This is one of the weirdest things about human nature. The person who says, “X equals Y, and you have to be a goddamn moron to think otherwise” is somewhat more likely to be wrong than the person who says, “X equals Y, at least to the best of our current understanding of the matter.”
Certainty seems to have a (slight!) negative correlation with truth!
So…keep on using those “weasel phrases,” those qualifiers, those acknowledgements of exceptions to general rules, those admissions of uncertainty. They are signposts of a better understanding of the world than absolute, dead, unshakeable, unyielding certainty.
It’s called the Dunning-Krüger effect, and it’s part of why I try not to act like an arrogant douche until I’m absolutely sure that I’m right; I’ll bust out the “I’m better than you” argument in regards to things such as Evolution, and really not all that much else.
Cool! Thank you! I just read a couple short articles on this, and was fascinated!
Another, somewhat related example, is the effect of many drunken people to insist, “I’m not drunk! I’m ferpectly fine!” If someone were to ask me, “Whoa, man, do you think I’m drunk?” I’d figure they were, but not very. But if he shouted, “I’m not drunk! I’m in complete control of myself,” I’d reckon they were probably looped.
Well, sure! Holding that opinion is simply a basic measure of ordinary human sapience. You have to get down into the level of the echinodermata before Republican economic policies appear to make sense.
Oh no. Not again. First of all, it was mentioned in post #9, so lavenderviolet gets the credit. Second, the effect has been twisted in pop culture into something it’s not. What you describe is NOT the Dunning-Kruger effect. If you read the actual paper published by Dunning and Kruger, it makes a lot more sense than the way it’s popularly potrayed.
What it’s not: The ignorant think that they know everything and are masters of a field. The informed think that there’s so much they don’t know that they’re humble.
What it is: The inability to accurately estimate how you compare to those around you. The ignorant think that most others are ignorant too, so each of these people thinks “I’m probably middle of the pack.” The informed think that “I generally know what I’m talking about, but everybody knows this stuff.” So if they’re also asked how they compare, they say “Probably somewhat above average.”
The experiment: Subjects were given an aptitude test and then ranked by their score. They were then asked “How do you think you did?” If everyone were accurate in their estimation, the first place guy would say “I’m first place,” the 90% percentile would say “We’re in the 90% percentile,” and the last place guys would say “We did the worst out of the group”. Turns out, the last place guys think they’re about 50% (i.e. they think half the class did worse), the 50%ers think they’re 70% and the 90%ers think they’re 80%. So in truth, the Dunning-Kruger effect is just a central-seeking tendency for people to self-rate. No one wants to say they’re last place, and no one wants to think they’re first place.
The difference: In the pop culture version, the ignorant think they know it all and the informed think they’re ignorant. In the real version, the ignorant know that they’re ignorant but think everyone else is, too. The informed know they’re informed but think everyone else is, too. Oddly enough, you can see this effect even when people rate other people. When was the last time you saw a judge in a TV talent contest give someone a 4 or 5? When was the last time a teacher graded an essay at 30%? That never happens! The worst you can expect is a 6 or a 50%. The best you can hope for is a 9.5 or a 95%.
So there ya go. It has nothing to do with arrogance and everything to do with comparing values and scores to an unseen distribution. It doesn’t matter if you’re grading yourself or someone else. It doesn’t matter if you’re deeply invested in the score or are just playing for fun.
So in the spirit of the thread, can we all stop spreading the scientifically illiterate pop culture version?
Sigh… Okay, time to bring up the flip side of the OP.
Pedants who know a topic so well that they freak out when people use ordinary language in ways that are clinically incorrect. Similar to grammar nazis…
I can say, “I have a theory,” without some Popperian correcting me to say, “No, you have an hypothesis.”
I can say that my uncle’s disease is “degenerative” when I know it’s really “progressive.” I know the difference. (In fact, I’m quoting the floor nurse.)
I can say that an ancient Indian arrowhead is an “artifact” without some nitpicker of an archaeologist correcting me by saying it is an authentic find.
So…relax, people. Let the rest of us have our vernacular.
