• Well it depends on how you’re using it.

        On the surface, if I understand what you’re asking correctly, no. From what I’m understanding of these articles, the dunning Krueger effect never did what it set out to accomplish, but something along the lines of people who don’t know much have a much larger amount of things that they themselves aren’t even aware of not knowing… if that makes sense? I can try to reword later tonight after I finish with work

    • @kromem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      810 days ago

      Your last link pissed me off enough I wrote an entire post on why that study is dog shit.

      It sometimes pays off to review the methodology and supplementary materials in papers.

      • I believe that I may have originally gotten wind of this from a less wrong post IIRC. Pretty interesting stuff. Imagine if we trained an AI on doing science and peer review, and set it loose on the suite of research findings and had it report back all the BS…

    • @BaumGeist@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      110 days ago

      This disptoves any statistical anonmaly that suggests the majority of people fall into the “dunninng-kruger effect”; it doesn’t disprove the existence of ignorant people who overestimate their understanding or knowledgeable people who understimate their understanding.

      Thus OP’s question becomes: how do you know if you’re one of those people?

      • You know what you know, and you don’t know what you don’t know. If you don’t know what you don’t know, it would follow that you wouldn’t understand how much you don’t know either.

        IMO its a philosophy battle, just for the sake of battle. Assuming ignorance, and striving to learn more, learn from your mistakes, and self assess reign supreme - imo.

  • @taladar@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    2011 days ago

    That is not quite how that works. The effect can apply to separate fields of knowledge or separate skill sets separately. You might actually know what you are talking about when it comes to e.g. plumbing but only think you do when it comes to e.g. IT systems.

    • @otp@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      311 days ago

      Yeah, one big factor is to not assume that you’re an expert because you’re good at something else and you “did your own research” on this topic

  • @some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    911 days ago

    One of them (Dunning or Kruger, can’t recall) was interviewed on the You Are Not So Smart podcast. Look it up.

  • @vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    611 days ago

    You need to actively and continuously seek out negative but constructive feedback. It’s the only way to keep an objective perspective on your capabilities.

    Organizations that are actually serious about quality have processes for this. Organizations that are not pretend to have processes for this ;)

  • @Phegan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    511 days ago

    If you are wondering where you are on the curve, you likely aren’t too bad. Simply recognizing that you may not know everything is a bit step along the curve

  • @eezeebee@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    411 days ago

    It’s not a single curve, but a repeating wave. Every “aha!” moment is a peak and every “fuck this” is a dip. Source: learning music production for years.

  • @bradorsomething@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    3
    edit-2
    10 days ago

    I’m going to answer the broader topic: “how do I know what mastery I have in a subject area?”

    • Are you able to use parts of a problem in that area to fill in the gaps from experience to find a solution?

    • Are you able to identify why an attempted solution to a problem in that area won’t work, and why?

    • Do people refer to you with difficult questions about that area?

    • Are there areas in that subject you feel don’t make complete sense, that when you ask subject matter experts they deflect (or better, admit they don’t understand it either)?

    • Can you identify problems in that subject area that have not been solved, and can, if not take the time to solve them, identify how you would go about solving them?

    Each step here shows an increasing level of mastery in a topic.

    • @absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      510 days ago

      Not quite pseudoscience, there was an effect that they thought they measured. Later more rigorous experiments showed that there was no such effect.

      This is exactly what science is supposed to do.

  • IceWallowCum [he/him]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1
    edit-2
    11 days ago

    Depending on the actual thing you’re considering, it’s putting the knowledge into practice and having a clear way of evaluating whether you’re failing

  • magic_lobster_party
    link
    fedilink
    111 days ago

    It’s mostly about knowing your limits of knowledge.

    If you don’t know about your limits, you’re probably a newbie of the subject. You don’t grasp how much more there’s to learn. You think you’ve learned almost everything.

    If you know about your limits, you probably know a lot about the subject. You have learned a lot, but you understand there’s still much more to learn.

    • @mojo_raisin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      711 days ago

      The basic effect Dunning-Kruger is about is real and apparent everywhere. The specific formulation as stated from that pair may have some errors but throwing away the idea due to poor science isn’t smart.

      https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-dunning-kruger-effect-isnt-what-you-think-it-is/

      To establish the Dunning-Kruger effect is an artifact of research design, not human thinking, my colleagues and I showed it can be produced using randomly generated data.

      First, we created 1,154 fictional people and randomly assigned them both a test score and a self-assessment ranking compared with their peers.

      So, the experiment with completely fake data disproves Dunning-Kruger? How is this science?

      • Match!!
        link
        fedilink
        English
        311 days ago

        If random numbers result in the same observable phenomenon, then the phenomenon is a property of mathematics and not cognition

        • @mojo_raisin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          211 days ago

          Ah gotcha, I wasn’t quite understanding that.

          I still personally believe that the basic effect described by Dunning-Kruger does in fact exist on some level. If it’s not due to cognition, that seems to imply that essentially everyone at every intelligence level accurately estimates their own intelligence, that would be weird.

          Dunning-Kruger became popular because it gave a name to an apparent phenomena.

          • @tomalley8342@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            2
            edit-2
            10 days ago

            That article (or rather, the article linked in that article) doesn’t contradict your intuition, just a specific interpretation of that intuition. The randomly generated data puts everyone around 50%, which is indeed what you would expect from randomly uniformly generated data. So the similarity that the generated data presents is supposed to imply the conclusion that “everyone thinks they’re about average, so their judgement is no better than randomly guessing (assuming that the guesses are uniformly distributed)”, which is a subtle difference from “dumb people think they’re smart” - the latter attributes some sort of “flawed reasoning” to one’s self-judgement, while the former specifically asserts that there is absolutely no relevant self-judgement going on.

            edit: You would also be correct that this doesn’t disprove the previous explanation, it just offers an alternative explanation for the observed effect. The fact that data matches up with a generated model definitely does not prove that it is not actually caused by something else, which is one of the criticisms of that viewpoint. It is obviously easier to rigorously demonstrate a statistical explanation than a psychological explanation of course, due to the nature of the two different fields.