Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Science and Technology => Topic started by: Steve H on January 05, 2022, 12:05:54 AM
-
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking/dunning-kruger-effect-probably-not-real?fbclid=IwAR2j5B0oXDfMZL-ats81ytHvwsKeyq0Q5Cf5bESiuukC3hXdB1EiPgiQ5cg
-
Brilliant
The Dunning Kruger effect isn't about intellectual inferiority, Isn't about us and them and is indistinguishable from white noise....
..........Has anybody broken the news to Bluehillside yet?
-
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking/dunning-kruger-effect-probably-not-real?fbclid=IwAR2j5B0oXDfMZL-ats81ytHvwsKeyq0Q5Cf5bESiuukC3hXdB1EiPgiQ5cg
Actually, the example given in the article has convinced me that the effect is real.
The randomly generated data can be explained by the fact that, for low scores there is more space to put your estimate in above the line than below the line and for high scores the reverse is true. The cross over point is at exactly 50% as you would expect if the algorithm were exactly symmetrical.
For the data used by Dunning and Kruger, the cross over point is somewhere around 70%. There must be a systematic bias somewhere.
-
If you are charged with demonstrating the Dunning Kruger effect you can simply declare the area of expertise you are incompetent in null void and improper as Dawkins and his erstwhile Munchkin PZ Myers did back in the day.
-
If you are charged with demonstrating the Dunning Kruger effect you can simply declare the area of expertise you are incompetent in null void and improper as Dawkins and his erstwhile Munchkin PZ Myers did back in the day.
I assume you are talking about the courtier's reply there. What has that got to do with D-K?
-
If you are charged with demonstrating the Dunning Kruger effect you can simply declare the area of expertise you are incompetent in null void and improper as Dawkins and his erstwhile Munchkin PZ Myers did back in the day.
If everyone else in the world is a Professor Dawkins' patented anti-theist fan-boy, why is it that you are the one that keeps bringing him up?
O.
-
If everyone else in the world is a Professor Dawkins' patented anti-theist fan-boy, why is it that you are the one that keeps bringing him up?
O.
I think Susan Doris brought Dawkins up in connection, with MY poster boy Rowan Williams.
-
I think Susan Doris brought Dawkins up in connection, with MY poster boy Rowan Williams.
Not seeing either of those names in the thread...?
O.
-
Not seeing either of those names in the thread...?
O.
Remember, "reds under beds"?
Vlad has a similar paranoia, "professors in posts"!
-
Not seeing either of those names in the thread...?
O.
Twas on another thread that you started.
I've listened to the article. I've always thought Rowan Williams rather wishy-washy especially since I heard him trying but not succeeding to wriggle out of a direct question from Richard Dawkins.
-
Twas on another thread that you started.
So my point still stands then, it seems YOU feel the need to bring Professor Dawkins into discussions, it seems like it's your fixation, regardless of whatever you have to say about other antitheistTM Dawkins-fanboysTM.
O.
-
Remember, "reds under beds"?
Vlad has a similar paranoia, "professors in posts"!
step we gaily on we go, Outrider and wee Seb Toe.........
-
So my point still stands then, it seems YOU feel the need to bring Professor Dawkins into discussions, it seems like it's your fixation, regardless of whatever you have to say about other antitheistTM Dawkins-fanboysTM.
O.
Are you suggesting as the late Donna Summer might have put it ''OOOOOOOOOOOOOO I feel Dawk, I feel Dawk, I feel Dawk, I feel Dawk OOOOOOOOOOOOO I feel Dawk, I feel Dawk I feel Dawk I feel Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawk, I feeeel Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawk, I ffffffffeeel Dawk''?
-
Are you suggesting as the late Donna Summer might have put it ''OOOOOOOOOOOOOO I feel Dawk, I feel Dawk, I feel Dawk, I feel Dawk OOOOOOOOOOOOO I feel Dawk, I feel Dawk I feel Dawk I feel Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawk, I feeeel Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawk, I ffffffffeeel Dawk''?
Partial as I am to a bit of boogieing to Donna I have to ask, are you feeling quite well?
-
I think it's worth pointing out that "Dunning-Kruger" has taken on a colloquial meaning that's not the same as the specific effect talked about in the OP. The colloquial meaning is: people talking nonsense but being too ignorant of the subject to realise they are talking nonsense. I can name numerous examples that I have come across in the area in which I am fairly knowledgeable i.e. computing and in other areas where I have a keen amateur interest. Pretty much every Young Earth Creationist falls into the trap when talking bout evolution, for example.
-
If you are charged with demonstrating the Dunning Kruger effect you can simply declare the area of expertise you are incompetent in null void and improper as Dawkins and his erstwhile Munchkin PZ Myers did back in the day.
Some people who think they are brilliant wits exhibit the DK effect, if it exists, whenever they try to be witty.