Jump to content

Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

The references are out of control. There are paragraphs with sentences that have up to 5 references each. Each link is used numerous times and they are all out of order. Some of the paragraphs are more redundant than they are informative. This looks like way too much work for now, but over time maybe we can edit and streamline it. Thank you. Tvashtar2919 (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is the rubble and debris left from a previous squabble. Constant314 (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure why most of the references to the paper "The Dunning-Kruger effect is (mostly) a statistical artifact" by Gilles E. Gignaca and Marcin Zajenkowskib were removed. I restored them for now till we can settle the matter here.
That some of the references are numerically out of order is, I think, not a problem. Usually, the one most relevant to the specific claim should be the first one. After a short look, I only found 3 cases in the whole article where a sentence has 5 or more references and they are all in different paragraphs. One of these cases is a list, where all the sources are needed to cover all the items on the list. If the same reference is accidentally used twice for the same sentence, then one instance should be removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, there were many (20 or so) instances to the same reference by Gignaca. Many of them were in sections that had nothing to go with their statistical argument. I did leave the references in the "Criticism and alternatives" section where they were relevant. Constant314 (talk) 07:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
This paper also includes a general introduction to the Dunning-Kruger effect and talks about how it is measured and analyzed. For example, it contrasts subjective and objective abilities. The decision on where to cite it shouldn't be based on its title alone. We would have to check whether a specific claim in our article is actually backed by the contents found in the source or not. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
I just had a look at WP:OVERCITE: it says that more than three inline citations for one sentence should generally be avoided, unless there is a good reason. This backs Tvashtar2919's original point. I'll go ahead and try to bring the number of citations down to that number except for the list mentioned earlier. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
One instance of a particular reference in a short section like the "Measurement and analysis" section is usually enough. One instance in a paragraph is definitely enough. Multiple instances of a long work like a textbook make sense where you direct the reader to different pages. Constant314 (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that the "one-instance-per-paragraph/section-principle" is generally accepted. See the examples at WP:CITATIONPLACEMENT: reference [2] has two instances used in two subsequent sentences. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I generally adhere to WP:REPCITE. Constant314 (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Opposite effect

I linked the text "opposite effect" to Imposter Syndrome, but it was reverted by User:Constant314, saying it was not the same. A quick Google of "Opposite of dunning-kruger effect" will yield almost exclusively results refering to Imposter Syndrome, so I would like to know why it is not fitting. Sarke (talk) 03:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Underestimating one's skills is a long way from imposter syndrome. Constant314 (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
There may be some analogies between the two but, as Constant314 has already pointed out, there are also important differences. We would need a reliable source that says specifically this: that the Dunning-Kruger effect for high performers is identical with the Imposter Syndrome. Google search results are not sufficient. Phlsph7 (talk) 06:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Repeated content

I'm loath to jump in, as I'm new to this much-attended article, but the text does seem baggy and repetitive of main points, for example the explanation of 'dual-burden'. Hope it can be tightened. Onanoff (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to summarize the contents of the article, see MOS:LEAD. So this form of repetitiveness is explicitly encouraged by the Wikipedia guidelines. For the rest of the article, the term "dual-burden account" is mentioned 3 times: In the definition-section, in the section on the meta-cognitive explanation and in the criticism-section. From what I can tell, each mention is relevant to the issue discussed. Phlsph7 (talk) 06:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Recent publications

In the magazine of the British Psychological Society, there are two recent articles with different perspectives on the D-K effect. "The persistent irony of the Dunning-Kruger Effect" by Robert D. McIntosh and Sergio Della Sala summarises the charge that it's just regression to the mean and "The Dunning-Kruger effect and its discontents" by David Dunning argues that there is much more evidence for the effect than the studies that have attracted the statistical criticism. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Constant314 (talk) 06:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Eleventh reference

what a terrible wiki page... The eleventh reference is to the paper from which the effect is named. It should be in the first paragraph. The paper has some diagrams with empirical datapoints. I suppose it would fair use to nab one of those diagrams. ok, its time for me to get off "mount stupid" now.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1205:34F8:A230:652E:ED7:C4FA:1B6C (talk) 13:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

References should be avoided in the lead, see MOS:LEADCITE. It seems to me that you ascribe too much importance to the order in which the sources appear in the article. The important part is that the various claims in the article comply with WP:VERIFY. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

The lede is asserting that the effect is a cognitive bias, but that assertion is contested by the criticism to a significant level - with enough weight so that we should not make that claim in Wikipedia voice. Other parts of the article take it for granted that the observed effect is due to a cognitive bias, but a neutral point of view should attribute those assertions to the sources making them. How can we improve the article to make it do not assert conclusions without scientific support as absolutes? Diego (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Phlsph7 has pointed me to recent a short archived thread where it was discussed to remove "hypothetical" from the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE. IMO the qualification was needed to make the description not biased towards the view that the effect is caused by a cognitive bias, which doesn't seem to have a strong scientific consensus behind it, given the sourced references attributing it to other causes. Diego (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) P.S.: There are also some of my edits that wouldn't make sense to revert in terms of whether the effect has enough scientific evidence or not, as they are mere rephrasings of previous sentences to remove their MOS:EDITORIAL style. Since Constant314 has agreed that the edit is fine, I'm restoring it while the discussion goes on. Diego (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


Hello Diego and thanks for bringing up the issue. For a reliable source, see here:

Dunning-Kruger effect, in psychology, a cognitive bias whereby people with limited knowledge or competence in a given intellectual or social domain greatly overestimate their own knowledge or competence in that domain relative to objective criteria or to the performance of their peers or of people in general.

Most criticisms concern how the Dunning-Kruger effect is to be explained, not how it is defined. It does not seem controversial to me if "cognitive bias" is characterized as "a systematic tendency to engage in erroneous forms of thinking and judging", see the section "Definition". Do you have any sources that explicitly deny this definition of the Dunning-Kruger effect? Phlsph7 (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello Diego. I do not disagree with you. However, we have had an edit war over this in the past. It got so bad, that an admin blocked the article from editing by everyone. The article can be changed, but only after a talk page discussion. This is the normal edit-revert-discuss process. You are expected to discuss after you have been reverted. My own position is that DK is a real effect but not necessarily a cognitive bias which "a systematic pattern of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment." I don't see the DK effect as leading to irrational judgements. Constant314 (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
@Phlsph7 I have no problem with including that definition that describe the effect as a cognitive bias, since that is the way that it is recognized in popular culture. The problem I have is adopting that definition ourselves in Wikipedia's voice if there is no scientific consensus that this really is the cause, and we have well-sourced criticism positing credible alternative causes for the observed effect - in special the claims that it may be caused by errors in the design or interpretation of the experiments themselves (and therefore not a real psychological effect). We could attribute the "cognitive bias" to the dictionary definition by Britannica (which is a tertiary source, not a psychology journal) while not describing it ourselves as a cognitive bias, to maintain WP:IMPARTIAL tone.
You claim that there is no scientific consensus on its definition. I hold that the lack of consensus mainly concerns its explanation, not its definition. Do you have any sources that explicitly deny defining the Dunning-Kruger effect as a cognitive bias? Phlsph7 (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Sure, they're linked in the Dunning–Kruger_effect#Criticism_and_alternatives section :-P But you're reversing the burden of proof; when we have references making contradictory claims, you'd need a good reference weighting them and describing the scientific consensus as a cognitive bias, explaining why the critics are wrong in their arguments. Otherwise we shouldn't assert in Wikipedia's voice that this cause and no others is the real one; a mere dictionary definition won't do. So far, we have good studies claiming that either statistical errors or other different bias are the cause, and we should present those with the same of due point of view as the view that the effect is a bias on its own merit. The article is in very bad shape in this respect. Diego (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
We have at least one source that defines the Dunning–Kruger effect as a cognitive bias. Do we have at least one source that denies this? If there are so many sources in the article that allegedly deny it, then it should be easy to cite which ones you have in mind. Otherwise there is no case for WP:NPOV. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree that there is no problem with the neutrality of this article as both points of view are fairly represented. The issue is what goes in the lede. Britannica, I believe, is a tertiary source. There were some other sources, but they were blogs. It probably comes down to the meaning of cognitive bias. Constant314 (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
@Constant314 I was following a "true WP:BRD" style, including additional edits taking your feedback into account to improve the text, while trying to not contradict what you disliked of my changes. I don't believe in freezing the article state for the sake of it while achieving perfect wording in the talk page, at least not for articles in C-class quality that haven't had a thorough review of each sentence and reference. In my experience, in this cases it's best when all editors engage in good-faith "always-improving" article editing to make the actual words in the article better, rather than reverting "on principle" some good article edits that they nevertheless agree with. If we do reach a position where we radically disagree on how the article should look like, to the point of unproductive edit warring, we can then proceed to a more cautious style. Diego (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Constant314 on this point: please wait for consensus on the talk page before making any further changes. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Ok, I'll if we at least restore the "hypothetical" adjective in the FIRSTSENTENCE. Otherwise, I'll restore the {{npov}} tag - the article is in terrible shape in terms of neutral point of view with respect to the knowledge of the cause of the effect, and we should warn our readers about it in some way or another. Diego (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Diego. Adding "hypothetical" is the edit war trigger. It cannot be added without a consensus. While I am leaning that way, at this point I am not part of a consensus to add that back in. Constant314 (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Ok, then I'm adding the npov tag back, as we do have a formal content dispute now. Both of you, please don't remove the tag until the conditions for removal are met. We'll continue working on the until we agree on the way to best describe the different views around the effect, and the tag may guide readers to the Talk page to see the progress we make. Diego (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
There is no consensus for that either. Please be patient. These things take time. You need to wait at least three days so that other editors have a chance to get involved. Some of them are sleeping right now. As I pointed out, there is no problem with the neutrality as both points of view are represented. Constant314 (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
I do not agree that both points are fairly represented, that's why the dispute tag - it's meant to signal a lack of consensus. As I explained, I consider it beneficial for readers while we discuss - the longer the dispute until more editors can step it, the more reason to have it. Diego (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
The way to address that is to improve the content in the body of the article, especially if you can add reliable sources. In an effort to recruit more editors, I posted a notice in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology. I have been aggressively removing the dispute tag, hopefully before the bot posts it on the notice board. That brings out a bunch of editors that have no interest in the subject but have a lot of interest in wiki-lawyering. It becomes a war. Give negotiation a chance. There is nothing here that will cause harm. Constant314 (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
As I see it, there is no consensus for adding the tag, so the latest stable version should remain until a consensus is reached (consensus to add the tag, to change the article, or to keep it as it is). The stable version does not contain the tag. Phlsph7 (talk) 05:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I am content to allow minor word smithing on other issues as long as it is not disruptive, which so far it is not. Diego's most recent edit addresses awkward language without changing the meaning. I think this will work if Diego agrees to not make multiple edits without giving us time to improve each edit and if Phisph7 will hold off a little longer before hitting the revert button. Constant314 (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't agree with this change since it does more than reformulate the issue: criticism of metacognitive explanation is not the same as denying that a cognitive bias is involved: the better than average effect is a cognitive bias that explains the Dunning-Kruger effect without metacognition. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
You didn't give me enough time to attempt to fix it. Constant314 (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Constant314 - Thanks! I agree that one-off edits with enough time to review each one, and feedback on what is and is not acceptable on each edit, will be beneficial to the article.
@Phlsph7 - The point is that we do have several explanations for the cause of the observed effect (that measurements make some people appear to miscalculate their own performance), some of them are psychological whereas others are not; but we are elevating one of them as THE true reason for the measurements. That is not a position that we can adopt without an overwhelming scientific evidence that cognitive bias is the reason for those observations and all other possible explanations (based on statistical effects or errors in the experimental design) are likely wrong. Diego (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I get the impression that we are partially talking past each other. Diego seems to hold that the main source of disagreement in the academic literature is whether the Dunning-Kruger effect is defined as a cognitive bias or not. If Diego were correct, I would agree that the first sentence shouldn't take a position on this question. However, I hold that the main source of disagreement in the academic literature is whether the metacognitive explanation (i.e. the dual burden account) is correct or not. In this sense, the first sentence (and the rest of the article) is unproblematic since neither position is accepted. For example, from McIntosh, Robert D.; Fowler, Elizabeth A.; Lyu, Tianjiao; Della Sala, Sergio (November 2019). "Wise up: Clarifying the role of metacognition in the Dunning-Kruger effect":

The original account of the DKE involves the idea that metacognitive insight requires the same skills as task performance, so that unskilled people perform poorly and lack insight. However, global measures of self-assessment are prone to statistical and other biases that could explain the same pattern.

This source is exactly in tune with my argument. I keep pushing Diego to cite a source otherwise since it is not a trivial matter and I don't see how we can reason ourselves to a conclusion on this issue without having a look at the sources. Phlsph7 (talk) 05:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if we could replace "cognitive bias" with "tendency" in the first sentence? Constant314 (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Could we replace "cognitive bias" with "tendency" in the first sentence? Constant314 (talk) 05:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I prefer the term "cognitive bias" but replacing it with "tendency" is not a hard pill to swallow for me and is also supported by the sources. However, my criticism also affects many of the other changes proposed by Diego. Phlsph7 (talk) 05:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
What would you say about the expression "The Dunning–Kruger effect is the tendency or cognitive bias whereby..."? This both emphasizes the importance of cognitive bias and leaves open alternative definitions, as Diego contends. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I am good with that. Constant314 (talk) 12:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Phlsph7 Excuse my thickness, but I don't see how assessing the validity of the metacognition explanation is incompatible with the possibility that it is or is not a cognitive bias. If, as your quote says, the same pattern may be explained by statistical biases instead of a shortcoming of low-skilled individuals, the observed effect would not be a cognitive bias at all but an error in the measurement process. That very same article by McIntosh et al [1] themselves don't discard the possibility that it's merely a statistics fluke ("it would be a gross misrepresentation to say that poor insight is the reason for overestimation amongst the unskilled. [...] the pattern can be induced (and greatly inflated) by a host of other factors and biases, some psychologically interesting, and some ‘merely’ statistical", "there has been debate over whether the effect derives from metacognitive differences,[...] general biases of self-estimation or from statistical artefacts [...] showing that each of these factors can contribute to shaping the typical DKE") or a different cognitive bias not correlated to low skill in the given task (i.e., not the cognitive bias that DK posited) - ("people tend to evaluate their relative standing optimistically, a bias known as the better-than-average effect", "They broadly confirmed that increased difficulty reduced the average percentile self-estimate, so that poor performers now seemed better calibrated, reducing and even reversing the asymmetry of the classic DKE"). That doesn't seem at all just a mere disagreement about whether the effect is cognitive or metacognitive.

Prominent studies are taking into account that the effect could be the result of a measurement bias that is unaccounted for in the design of the experiments; or caused by a different bias, very weakly related (Feld [2]) or unrelated (Ames [3]) to low skill in the task; and there doesn't seem to be a consensus on the actual causes of the effect. Therefore, I don't feel confident in definitely attributing it to a cognitive bias related to low skills as the article currently does. The question of whether the effect is not related to low ability but a different cause seems as strong as ever, and researchers recognize it as such.

I can agree with replacing "cognitive bias" in the first sentence, but rather than a "tendency" (which would imply a precise and consistent measurement of its direction and strength that doesn't seem to exist), I would say that it's an "observation" of people with low ability in a task overestimating their ability to perform it. The part that everybody agrees about DKE is that you can make repeatable observations of the effect, performing experiments where measurements of self-assessment will show an observed discrepancy with actual skill, having some perceived correlation with low ability but with disagreements about the reason for that correlation. So, why don't we seek an impartial tone and just describe the effect in those terms, without making ourselves a definite claim about its essence in Wikipedia's voice? For example we could precisely describe what was measured in the original DK paper (aggregated quartile values, and the difference between the self-predicted performance and the mean of the quartile), which now is only vaguely described in the lede with the unspecific "measured by comparing self-assessment with objective performance".

I've also seen several accounts of how people commonly misunderstands the DFE (one of them in the McIntosh paper: "the modern meme that stupid people are too stupid to know they are stupid is a dramatic oversimplification, propounded (perhaps) by those who know sufficiently little of the evidence") either by thinking it's stronger than it is, or even believing that anyone who is confident in their own abilities must be suffering from the Dunning-Krugger effect themselves. At the very least, we should take extra care that the lead section does not give fuel to such misunderstandings, suggesting certainties about the potency and nature of the effect of which we have no certainty. Diego (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for making the effort of linking your arguments to some sources. The quotes you bring from McIntosh, like "there has been debate over whether the effect derives from metacognitive differences,[...] general biases of self-estimation or from statistical artefacts [...] showing that each of these factors can contribute to shaping the typical DKE" underline my point that the debate is about "metacognitive explanation vs other explanation" and not about "cognitive bias vs no cognitive bias". Feld argues that statistical effects play an important role in the observed pattern but do not present it as a full explanation, they just say that the pattern is weaker when one corrects for statistical mistakes. Ames does not mention the Dunning-Kruger effect (they talk about "the relationship between people’s actual interpersonal sensitivity (such as their ability to identify deception and to infer intentions and emotions) and their perceptions of their own sensitivity.").
As for the changes, I think "tendency" is better than "observation" but we can also use "observation" if that solves the issue. The expression "observation of people with low ability" is problematic since it suggests that it's the people with low ability who observe this themselves. I think the expression "The Dunning–Kruger effect is the observation or cognitive bias whereby..." avoids your initial criticism of POV since it leaves open the possibility of a definition without cognitive bias while also acknowledging that some researchers explicitly define the Dunning-Kruger effect as a cognitive bias. But it also has the problem that it's not clear whose observation it is, which is why i prefer "tendency". I don't think that "tendency" implies "a precise and consistent measurement of its direction and strength". For example, from here: a characteristic likelihood or a predisposition to think, act, or proceed in a particular way. The description of the measurement by comparing self-assessment with objective performance is explained in detail in the section "Measurement and analysis". Your suggestions for additional descriptions in this area would probably fit better there instead of adding all this material to the lead, which should mainly provide a summary of the body of the article. Phlsph7 (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
The problem I see with "tendency" is that it is attributed to "people with low ability at a task", when it's not totally clear that the overestimation is something particular to them. I would agree if we attributed it to the studies, e.g. a "tendency at psychology studies to find people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability". This way, we focus attention on the question of how these studies are conducted and what this correlation means, which are the main issues under discussion, without making it sound like people with low ability are the ones making observations.
Whereas "observation or cognitive bias" does not change much: it attributes it to two different categories but does not explain why we would categorize it in those different ways, and it is odd to read. This approach would make sense if we made explicit mention that some researchers consider it a cognitive bias and others a statistical error, but you seem unconvinced of that.
As for the description of what is being measured, at the very least we should incorporate a call for attention to the various studies that find it to be an effect of a smaller magnitude than initially described by Dunning & Krugger, such as the one you mentioned of Feld or the one by Gignac&Zajenkowski ("although ... may be to some degree plausible for some skills, the magnitude of the effect may be much smaller than reported previously"), to avoid giving the impression that the effect is a strong career-defining bias as the unquantified "Practical significance" section (and its summary in the lede) seems to imply. Diego (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
For the Dunning-Kruger effect defined as a tendency, see here (The Dunning–Kruger effect describes a tendency for incompetent individuals to overestimate their ability) and here (...this tendency was named after the authors as the Dunning–Kruger Effect). The idea of using two different categories is a direct response to your POV-criticism: some researchers define it like this, others like that. I think for the expression I suggested earlier, this should be clear to the reader.
The qualification you suggest is already found in the section "Explanation": "But even proponents of this explanation agree that this does not explain the empirical findings in full. This means that the Dunning-Kruger effect may still have a role to play, if only a minor one". The section "Practical significance" and the corresponding lead summary do not claim that the effect is particularly strong. They just point out that these findings are relevant and have some impact without specifying how much. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
"The Dunning-Kruger effect defined as a tendency" - yes, Dunning-Kruger defined it that way. It doesn't mean that in reality it is a tendency limited to people with low ability, nor that it caused by such lack of ability; several of the available articles think otherwise. Diego (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Do you have sources that deny that the Dunning-Kruger effect is a tendency or is this mainly your personal opinion? Phlsph7 (talk) 04:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
"The idea of using two different categories is a direct response to your POV-criticism" - Yes, and I'm saying that merely starting the article with "is the observation or cognitive bias whereby..." does not solve the POV, because it does not address in enough detail the POV that it is an observation which has other possible causes - while it does elaborate extensively on the view that it is a cognitive bias of people with low ability. That is not balanced. Diego (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
The first sentence contains just the definition, it is not intended to "elaborate extensively" all the possible causes. But this is addressed in the following sentences. Phlsph7 (talk) 04:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
"The qualification you suggest is already found in the section "Explanation" - Yes, and it should be in the lede as well. Diego (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
This qualification is relative to one explanation, not to the Dunning-Kruger effect in general. I'm not sure that this is important enough to be included in the lead. But I'm not categorically opposed to this so if you have a concrete suggestion that does not overemphasize this qualification then we can consider it. Phlsph7 (talk) 04:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
"do not claim that the effect is particularly strong. They just point out that these findings are relevant and have some impact without specifying how much - and that's its problem. It's saying that it's relevant to high-impact events in life like choosing career or engaging in dangerous activities, and not saying that its contribution to those choices is small, which again is unbalanced. Can you see how the wording makes it seem much more relevant than it is because of the choice of words, even without explicitly saying that it is highly relevant? Diego (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
This relevance is explicitly pointed out by the sources in the section "Practical significance". If there are sources that explicitly deny that the Dunning-Kruger effect is relevant to career choices or dangerous activities, then we can also include a sentence that not everyone agrees with this. Phlsph7 (talk) 04:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
So, do you agree to remove the paragraph from the lede to remove its WP:UNDUE weight, as it's already in the "Practical significance" section? Or do you prefer that we add to the lede the sources that I explicitly pointed out saying that the effect is smaller than initially thought, to restore WP:BALANCE? Which one is it? Diego (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Summarizing sections in the lead is in accord with the Wikipedia guidelines, see WP:MOSLEAD. Arguing for the removal based on the fact that it is already explained in the body suggests a confusion about WP:UNDUE. As I said in my last reply: "I'm not categorically opposed to this [qualification] so if you have a concrete suggestion that does not overemphasize this qualification then we can consider it". One change that would work for me would be to change the first sentence of the 4th lead paragraph into "The Dunning–Kruger effect is relevant for various practical matters but there are disagreements concerning the magnitude of its influence". Phlsph7 (talk) 05:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand, I didn't argued for the removal from the lede on the basis that it appears in a section. I argued for its removal based on it making an assertion that is not a neutral assessment of the points of view available in the sources. I'm OK with saying that there are disagreements concerning its influence, but I would handle the inherently subjective nature of assessing relevance to career options in the same way we handle aesthetic opinions, i.e. by attributing it to those who make the assertion, tweaking your sentence like this: "The Dunning–Kruger effect has been described as relevant for various practical matters but there are disagreements concerning the magnitude of its influence" . I think this way we can avoid the egregious WP:REDFLAG in the article's current form. Diego (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Your suggestion works fine for me. Phlsph7 (talk) 04:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Is this true?

I've heard of some people saying that results from the original study have been vastly exaggerated; a quick search turns up two papers saying that the original study's results are, more or less, total crap. I took a quick look at this article and none of these seem to show up as references, nor is there a section relating to the claims. Is the article simply out of date, or has there been discussion on this subject before? jp×g 18:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  • This one too, I suppose. (And this one, although Psychology Today is hardly a credible source.) It seems weird to me that an article about a purported phenomenon observed by one study wouldn't mention something like this. jp×g 18:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
    My opinion is that the effect is real, although I am not convinced that it is profound. For example, I know that a doctor has a lot more medical knowledge than I do, although I have no quantitative estimate as to how much more. I might think that a doctor knows 100 times more than me, but in reality, he knows 1000s time more than me. I am an example of the DK effect. I am not overconfident. I simply have no good way to estimate our relative knowledge. Constant314 (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
    Hello JPxG, the issues you mention are discussed in the subsection "Criticism and alternatives" as alternative explanations of the Dunning-Kruger effect. The third paper you mention is already cited and discussed there. There is wide consensus that statistical effects play a role in interpreting the Dunning-Kruger effect and a few researchers have pointed out that the effect is less strong than initially thought when these statistical effects are accounted for. But the idea that there is nothing left besides statistics is rejected almost everywhere. This is also what the first paper you cite says: "The first hypothesis, which proposes self-assessed estimates of proficiency to be random noise, proved untenable" and "[o]ur results contradicted ... [that] peoples’ self-assessed competence ratings show a pronounced bias toward overestimations of their actual abilities". They only deny a "pronounced" bias. This is also what Constant314 is saying. Phlsph7 (talk) 05:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Phlsph7: Ah, I see. Thank you. jp×g 05:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Illustration

The "understanding curve" commonly believed to illustrate Dunning–Kruger effect

Colleagues, while I agree that this image may not have reliable sources and such, I should mention that it is certainly notable as in the public view it epitomizes the idea of Dunning–Kruger effect and is the first thing that comes to mind when the phrase is mentioned (which is the entire reason why I tried to added it to the article, in passing). I am perfectly fine if you disagree with the addition, but as a middle ground I would recommend to either add it with a respective comment, something like : ------>


or at the very least, add respective comment to its Commons page, explaining that; it may save you some effort guarding this article in the future. -- Wesha (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with both sides: an image would be quite helpful but this particular image lacks authenticity and contains a lot of questionable information, such as the curvature and the names of its sections. For better images, have a look at "Dunning, David (1 January 2011). Chapter five - The Dunning–Kruger Effect: On Being Ignorant of One's Own Ignorance. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 44. Academic Press. pp. 247–296. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-385522-0.00005-6. ISBN 9780123855220" page 263 or "Schlösser, Thomas; Dunning, David; Johnson, Kerri L.; Kruger, Justin (1 December 2013). How unaware are the unskilled? Empirical tests of the signal extraction counterexplanation for the Dunning–Kruger effect in self-evaluation of performance. Journal of Economic Psychology. 39: 85–100. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2013.07.004. ISSN 0167-4870" page 90. I'm not sure about the fair usage policies for such images, but they would be a good addition to the article when paired with a short explanation. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


I also strongly disagree with the decision to remove the picture. As Wesha mentioned, the vast majority of people who learned about the Dunning-Kruger effects did so as a result of this visual representation, therefore meeting the notability criteria (and a few other Wikipedia languages (e.g., FR, IT, ES) already have a similar chart).
I would like to better understand the rationale behind "needs a reliable verifiable source", as I am a bit confused by what Constant314 means:
  • If it means that the image itself needs to be from a verifiable source (as Phlsph7 mentioned), then this would be an "artificial" condition that would be very difficult to believe, as one of the reasons why this chart is so famous is that it is simple to reproduce. The overall shape and terms (e.g., Mt. Stupid) are now fairly well known and standardized, but there is no commonly agreed "original source" of the chart, as far as I know. In addition, securing the copyrights required to publish it on Wikipedia would be extremely difficult, as Wikipedia has a very strict policy on this. A caption indicating that it is a satirical representation of the article, rather than coming from the article itself, would in my opinion be sufficient to make it clear to any reader that the chart is not "original"
  • If it means that references showing that this chart is popular are required, then it should not be a problem to satisfy, as it is very simple to find many reliable sources making references to this chart.
Therefore, it could be helpful, Constant314, if you could help clarify which of the two interpretations is the right one regarding your comment.
In either case, while one may argue that the visual representations that were reverted were not perfect, as far as I know, they do not break any Wikipedia policy. Therefore, I believe that removing them is more harmful to the article than keeping them, until a better image is found.
7804j (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Without going in detail about the dispute I must challenge some misconceptions about Wikipedia protocols. First content of an article is not ascertained according to 'notability' (this is a function of deciding whether an article should be created - or removed from the Wikipedia) but according to other protocols such as verifiability WP:V, non-point of view WP:NPOV and due weight WP:DUE. Second just because content - the graph - is present on other language versions of Wikipedia is not a reason for it to be in English Wikipedia. Wikipedia (any language) cannot be used as a source for Wikipedia (any language). Content comes from reliable sources which are independent and verifiable. It doesn't matter whether the content is a graph, photo or text it must be sourced. So your arguments are contrary to Wikipedia protocols and it doesn't matter how strongly you disagree with content removal, if it doesn't accord with Wikipedia protocols then it shouldn't be in the encyclopaedia Robynthehode (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I am not arguing that there are specific Wikipedia policy/protocols that give the right for this image must be added, but I am arguing that there is also no particularly strong argument/protocol that require it to be removed (although I am not an expert on Wikipedia policies). I believe that adding this illustration meets the criteria of verifiability (provided that we add references showing that these "satirical" depictions are common), non-point of view, and due weight (because it represents a viewpoint from a majority).
I also understand that Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia, this was more to illustrate the point that other Wikipedia communities seem to have gotten to a different consensus, which can be helpful context in the discussion.
As I mentioned, I think that providing a source to similar graphs is not an issue, if this is what is asked, but providing a source to this exact representation seems technically not possible due to the fact that there is no universally agreed representation.
7804j (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
My main point is that the graph contains false or at least questionable information, as I explained in my earlier reply. This graph looks very different from the graphs I referred to. The Dunning-Kruger effect is usually measured concerning the relation between subjective and objective ability, not concerning confidence. When measured this way, the graph looks very different: it is steadily rising, it's not an up-down-up movement. I agree with Robynthehode's critique of 7804j's arguments. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, a key concern is to misrepresent the original findings, or to give too much emphasis on a "subjective interpretation" of its results. On the other hand, my key concern is to not represent a major element of how this concept has been used and interpreted in the real world. So I would like to propose an alternative, of having this image in a new dedicated section, at a lower part of the article, that explains how the DK effect is often interpreted/represented outside of scientific literature, and have the image inserted there rather than at the top of the article (with very visible and clear caveats that it is not directly supported by the original research and therefore should be interpreted with care). I have no strong opinion on the name/wording to be used for this new section. Would this alternative help alleviate these concerns?
7804j (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that the image may contain false information, so it shouldn't be included anywhere in the article. We would need a reliable source that confirms the contested information. But I agree with you that this article needs a good image, either in the lead or in the "Measurement and analysis"-section. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I see two problems with the image. The lessor problem as that there are no quantitative scales on either axis. There is only vague explanation as to what each axis means. Images in Wikipedia should mean something. Is the ratio of the first peak to the first dip accurate? What do the inflection points mean? Is the picture based on real data or is it just a hand drawn squiggle? Here is another version of the chart:

Effetto Dunning-Kruger

.

Which is correct? The second problem is authenticity. The image may be an internet fact. It has been mirrored by so many web sites that it appears to be authentic. Yet, I have not seen it tied to a competent reliable source. In fact, the image itself may be an example of a fact that is believed to be authentic with high confidence by people that have low competence to establish its authenticity. It would be ironic if the DK article itself were an example of a product produced by people on the left end of the chart. Constant314 (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Just a comment about this whole discussion: It's bizarre that some editors would try to include an article that illustrates a popular misconception about a topic, on the basis that the misconception is popular. The purpose of the Wikipedia article should be to explain the topic, not to explain what people wrongly think about the topic. Obviously these images do not belong in the article and are counter-productive. That "a few other Wikipedia languages (e.g., FR, IT, ES) already have a similar chart" or "other Wikipedia communities seem to have gotten to a different consensus" is no argument: Wikipedia can't be used as a source for Wikipedia, and if other versions of Wikipedia are spreading false information then there is no reason that we should. "providing a source to this exact representation seems technically not possible due to the fact that there is no universally agreed representation" seems a pretty decisive argument that we shouldn't be using this representation. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes. This is obviously true, but apparently it still needs saying. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
  • The problem with this image is that it doesn't appear in the original paper, it looks nothing like the image that appears in the original paper, and it objectively misrepresents the figures from the original paper. The actual figures look like this -- note that the perceived ability isn't oscillating wildly up and down. This post has a few more of them in it -- but none of them look like the thing at the top of this section. jp×g 18:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Relation between self-perceived performance and actual performance on an exam as described by the article on the Dunning-Kruger Effect

I've created a new image based on Figure 5.2 of the 2011 paper to have a more accurate version of the curve with the explanation of the effect (also in png), in case you want to add it back to the article. Diego (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I would have no problem adding that figure to the article. Constant314 (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for putting in the effort. The image would make a good addition to the article. It's not as intuitive as the previous image, so the description needs to explain what is happening. I could have a look at the journal article tomorrow to see if I can come up with something. The basic idea is that the Dunning-Kruger effect is given by the distance between the two lines, i.e. less actual competence (objective ability) than perceived competence (subjective ability). This topic is discussed in the section "Measurement and analysis". The image could be added either there or to the lead. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
It is easy to think up work for others to do but let me suggest that the zone between the two lines be filled in with color, say red to the left of the intersection and green to the right. Then label the zone on the left as over confidence and the zone on the right as under confidence. Perhaps there are some better designations. Constant314 (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
I just saw that there is a small issue with the image: the y-axis is not "confidence" but "raw score" (or maybe just "score"). Confidence mainly relates to subjective ability but not to objective ability while score covers both. I think the image shows the effect in absolute terms. Images for the effect in relative terms often use the label "percentile" instead of "score". Phlsph7 (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
@Constant314: Agreed, that would make it easier to grasp for the reader. But it would require extra work as well. The labels "over confidence" and "under confidence" could be used for the colored areas but not for the axis. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
I implemented the suggested changes and added the image. I also changed the x-axis label to "competence group" since these are averages over groups of participants, not individual scores. It's in svg-format, which can be edited, for example, using this website in case more changes are needed. Phlsph7 (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Well done. Thanks to both of you. Constant314 (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Sentence seems vacuous. What _is_ intended?

As I read the below, it rewords what "the other side" of what is it being contrasted with.

If someone understands what was intended, could they please take another run at it?

4th paragraph includes: "The statistical explanation interprets these findings as statistical artifacts. Some theorists hold that the way low and high performers are distributed makes assessing their skill level more difficult for low performers, thereby explaining their erroneous self-assessments independent of their metacognitive abilities."

2601:1C2:801:4420:0:0:0:AD66 (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC) A Nony Mouse

The idea is the following: the measurements show a correlation between being bad at doing something and being bad at recognizing this. There is a lot of discussion concerning how these measurements are to be explained or what underlying effects are responsible for them. There is the metacognitive explanation, the statistical explanation, and various related explanations. This is discussed in detail in the section "Explanations". The passage you quote is just a very short summary.
There was an earlier version of this passage that is a little bit longer: Many debates surrounding the Dunning–Kruger effect and criticisms of it focus on the meta-cognitive explanation without denying the empirical findings. The most prominent among them is the statistical explanation, which holds that the Dunning–Kruger effect is mainly a statistical artifact due to the regression toward the mean combined with another cognitive bias known as the better-than-average effect. Other theorists hold that the way low and high performers are distributed makes it more difficult for low performers to assess their skill level, thereby explaining their erroneous self-assessments independent of their meta-cognitive abilities. Another account sees the lack of incentives to give accurate self-assessments as the source of error. Do you think this version is clearer? If you have more specific input on what part is difficult to understand, we can also try to work out a new formulation. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Inspiration

@Constant314: I am a bit puzzled by your revert in which you claim that my addition was not relevant to this article. While I may not be an expert on the subject, the given source does state, verbatim, that the lemon juice robberies directly inspired Dunning to do the research of the 1999 paper and therefore the DK effect. The robberies also make for the introduction of the paper itself. I believe this tiny bit of relevant history should be covered here in some form, in part because it would de-orphan the article about the robberies. Please advise. IceWelder [✉] 10:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Greetings @IceWelder:. I do not feel like that anecdote fits the tone of this article. It would be fine on the David Dunning or Justin Kruger articles. The idea of a thief who thought lemon juice made him invisible might have inspired D&K, but it is not an example of the DK effect. The effect is about how less competent ordinary people consistently overate their own competence. It is not about less competent people doing stupid things. The thief is probably profoundly mentally impaired. He is an outlier and not representative of the DK effect. For example, I am less competent that a medical doctor with regard to surgical procedures. I might overate my knowledge, but I would not attempt to perform surgery. I am an example of the DK effect. We have enough trouble explaining this effect that I do not want the readers to latch onto "stupid people do stupid things." Perhaps other editors may wish to comment. Constant314 (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
I never claimed this case to be an example of the effect, rather the origin of its research, as confirmed by the given source. I would think that readers can tell apart the definition of the effect, as outlined by a dedicated section, and a piece of history included to state that history. Making assumptions about the persons involved does not really help in this case (per WP:OR and otherwise). As the robberies were the direct basis for the research that led to the DK effect (regardless of whether it turned out as an example of it), I still believe that it should be mentioned in this article in some shape or form. For now, I separately included it on Dunning's article. IceWelder [✉] 19:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
I did not mean to infer that you claimed it as an example; clearly you did not do that. Rather, my concern is that readers might take it as an example. The typical reader is not a critical reader and really cannot be expected to apply the definition. WP:OR only applies to material added to the article and does not apply to discussions about that material on the talk page. FYI, although I do not doubt the accuracy of the source, opinion columns are not considered to be reliable sources. Ultimately, this is an amusing anecdote that might be misinterpreted by the reader. I think the possible disservice outweighs the benefits. As a compromise, perhaps say that D&K were inspired by a story about an incompetent thief and then add the lemon juice part using Template:Efn. Constant314 (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree with IceWelder in that the source is good, it supports the claim, and the claim is relevant. But I think Constant314 also has a point: the thief story itself is apparently not an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect but might lead the uncritical reader to come to that conclusion. Constant314's suggestion seems to solve that problem: the example is "mentioned in this article in some shape or form" without putting too much emphasis on the exact details of the story, which are reserved for a footnote. Phlsph7 (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
In the process of making some changes to this section, I included the following in regard to Dunning's initial inspiration: Dunning was initially inspired to engage in this research after reading a newspaper report about an incompetent thief and set up a research program soon afterward together with Kruger, who was his graduate student at the time. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I guess this works. It is a bit unfortunate that we are not mentioning the primary research trigger within that event -- being thoroughly convinced that lemon juice works as a mask -- but as long as it is wikilinked this could do. IceWelder [✉] 13:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I've added the following footnote: What caught Dunning's attention was that the perpetrators wore lemon juice in place of masks, believing that the juice would make them invisible to security cameras. They were not even able to become aware of this misconception despite testing it beforehand, prompting Dunning to formulate the thesis that their ignorance barred them from recognizing their ignorance. I think it's too much detail to be included in the text itself but works fine as a footnote. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

"Truss-Kwarteng effect" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Truss-Kwarteng effect and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 17#Truss-Kwarteng effect until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 02:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Origin of the term

It can't be used as a source in the article, but I've put an explanation of the origin of the name at WP:CITOGENESIS#DunningKruger for editors who are interested. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

"Mount Stupid"

"Mount Stupid" seems to be a popular enough characterisation to merit a redirect to the article. Is it worth mentioning this informal name, albeit with any necessary caveats about this usage? JezGrove (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for talking about it instead of just doing it. I can see where that might make sense, but I also fear that it would legitimize "mount stupid" as a feature of DK. Wikipedia is such a force in the world, that we have to be wary of creating facts instead of reporting them.
Constant314 (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, but there have been 454 redirects in the past two years, so it might be worth acknowledging/mentioning? But I don't have a strong opinion either way. JezGrove (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Adding a note about the common misrepresentation in media

The DK effect is extremely commonly misrepresented and thus misunderstood. The incorrect DK graph constitutes the majority of top search engine results and, although I have no source on this, popular conception of the DKE. I propose adding a small note, if not showing the graph, at least mentioning it and it’s lack of merit. Ferdinand Hoven (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

My thinking has come around to agree. Constant314 (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
We would need a reliable source, otherwise it's WP:OR. For an earlier discussion of the incorrect graph, see Talk:Dunning–Kruger_effect/Archive_5#Illustration. Phlsph7 (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I think it is a sky is blue type statement. We don't really need a RS to say that the "valley of despair" diagram shows up often. I think we only need a consensus, but I would not force it on a two to one vote. Constant314 (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
It depends on what you want to write. I did a google image search for "Dunning-Kruger effect" a few minutes ago. For my search, only one image of the first 8 images (the forth) has the term "valley of despair". Is that sufficient evidence to claim that the "valley of despair" diagram shows up often? You would probably have to generalize over the different images to say that that many of them are "valley of despair" diagrams even though they do not use that term. And even if that is sufficient evidence, the sentence 'The "valley of despair" diagram shows up often (in google image searches for the term "Dunning-Kruger effect")' would be rather pointless to add to the article. It would be more interesting to say that it is incorrect. But this is not a sky is blue type statement. Phlsph7 (talk) 06:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Repeating a misconception risks reinforcing the misconception (for example, when people skim the article). Our role is to record the best available knowledge about the subject. When there is a topic where a large proportion of the discussion in reliable sources is about the misconception, e.g. Parity of zero, then we'd be justified in having a section in the article. Google search results don't qualify as a reliable source, and the accessibility of the results doesn't change that or make a conclusion a "sky is blue type statement". MartinPoulter (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I am not convinced, but it doesn't look like there is any support to add the material, so I am done unless someone else wants to add support. Cheers. Constant314 (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I would argue that the majority of, or at least half of discussion around the dke is about the incorrect graph. I was shown the incorrect graph in an AP stats class when I was in high school, the entire first 50 or so results of “dunning kruger effect” on ecosia (bing) image search are wrong graphs, there’s several youtube videos with millions of views depicting it incorrectly, and I am of the personal view that the majority of people who know about the DKE have the wrong graph in mind. I agree though, that none of these are reliable sources, i just wouldn’t know how to reliably source this, regardless of if it is true. Ferdinand Hoven (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 02:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I will review this. TompaDompa (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello TompaDompa and thanks for taking the time to review this nomination. I'll try to be responsive and reply to your comments in a timely manner. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

General comments

  • I'm not a copyright expert, but how can the images be CC BY-SA 4.0 when they are from copyrighted works?
  • There are a fair number of sentences beginning with "so", which gives a somewhat amateurish impression (being a comparatively informal phrasing). "Thus" is usually a better word to use, and sometimes it can simply be removed (perhaps replacing the preceding period with a semicolon).
  • Verb tense is not consistent.
  • The "External links" section is empty.
  • The article needs copyediting to conform to WP:Make technical articles understandable.
  • https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19568317 is cited twice in duplicate references.
  • I'm missing discussion of the common perception (misconception) among laypeople that the Dunning–Kruger effect means something along the lines of "those who know very little think they know more than (and/or are more confident than) experts". This omission is especially conspicuous considering the caption for the image in the WP:LEAD says Nevertheless, low performers' self-assessment is lower than that of high performers. I notice that the "Mount Stupid" graph (and its interpretation) has been discussed a number of times on the talk page.
  • The article cites Dunning (2011) heavily, which might not be the most neutral source.

Lead

  • Since its first publication, various criticisms of the effect and its explanation have been made. – going by what the body says, it seems that saying that the effect (rather than the metacognitive explanation) has been subject to various criticisms is not entirely accurate.
  • It's rather odd to mention criticism of the proposed explanation of the effect before mentioning what that explanation actually is.
  • Some theorists hold that the way low and high performers are distributed makes assessing their skill level more difficult for low performers, thereby explaining their erroneous self-assessments independent of their metacognitive abilities. – this is basically incomprehensible when presented without context like this.

Definition

  • I think this section would benefit from a table of the different components of the varying definitions.
  • Biases are systematic in the sense that they occur consistently in different situations. They are tendencies since they concern certain inclinations or dispositions that may be observed in groups of people, but are not manifested in every performance. – is this to explain the phrase "systematic tendency"?
  • to greatly overestimate their competence or to see themselves as more skilled than they are – are those not just different ways of saying the same thing?
  • the lack of skill and the ignorance of this lack – to me, this is an odd phrasing. Specifically, the use of the word "lack" without a complementary "of X" sticks out to me.
  • see the relation to metacognition as a possible explanation independent of one's definition – "independent of one's definition"?
  • So it is sometimes claimed to include the reverse effect for people with high skill. – "claimed"?
  • On this view, – grammar.
  • Arguably, – WP:Editorializing.
  • This phenomenon has been categorized as a form of the false-consensus effect. – gloss.

Measurement and analysis

  • If done afterward, it is important that the participants receive no independent clues during the performance as to how well they did. – this almost comes off as a how-to guide.
  • When done in absolute terms, self-assessment and performance are measured according to absolute standards – seems tautological.
  • Link quartile at first mention.
  • Some researchers focus their analysis on the difference between the two abilities, i.e. on subjective ability minus objective ability, to highlight the negative correlation. – I don't follow. Either this is fairly redundant (how else would you measure an overestimation?) or there's something I'm missing.

Studies

  • This section relies a lot on WP:PRIMARY sources. WP:Cite reviews, don't write them.
  • I don't see a good reason to list a bunch of studies like this. The findings may be relevant, but a timeline of studies conducted—which is basically what at least the latter part of this section amounts to—is not.
  • While many studies are conducted in laboratories, others take place in real-world settings. – the difference is not immediately obvious to me, nor is its significance.
  • More recent studies – MOS:RECENT.
  • Link percentile at first mention.
  • and points out – MOS:SAID.
  • It does not yet contain the term "Dunning–Kruger effect", which was introduced later. – the cited WP:PRIMARY source can of course only verify the first part, and it's dubious if a primary source should be used in this way in the first place.
  • It does not yet contain the term "Dunning–Kruger effect", which was introduced later. – when?
  • the incompetent bank robberies of McArthur Wheeler and Clifton Earl Johnson – is there a strong reason to name these presumably-living people and call them "incompetent" in WP:WikiVoice?
  • tries to show – "tries to show"?
  • concludes that the Dunning–Kruger effect obtains only in tasks that feel easy – "obtains"?
  • As he writes, [...] – this phrasing endorses Dunning's view rather than just reporting it.
  • A 2022 study found, consistent with the Dunning–Kruger effect, that people who reject the scientific consensus on issues think they know the most about them but actually know the least. – this is a stronger assertion about the connection to the Dunning–Kruger effect than the cited source supports. It also seems to contradict the earlier Nevertheless, low performers' self-assessment is lower than that of high performers.

Explanations

  • This section veers into engaging in disputes rather than merely describing them repeatedly.
  • It would almost certainly be preferable to structure this section such that each proposed explanation is discussed separately within its own subsection, along with the arguments for and against it.
  • I'm missing the "rational model of self-assessment" discussed in https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01057-0 and summarized briefly in https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01101-z.
  • Stick to either "metacognitive" or "meta-cognitive".
  • Both "account" and "approach" are odd words to choose here. I would go with "explanation", "model", "interpretation", and similar phrasings.
  • Some attempts have been made to measure metacognitive abilities directly to confirm this hypothesis. – to investigate it, one would hope.
  • There is a large and growing body of criticism of the assumptions on which the metacognitive account is based. – what the cited source says is The classic metacognitive interpretation of the Dunning–Kruger effect has been challenged by alternative explanations.
  • This line of argument usually proceeds by providing an alternative approach that promises a better explanation of the observed tendencies. – that seems like it would go without saying.
  • One such account is based on the idea that both low and high performers have in general the same metacognitive ability to assess their skill level. – that just seems like the negation of the metacognitive interpretation.
  • The explanation for the regression toward the mean interpretation is rather difficult to follow. I'm not even sure it correctly describes the proposed mechanism. The way I understand it from e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01101-z, the idea is that the subset of participants with the most extreme actual performances will not have as extreme perceived performances assuming that self-assessments are imperfect.
  • But such adjustments do not eliminate the Dunning–Kruger effect, which is why the view that regression toward the mean is sufficient to explain it is usually rejected. – not in the cited source.
  • However, it has been suggested – MOS:WEASEL.
  • Defenders of the statistical explanation – proponents.
  • By choosing the right variables for the randomness due to luck and a positive offset to account for the better-than-average effect, it is possible to simulate experiments – needlessly technical phrasing.
  • almost the same correlation between self-assessed ability. – and what? This is an incomplete statement.
  • This means that the Dunning–Kruger effect may still have a role to play, if only a minor one. – the meaning of this is not immediately obvious.
  • Opponents of this approach – "opponents"?
  • But even proponents of this explanation agree that this does not explain the empirical findings in full. – not in the cited source.
  • I am not convinced https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking/dunning-kruger-effect-probably-not-real is an appropriate source to use in this context. The reference also misspells the author's name.
  • Another statistical-artifact-based challenge to the Dunning-Kruger effect is the demonstration that a form of the effect can emerge when the errors of the self-assessment are randomly created. – rather opaque.

Practical significance

  • The Dunning–Kruger effect can also have negative implications for the agent in various economic activities – needlessly technical phrasing. Why "agent"?
  • Some also concentrate on its positive side, e.g., ignorance can sometimes be bliss. – if there is only one positive side, "e.g." is incorrect. If there are multiple positive sides, "side" is incorrect. "e.g., ignorance can sometimes be bliss" is an odd phrasing to me.
  • This is not really an "In popular culture" section, but with a title like this people might expect it to be, so I would at least change the heading. The Ig Nobel Prize should certainly be mentioned somewhere in the article.
  • a satiric Ig Nobel Prize – the Ig Nobel Prize is always satirical. Either swap the indefinite article for a definite one, or provide the explanation that it is satirical elsewhere.
  • I'm not convinced mentioning "The Dunning–Kruger Song" is due.

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    See above.
    C. It contains no original research:
    Spotchecking has revealed several instances of material failing verification.
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Earwig reveals no overt copyvio. I have not spotted any instances of unacceptably WP:Close paraphrasing, but I have not taken a close enough look to be able to rule it out with a reasonable degree of confidence.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    The images are tagged with appropriate licenses, but this seems dubious to me. See above.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

@Phlsph7: I am closing this as unsuccessful. I'm sorry this has taken so long; I started out with the intention to provide detailed feedback, but I have settled for providing a non-exhaustive sample of issues I noted while reading through the article instead. This is an interesting topic and it's a shame close the nomination like this, but there are systemic issues with the article that are not trivially fixable. The writing style is rather WP:TECHNICAL and unnecessarily wordy in places. More seriously, the article misuses sources (violating WP:NOR) and engages in disputes rather than merely describing them (violating WP:NPOV). My suggestion to bring this in line with Wikipedia's WP:Core content policies would be to pick a handful of review articles (or other similar sources that treat the entire overarching topic broadly), and use those to write the article. Sources on specific aspects (especially studies dealing with the effect) can be used to flesh out certain parts of the article by providing additional details, but should not serve as the basis for the article. WP:Cite reviews, don't write them. TompaDompa (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dunning–Kruger_effect/Archive_5&oldid=1172443680"