The Dunning-Kruger Effect

[bluegreenearth]

From Psychology Today: (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basi ... ger-effect)

Dunning-Kruger Effect
The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people wrongly overestimate their knowledge or ability in a specific area. This tends to occur because a lack of self-awareness prevents them from accurately assessing their own skills.

Understanding the Dunning-Kruger Effect
The concept of the Dunning-Kruger effect is based on a 1999 paper by Cornell University psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger. The pair tested participants on their logic, grammar, and sense of humor, and found that those who performed in the bottom quartile rated their skills far above average. For example, those in the 12th percentile self-rated their expertise to be, on average, in the 62nd percentile.

The researchers attributed the trend to a problem of metacognition—the ability to analyze one’s own thoughts or performance. “Those with limited knowledge in a domain suffer a dual burden: Not only do they reach mistaken conclusions and make regrettable errors, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it,” they wrote.

What causes the Dunning-Kruger effect?
Confidence is so highly prized that many people would rather pretend to be smart or skilled than risk looking inadequate and losing face. Even smart people can be affected by the Dunning-Kruger effect because having intelligence isn’t the same thing as learning and developing a specific skill. Many individuals mistakenly believe that their experience and skills in one particular area are transferable to another.

Why do people fail to recognize their own incompetence?
Many people would describe themselves as above average in intelligence, humor, and a variety of skills. They can’t accurately judge their own competence, because they lack metacognition, or the ability to step back and examine oneself objectively. In fact, those who are the least skilled are also the most likely to overestimate their abilities.

Here is the link to the 1999 paper by David Dunning and Justin Kruger: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/U ... ebabc?p2df

Apparently, all of us are susceptible to the Dunning-Kruger Effect but few of us are consciously aware when we are exhibiting the diagnostic symptoms.

So, I'm compelled to consider if the Dunning-Kruger Effect best explains the arrogant confidence various untrained and unqualified pseudo-intellectuals have in their poorly researched and tragically misinformed objections to demonstrably reliable scientific theories which are rigorously and routinely tested by actual experts who are trained and qualified in their relevant fields?

If not the Dunning-Kruger Effect, what are other candidate explanations for this deleterious social phenomenon?

Is there a compassionate way to facilitate intellectual humility and help each other recognize when our confidence in a particular perspective is disproportionately high compared to our level of competence?

[bluegreenearth]

I have had to say a couple of times (and have had a lot of discussions about this in the past) that forums and debates of this kind rarely has experts in any of the disciplines and we all tend to be amateurs. Indeed the process of debating religious claims puts the expert at a disadvantage as the other side only has to switch from philosophy to Palaeontology, or Bibletext criticism to ancient near - eastern history to completely leave the Expert floundering. We have to be jacks of all trades and masters of none in order to be able to swim in these Arkanely deep Flood waters.

Indeed. Just to be more clear, I'm not suggesting that amateurs shouldn't be debating complex topics. My concern is for the lack of intellectual humility I've been observing from various amateurs. It is one thing to ask challenging critical thinking questions but another to exhibit non-negotiable confidence in a poorly informed objection.

[William]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #11]

Indeed. Just to be more clear, I'm not suggesting that amateurs shouldn't be debating complex topics. My concern is for the lack of intellectual humility I've been observing from various amateurs. It is one thing to ask challenging critical thinking questions but another to exhibit non-negotiable confidence in a poorly informed objection.

This is a Christian Debate Forum Message Board. I assume that you are not implying Christians cannot be intelligent?
Non-negotiable topics should not be debated by folk who have non-negotiable beliefs, whatever their intelligence quota might be...as far as I can tell, because - regardless of the intelligence of the one believing in such, all that is required is honesty and a keep-away policy where topics arise that question said non-negotiable stuffs.

The question might arise as to whether honesty is related to intelligence, or just a subset of something not yet properly identified, or some such thing besides those...

[bluegreenearth]

This is a Christian Debate Forum Message Board. I assume that you are not implying Christians cannot be intelligent?
Non-negotiable topics should not be debated by folk who have non-negotiable beliefs, whatever their intelligence quota might be...as far as I can tell, because - regardless of the intelligence of the one believing in such, all that is required is honesty and a keep-away policy where topics arise that question said non-negotiable stuffs.

The question might arise as to whether honesty is related to intelligence, or just a subset of something not yet properly identified, or some such thing besides those...

I am not implying that Christians cannot be intelligent. However, the more intelligent people are, the more likely they are to exhibit some intellectual humility.

[William]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #13]

I am not implying that Christians cannot be intelligent. However, the more intelligent people are, the more likely they are to exhibit some intellectual humility.

Is that the same thing as intellectual honesty? I think so...

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #13]

I am not implying that Christians cannot be intelligent. However, the more intelligent people are, the more likely they are to exhibit some intellectual humility.

Is that the same thing as intellectual honesty? I think so...

That's an interesting question. It seems to me that there are subtle similarities and differences between the two concepts. When I use the term intellectual humility, I'm describing an attitude exhibited by people who recognize their lack of knowledge and experience in a particular subject area such that they are open to the possibility of being mistaken. Meanwhile, I use the term intellectual honesty to describe behavior exhibited by people who make a conscious effort to avoid the use of deceptive tactics when defending their position and avoid overstating their case when the available supporting evidence is insufficient.

[William]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #13]

I am not implying that Christians cannot be intelligent. However, the more intelligent people are, the more likely they are to exhibit some intellectual humility.

Is that the same thing as intellectual honesty? I think so...

That's an interesting question. It seems to me that there are subtle similarities and differences between the two concepts. When I use the term intellectual humility, I'm describing an attitude exhibited by people who recognize their lack of knowledge and experience in a particular subject area such that they are open to the possibility of being mistaken. Meanwhile, I use the term intellectual honesty to describe behavior exhibited by people who make a conscious effort to avoid the use of deceptive tactics when defending their position and avoid overstating their case when the available supporting evidence is insufficient.

It appears to me that the two concepts are so close as to be related and in that, one without the other is not possible.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #11]

Indeed. Just to be more clear, I'm not suggesting that amateurs shouldn't be debating complex topics. My concern is for the lack of intellectual humility I've been observing from various amateurs. It is one thing to ask challenging critical thinking questions but another to exhibit non-negotiable confidence in a poorly informed objection.

This is a Christian Debate Forum Message Board. I assume that you are not implying Christians cannot be intelligent?
Non-negotiable topics should not be debated by folk who have non-negotiable beliefs, whatever their intelligence quota might be...as far as I can tell, because - regardless of the intelligence of the one believing in such, all that is required is honesty and a keep-away policy where topics arise that question said non-negotiable stuffs.

The question might arise as to whether honesty is related to intelligence, or just a subset of something not yet properly identified, or some such thing besides those...

Quite correct and the Dunning -Kruger thing of the one who knows least has no idea of how dumb they come across. Comedians often make use of this in depicting arrogant ignorance (Al Murray q.v (1). This is of course so similar to faith - based denialism by people whom one Knows are smart enough to know better but do not want to know better, that it often looks the same.

This is relevant to the point William (I think the layout confuses me at times) about treating Christians as unintelligent. There is something I used to say on my old Board ...Deconverts do not suddenly become more intelligent, they simply become less theist. We all know, don't we (and I think the theists know this deep don inside because you see from their evasions, ducking and diving like a politician asked an awkward question that they know where they are going wrong but do not want to know because they are driven by Faith and not by getting at the truth so far as the evidence goes.

Christians have often protested about being called 'Stupid' by theists. The fact is that often they are not. They can be very smart. But the arguments are often stupid.Don't we recall the one about the Two Jerichoes made in order to try to explain away the contradiction about Jesus healing the blind man? This looks 'stupid' but in fact it's all of a piece with the Marys inexplicably splitting up to explain away the contradiction in Matthew and Luke meeting or not meeting Jesus. Not stupid at all, in fact quite clever, but far - fetched. Like claiming the Temple cleansing at the start of John is a different one from the one at Holy week in the synoptics. A bit far -fetched or stupid? Neither. It's denialist. It was shifted by Jon for some reason and the evidence is all there (a big hole in holey week where it ought to be. And to deny it to avoid a contradiction is so denialist it makes the Bible apologist look stupid. I'll leave it there, but it's a ..Political way of arguing that fascinates me as well as rather appalls me.

(1) people have often thought that he really is ignorant and arrogant but he is very smart knows a lot - history is his speciality - see 'countries we have beaten' and is really basing his whole comedy persona on the Dunning -Kruger effect.

[Difflugia]

Christians have often protested about being called 'Stupid' by theists [sic—I assume you mean "atheists"]. The fact is that often they are not.

I'm reminded of the Richard Feynman quote:

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #17]

This is relevant to the point William (I think the layout confuses me at times) about treating Christians as unintelligent. There is something I used to say on my old Board ...Deconverts do not suddenly become more intelligent, they simply become less theist. We all know, don't we (and I think the theists know this deep don inside because you see from their evasions, ducking and diving like a politician asked an awkward question that they know where they are going wrong but do not want to know because they are driven by Faith and not by getting at the truth so far as the evidence goes.

My position is Agnostic Theist. So you are claiming that I duck and weave and evade etc and don't deal with "awkward questions" and are "driven by faith" rather than "getting at the truth".

I do not think your assessment of my position is intellectually honest or intellectually humble.

[TRANSPONDER]

Christians have often protested about being called 'Stupid' by theists [sic—I assume you mean "atheists"]. The fact is that often they are not.

I'm reminded of the Richard Feynman quote:

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.

Thank you for the correction. And the quote. It is so very easy to be convinced of what one believes. And it is hard to give up a pet theory. But the trick is to sideline Buy in and accept the other argument on its' merits. Very often doing that, one imagines the argument against the argument and it fails and the Pet theory remains . There's a difference between being quite unbiased and being capable of objective assessment. The bottom line is that one should never be afraid of the truth and if one tries to shove it away, there's something wrong.

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #17]

This is relevant to the point William (I think the layout confuses me at times) about treating Christians as unintelligent. There is something I used to say on my old Board ...Deconverts do not suddenly become more intelligent, they simply become less theist. We all know, don't we (and I think the theists know this deep don inside because you see from their evasions, ducking and diving like a politician asked an awkward question that they know where they are going wrong but do not want to know because they are driven by Faith and not by getting at the truth so far as the evidence goes.

My position is Agnostic Theist. So you are claiming that I duck and weave and evade etc and don't deal with "awkward questions" and are "driven by faith" rather than "getting at the truth".

I do not think your assessment of my position is intellectually honest or intellectually humble.

As I recall I referred to the point you posted, not that I filletted your personality specifically. After all you clarified what your particular Ism is, so I should be aware that not every theist, let alone every Christian, has the same approach. However, since you take the point Personally first mistake theists make- leaping up whinnying in protest before anyone prodded them. 'Agnostic theist' simply says 'believer in some god or other'. Not which one or whether it's just intelligent nature. 'Agnostic' tells us nothing as nobody knows for sure, so we are all agnostic, theist or atheist, so that tells us nothing. Back to the drawing -board on your self definitions. My advice is free by the way if you need help on that.

Ah no, I shouldn't tease. Let me help or clarify. going on past experience, I would take 'agnostic theist' to be opposed to a theist who knows there is a god. Gnostic theist. In the past 'Agnostic theist usually turns out to mean irreligious theists. That means they do believe in a god but not in a mad made...I mean man made....no, as you were... religion. These people are in fact 2nd cousins to atheists (unless they are ex -muslims in which case they are 1st cousins) as they are Irreligious Theists ow Ka ...Nones" Yes, these are lumped in the same voting group as atheists Though (as theists often observe) not all nones are atheists (though a lot are without knowing it "Hell no! Ah ain't no Ay-theist. Ah jus' don't believe in God, that's all".