I remain unconvinced. For me, the main point of DKE is that when people learn a little about something they often tend to overestimate their expertise and insight. That's certainly true, and I've observed it many times (and been guilty of it as well!) Alexander Pope was riffing on this in the early 18th century, so it's hardly an original idea. Of course experts can be overconfident as well -- human foolishness knows no bounds! But the important point of DKE is not that we should trust experts blindly but that we should be wary of people with limited experience and strong opinions. A few minutes spent listening to any sports radio call-in show will provide you with all the evidence you might want.
And I bet every plumber has loads of stories of homeowner do-it-yourself disasters.
2. Experts in domains with little feedback are more dangerous than lay-persons who are overconfident in that same domain. (DKE, if real, isn’t the real problem).
3. Experts who use DKE as a weapon deserve *more* scrutiny. I agree plumbers see people do stupid stuff! But they don’t go around accusing people of suffering from DKE! They just fix the problem.
4. You should not be afraid to learn a little bit about a subject so that you can ask stupid questions.
I think you're conflating competence for expertise. DKE looks at the relationship between confidence and competence, not expertise. This makes it consistent with all of your other points here, especially experts invoking DKE to dismiss criticism. This is type of behavior is indicative of incompetence. The issue in wider society is that we have a competence crisis where expertise and competence have diverged as the technocratic managerial elite have maneuvered themselves into positions where reality testing is scarce and achieving accountability when it does occur is nearly impossible.
That was one of several assessments that they did. The others were a test of English grammar and a test of logical reasoning. The flaws are less with the assessments themselves and more about how they interpreted the self-assermentas by comparison. One thing I didn’t include in the essay which I wish I had was the most obvious flaw: people gravitate towards 7 on 10 point scales or 70 on 100 point scales because it’s non-communal. If I ask you how you think you did on something on a scale of 1-10, saying higher than 7 is braggy and saying less than 7 is probably too humble. So it’s no surprise that in the self-assessments people have themselves scores that hovered around 70.
I think the focus on DK is half-right. There are folks who greatly underestimate their competence in matters without knowlege. Where it's half wrong, which is what you're poking at, is that Experts, speaking outside their domain (green lumber) suffer DK much MORE than the average bloke, especially if their being wrong has no direct consequence (as Thomas Sowell talks about a lot). Bottom-line, we can all suffer from hubris if we don't embrace humility.
So what do we call people who are supremely confident in their expertise but who are actually incompetent. Those are the folks I want to stay away from.
This was very interesting and thought-provoking, but I remain unconvinced. For me, the main point of DKE is that when people learn a little about something they often tend to overestimate their expertise and insight. That's certainly true, and I've observed it many times (and been guilty of it as well!) Alexander Pope was riffing on this in the early 18th century, so it's hardly an original idea. Of course experts can be overconfident as well -- human foolishness knows no bounds! But the important point of DKE is not that we should trust experts blindly but that we should be wary of people with limited experience and strong opinions. A few minutes spent listening to any sports radio call-in show will provide you with all the evidence you might want.
And I bet every plumber has loads of stories of homeowner do-it-yourself disasters.
I made a number of claims in the essay, which were you unconvinced by?
The main claims are four-fold.
1. The original DKE research is flawed and doesn’t show what people think it shows. (https://theconversation.com/debunking-the-dunning-kruger-effect-the-least-skilled-people-know-how-much-they-dont-know-but-everyone-thinks-they-are-better-than-average-195527)
2. Experts in domains with little feedback are more dangerous than lay-persons who are overconfident in that same domain. (DKE, if real, isn’t the real problem).
3. Experts who use DKE as a weapon deserve *more* scrutiny. I agree plumbers see people do stupid stuff! But they don’t go around accusing people of suffering from DKE! They just fix the problem.
4. You should not be afraid to learn a little bit about a subject so that you can ask stupid questions.
As far as the actual academic side of DKE, check out this video: https://youtu.be/pWiQzKBSvE0?si=khnNQb0wkpdpWVeg
I think you're conflating competence for expertise. DKE looks at the relationship between confidence and competence, not expertise. This makes it consistent with all of your other points here, especially experts invoking DKE to dismiss criticism. This is type of behavior is indicative of incompetence. The issue in wider society is that we have a competence crisis where expertise and competence have diverged as the technocratic managerial elite have maneuvered themselves into positions where reality testing is scarce and achieving accountability when it does occur is nearly impossible.
Very good, but missed too much on the first go. I will listen again when I am done putting the Salomon up in brine!
I never thought to even question the Dunning-Krueger Effect and its...effects. thanks!
Thanks for reading!
Wasn't the original Dunning-Krueger study notorious for using highly subjective things like which jokes were funnier for their questions?
That was one of several assessments that they did. The others were a test of English grammar and a test of logical reasoning. The flaws are less with the assessments themselves and more about how they interpreted the self-assermentas by comparison. One thing I didn’t include in the essay which I wish I had was the most obvious flaw: people gravitate towards 7 on 10 point scales or 70 on 100 point scales because it’s non-communal. If I ask you how you think you did on something on a scale of 1-10, saying higher than 7 is braggy and saying less than 7 is probably too humble. So it’s no surprise that in the self-assessments people have themselves scores that hovered around 70.
I think the focus on DK is half-right. There are folks who greatly underestimate their competence in matters without knowlege. Where it's half wrong, which is what you're poking at, is that Experts, speaking outside their domain (green lumber) suffer DK much MORE than the average bloke, especially if their being wrong has no direct consequence (as Thomas Sowell talks about a lot). Bottom-line, we can all suffer from hubris if we don't embrace humility.
So what do we call people who are supremely confident in their expertise but who are actually incompetent. Those are the folks I want to stay away from.