Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Discussion after GAN review

@TompaDompa: I'm sorry about the outcome but thanks for your detailed feedback. I've tried to implement many of your suggestions but there is still some work to be done. I've responded to some of your points below. Your feedback here may be helpful to further improve the article.

• Concerning the images: these graphs are not copied from the sources. Instead, their data is reproduced in new graphs. I don't think that the data itself is copyrighted so this shouldn't be a problem.
• Concerning the graph with mount stupid and other popular misconceptions: I would be happy to include a discussion of them if you know of a reliable source on that issue. But there is not much we can do without a reliable source. There are various talk page discussions with the same conclusion, for example, Talk:Dunning–Kruger_effect#Adding_a_note_about_the_common_misrepresentation_in_media.
• Concerning the terms "account" and "approach": The term "account" is used in the reliable sources itself, for example, as the "dual-burdon account". To me, the term "approach" sounds fine but I'm not sure whether it is commonly used in the reliable sources so I changed it.
• Concerning NPOV: This seems to apply mainly to the section "Explanation". In order to rewrite it, it would be helpful to get a better understanding of what exactly you mean here. I'm sure there are a few expressions that might be improved but I see no serious overall bias.
• Concerning the section title "Popular recognition": I didn't get your point here. What title would you suggest?

If some of the changes I made so far are not what you had in mind then please let me know. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not a copyright expert, but that seems dubious to me. The images are virtually identical to the ones in the sources, and I'll note that Dunning (2011) felt the need to say "Adapted with permission." Let's ask someone who is more knowledgable when it comes to copyright matters than I am. Ping Diannaa: if I remember correctly (and going by your userpage, it would appear so), this is one of your areas of expertise.
The sourcing requirements for saying that people incorrectly believe that the Dunning–Kruger effect means XYZ are fairly low, much lower than the requirements for saying things about the actual Dunning–Kruger effect. This is not a particularly high-quality source, but it is probably reliable enough about what laypeople mistakenly think the Dunning–Kruger effect is.
On wording, I'll just say that Wikipedia is tailored to a much broader audience than our sources, and we should avoid being too technical or "jargon-y" in our phrasings when it is not necessary to use such language for precision (sometimes the distinction between velocity and speed matters, for instance).
The NPOV issues in the "Explanations" section are somewhat better now, but there is still stuff like But even proponents of this explanation agree that this does not explain the empirical findings in full. which is pretty clearly taking a side. Restructuring the section to discuss the different explanations separately in the manner I suggested above would probably go a long way towards achieving neutrality.
As for "Popular recognition", it could perhaps be renamed simply "Recognition" or the Ig Nobel Prize mentioned elsewhere in the article (there is no "History" section at present, but if there were it could be mentioned there). The point is that we don't want people to add "In episode X of television series Y, character Z refers to the Dunning–Kruger effect when [...]". TompaDompa (talk) 10:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

The images look okay to keep in my opinion. Simple numerical data can't be copyrighted, and the graphs were created by Wikipedians. We do have a specific noticeboard for media questions, at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, so if you would like to get another opinion, that would be a good place to go. — Diannaa (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thanks for clarifying the issue. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Good to know, thank you very much. I have been looking for somewhere to bring up issues like this more generally, I just never found that one. Is there an equivalent for text—possible WP:Close paraphrasing and whatnot? WP:Copyright problems doesn't really seem like the right place for questions/discussion. TompaDompa (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

You could try Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems but occasionally I've seen questions go unanswered there for a long time. General rules are as follows: Under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all text you find online or in print sources is copyright. Exceptions include works of the US Government and material specifically released under license. Even then, proper attribution is required. — Diannaa (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

One more piece of general feedback that I forgot to clarify explicitly in my review: take care not to go beyond what the sources say or engage in any WP:ANALYSIS thereof. It's easy to do accidentally when one is familiar with/knowledgable about the topic, but it constitutes WP:Original research. TompaDompa (talk) 11:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I've added a short discussion of the popular misconception. Thanks for looking up this source. It's not the best one but I hope it is sufficient for the job. You suggested getting a handful of review articles. Do you know of any that provide a detailed discussion of the different explanations? I'll keep the term "dual-burden" account since this is the specific term. But I'll see what I can do about the other mentions of "account". Did any other unnecessarily difficult terms catch your eye? I moved the sentence on the ig nobel price to the section "Practical significance" and renamed it to "Significance". This is not the perfect solution but I don't think the sentence fits well in any of the other sections. I'll keep your advice on WP:OR in mind. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:08, 25 February 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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 23:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

I'll start by digesting the earlier review, at Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect/GA1. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello BennyOnTheLoose and thanks for reviewing this article. The last review did not go very well. I hope the main problems were addressed in the subsequent changes and the following peer review. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll obviously look through the PR as well. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe that the concerns raised in the last GA review and discussed in the PR have been addressed where possible, but I'll bear the original criticisms in mind as I go through. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Copyvio check

• I reviewed the top matches found using Earwig's Copyvio Detector.

• Large match with almbok.com has all the hallmarks of a backwards-copy.
• McIntosh et al: "stupid people are too stupid to know they are stupid" is cited, but as it is a direct quote, I think it should be attributed in the text. Other matches here are titles, and short phrases acceptable per WP:LIMITED.

  Done.

• forums.playcontestofchampions.com - very much looks like a copy and paste from Wikipedia.
• Krajc & Ortmann - just the title

• Ackerman, Beier & Bowen - just the title
• Britannica - titles, and short phrases acceptable per WP:LIMITED.
• LinkedIn - either a backwards-copy, or a coincidence.

Images

• The images are useful - is there a reason why the explanations are not cited to the articles that the data come from?

• Only for the first one since the idea of highlighting the area in red came from the talk page. I adjusted the references for the other images accordingly. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Definition

• Spot check on In the case of the Dunning–Kruger effect, this applies mainly to people with low skill in a specific area trying to evaluate their competence within this area. The systematic error concerns their tendency to greatly overestimate their competence, i.e. to see themselves as more skilled than they are. - OK
• According to psychologist Robert D. McIntosh et al., - feels slightly awkward in the text, but perhaps less awkward than listing all the authors.

  Maybe just using "McIntosh et al." instead of "psychologist Robert D. McIntosh et al." would be better. But I think there is a guideline that names should be spelled out for the first mention. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Optionally, maybe replace "et al" with the equivalent of something like "and fellow researchers"? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  I used the expression "and his colleagues". Phlsph7 (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Measurement, analysis, and investigated tasks

• Spot check on The Dunning–Kruger effect is present in both cases, but tends to be significantly more pronounced when done in relative terms. This means that people are usually more accurate when predicting their raw score than when assessing how well they did relative to their peer group. - no issues.
• Spot check on The strongest effect is seen for the participants in the bottom quartile, who tend to see themselves as being part of the top two quartiles when measured in relative terms - no issues
• Spot check on objective performances are often divided into four groups. They start from the bottom quartile of low performers and proceed to the top quartile of high performers - no issues
• Spot check on In some cases, these studies gather and compare data from many countries Is this supported by the text? It has the example of a survey across 34 countries of the math skills of 15-year-olds but I didn;t immediately see another one that was across many countries.

  You are right, it just mentions one. I added another source. I could do some digging if more are needed. Some sources focus explicitly on cross-cultural comparisons.

• What's the support for Most of the studies are conducted in laboratories, from the cited sources?

  From Dunning 2011, p. 264: We have observed this pattern of dramatic overestimation by bottom performers across a wide range of tasks in the lab—from tests of logical reasoning and grammar skills (Kruger & Dunning, 1999) to more social abilities like emotional intelligence (Sheldon, Ames, & Dunning, 2010) and discerning which jokes are funny (Kruger & Dunning, 1999). We and others have also observed similar overestimation in real world settings as people tackle everyday tasks, such as hunters taking a quiz on firearm use and safety, based on one created by the National Rifle Association, at a Trap and Skeet competition (Ehrlinger, Johnson, Banner, Dunning, & Kruger, 2008), and laboratory technicians taking an exam about medical lab procedures and knowledge (Haun, Zerinque, Leach, & Foley, 2000). In all cases, top to bottom performers provide self-evaluations along percentile scales that largely replicate (Fig. 5.2).. The term "most" is implied but not explicitly spelled out. I reformulated it to be on the safe side. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• If done afterward, the participants receive no independent clues during the performance as to how well they did - I haven't read this source; is this stated as absolutely in the source? I'd imagine, for example, that if it was face to face, there could be some unconscious clues.

  from Mazor & Fleming 2021, pp. 677–678: ...no feedback is delivered during the quiz itself..... You are probably right that an interviewer may inadvertently give away clues. But if that had a significant impact then it would spoil the measurement. If the formulation is a problem, we could change it to "should receive no independent clues". Phlsph7 (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  It's faithful to the source as is, so fine. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Explanations

• Spot check on The metacognitive lack may hinder some people from becoming better by hiding their flaws from them. - no issues.
• You may recall that I'm not a fan of groups of citations after several sentences, e.g. [2][7][28], but this isn't a blocker to GA status.

Practical significance

• Ehrlinger et al. 2008, pp. 98–121. - is it possible to be more specific about the relevant part of the source?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Spot check on In 2000, Kruger and Dunning were awarded the satirical Ig Nobel Prize - no issues.

Lead

• Looks good.

Sources

• Frontiers in Psychology was on Beall's List but seems to be OK.
• Dunning, David (1 January 2011) - archive link is not useful (it's just a search page, which doesn't produce results)

  I removed the archive link.

• Lots of reliance in Dunning (2011) but I don't find this problematic given what it's supporting in the article.

General comments

• I think the "listen to this article link" should be removed; it has quite an old version of the article, and I believe that most people who want a spoken version of the article would have the means to have it read.

  Done.

• I really don't have much to comment on here. The criticisms from the first GA review have been addressed constructively with the help of a peer reviewer. From what I've seen in sources, the article covers the main points and has a suitably balanced structure. I found it generally easy to read; as I've argued before, assuming no prior knowledge of basics and trying to explain everything in detail would make the article lose focus. There are wikilinks to help the reader. Perhaps I've over-estimated my competence as a reviewer! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for all the helpful comments. I hope I've addressed all the main concerns. I've suggested a few alternative formulations in case the current ones don't fully solve the issues. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'm satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria, so I'm passing it. Thanks for taking the earlier review and peer review comments on board as well as responding to my points here. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:49, 23 August 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.

To quip or not to quip

@Constant314 and Fabrickator: Thanks for the feedback on the quip. The question is whether the following sentence should be included in the section "Definition": Dunning expressed this lack of awareness in his quip, "the first rule of the Dunning-Kruger club is you don't know you're in the Dunning-Kruger club".. I don't think it is required to understand the text. But I see it as a nice and interesting addition. Many sources quote this quip.

As a side note: I picked this line as a hook for the current DYK nomation. I put the nomination on hold since hooks can only be used if their claims are actually found in the article. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to put your nomination on hold. The article is shaping up well. My reaction to the quip is WTF does that mean? What does being in the DK club mean? Does it mean that you are a condescending prick that is sure that they are smarter than everybody else? Does it mean Dunning is admitting that he not a comedy writer? Is Dunning being self-depreciating or is he saying, (wink), (wink), I'm smarter that you? No matter what you think it means, do you have a RS that says what Dunning means? It is not obvious at all how this quip should be interpreted. I consider myself somewhat informed on this subject, I cannot tell what the quip means. What do you think the uniformed reader will conclude? I think that Dunning was just being cute instead of profound. I think that the quip serves no purpose to enlighten the reader about the subject of the article and should thus be dropped. Constant314 (talk) 11:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The apparent meaning is "If you are unskilled and unaware of it, you don't know that you are unskilled and unaware of it." Which is a bit tautological, granted. TompaDompa (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

In the context of particular skills, the source says: ... the Dunning-Kruger effect tells us ... that ignorant people .... are too ignorant to appreciate their own ignorance. As has been said "The first rule of the Dunning-Kruger club is you don't know you're in the Dunning-Kruger club". To me, it sounded straightforward. But we don't need to use it if it is likely to confuse or offend readers. The DYK nomination is not an issue, we can just use another hook. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

It is a nice hook, but it is kind of snarky. To me it is a quip that could mean almost anything, but in context, you could infer the meaning. A GA article should not require an inference by the reader to make sense of the article. Constant314 (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I can't say I agree with your objection. I don't think it's cryptic at all as long as it's presented in context, which it was. It was even glossed. TompaDompa (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

We could add an explanatory footnote, something like: In this context, to be a member of the Dunning-Kruger club means to belong to the group of low performers that overestimate their ability. This way, if the quip is not clear to some readers, they have additional context to rely on. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure it doesn't mean that you are in a group of high performers that underestimate their performance? I mean that in all seriousness. Constant314 (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes. That's a nonsensical reading in the context the cited source presents it. TompaDompa (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for the respectful discussion. I have had my say and I won't revert the material anymore. However, I would close with saying that I don't think the quip is encyclopedic. I don't think that it belongs in this GA (might be fine in an article about Dunning). If, however, it is to be included, then the explanation should also be included (again, why would we have a statement in a GA that requires a side explanation), and the explanation should be attributed to and paraphrased from a WP:RS. Constant314 (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it needs an explanation if it is to be included (though I think simply placing it in the proper context can be explanation enough). This is the kind of thing I might put in a {{quote box}} with explanatory text along the lines of "[person who said it], commenting on [the necessary context]" (see e.g. Neptune in fiction#Later depictions and George Griffith#Place in science fiction history). I noticed however that while the article attributed this to David Dunning, the cited source doesn't. @Phlsph7: could you perhaps clarify this discrepancy? TompaDompa (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the statement from @Constant314: about it being un-encyclopedic. It may be fun but we should not go out of our way to fit it a quip into a GA. Bruxton (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Notes

References

• @EEng: The "we cannot include any humor in Wikipedia even if relevant and properly attributed" killjoys are at it again here. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  Don't worry, my spy network has alerted me and I'm already on the case. Stand by. EEng 01:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  This is a bit depressing. It is not a particularly complex quip, it's pretty funny, but thinking it necessary to explain and diagram it destroys it entirely. Unless, of course, this entire discussion is some kind of four-dimensional chess game and I am too dull-witted to grasp the refinement of the running joke.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  I found Dunning himself saying it, right after he give the equivalent idea more prosaically. Perfect for a boxed quote [1], and a great example of how a bit of drollery helps the reader grasp and retain a key idea.

  No note or explanation re Fight Club is needed, because the meaning is reasonably apparent to those unaware of the F.C. reference, even if it strikes them as a somewhat odd formulation. Those aware of F.C. will, of course, get a smile for free in the bargain. EEng 06:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  @EEng: Thanks for looking up the interview. The quotebox is an elegant solution. The sentences before the quip are sufficient to setup the context so no additional explanation should be needed. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. It now makes sense without requiring guessing by the reader. My primary complaint has been addressed satisfactorily. Glad you could keep the hook. Constant314 (talk) 07:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  You'll get my bill. EEng 07:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  You can deduct it from next year's dues. Constant314 (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The term originates from... Wikipedia

Is Wikipedia:List_of_citogenesis_incidents#Terms_that_became_real true? If so, then there must be a reliable source that talks about this. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

In the end it, it doesn't matter where the term came from, although that may be interesting. It has entered the vocabulary as a name for an effect. Constant314 (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

As for the main sources that I'm aware of, I don't think they mention this claim. This could mean either that it is not true or that it is not noteworthy enough to be mentioned (see WP:PROPORTION). If there is a high-quality source that supports this claim then it could be included. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

"There is also disagreement about whether the effect is real at all"

There is disagreement about whether incompetent people really overestimate their competence? From people who know what regression to the mean is? But regression to the mean predicts the effect. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Does it predict it? Below average people think they're average, but the average is higher, and above average people think they're average, so they low-ball it... but it doesn't seem to hold for everyone and in every topic, as the disagreement in studies show. That's the first problem. The second problem is that the original study was flawedDagelf (talk)

but it doesn't seem to hold for everyone Duh. It's a statistical effect, of course it does not. What sort of reasoning is that? And "the original study was flawed" has no connection to "There is also disagreement about whether the effect is real at all". --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Not a full answer (You'll need to look at Dagelf for details on why they picked *those* sources in particular), but meanwhile see also: #DK_Effect_is_Simply_Autocorrelation. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the efforts to improve the article. One difficulty with this topic is that there is a lot of misleading information about it on the internet. This is why it's dangerous to rely on low-quality sources like blogs. For example, from the high-quality source Mazor & Fleming 2021 (Nature Human Behaviour): In one of the most highly replicable findings in social psychology, Kruger and Dunning showed that participants who performed worse in tests of humour, reasoning, and grammar were also more likely to overestimate their performance. There are different ways to explain this but there are very few reliable sources that claim that there is nothing there. Even statistical explanations usually acknowledge this. For example, Gignac & Zajenkowski 2020 hold that statistics only explain some part of the effect and Nuhfer et al. 2017 only deny that the effect is "pronounced". Phlsph7 (talk) 08:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Mazor & Fleming 2021 is interesting! --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I really appreciate the time Phlsph7 put in to improve the page!

Meanwhile, somewhere along the way we lost the recent comments by Gaze (one of the 'et al' in Nuhfer et al. ). I'll leave it here as a note in case we need it again later.

• Gaze, Eric C. (8 May 2023). "Debunking the Dunning-Kruger effect – the least skilled people know how much they don't know, but everyone thinks they are better than average". The Conversation. Retrieved 9 March 2024.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Another write-up worth considering:

• Fix, Blair (8 April 2022). "The Dunning-Kruger Effect is Autocorrelation". Economics from the Top Down. Retrieved 11 April 2024.

Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 21:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Not a WP:RS. Constant314 (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)