Dunning-Kruger effect

I recently came across this idea for the first time. It’s quite fascinating.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

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.

“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.

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.

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.”

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.

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

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.
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. :roll: I for one am not impressed. :blank:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?"
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.
DarronS - Of course there is no objective proof that murdering babies is evil. So what?
So there are a great many, perhaps the large majority, that disagree with you and I on this point.
As any manipulative person, you offer nothing constructive, just criticisms and annoying questions.
I agree with every rational argument about morality you just made. You simply are not aware of the full context of the thread(s) at issue. Are you still mad because glaciers on the inhabited continents are not essential to human water supplies?
Lausten - But I’m guessing that won’t be good enough for you
It's good enough for me because I realize that's about all we have. Most of the world is suffering under the delusion there is more. Dawkins called that the god delusion. But, as long as one of these delusional folks is posting long "eloquent" ad hominems against me CC seems quite willing to turn a blind eye to the irrationality of the arguments being made, and you just plain don't seem to get it. DarronS at least saw the obvious, but he is still mad at me about glaciers so he jumped off track too.
Lausten - But I’m guessing that won’t be good enough for you
It's good enough for me because I realize that's about all we have. Most of the world is suffering under the delusion there is more. Dawkins called that the god delusion. But, as long as one of these delusional folks is posting long "eloquent" ad hominems against me CC seems quite willing to turn a blind eye to the irrationality of the arguments being made, and you just plain don't seem to get it. DarronS at least saw the obvious, but he is still mad at me about glaciers so he jumped off track too.
I'm not interested in what others have said about you and I haven't seen any eloquent ad hominems or irrational arguments, so I can't comment on those. The delusions that others suffer don't matter to this conversation. I don't really know what you're saying about morality now. It seems you were arguing against their being absolutes, but since we agree with that, you seem to be lost. Do you accept this?: You don't need an absolute moral authority for the word "morality" to have meaning. Edit: That was supposed to be a question.
DarronS - Of course there is no objective proof that murdering babies is evil. So what?
So there are a great many, perhaps the large majority, that disagree with you and I on this point.
Once again, so what? When pressed those people could not offer any objective proof, so they are wrong about that point even though the vast majority agree that murdering babies is evil, which is the important point.
As any manipulative person, you offer nothing constructive, just criticisms and annoying questions.
I agree with every rational argument about morality you just made. You simply are not aware of the full context of the thread(s) at issue.
Which threads are those?
Are you still mad because glaciers on the inhabited continents are not essential to human water supplies?
No, I'm not mad. I'm annoyed because you have a history of posting useless comments such as, "Ok, please provide your absolutely provable, demonstrably objective, provably real, basis for the the statement 'murdering babies is evil'." You agree murdering babies is evil, you agree there is no objective proof of such, yet you ask for just that. When you get down to it there is no absolute truth outside mathematics and logic, and even in those disciplines you have to start with agreed-upon postulates to prove anything. Murdering babies is an ethical issue, and there is no such thing as an absolute objective truth in ethics, so asking for such is a distraction from rational discussion.