According to Wiki,
“ The Dunning–Kruger effect is a hypothetical cognitive bias stating that people with low ability at a task overestimate their own ability, and that people with high ability at a task underestimate their own ability.”

The ‘effect’ presupposes an objective determination of ‘ability’, against which a person’s subjective bias is measured. But what if the supposed objective ‘fact’ of ability on which the effect is based is nothing but an abstracted average derived from the real individual variability in self-assessment? In such a case, the determination of subjective bias is itself a bias based on an illusory notion of objectivity.

Few know how to control themselves consistently, no, which is why success is an anomaly rather than the norm. — Yohan

I don’t think the issue is self-control, but the control
of events. That is , difficultly in the pragmatic anticipating of the events of life. This isn’t the result of a failure of ‘objectivity’ or mindless habit , but of the fact that the world around us is constantly changing , and try as we may, it is a challenge to adapt ourselves consistently to the unpredictability that is thrown our way, to find ways to perceive order and regularity in the flow of changing events.

I dunno what kinda parameters were used in the experiment conducted by Dunning Kruger but my best guess is there are many reasons why one might think one can complete a task but there's only one reason why one fails to perform that task.

I suspect everyone, or most, "suffer" from Dunning Kruger. — Yohan

"Dunning Kruger" is just another example of bullshit jargon replacing focused thought, just like the logical fallacy fallacies. It's just another way of saying "I think you're wrong," or "You don't know what you're talking about," while giving the appearance of insight. People here use it as a stick to beat people with instead of just saying what they mean. Often it is used as an ad hominem argument rather than something substantive.

But what if the supposed objective ‘fact’ of ability on which the effect is based is nothing but an abstracted average derived from the real individual variability in self-assessment? — Joshs

This is baloney. I was an engineer for 30 years. Before that, I was a cabinetmaker for 10. I knew who was good at what they did and who was not. It's not hard to tell. Competence is very important to me. My one goal in life has been to be competent at something that provides concrete value to people. When you work with someone who knows what they're talking about and what they're doing, it shines like a star. If you know what you're doing, you can see it in them, hear it, feel it, even if you're not familiar with the subject.

I'm not sure if this is directly relevant, but I love it, so here it is. Emerson, "Compensation."

Labor is watched over by the same pitiless laws. Cheapest, say the prudent, is the dearest labor. What we buy in a broom, a mat, a wagon, a knife, is some application of good sense to a common want. It is best to pay in your land a skilful gardener, or to buy good sense applied to gardening; in your sailor, good sense applied to navigation; in the house, good sense applied to cooking, sewing, serving; in your agent, good sense applied to accounts and affairs. So do you multiply your presence, or spread yourself throughout your estate.

But because of the dual constitution of things, in labor as in life there can be no cheating. The thief steals from himself. The swindler swindles himself. For the real price of labor is knowledge and virtue, whereof wealth and credit are signs. These signs, like paper money, may be counterfeited or stolen, but that which they represent, namely, knowledge and virtue, cannot be counterfeited or stolen. These ends of labor cannot be answered but by real exertions of the mind, and in obedience to pure motives. The cheat, the defaulter, the gambler, cannot extort the knowledge of material and moral nature which his honest care and pains yield to the operative. The law of nature is, Do the thing, and you shall have the power: but they who do not the thing have not the power.

Just because it is a term abused by some doesn't mean the concept is bullshit. Also, of course it is a way of saying “I think you are wrong”, it is one of the ways in which people can be wrong, what else would you expect it to be? Thats like complaining “youre contradicting yourself” is just another way of saying “I think your wrong”. Yes, yes it is.
You aren’t describing a problem with the term, you are describing its problematic use by problematic people. Jerkoffs will be jerkoffs, but we should never concede language to them.
Also, it is more than the appearance of insight. If used accurately insight is exactly what the concept is describing, insight into why a person is in error, the nature of their mistake.
So I find your criticism weak, and it has the wiff of prejudice, like its a cherished opportunity to push back with some sort of disdain for psych terms or something.

Just because it is a term abused by some doesn't mean the concept is bullshit. — DingoJones

It is bullshit because 1) it is often, usually, used to add a patina of reason to a poorly-thought-through criticism. 2) Many people who use the term don't even know what it means. 3) The prime sign of jargon - the term's meaning can be easily and clearly, more clearly, expressed in everyday language.

So I find your criticism weak, and it has the wiff of prejudice, like its a cherished opportunity to push back with some sort of disdain for psych terms or something. — DingoJones

I think, perhaps, you overestimate your own ability to understand the motives for my opinion, which, by the way, are not relevant to my argument and shouldn't be part of your response. So, maybe, you also overestimate your ability to reason effectively.

But what if the supposed objective ‘fact’ of ability on which the effect is based is nothing but an abstracted average derived from the real individual variability in self-assessment?
— Joshs

This is baloney. I was an engineer for 30 years. Before that, I was a cabinetmaker for 10. I knew who was good at what they did and who was not. It's not hard to tell. — T Clark

Yes, but I thought the point of Dunning Kruger was eaxh person’s assessment of their own capabilities, not your assenssmanr of their capabilities. And for that matter , how has your assessment of others skills been shaped by your own skill development? Before you learnt engineering or cabinetry , how might your judgement of others talents in those arenas differed? Would you disagree with the idea that how much you know influences your opinion on others’ abilities?
And it gets more complicated than that, doesn’t it. There are different facets to any skill set. Some emphasize some facets more than others( efficiency, style, speed,thoroughness). There is also the question of determining WHY someone’s product doesn’t measure up? Are they lacking the skill set or are there other factors involved? If one is trying to avoid firing an employee it is useful to recognize these. factors.

And what about ability in theoretical realms like philosophy and basic science?

Every writer imagining themselves to be an original
thinker considers their work groundbreaking and ahead of its time. Is there an ‘ objective ‘ way to determine the validity of their claims?

It is bullshit because 1) it is often, usually, used to add a patina of reason to a poorly-thought-through criticism. 2) Many people who use the term don't even know what it means. 3) The prime sign of jargon - the term's meaning can be easily and clearly, more clearly, expressed in everyday language. — T Clark

All of that was noted and rebutted in my initial comment.

I think, perhaps, you overestimate your own ability to understand the motives for my opinion, which, by the way, are not relevant to my argument and shouldn't be part of your response. So, maybe, you also overestimate your ability to reason effectively. — T Clark

You think wrong. I never offered an estimation of your motives for your opinion therefore no overestimation could have been detected. Your response attacks my “ability to understand the motives of my opinion” rather than the two things I offered in my comment: the wiff of prejudice and the accusation of pushing back against psych terms “or something”. Do you know what that's called? Is there a term one might use to describe attacking someones ability to understand rather than what they have said/claimed?
As for relevance, well it is entirely relevant to bring those things up if they are in-fact true, which they may not be. Are they? You can dispel them with a proper response instead the the…what are those called again? Whats the word?
And lastly, this:

“So, maybe, you also overestimate your ability to reason effectively.“

Is the last step in completing a logical fallacy, so what is a person supposed to do? You want to dismiss the “jargon” of that logical fallacy but here you are making one so whats a guy to do? Am I not supposed to correctly point out a logical fallacy because ignorant people on the internet dont know what they are and misuse (or fail to identify :wink: ) a specific logical fallacy?
Again: your problem isnt with those terms, its the people misusing the terms and we should never, ever concede language to the clowns among us.

This discussion reminds me of Godwin's Law. It used to be a way to throw shade. But then Trump came along and it kind faded because, well, . . .

I suspect everyone, or most, "suffer" from Dunning Kruger. — Yohan

It's pretty clear that many people assume expertise in a subject when they have only read a book on it or done a short course. Many of us do have to make decisions about matters based on scant understanding of the subject, but is that DK? Surely this is only the case if we exaggerate our capacity/insight (cognitive bias). I think DK itself is subject to the DK effect and is cheerfully misapplied to many things.

All of that was noted and rebutted in my initial comment. — DingoJones

Nunh unh.

I never offered an estimation of your motives for your opinion — DingoJones

This is a flat out falsehood. I quote:

its a cherished opportunity to push back with some sort of disdain for psych terms — DingoJones

All in all, I think my response was much cleverer than yours. Did you notice how I accused you of being subject to the D-K effect - twice - but I did it just using plain language. I-R-O-N-Y!!! In your face!!

Yes, but I thought the point of Dunning Kruger was eaxh person’s assessment of their own capabilities, not your assenssmanr of their capabilities. — Joshs

The only way the D-K effect is meaningful is if a person's competence is a personal characteristic with some more or less independent existence.

how has your assessment of others skills been shaped by your own skill development? Before you learnt engineering or cabinetry , how might your judgement of others talents in those arenas differed? Would you disagree with the idea that how much you know influences your opinion on others’ abilities? — Joshs

Here is the T Clark theory of competence - The primary skill required for the development of competence is the ability to recognize high quality endeavor. If you don't know it when you see it, you can't do it right. That ability is (can be?) a non-subject-specific skill, i.e. it is (may be?) possible to recognize competence as such without detailed knowledge of the subject matter.

This discussion reminds me of Godwin's Law. It used to be a way to throw shade. — James Riley

This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that lead to the persecution of intellectuals in the Third Reich.

I never pegged you as the dishonest type, here is the actual sentence:

“So I find your criticism weak, and it has the wiff of prejudice, like its a cherished opportunity to push back with some sort of disdain for psych terms or something.“

Why did you cut the front and back ends off? Am I allowed to call that cherry picking or is that jargon too? Is that your thing? Just commit logical fallacies, dishonestly cherry pick and ignore points and questions in favour of flip dismissal of criticisms as “jargon”?
The parts you omitted provide important context that differentiate my statement between an accusation and an estimation. Do you understand the difference?

Anyway, you didnt respond to argument nor clarifying questions so no reason to suspect you will start now. Good day.

Aww. Geez. There you go getting all agitated and angry again. We should really stop having these discussions if they're going to upset you so much.

You are mistaken, again. Neither agitated nor angry, just not into wasting my time. You’ve decided not to engage and so mock instead, thats fine, it was amusing but inevitably boring.

The primary skill required for the development of competence is the ability to recognize high quality endeavor. If you don't know it when you see it, you can't do it right. — T Clark

Nice. :clap:

You are mistaken, again. Neither agitated nor angry, just not into wasting my time. You’ve decided not to engage and so mock instead, thats fine, it was amusing but inevitably boring. — DingoJones

You're kind of a nasty arguer, snotty and condescending. Insulting. I've looked at some of your other posts so I know it's not just with me. It's kind of your thing. So, yes. I mock you because 1) you deserve it and 2) being straight-up with you doesn't seem to work.

Solution - If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything. I'll do the same.

Nah, Ill keep doing what Im doing. I dont mean to come off as snotty…not all the time anyway. I save my insults for those deserving, like anyone else.
Also, I said I was fine with the mocking. You acted like I was complaining. I wasnt.
Where were you “straight up” with me in the most recent exchange?

I think DK itself is subject to the DK effect and is cheerfully misapplied to many things. — Tom Storm

Too few people discussing DK have read the original study, or at least the Wiki article on it.

The title of the original study was:

"Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments"

and this is the salient point of the DK effect. Lack of competence can lead to inflated self-assessments of one's competence.

That one cannot have expertise in every field is a given. But people differ in how they interpret and handle this lack of competence (in themselves and in others).

Note also that the DK effect is not universal across cultures, but that some cultures (ie. Muricans) are more prone to it than others.


We had a nice example of it a while back when a poster posted a thread about ad hominems, asking questions about it. Some posters suggested some literature on the topic, for the OP's questions are readily addressed in it. But the OP refused to read that literature, and claimed that suggesting that they read that was an ad hominem.

Nice summary.

Well stated for once Baker :wink:

But because of the dual constitution of things, in labor as in life there can be no cheating. The thief steals from himself. The swindler swindles himself. — T Clark

Emerson’s reading of karma.

Incidentally nobody has mentioned the anecdote which inspired the DK thesis. I’m not going to look it up again, but it had to do with a hopeless bank robber who believed - because someone had told him -that smearing lemon juice on your face made you invisible to security cameras. Thus smeared, he set off on a robbery spree, clearly visible on the cameras in every one despite his precautions. And I think I remember that even after his arrest and sentencing, he remained convinced about the magical powers of lemon juice.

(Plenty of that kind of thinking visible in COVID disinformation myths.)

We had a nice example of it a while back when a poster posted a thread about ad hominems, asking questions about it. Some posters suggested some literature on the topic, for the OP's questions are readily addressed in it. But the OP refused to read that literature, and claimed that suggesting that they read that was an ad hominem. — baker

I believe I am the poster being referenced here. The thread was my "Ad Hominem, Ad Schominem," which I think was a good one. It ended two months ago. Here's a link to the place in the discussion where @baker had uncomplimentary things to say about me.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/558201

If Baker's thoughts about my lack of critical thinking skills were correct, which I don't think they were, they still would not be an example of the Dunning Kruger effect.

Well stated for once — DingoJones

*sigh*