Monday, May 29, 2017

- Understanding Dunning-Kruger

The Dunning Kruger effect is not a social construct, but a fact of the real world. I've mentioned it here many times before - even before I knew what it was called. I might have mentioned it before the term had been invented to describe it, I'm not 100% sure about the timing. But I'm sure you're familiar with it in concept.

The Dunning-Kruger effect refers to incompetent people, being too incompetent, to understand that they are incompetent. I have mentioned it many times particularly with regard to self assessment of intelligence. Intelligence self assessments run the range from "much above average" down to "about average" and no lower, even though it's an obvious fact that 50% of the world's humans are by definition, below average in intelligence. But there is no telling them that.

I have also often mentioned a delta in the assessment of other's intelligence. As you go from the right tail of the intelligence distribution to the left, one of the first skills that falls away is the ability to successfully estimate the intelligence of others.

For a new and spectacular example of this, I will henceforth be referring to this treasure which I snatched from Taki's weekly column. It's a person who is clearly very stupid. So stupid, that they assume that the rest of us are also just as stupid as they are. It's a statement of breathtaking stupidity, obviously displayed. And would be hysterically funny if we didn't live in a world where most of academia agrees with it:

I'm only posting a link to it, out of the risk that putting the headline here will both ruin the joke, and that it's incandescent stupidity is so deep, that it will suck the comparative intelligence from the surrounding posts into it, like a black hole devouring a star.

But ya gotta admit, that's some pretty amazing stupidity. Even in post Obama's America.

%%%%%%%%%%%UPDATE%%%%%%%%%%%

I just showed the headline of the article linked above to my girlfriend without uttering a word, and she broke out in uproarious laughter. She then came back with what I view as the perfect reductionist description of the current liberal Dogma. "You don't have to be an 'anything' to be an 'anything'. You don't have to be a girl to be a girl, you don't have to be a dog, to be a dog, you don't have to be a table, to be a table. It isn't that the words themselves have no meaning, it's that everything else has no meaning."

If we ever wondered why liberals don't seem to be able to do much of anything successfully, we now know why. It's because they are blind to everything in the world, except their own feelings about it.

3 comments:

ikaika said...

The comments to the linked article are priceless. It's like a staring into a bowl of stupidity.

VV said...

The comments are a much better read than the article.

The underlying "scholarly" article is 5 pages, with last two of those pages are bibliography and author details. There is absolutely zero data/charts backing any of the comments. I wonder what makes it "scholarly"



Tom Locker said...

Ye - I agree with ikaika - the comments are great. I think some rolls" are having a lot of fun with him.