Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Technical template applied

I have flagged the Underlying issues of numeracy section as being far too technical for general Wikipedia readers – being too specialist in its jargon and concepts – and it requires a complete rewriting by one competent in the issues. — O'Dea (talk) 09:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree. The article contains a lot of important information but is otherwise in a sorry state considering the interest in DK explaining our post-truth world. WykiP (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Also Agree, and further think the Underlying issues of numeracy section should be removed entirely. It is full of grammatical errors, including that the title itself is ambiguous as to whether it refers to "issues of numeracy" (as it says) or "issues raised in Numeracy [web blog]" (which it appears to discuss). Further, it appears to dispute a strawman "refute the claim that humans, in general, are prone to having greatly inflated views of their abilities", when it was specifically the original claim that incompetent people have greatly inflated views and NOT that people in general have such views. Finally it appears to argue only "problems with the graphic introduced in the 1999 Kruger and Dunning paper" and not the paper or results or subsequent research at all. Concerns with 'troublesome' scatter plot projections in the self assessment literature is not about Dunning Kruger effect, but a separate discussion about graphical artefacts in social science research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TorontoGavin (talk • contribs) 03:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The section was also an inaccurate summary, which I have now corrected. WykiP (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft lead section

At low levels of performance, people tend to presume they are much more competent than they are. The gap between presumed and actual ability tends to increase the worse the performance is. This correlation is called the Dunning-Kruger effect.

David Dunning and Justin Kruger contend that bad performance is partly due to failing to identify and learn from one's mistakes.

The same research showed that best performers tend to underestimate their performance relative to others and overestimate others' performance. Dunning states that this is partly due to a false assumption that others would have a similar experience to them .

---

Aim was to improve legibility and accessibility whilst removing jargon, non-essential information and the barely comprehensible quote in the old second paragraph. Also to refer to scientific conclusions associated with Dunning-Kruger without actually declaring them as such. The style guide is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section

Notes:

1. I've excluded the illusory superiority bit which is both jargon and not important in a summary (but it should be mentioned elsewhere).
2. Since DK applies to driving tests, it's probably not limited to cognitive ability.
3. False consensus effect and associated research should be added to the article. WykiP (talk) 04:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

You have now removed the point of the research entirely. The effect is about people with limited knowledge and who are incompetent are "Unskilled and Unaware of It". Please read the original research as well as what Dunning later have written. Please note the Concluding Remarks. In sum, we present this article as an exploration into why people tend to hold overly optimistic and miscalibrated views about themselves. We propose that 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. Although we feel we have done a competent job in making a strong case for this analysis, studying it empirically, and drawing out relevant implications, our thesis leaves us with one haunting worry that we cannot vanquish. That worry is that this article may contain faulty logic, method- ological errors, or poor communication. Let us assure our readers that to the extent this article is imperfect, it is not a sin we have committed knowingly.

- Yes, everybody may be incompetent at someting and the lead neads to adress this clearly. This lead brings back the original mix of two different findings where only one of them is called the Dunning-Kruger effect. --regards ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 07:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

What is the point of the research according to you? All the research or just the original paper?

How does your quoted text contradict my suggested lead?

When you state "where only one of them is called the Dunning-Kruger effect", do you have evidence that this is true or is it just your personal opinion? WykiP (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Please read Dunning–Kruger_effect#Definition and both sources especially Dunning and Helzer (2014).regards ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 06:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Which question are you trying to answer? It's impossible to know what you're talking about. You're going to have to give proper counterarguments or we're going to have to ignore you. WykiP (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Recent interest in D-K effect

A January 2019 article by Angela Fritz on the Science page of the Washington Post brought some recent attention to the D-K effect. ″What’s behind the confidence of the incompetent? This suddenly popular psychological phenomenon. The Dunning-Kruger effect explains why unskilled people think they know it all and tend to be overconfident.″ The Fritz article suggests that the D-K effect is relevant to the type of inflated self-evaluation evident in superlative boasts routinely made by the current occupant of the White House. https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2019/01/07/whats-behind-confidence-incompetent-this-suddenly-popular-psychological-phenomenon/?utm_term=.713e4531aa1c Because the Washington Post is no friend to the 45th President of the U.S., it is perhaps easy to view part of this article as nothing more than a politically motivated effort to ridicule the President. In any case, it might be interesting for people, especially those with some expertise, to explore the extent to which the application of this type of psychological theory (or a "pop psychology" version of it) to a public figure is potentially insightful, appropriate or inappropriate, scientific or unscientific, etc. Millipede (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I've said before that DK has huge relevance to our times and it's why this article needs a lot better than it is. At the same time, an unbiased pointing to eg Trump support without an unbiased appraisal of Democratic support is hugely problematic. This may also be too US-centric. I think it's doable but should not feature in the lead. WykiP (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

DK about everyone, not just "people with low ability"

1. The research was done on Cornell students, who are not generally "people with low ability".

2. Dunning himself says "the work isn’t about that. It’s about the fact that this is a phenomenon that visits all of us sooner or later." https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/1/31/18200497/dunning-kruger-effect-explained-trump.

Whilst the result may apply more to stupid and generally incompetent people [untested], it still applies to everyone. It may even apply more to generally talented people who are weak in a single area [also untested]. The research did not look at people with low ability. If anything, it looked at weakness in a particular area (humour, logic or language). The article is on sci-hub.

Rather than be WP:BOLD, I've attempted to change as little as possible. The second summary paragraph is barely legible and thus also highly problematic WykiP (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but i disagree with your change. The effect is not about everyone it is about "people with substantial deficits in their knowledge or expertise". The lead needs to ble clear about that. It is correct though that you do not need to have low ability in every area of life. Please consult the section Dunning–Kruger_effect#Definition and the sources for the section. When Dunning have revisited the research and made a definition we should pay attention.

- I agree that the second paragraph should be rewritten. This is connected to another discussion on this page, please see Talk:Dunning–Kruger_effect#The_flip-side_of_this_has_gone_missing. --regards ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 19:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

That line is from Dunning's 2011 article, from a section entitled "Definition" that starts "Specifically, for any given skill, some people have more expertise and some have less" (my emphasis). In the less academic but more recent article I linked to, Dunning more clearly states it affects everyone. WykiP (talk) 05:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I have reinstated the original lead. It is far more accurate and tallies with what Dunning writes. If you simplify something too much you end up with being unacceptably inaccurate. The reseach clearly shows that the effect does not affect everyone always. That is why they found and are still finding differences and were and are able to do research on these differences. Please make suggestions for changes here. --regards ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 11:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I have shown clearly that neither the science nor or what Dunning most recently wrote agree with the DK Effect applying only to "people with low ability". The lede is back to being very misleading.

If you wish to explain how Dunning is wrong in 2019 about his own research, or how Cornell students are generally "people with low ability", please do so. WykiP (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

As you are the only editor defending the 'DK only applies to "people with low ability"' viewpoint, have avoided the strong arguments to the contrary, reverted and then disappeared, I'm reinstating the changes and will produce a better draft below. WykiP (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Please se answer below Talk:Dunning–Kruger_effect#Draft_lead_section. You have removed the point of the research entirely. This is about "people with low ability" when they have low ability. The incompetent is not incompetent at everything, but when they are they do not know it. --regards ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 07:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Cornell students being of "generally low ability", it's about *actual* students who were tested on *actual* metrics like grammar and logic. The point is not about the students' general level of ability on the contrary it is necessary there is a range of ability otherwise the study won't work. Data is not about generalizations. While "it still applies to everyone" that is because we are all stupid and incompetent at something. The Effect is not about everyone it's about the very low-skilled that lack sufficient knowledge to recognize their own incompetence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TorontoGavin (talk • contribs) 03:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC) The question of whether "skilled people underestimating themselves" is the flip side of this or a different effect altogether is the subject of a different talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TorontoGavin (talk • contribs) 03:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

re: While "it still applies to everyone" that is because we are all stupid and incompetent at something. The Effect is not about everyone it's about the very low-skilled that lack sufficient knowledge to recognize their own incompetence.

I'm not sure whether there's a contradiction in these two sentences or it's a problem of expression.

DK applies to everyone but it applies moreso to low skilled. Do you agree with that?

It possible applies even moreso to low metacognition but I'm not sure of the evidence base on that. WykiP (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

General structure of article

There are 4 sections on research. The first two paragraphs of "Original study" are barely relevant. The "Later studies" section has great info but isn't terribly accessible or interesting. Then there are the "Underlying issues of numeracy" and "Cultural differences in self-perception" sections. The former isn't terribly relevant.

I read a style guide a while back that said WP articles should have zero sections on research. Many science journalistic publications don't and WP isn't even aimed at that kind of science-oriented readership. Rather, it said the research should be embedded in an accessible and interesting description of the subject. For example, this article's lead may provide the generalisation that low performance = most overestimation of skill. There could also be a chart of the main generalisation because it's not easy to understand from words alone. The subsequent section could provide all the exceptions and interesting variations (men more prone than women, Asian countries less prone than Western). Alternatively, we could try to combine the four sections into one.

The article also has a "Definition" section which idoesn't give a definition of DK. I understand this is Dunning and Kruger's own expression but it makes no sense in an encyclopaedia. It is hard to read, with an excessively compounded initial statement and is quite confusing.

I have some sympathy to including more prominent cultural/political references as suggested by Millipede above. WykiP (talk) 02:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

See also; Donald Trump — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.38.106.150 (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Dunning–Kruger effect is Silly

... and is nothing more than a common sense observation of the world we are part of. A drunk driver thinks they drive great. That is not news. Of course a lesser-capable person thinks they know it all. They're not as smart. They know less. They draw incorrect conclusions and make poor decisions. That is how we know they are less capable. This so-called research is completely self-evident to anyone who isn't impaired and functions normally, and adds absolutely no value to our world. I recommend this article be deleted as it lacks merit. What's next, a study on how "Blue is a different color from Red." Seriously. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I object to this comment being hidden. Somebody has posted the bogus headline in bold type "Hidden because talk pages are for discussion of the article, not one's opinion on the subject."

The comment very clearly is about the article, not the subject. The article misses the point about the subject.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The comment is hidden because it is useless trolling of the "why do we need this study" type. It is neither about the study nor about the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TorontoGavin (talk • contribs) 03:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I unhid the opening comment of this section. Nobody has to agree with it, but it addresses the validity of the article, which is exactly what this space called "Talk page" is intended for. –Austronesier (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Isn't this just a re-statement of "The more you know, the more you know you don't know"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.33.8.198 (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

"Assessment of personal competence" graph

This image, currently in the article, is not based on the D-K research and in fact contradicts it. It's totally different from the self-assessment graph in the D-K paper, and it's sourced to a personal blog which is not a reliable source. It emphatically does not belong in this article. @NekoKatsun and Constant314: you've reverted other editors' removal of this image. Its presence is misleading people about the D-K research. Please let's keep it out of the article. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Let's get the definition right

I've corrected the initial sentence, and short description, and Wikidata description, which said that the D-K effect is one "in which people assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is." This is the definition of a different phenomenon, not the D-K effect. That people overestimate their rank on desirable attributes was known for decades before the D-K research and it's covered in the Illusory superiority article. Dunning and Kruger made their claim specifically about the people at the low end of the performance distribution for their tasks, and sought to explain why, in their experiments, the distance between perceived and actual rank for those people was so great. Even the title of the 1999 paper, "Unskilled and unaware of it", gives that away, but look into any of the sources and it's clear that the effect isn't "people thinking they're more skilled than they are" but "people who are far below average skill thinking they are above-average, for a specific (theorised) reason." Let's make sure the first sentence of the article sets the reader on the right track. Bearing in mind critiques of replicability, I'm not assuming here that the phenomenon is real. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC) I wrote the above before noticing the big discussion about this further up the page. Dunning's comment that any of us are susceptible to the theorised effect doesn't mean that the effect applies all along the distribution of skills. There are lots of different skills, and all of us are bad at at least some of them. For each of us, there are skills where we don't know the difference between good and bad performance. That's compatible with the D-K effect applying only to the people who are worst at a skill. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2020

Suggest removing the sentence

'In 2018, the British Brexit withdrawal deal was described by Bonnie Greer as "the supreme example of the Dunning–Kruger effect... Dunning-Kruger implies that we may be in the midst of an epidemic of incompetence."[27]'

This is a political opinion of a process whose long and short term costs and benefits cannot yet be measured. It is also extremely offensive to characterize the voting majority as "incompetent". Boodysaspie (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I would support this removal, in fact I think the second half of the section should be removed since these are all just random mentions in opinion pieces that are not at all noteworthy. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Done. Bishonen | tålk 22:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC).

This Whole Entry is Inane

The Dunning-Kruger "Effect" is not a psychological phenomenon.

"The Dunning-Kruger Effect" is an academic joke, a bit of faculty club humour that got out into the wild, biting its masters and keepers on the way there. The original joke mocks the pretensions of the nobles of eponymism throughout academia. Those who mistakenly take it seriously simply add themselves to the array of targets of the jape.

There is no such group as "incompetents," now bowdlerized to "people of low ability," in any field of psychology, for the very good reason that incompetence is local, not general in its effect.

The whole section needs to be rewritten. The person responsible for changing "incompetents" to "people of low ability" should find some other line of work.

Both the original writer and the person responsible for this edit are perhaps unaware of the damage they do to psychology, and indeed to the whole academic enterprise, with this foolishness. If there were a Dunning-Kruger effect, that might be an instance of it.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 07:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia content depends on reliable sourcing. This is a well sourced article. Can you provide a source supporting your claim that this is an academic joke? HiLo48 (talk) 10:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Trump seems to be a fine example. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 04:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Example for a joke? Or for a source? (That one was a joke.)

Well, he is a refutation of the claim "incompetence is local, not general in its effect". People have added him as an example for the DKE to the article a few times, but that was not permanent [1]. It's better without him, he creeps everywhere anyway. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Title with dash?

I'm not sure why this article uses a title with a long dash — instead of a short one -? It's doing funny things in the URL when copied. Please move the page from "Dunning–Kruger effect" to "Dunning-Kruger effect". --Heidlbaer (talk) 09:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

See WP:NDASH/MOS:ENBETWEEN for more. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Isn't it time to re-write the article - now that Dunning Kruger is debunked?

It's only a statistical artefact - exactly what the researchers Dunning & Kruger got wrong might make a good paragraph.

Here is the debunking: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289620300271 --90.251.51.40 (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

That is a primary source. Let's wait what secondary sources say about it. We have heaps of secondary sources on the subject, that cannot be undone immediately by a single study. --Hob Gadling (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh right, I forgot: Refutations of previous scientific results are not called debunking. That word is for refutation of arrant nonsense based on obvious rookie mistakes. Einstein did not "debunk" Newton, but middle-schoolers can debunk Therapeutic Touch. --Hob Gadling (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Even if any secondary sources show up for this study any time soon, it would still go into the mathematical critique section. Just one or two contradictory studies do not debunk an established phenomenon that has been observed in multiple contexts, including this talk page itself. 49.36.31.81 (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed 100% -GM --TorontoGavin (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

To Hob Gadling: would this count as a secondary source? https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/experimentations/202004/the-dunning-kruger-effect-may-be-statistical-illusion

Forgive me if it doesn't, as I'm not particularly familiar with Wikipedia's sourcing policy, I just wanted to put this on your radar in case it's helpful. If nothing else, it seems to be a plain English translation of some of the contents of the study.

I'm also here to disagree with what the previous contributor (49.36.31.81, 5 November 2020) said: this is not merely a study that tried and failed to replicate an established phenomenon. Instead, this is (or appears to be) a study that succeeded in:

(a) replicating the phenomenon in question;

(b) proposing a qualitative interpretation of said phenomenon (i.e. it being a statistical phenomenon arising from the previously adopted data analysis moethodology), different from the one that was previously adopted widely, and also translating said qualitative interpretation into a new quantitative and testable hypothesis;

(c) providing strong evidence that said new hypothesis is not only supported by experimental evidence, but has a stronger predictive power than the previously accepted hypothesis.

(d) providing evidence that the phenomenon occurs as a result of the previously adopted methodology even in data sets where it demonstrably shouldn't occur (i.e. generating a simulated dataset designed ad hoc), thus strongly suggesting, if not proving, that the phenomenon is to be interpreted only as a result of the methodology, and not as a result of an underlying phenomenon as suggested by the previous qualitative interpretation

In light of that, as long as this study is not discredited, it is my personal opinion that it shouldn't be dismissed in the same guise as a study failing to replicate an established phenomenon. With due proportions, I think this would be akin to dismissing Einstein's original General Relativity paper (together with the first experimental evidence in a total eclipse and Mercury's orbit) and interpreting it as "a contradictory study that does not debunk the established phenomenon af gravity". It does not "debunk" the phenomenon, mainly because that's not what it set out to do in the first place; rather, it proposes a new and stronger explanation for said phenomenon.

I expressed my opinion; you guys do with that what you will.

78.15.151.158 (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The Psychology Today article seems to be a good secondary source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Not exactly a place for theoretical critique, but the new link to the Psych Today Article seems to be saying, in a nutshell, that everyone is equally bad at guesstimating their own abilities due to the Better Than Average effect, but smart(er) people's perception of the "Average" is different from dumb(er) people's perspective. The difference in both groups' views about the average affects what they consider "better" than the average & the smarter people are simply more likely to BE closer to or above the Actual Average, while the less smart are not. Smart & dumb people have different standards for what they consider Average due to their experiences. I haven't seen the raw data for either the original experiment or the new one, so I cannot say for sure whether such differences in perspective were controlled for, but the available data doesn't say anything about it. I'm not saying it's a bad article or that the theory is perfect, I'm simply advising a cautious & conservative approach until more research corroborates this new method & the theory gets clearer with the increase in data. Clearer theories & more scientific consensus mean articles that are easier to write. For now, let's just add this to the critique section & leave it at that. 49.36.125.99 (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

"Smart & dumb people have different standards for what they consider Average due to their experiences." Isn't that an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect? HiLo48 (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry if my comment does not belong, please remove it if that is the case; but I think that awareness about Dunning-Krüger effect is actually diminishing possibility to observe the effect? Person with high capabilities unaware about the effect thinks that they are average; if same person learns about the effect, they will correct this bias and answer relevant questions differently when tested?BirgittaMTh (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

No, this is a problem where the user doesn't understand the word "debunked" and uses it as trolls usually do -- to mean "here's one study that disputes it". The single study from the same authors is given wildly disproprotionate weight at the end of the article (more than the entire preceding article) and frankly seems to be an attempt to hijack the article to affirm the particular editor's views.

The reference to Just word theory is completely spurious - it has nothing to do with the dunning kruger theory as proposed *or* with the critique that is given such disproportionate weight. -GM --TorontoGavin (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

"It's only a statistical artefact" First, that is *not* what that article says. It says that the effect is smaller than previous asserted. More importantly, their criteria was self-assessment of IQ, which may be less effected by Dunning-Kruger than other things. People have a lifetime of feedback from and comparison to peers with which to form an estimation of their own IQ, so that assessment doesn't rely purely on metacognitive ability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.182.162.1 (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The McGill study appears to have significant flaws outlined in the comment section of the article cited. How does one go about removing it as a reference for this page?Hazyj (talk) 02:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The better-than-average effect and this article

Can subject matter experts clarify (in this talk, at least) the relationship between a better-than-average effect and a hypothetical Dunning-Kruger effect? Are some of us confusing the two?

It seems that the better-than-average effect is generally accepted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority. I don't see any mention of it in the main article, although it features prominently in some of the referenced sources.

I think I find some of the article and much of this talk page confusing because statements along the lines of "DK is a statistical artifact" seem to fly in the face of my intuition about the better-than-average effect, but if these statements are really talking about residuals after correcting for the other effect, then that is easier for me to comprehend.

For basic, non-pyschologist interactions, is there any reason why I should not just substitute the "better-than-average effect" in my conversations instead of talking about the "Dunning-Kruger effect"? If so, then some hint to that effect would be really great in the main page, since the main page does include the "hypothetical" disclaimer. Thanks!! rs2 (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The D-K effect is hypothesised 1) to apply just to the people who perform worst on the given task, 2) to the result of an inability to perceive good performance on the tasks. People judging themselves to be at a higher rank than they actually are is illusory superiority. So the D-K effect is a specific form of illusory superiority; they're not exactly the same thing. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Mathematical critique

IMHO, the subsection "Mathematical critique" is given undue weight. Also, I don't see much mathematical critique in it (if any), though I may have missed it, since I only have a BSc in math, and a minor in theoretical math at MSc. It should be shortened to the mathematical arguments, but I can't do it, since I don't see any. --85.148.244.121 (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

And I can't even make a small improvement, the article is protected against obvious vandals like me. --85.148.244.121 (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

A degree in Mathematics is not a degree in Psychometrics or the quantification of psychological variables.

The "mathematical critique" being referred to is this part: "They traced the origin of the patterns, not to the dominant literature's claimed psychological disposition of humans, but instead to the nature of graphing data bounded by limits of 0 and 100 and to the process of ordering and grouping the paired measures to create the graphs. These patterns are mathematical artifacts that random noise devoid of any human influence can produce. They further showed that the graphs used to establish the effect in three of the four case examples presented in the seminal paper are patterns characteristic of purely random noise. These patterns are numerical artifacts that behavioral scientists and educators seem to have interpreted as evidence for a human psychological disposition toward overconfidence."

It is called a mathematical critique because the researchers attempt to disprove the existence of the Dunning-Kreuger effect using mathematical analysis of the statistical data. The long-winded explanation is necessary to understand how those conclusions were reached. There has been another article published this year in 2020 that makes similar claims & asserts that it is an effect of mismeasurement or improper methods.

As someone approaching the section header from the pure mathematics side, I can see why you might think it's a misnomer. But someone approaching from the psychology or psychometry side will not see it as a misnomer, & those are the kind of people who will be searching for this article. A suggestion for renaming the section may be appropriate but not for removing it imo. 49.36.31.81 (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

"The effect, or Dunning and Kruger's original explanation for the effect, has been challenged by mathematical analyses[2][3][4][5] and comparisons across cultures.[6][7]"

This sentence is quite misleading. At first glance, it appears to imply that the DKE has been challenged, perhaps even debunked by a large number of sources. If you look at the sources, however, [2] is not challenging, but correcting misconceptions. For [3] the bulk of the content comes from [4] and [5] which are papers that are both written by the same group of authors. So there is a lot of redundancy and bias here. [6] and [7] also do not support this claim as one article is mostly supportive of DKE while the other talks about the differences in what motivates people of different cultures, which is not at all related. This sentence should be deleted IMO because not only does it feel out of place, but it's blatantly misleading.

This also brings into question the whole mathematical critique section since much of it is based on this small subset of sources. Oknowone (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Low quality edits and unacceptable source

Since December 1 2020 or so, there have been numerous edits on this article that I consider to be of low quality, particularly by editor User:Wikiuser100. My first complaint is that a paragraph has been appended to the header which implies that the research reported in the article has been disproven. That is nonsense. My second complaint is that a low-quality source has been introduced to push this nonsense, Reference (4), an unpublished blog post by unpublished author Tal Yarkoni. This author puts forth a "just world theories" argument that is patent nonsense with no evidence to back it up.

I see some pretty opinionated posts on this talk page, and I note that some months ago this article was protected due to disruptive edits. I have no intention of arguing with anyone about this article. However, if you care about this article and you have opinions about it, I ask that you fix the problems I complained about above: remove the unhelpful paragraph from the article header, and remove the poor quaility reference and everything referencing it.

Please make these edits in the near future, or I will do them myself. Have a great day.Jarhed (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Whooaahh, there, User:Jarhed....Thanks for the ping, and following good WP:MOS form, but your post is, first, openly offensive; second, both broadly and specifically in error; and, third, threatening - that if others don't comply with your complaints you will arbitrarily and unilaterally regard yourself as consensus and eliminate anything that displeases you.

To begin with, the edits are not "low quality", they are sound, building on content that was already there the 1st time I arrived. Which edits have already been vetted (and amended, and "fine-pointed" we'll call it) by other experienced users (as is clear in the page's history), including a member of Wikipedia's Guild of Copyeditors. Second, there is nothing wrong with the paragraph added to the header, which merely summarizes cited content (which belongs in the lead) from the section, Mathematical Critique, which provides qualification and rebuttals of the original research underpinning the Dunning-Kruger effect. That is what that section does, via independent avenues of logic and evidence, including statistical analyses by paired measures and group self-assessment. Hardly "nonsense".

Next, I did not "introduce" the Yarkoni content What the Dunning-Kruger Effect Is and Isn't; per the above, it was there at least since June of 2017, well over 400 edits ago. And it is not without merit, clarifying what the Dunning-Kruger research does and does not assert, and is in fact regarded as sufficiently illuminating to serve as a citation, for example, in the very first return produced by a Google search for it, in the thesis (Disaster Threat and the Dunning-Kruger Effect) of a graduate student at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School at Monterrey, California (which investigated the occurrence of the Dunning-Kruger effect in individual decision making during disasters, highlighting Hurricane Katrina and the 9/11 World Trade Towers attack, for its impact on U.S. homeland security policymaking).

The relevant passage there:

According to author Tal Yarkoni, “It’s important to note that Dunning and Kruger never claimed to show that the unskilled think they’re better than the skilled; that’s just the way the finding is often interpreted by others.”⁷⁶ Their findings simply state that the unskilled have an inflated perception of capability that is unwarranted.⁷⁷ p. 21

Which is in precise accord with the cited passage of the Yarkoni piece at the Dunning-Kruger page.

The work is also cited at the Psychology and Neuroscience Stack Exchange in answer to the question: Does the Dunning-Kruger effect still work the same if the incompetent person is aware of this effect? by a lecturer in psychology at Deakin University in Australia; quoted at length at the Chart of the Day feature at The Atlantic the very day it was published, July 7, 2010, here; and cited and directly hyperlinked in the Science section of National Geographic.com "Not Exactly Rocket Science" by that section's author, Ed Yong, under News/science/writing here, lauding its "big caveats on the Dunning-Kruger effect".

There is nothing inappropriate about the paragraph added to the lead; there is nothing inappropriate about the Yarkoni passage, which (as demonstrated above) is cited in legitimate published sources to the same effect it is used in the Wikipedia article.

Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wikiuser100, I pinged you because I expected this kind of response from you. The personal blog cite (4) is not reliable, as is anything on StackExchange. I agree with you about the "relevant passage there" being the relevant passage, the so called author "Tal Yarkoni" not being a reliable source. I threatened nothing. I only stated my intention to make a bold edit. I intend to remove unreliable source personal blog cite (4) and anything that references it. I want to avoid an edit war with you. I ask again that you remove personal blog cite (4) and all references to it or I will do it for you. Thank you for your attention and have a great day.Jarhed (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

NO, per the above, and the several responses to your post here. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

To be frank with you Mr. Wikuser100, I actually think that your criticisms of the theory are valid and worth recounting in this article. All that I want you to do is to adhere to Wikipedia guidelines about reliable sources and to source your criticism accordingly. That blog post that you used is not reliable. I would appreciate it if you would find some reliable sources in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources.Jarhed (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Please focus on content

I'm unclear why we should consider the ref reliable and why it deserves so much weight. --Hipal (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

This discussion has extended to [[2]] the Wikipedia Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Due to that discussion, I will not remove personal blog post unreliable reference (4). However, I will remove the unhelpful paragraph from the header of this article.Jarhed (talk) 08:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, no, User:Jarhed. There is no "removing" any "unhelpful" paragraph from the lead. You have made - and lost - a challenge only to its Yarkoni content. The balance of it is based on four more cited contributions to the article, as plainly stated in that brief passage, which you have not raised grounds to contest.

There is nothing "unhelpful" about it. It merely summarizes the research presented in the article. And, re: your OR post below, wherein you make claims about the efficacy of the Dunning-Kruger Effect (DKE) that it "explains how bullies get into positions of power in a democracy" and that "the critiques that you have posted about this theory all have to do with how the manager views himself or herself", first - and once again - I added none of that research, it was all there before I ever came to the article; second, two of the papers are mathematically based (which address "random noise" in number pairing) and appear in Numeracy, the online, peer-reviewed, open-access journal of the National Numeracy Network; a third addresses "Why We overestimate Our Competence" at the journal Monitor on Psychology; and the last examines "Self-improving Motivations and Malleable Selves" at the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. The last pair both are cross-cultural comparisons addressing the DKE. All stand on their merits. And none are there to undermine any democracy, or your ability to do your job, however you choose to do it. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wikiuser100, I will go further for you. My expertise is very narrow. My MS degree is in Human Resources Management. In other words, I am a management geek, and this theory falls right into the middle of my academic wheelhouse. I am not an academician, I am a practitioner. I will tell you straight up that this theory is useful because it is predictive. For example, it predicts that unskilled observers of a manager might interpret the manager's actions to be those of a bully, not understanding the task and not knowing what is necessary to accomplish it. Unskilled observers can't distinguish between a bully and a taskmaster. This explains how bullies get into positions of power in a democracy. I notice that the critiques that you have posted about this theory all have to do with how the manager views himself or herself. That criticism is completely immaterial to the theory's predictive power, which is how other people view the manager, about which your critique says nothing. If you have anything to do with self-published unreliable reference (4), I advise you to go back to the drawing board and come up with a critique that actually applies to this theory. Have a great day.Jarhed (talk) 09:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Per the above and this OR post, please see my reference to it above (which addresses several of your charges). I have no "critique" (in any context you seem to be aspersing). And have nothing to "do with [any] self-published" allegedly "unreliable reference", no connection whatsoever, and have laid my case out at length here, and at the Reliable sources Noticeboard here. There is no "drawing board" to "go back to". Please stop this meretricious dunning and your repeated ad hominum attacks, or, as I indicated at your most recent post there, I will be forced to seek administrative intervention. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 13:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Wikiuser100 your edits are a complete hijacking of the article page, and when challenged you become aggressively defensive, complaining you are being threatened while threatening other users with "administrative intervention" over their "ad hominum" attacks [sic]. You have nominated yourself the expert here, based on nothing, and deny any challenge to your very particular viewpoint (which does not at all reflect any consensus view). I'll add that you appear to gloat that you have won because the issue was referred to a different discussion - that's not winning at all. The fact you don't seem to understand that, along with your tone and the content of your comments, all indicates that your sense of expertise is misplaced. THAT is why you should remove your edits. --TorontoGavin (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I've no real desire to get involved properly in this discussion (I don't want to read a bunch of statistical analysis re DKE) so please don't ping me. Here's a recent journal article, written by highly competent statisticians, based on 900 participants, and published in a high-quality open peer-reviewed journal: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289620300271. If the discussion or introduction covers the same, similar, or opposing points to the blog reference in contention, consider switching to this one instead. Opinion pieces, even ones with citations, even ones that got checked by an editor for accuracy (which the blog wouldn't have), aren't great sources for scientific or statistical information. --Xurizuri (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I've just looked again at the specific statements the blog is used to support, I'm actually going to directly challenge it as a RS for the just world claim. It's presenting a specific theory, with no actual evidence to support it. Putting that claim in this article is also definitely undue weight (something guessed at once in a blog shouldn't be mentioned in the lead and have a paragraph long quotation), unless someone has found it being stated in other places. --Xurizuri (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree. I've tagged the article for POV problems. --Hipal (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the use of a blog is not desirable. Also, the length of the quoted material from the blog is very long. Is this a copyright violation? Constant314 (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I just noticed this discussion after I made an edit that, I suspect, someone will soon revert. I, too, don't have the time to get into the weeds. In case it's not cited above, I'll leave this here: The Dunning-Kruger Effect Is Probably Not Real (18 December 2020). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree with User:Jarhed and the notion that a number of low-quality edits have been made to this page as of late. The timing appears to coincide with the DKE blowing up on social media in late 2020 when it was wildly oversimplified into the unfortunate sound byte that "dumb people are too dumb to know they are dumb." I suspect that people taking offense to this have been looking for any evidence they can find to refute this claim under the false belief that this is what the DKE is implying, which it isn't. Oknowone (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I am on the fence about how this article should go, but I am concerned that a major citation comes from a ten-year-old blog. If the information hasn't made it into a mainstream publication by now, it is questionable. It appears that we are starting to accept anything from someone with a *.edu domain as a reliable source. I like to see us go back to the policy of not putting it in the article without a "real" secondary relaibale source. Constant314 (talk) 06:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

russell and others

what happened to the original antecedents, like bertrand russells: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell#New_Hopes_for_a_Changing_World_.281951.29 ? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 05:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Recent spate of edits concerning weaponization of Dunning-Kruger

This section concerns 6 reversions by first time IP editors, myself, and other users.

The edits concern the addition tbe following content to the introduction, which is based on two sources, Murphy (2017) and Malice 2019:

"Outside of psychology, the Dunning-Kruger effect is often invoked by non-professionals to insult people. Mark Murphy refers to this abuse of the theory as a form of "weaponized psychology". The Dunning-Kruger effect has been described as the "central prism" through which alt-right white supremacists critique their enemies."

Diffs:

1. Unexplained removal of the material. First-time edit by 83.35.139.70 - 14:50, 13 July 2021
3. Nagualdesign restores removed content - 17:34, 13 July 2021
5. Just Plain Bill removes Malice (2019), cites "WP:UNDUE" and wants to know what "central prism" means - 19:21, 13 July 2021
7. Hunan201p restores Malice (2019), inserts quote from book to inline citation, 00:31 16 July 2021
9. Constant 314 reverts Hunan201p, cites "WP:UNDUE", says mere mention of racism is "inflammatory"; is "sure" that "the other side" abuses Dunning-Kruger as well - 01:16, 16 July 2021
11. 2601:640:c:817e:ac56:7cc9:37ad:7ad makes their first-time edit to remove the remaining content about abuse of Dunning-Kruger, 01:38 17 July 2021

The speed of reversions, as well as the first-time IP editors, is suspicious. It may indicate some form of brigading is taking place. As we can as we can see from the quoted sources, which can be verified freely on Google Books, both corroborate an abuse of Dunning Kruger:

Murphy (2017) says on page 60:

The Dunning-Kruger effect is established science, but it's also akin to an insult. I call it weaponized psychology. Saying that someone is experiencing Dunning-Kriger is very close to calling that person an unaware idiot.

From Malice (2019), page 51:

One of the major recruiting aspects of New Right culture is its ability to identify and weaponize such psychological effects, especially against ostensibly educated people who are convinced that "racists" are all mouth-breathing inbreds. By far the most central prism through which their foes are analyzed by the New Right is the intellectual phenomenon known as the Dunning-Kruger effect. ... this manifests as a phenomenon that Alt-Right writer Vox Day refers to as "mid-wits".

Both editors refer to a "weaponization" of Dunning-Kruger. And both editors describe how this weaponization is used to insult the intelligence of others. Malice explains that this is is the central prism through which the alt-right critiques its enemies.

So two reliable sources say that Dunning-Kruger is weaponized, and one says that it is weaponized by a highly relevant political movement, in fact, its central prism.

If Constant314 thinks this is "inflammatory", I ask him, to whom is this inflammatory? The alt-right white supremacists? Wikipedia isn't here to protect their feelings. What is truly inflammatory is the abuse of Dunning-Kruger by white nationalists. The public has a right to know about their abusive invocation of Dunning-Kruger.

And if Constant314 is sure that "the other side" abuses Dunning-Kruger, I invite him to add a reliable source to the intro to suggest that. I searched high and low for weeks before adding this content to the article, and couldn't find any evidence of abuse of Dunning-Kruger by "the other side" -- whoever we consider to be on the other side of white supremacy. Hunan201p (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps your inability to see it on "the other side" (in making this comment I could care less which point of view you are taking, but I admit I would not be making this comment if I did not interpret your comment specifically) is demonstration of your susceptibility to the bias itself. This effect is very similar to the sampling bias effect. Just because two people who wrote books on the subject happen to criticize someone's political competitors does not mean that the expertise is transferrable upon relaying of the conclusions. You are basically saying: "Look, I found experts who stated X. Based on X, I looked for Y. I did not find Y or any experts who had stated Y; therefore, Y does not exist." This is quite wrong because communication of the conclusion of a matter does not admit the necessary technical knowledge to make a negative assessment. Contrapositivity is not guaranteed under the similarity class in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.96.10.175 (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I am unaware of being part of any intentionally recruited brigade here. "Central prism" seems to be an opaque inept metaphor, largely useless without further explanation. Perhaps Malice considers it meaningful to some in-group as a buzzword signifying a particular rhetorical framing, but in the context of this article I see it as bafflegab.

I have no doubt that the D-K effect is used in various venues of discourse to dismiss someone else's views. Sources notwithstanding, I would like to see some discussion regarding how such "weaponized" framing deserves more than passing mention, if any, in this article. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Numerous examples from the other side here:[3] Constant314 (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Constant314: That's not a reliable source. You can't google "Dunning Kruger Trump" and decide which sources are weaponizing the term and which aren't. That's original research. What we need is a secondary source describing ideological abuse of the term by the Left (or whatever). I have never come across any source suggesting that the Left abuses Dunning-Kruger, and believe me, I searched extensively for it. Hunan201p (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

You need a reliable source to put something into the article. A google search is completely allowable to challenge material on the talk page. We don't need a RS to take something out as being undue even if we can't find a RS that says it is undue. You need to have a consensus to keep it in. Constant314 (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Just plain Bill:Malice is a high quality secondary source clearly stating that Dunning-Kruger is the mainstay of alt-right vitriol. That's worth mentioning, since it is already acknowledged from Murphy (2017) that Dunning-Kruger is weaponized, and the alt-right is notorious for its constant derision of others. It's an example of D-K weaponization by a highly influential side of the political spectrum. Hunan201p (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I would not call Michael Malice a "high quality secondary source". Pretty far from being a serious political analyst, he seems more like a glorified gossip columnist and vitriol-stirrer, who has recently published a book on current events in US politics.

While the twice-impeached Florida retiree and self-proclaimed "stable genius" is a quintessential poster child for the D-K effect, unsupported efforts to add him to this article as an exemplar of the effect have so far met with no success.

Adding what amounts to political ephemera will need sourcing more respectable than the synthesis offered so far, IMO. Just plain Bill (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

References

off topic sentence

"One 2020 study[21] suggests that individuals of relatively high social class are more overconfident than lower-class individuals." The section and page do not deal with the social causes of cognitive biases, but on whether the cognitive bias exists and whether can be explained by cognitive ability. It seems appropriate to me to either omit that sentence or add a section on the social dimension of cognitive biases, self esteem etc, which indeed Belmi et al. refer to.

I agree. It is off-topic unless specifically linked to D-K. Constant314 (talk) 06:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Short description

I edited the short description to meet the 40 character guideline. Constant314 (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Ultracrepidarianism

Can someone please add a short description of Ultracrepidarianism to the "See also" section? It's the only item on the list without any description. With the way the list is formatted, I can't figure out how to edit it. --JDspeeder1 (talk) 06:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

It is a redirect to Sutor, ne ultra crepidam, whose short description does not appear in an annotated link, so I added the description manually. I prefer listing the title of the redirect over the Latin advice against it. We will see how that goes. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

It is a dictum rather than a cognitive effect. It did not seem like it belonged on the see also list.Constant314 (talk) 14:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and the Latin dictum is where "ultracrepidarianism" comes from. The ism describes an effect, of which Nobel disease is an example, in which someone with recognized expertise in a field shows a tendency to make authoritative pronouncements on matters outside their wheelhouse. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Remove "hypothetical" from the definition

There are good sources against it, see . Do we have any sources in favor of it? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I think there are two issues in contention. (1) Whether DK is a bias in its own right or if it is an effect that arises from the operation of two or more actual biases and (2) whether it is a cognitive bias or some other type of bias such as cultural. We had a very long squabble about this in the past (apparently now archived). I don't want to see it spill over into the article. I am neutral on the issue. Constant314 (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll go ahead with the proposal since no one has opposed it and no sources were presented. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Go for it. There are 187 active watchers and no one has objected. Constant314 (talk) 07:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2021 and 7 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Isaiahandrade.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)