My favorite part of the Dunning-Kruger effect are the people who used to talk about how smart they are, but upon learning of the study run around saying they're dumb because they think that puts them on par with the intelligent.
A foolish man thinks himself wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool. Upon learning this, the fool spouts his foolishness for all to see; the wise man remains as he was.
Comment by David Dunning (if he is actually him) on the blog post - "The blog author is correct in describing what the original effect is poor performers are overly confident relative to their actual performance. They are not more confident than high performers"
It seems that really smart/intelligent people actually have a much higher estimation of their ability then the less intelligent people (just that the discrepancy between their actual ability and the estimated ability are smaller than less smart people). So opp to what jgg mentioned, those who learn of this study should be inflating their estimation of their own intelligence to put themselves up there with the smartest quartile.
Those who run around saying they are dumb are actually.... dumb =)
So the net of all this is that smart people think they're smart and dumb people think they're dumb. But smart people underestimate their smartness and dumb people underestimate their dumbness. Academia at it's finest. I feel dumb.
that makes me wonder whether your comment is made to look you smarter or dumber than you are
The Dunning-Kruger effect specifically talks about honest self-assessment, not artificial posturing to skew other's views of your intelligence.
and what that means in Dunning-Kruger effect's context.
I'm pretty sure you're trying to use Dunning and Kruger's work to assess things that weren't actually a part of the original study. There is little to no relevant self-assessment involved in making the neutral observation that people abuse the results of the studies to make themselves seem smarter (which, again, has nothing to do with the results of the original study).
Comments
My favorite part of the Dunning-Kruger effect are the people who used to talk about how smart they are, but upon learning of the study run around saying they're dumb because they think that puts them on par with the intelligent.
A foolish man thinks himself wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool. Upon learning this, the fool spouts his foolishness for all to see; the wise man remains as he was.
Comment by David Dunning (if he is actually him) on the blog post - "The blog author is correct in describing what the original effect is poor performers are overly confident relative to their actual performance. They are not more confident than high performers"
It seems that really smart/intelligent people actually have a much higher estimation of their ability then the less intelligent people (just that the discrepancy between their actual ability and the estimated ability are smaller than less smart people). So opp to what jgg mentioned, those who learn of this study should be inflating their estimation of their own intelligence to put themselves up there with the smartest quartile.
Those who run around saying they are dumb are actually.... dumb =)
So the net of all this is that smart people think they're smart and dumb people think they're dumb. But smart people underestimate their smartness and dumb people underestimate their dumbness. Academia at it's finest. I feel dumb.
that makes me wonder whether your comment is made to look you smarter or dumber than you are, and what that means in Dunning-Kruger effect's context.
that makes me wonder whether your comment is made to look you smarter or dumber than you are
The Dunning-Kruger effect specifically talks about honest self-assessment, not artificial posturing to skew other's views of your intelligence.
and what that means in Dunning-Kruger effect's context.
I'm pretty sure you're trying to use Dunning and Kruger's work to assess things that weren't actually a part of the original study. There is little to no relevant self-assessment involved in making the neutral observation that people abuse the results of the studies to make themselves seem smarter (which, again, has nothing to do with the results of the original study).