the Dunning-Kruger effect

i was reading an article about the behavior of a very well known American, and came across this.

discuss?

I lack the competence to discuss this

How do we know you are competent to discuss your own competence?

But seriously, although this really is kind of a funny topic,
I don't think it requires any scientific study.

I think you could arrive at this same conclusion from some scripture,
or from some simple philosophical proofs.
I can't see this would require any serious study to prove it.

These doesn't seem in any way surprising or controversial.

This just seems like common sense.




FYI ... I know this because I'm a highly competent expert.

I have studied a lot of math in my life ... so I know that ex (or simply X) is usually an algebraic unknown. And a spurt is a drip under pressure. Therefore, by logical conclusion, an expert is an unknown drip under pressure!

I think Max shows a great deal of imagination, along with fairly keen powers of observation, and a very good grasp of the English language, which he uses to present his well articulated astute considerations. The factualness of it all is almost necessary in a milieu such as this, leaving no stone unturned, as it were, to assure that each relection is clearly represented, while at the same time determining that his propitious presentations do not turn into ad hominin free-for-alls, as many others allow themselves to do rather alarmingly too regularly
​

You have no room for wonder, imagination and the like do you?

I don't mean that in an offensive way.

You seem very fact oriented. Facts as in what's been proven in your opinion.

I don't see wiggle room for open discussion or debating. Even if you post in them, I don't see an open end.

I'm aware I could be wrong. I've not read everything you post. I'm really just asking

When one only has one eye, one's depth perception is necessarily impaired.

You have no room for wonder, imagination and the like do you?

I don't mean that in an offensive way.

You seem very fact oriented. Facts as in what's been proven in your opinion.

I don't see wiggle room for open discussion or debating. Even if you post in them, I don't see an open end.

I'm aware I could be wrong. I've not read everything you post. I'm really just asking

i was reading an article about the behavior of a very well known American, and came across this.

discuss?

When one only has one eye, one's depth perception is necessarily impaired.

Hey Zi,
Hope you had a great Christmas and you're doing well.

Your questions seemed to be reasonable and polite,
so I'll try to discuss them as politely as you brought them up.

"You have no room for wonder, imagination, and the like do you?"
: )

Well, at least you get to the point, lol.
Let me give you my point of view, so that maybe you'll understand why I seem so unimaginative... maybe you can cure me.

I think imagination is a wonderful thing.
And I think there are many many things in life to wonder about.
Truly.
But sometimes we "wonder" about things that are not infinite in scope and unanswerable;
often we wonder about things which really do have answers.
When things DO have answers, I'd much rather HAVE AN ANSWER than just keep on wondering.

Some things DO have answers, and if something DOES have an answer, I'd prefer to have that answer than continue wondering.

It often goes like this:
A. I usually look at a thing and thinK, "Hmmm, is this the sort of thing that might HAVE an answer?"
B. Then I think, "If its a thing that might have an answer, is it the sort of answer we mortals could discover?"
C. Then I think, "If it's the sort of thing we CAN discover the answer to, WHERE would that answer be, and HOW would be go about finding it?"

So maybe it's not that I have no "wonder"... but maybe we're wondering about different things.
Perhaps some people wonder about wonder, and I'm wondering about an answer.
Or perhaps some people are wondering about a "possible" answer, and I'm wondering about a "necessary" answer, an answer that stands in a relationship of genuine logical necessity, and therefore can be self-validating.


Now, does that mean all my answers are right?
Of course not.
I'm one of the wrongest people I know... see there, I can't even use good grammar.


So, to sum up my view to this question about imagination and wonder, let me put it another way.
There are a great many things to wonder about it life, but there are many things we don't have to wonder about... many things have genuine answers, and I think it's better to have answers to answerable things.



Now, if you want to know WHY I gave the answers I gave previously in this thread, that would be an entirely different question.