Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect

To some, the Kruger Dunning effect is more a matter of believe. Looking at the original paper it appears that the estimated quality of ones own performance is almost independent of the actual test performance: all test subjects rated themselves with 55 to 70%. Hence, test performance and the own perception of test performance may not be related at all, since both smart and clueless people responded with the same standard guess.

Or, to put it into a better phrase: All people think that they are smart.  :-)

That's not what the paper actually demonstrated. Much more interesting are the changes in self-evaluation after seeing the work of others and after receiving training. Incompetent people do not change their inflated estimates of themselves even when presented with the work of others, but they do change after receiving training — thus becoming more competent, and more capable of evaluating their previous poor performance. Conversely, highly competent people fall prey to the false consensus effect and underestimate themselves because they assume everyone is as good as they are, barring evidence to the contrary. Training increases both the estimate of their own competence (since they receive confirmation that they were correct) and of their competence with respect to others.

It is true that all (or most) people think they are above average, which is probably just a mechanism for keeping a positive (and hence productive) self-image. What the paper demonstrated was that a large factor in why incompetent people do not recognize their own incompetence is because they cannot competently evaluate their performance. They suck even at knowing that they suck.

If you're bad at something you're also likely to be bad at recognizing that you're bad at it. Obviously this applies much less to tasks where success or failure can be trivially correlated with the results and/or do not require knowledge to establish (your ability in cooking a nice souffle is easily measured by tasting the end result) but many tasks are complicated and/or knowledge-based, and the outcome is not immediately obvious to relate to one's own ability. JRM · Talk 10:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That jibes with my memory of it. However, there is little value to discussing this on the talk page. Why not improve the article itself? Uucp 10:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Another study showed that 80% of all questions related to Wikipedia editing can be answered with "because I'm lazy". :-) Actually, I only wrote the above because I'd just read the paper and the remark I replied to seemed inappropriate. You're quite right that the article could use some attention too, however. I don't know whether the "Dunning-Kruger effect" doesn't happen to be exactly what the anon describes, though; I'm not a psychology student. I'll see if I can expand on the description of the paper in the next few days. (I'm off to catch a train, so I have a good excuse this time. :-) JRM · Talk 11:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

---

I found this to be interesting (from [1] ) <>< tbc 19:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

In a final experiment, Dunning and Kruger set out to discover if training would help modify the exaggerated self-perceptions of incapable subjects. In fact, a short training session in logical reasoning did improve the ability of low-scoring subjects to assess their performance realistically, they found.

The findings, the psychologists said, support Thomas Jefferson's assertion that "he who knows best knows how little he knows."

paper critique

All that the paper finds is that in domains where competence and metacognitive ability (to use their terms) are the same -- as they are in black and white knowledge-based domains such as knowing whether "I walk" or "Walk I" is grammatical English -- that competence and metacognitive ability are the same. What a surprise. Fortunately they do mention something like this at the end:

When can the incompetent be expected to overestimate themselves because of their lack of skill? Although our data do not speak to this issue directly, we believe the answer depends on the domain under consideration. Some domains, like those examined in this article, are those in which knowledge about the domain confers competence in the domain. Individuals with a great understanding of the rules of grammar or inferential logic, for example, are by definition skilled linguists and logicians. In such domains, lack of skill implies both the inability to perform competently as well as the inability to recognize competence, and thus are also the domains in which the incompetent are likely to be unaware of their lack of skill.
In other domains, however, competence is not wholly dependent on knowledge or wisdom, but depends on other factors, such as physical skill. One need not look far to find individuals with an impressive understanding of the strategies and techniques of bas- ketball, for instance, yet who could not "dunk" to save their lives. (These people are called coaches.) Similarly, art appraisers make a living evaluating fine calligraphy, but know they do not possess the steady hand and patient nature necessary to produce the work themselves. In such domains, those in which knowledge about the domain does not necessarily translate into competence in the domain, one can become acutely—even painfully—aware of the limits of one's ability. In golf, for instance, one can know all about the fine points of course management, club selection, and effective "swing thoughts," but one's incompetence will become sorely obvious when, after watching one's more able partner drive the ball 250 yards down the fairway, one proceeds to hit one's own ball 150 yards down the fairway, 50 yards to the right, and onto the hood of that 1993 Ford Taurus.

All that they really show is that the incompetents overestimate the number of questions that they themselves got right. And that people assign themselves a percentile score of a bit above average when presented with a group of people of unknown ability.
Furthermore I have to point out that they got their answer to the example with the cards wrong. For their answer to be correct you need to make the additional assumption that each card has a letter on one side and a number on the other. The correct answer without that extra assumption is A and 4 (as they say) but also B which might have E on its other side.
So what is this Dunning-Kruger effect??? --MarSch 17:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Notable enough?

This "effect" doesn't seem to satisfy notability concerns. Even though it was published, there doesn't seem to be third-party evaluation of this theory. Can anyone find sources? .V. _[Talk|Email] 07:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Try Googling for "dunning" and "kruger". There are hundreds of thousands of hits, both online and traditional print publications. They don't all call it the "Dunning-Kruger effect" but they are discussing this phenomenon sometimes with slightly different names. Uucp 12:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure these aren't the only people who have the names Dunning and Kruger. As such, there's no surprise there would be plenty of hits. But are there third-party reliable sources that don't simply report the study? I'm talking about replicating the study, etc. .V. _[Talk|Email] 20:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I added a couple of new papers to the page. There are others too Codec 21:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

V, try typing it into Google yourself; there are pages and pages of citations clearly about this study. Uucp 02:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I've not heard of this study being replicated, but it *did* win an ignobel award. imho, that ads to it's notability. (and I was surprised that this wasn't mentioned on the page... Nemo 07:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Check the Deletion log on Wikipedia. While not evidence of Dunning–Kruger effect's notability, it certainly is evidence of the effect, as Wikipedia attracts a steady flood of new users who vastly overestimate their competence at creating new articles appropriate for Wikipedia. A common scenario seems to be that a new user has little or no knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and yet assumes that no such knowledge is necessary. On the Help desk we get a steady stream of folks asking Why was my article deleted?, and it often turns out they are really demanding to know why Wikipedia does not conform to their ignorant and wildly erroneous assumptions about how it works. Clearly, vast numbers of people do conclude they know everything they need to know about completely new and unfamiliar subjects. That is why Dunning and Kruger's work has been so widely cited; see for example: Google:Incompetent and unaware of it which produces many citations such as this one. --Teratornis 22:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

im sure that if you look in places like usenet and forum archives from around that AOL users got access to the world wide web, you will see it start to develope. and even today, you can still see people who seem to have this delusion of knowing more about things than other people. Just look at Loose Change and you will see experts in fields pretend that they are experts in totaly unrelated, or very barely related fields of science. --Alphamone 02:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we site this discussion as an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect?

I suggest this article is renamed to "Explanation of Youtube and digg.com comments"

Implications?

Can someone write up implications of this effect? Or examples of its implications? Comments observed in many high-traffic websites / services might be an example. What about in business, at home, at play? Jackvinson 22:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe: http://xkcd.com/202/ Yishan 00:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Is the report of the Ames and Kammrath study misleading?

Daniel Ames and Lara Kammrath extended this work to sensitivity to others, and the subjects' perception of how sensitive they were.[3]

Some more work by Burson Larrick and Joshua Klayman[4] has suggested that the effect is not so obvious and may be due to noise and bias levels.

The statement regarding the work by Ames and Kammrath appears to apply to the whole article, rather than just the preceeding paragraph.

While their work does bring doubt regarding the extension of the effect regarding sensitivity, it does not raise any questions regarding the 4 core assertions.

The study by Ames and Kammrath test for social judgement and mind-reading.

Dunning and Kruger tested for humor, grammar, and logic.

The Dunning-Kruger effect predicts that the persons ability to asses a skill is improved when their own skill level is raised.

Mind reading, however, is not a skill that can be acquired. It is therefore impossible to raised the presons skill level in order to observe the Dunning-Kruger effect.

It may be possible to improve somebodies social judgement, but it is still a difficult skill to measure. As a skill becomes more difficult to measure, then it also become more difficult to estimate. It is also possible for false measurements to be introduced.

Grammar and logic, on the other hand, are hard skills that can be both taught and measured.

This gives two qualities for a skill: measurability and acquirability.

Mind reading is a skill that cannot be acquired.

Social judgement and humour are difficult to acquire and measure.

Grammar and Logic can be consistently acquired and measured.

The Dunning-Kruger effect should show strongest in the last category, but is not addressed in the Ames and Kammrath study. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ged Byrne (talk • contribs) 10:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Downing effect?

Doesn't this sound like the same topic: Downing effect? Can these be merged? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minnaert (talk • contribs) on 4 March 2008.

It is most definitely the same topic. Famspear (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Title constitutes original research

Naming this effect the "Dunning-Kruger effect" constitutes Original Research: I haven't seen it called that in the literature. Dunning and Kruger showed that superiority bias/illusory superiority is greater for people who are the least competent, in the context of well-defined tasks. Hence it's misleading to give this effect its own article. Instead it should be a section in an article on superiority bias. You can't clearly explain what the paper says without introducing superiority bias, as the current version of the article unfortunately illustrates. WP has at least two other articles on superiority bias: Lake Wobegon effect and Overconfidence effect. All of these have major flaws as encyclopedia articles. I will have a day working on WP on Tuesday 27th May: I will try to sort these issues out then.13:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)MartinPoulter (talk)

I somewhat agree that the naming may original research (i.e. the sources do not prove that the term Dunning-Kruger effect is used, they only explain the phenomenon without using that name. Google Scholar only delivers to hits for the term Dunning-Kruger effect and 1 hit for its German version, that is indeed pretty thin. However here is another scientific paper that apparently uses the term: [2]. Being bold one might say to justify the name for the lemma, however being cautious WP might be well advised not using that term, until there's better evidence that it has indeed become a common term within the scientific community (and within psychology community in particular).--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)