the Dunning-Kruger effect

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
18,150
815
113
#21
Ignorant in what sense? Intelligence is a multifaceted virtue. I don't think this applies over everything because one person can be ignorant in regards to a particular subject or idea, and excel at something else. I think this has to do more with attitude rather than actual intelligence. Just my $0.02

it's talking about ignorance with regard to specific application.

for example people who try to argue the earth is flat using physics. the position they argue from is that they consider themselves to be far more competent than practically everyone else at comprehending physics, but the reality is that they are so incompetent at physics that they are incapable of realizing how poor their arguments are.
for another example, people may argue that Jesus was 'only a man' who achieved some sort of enlightenment or glorification by perfectly obeying Judaic law, or perhaps that He became 'exalted' to godhood but was otherwise no different than any ordinary human apart from His obedient works. they may argue this using scripture, and think of themselves as highly competent Biblical scholars for doing so -- but they lack the very competence in studying and understanding the scripture that would show them how wrong their doctrine is.

the effect demonstrated by the two researchers is that people can be basically so bad at something that they don't realize how bad they are at it, because they aren't even good enough at it to understand that they are actually very terrible at it ((whatever 'it' may be)) -- and somehow their pride gets in the way of them seeing they in fact have no reason whatsoever to be proud.



a third example - we have some kittens, and one of them plays candy crush on our ipad. she has no idea how terrible she is at it, she just whacks the screen. she thinks she's doing great - i mean, she whacks the screen, and stuff happens - must be good, right? she thinks. because she doesn't know enough about the game to realize she's actually awful at it.
that doesn't mean she's not good at other stuff -- just that at this one thing she's not competent enough to realize she's incompetent, yet she's very proud of herself for what she does accomplish, even though what she actually accomplishes is wrecking her human "mommy's" winning streak.
;)
 

Seedz

Senior Member
Aug 8, 2017
364
15
18
#22

it's talking about ignorance with regard to specific application.

for example people who try to argue the earth is flat using physics. the position they argue from is that they consider themselves to be far more competent than practically everyone else at comprehending physics, but the reality is that they are so incompetent at physics that they are incapable of realizing how poor their arguments are.
for another example, people may argue that Jesus was 'only a man' who achieved some sort of enlightenment or glorification by perfectly obeying Judaic law, or perhaps that He became 'exalted' to godhood but was otherwise no different than any ordinary human apart from His obedient works. they may argue this using scripture, and think of themselves as highly competent Biblical scholars for doing so -- but they lack the very competence in studying and understanding the scripture that would show them how wrong their doctrine is.

the effect demonstrated by the two researchers is that people can be basically so bad at something that they don't realize how bad they are at it, because they aren't even good enough at it to understand that they are actually very terrible at it ((whatever 'it' may be)) -- and somehow their pride gets in the way of them seeing they in fact have no reason whatsoever to be proud.



a third example - we have some kittens, and one of them plays candy crush on our ipad. she has no idea how terrible she is at it, she just whacks the screen. she thinks she's doing great - i mean, she whacks the screen, and stuff happens - must be good, right? she thinks. because she doesn't know enough about the game to realize she's actually awful at it.
that doesn't mean she's not good at other stuff -- just that at this one thing she's not competent enough to realize she's incompetent, yet she's very proud of herself for what she does accomplish, even though what she actually accomplishes is wrecking her human "mommy's" winning streak.
;)
I agree with the researchers and their findings, as the observations presented are actually verifiable in the real world. I have met people both online and in Real life that actually verify the researchers findings, not to mention it's a very straight forward approach to understanding what in other words might be referred to as delusional individuals.

I think you are trying to fit ALL flat earthers into this classification. I guess that is why you started this thread. It is a good attempt at ridiculing yet again the FEs but I don't think it does a very good job at discounting all FE arguments.

Just keep in mind a lot of elevated subjects that deal with very abstract conscpets such as physics and theoritical science have certain constants and axioms previously established by preceding generations dabbling in the same disciplines, and more recent generations take on faith some of those established truths.

Of course many of these facts can be verified but it usually involves using other previously established constants that also are taken on faith.

I am not saying all science is a sham, or that eveything physics has to say is false or make believe, I am just saying certain ideas that "prove" a flat earth to be impossible are actually not accurately established to begin with.

The scientific method has had a huge flaw, it begins with making a hypothesis. This puts preconceived notions into the mix which can throw off an experiment that is meant to be unbiased... this is just one example that I find interesting in the most basic of ideas regarding why science is not 100% right all the time in every single aspect of study.

Im just saying that if you look into what is established you can find holes in it.
 

notmyown

Senior Member
May 26, 2016
3,430
254
0
#23
i was thinking i know what i don't know (lots)... and i know i don't know anything fully. but then

How do we know you are competent to discuss your own competence?
so i guess, nope. :rolleyes:
 

maxwel

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2013
7,411
522
113
#24
Caution:
though this axiom is easy to verify, it gives us no logical edge in debate.



The Dunning-Kruger effect seems like nothing more than verification of a simple human axiom we all understand -
we often jump to conclusions about things we don't understand.

As this is such a basic and simple insight into human nature, I'm sure we can verify this many different ways through experience, simple logic, and even scripture. I can't see any way to argue against such a basic component of human nature.

This axiom is too ingrained in our common experience to even THINK about arguing against it.

However, although we KNOW, and can VERIFY that humans jump to conclusions without good evidence, does that prove that every conclusion arrived at without good evidence is automatically WRONG?

No.


We still have a problem.
Although this axiom is simple, and basic, and easy to verify, it cannot act as a logical proof to defeat someone's claims in debate.

You don't get an automatic win by saying someone is too incompetent to discuss a thing.
You cannot say, "You are wrong about xyz just because I judge you to be incompetent."
That isn't a logical proof, and in fact, it would constitute a logical fallacy.



Reasons this axiom cannot act as a logical proof in debate:


1. You would first have to PROVE the person is incompetent to discuss a particular issue.

- It might take quite a while just to debate what those "proofs" should be, and then we'd have to discuss how "incompetence" on a particular issue should even be defined.

- By educational standards alone, Einstein would be considered incompetent to discuss physics at a high academic level; so we might require long debates to define our standards and proofs for incompetence.



2. Even if you DO prove someone is incompetent to discuss an issue, that does NOTHING to disprove any particular propositional statement - any individual statements would still need to be proven through normal argument.


- I can make the propositional statement that the the chemical composition of water is H2o, but I have VIRTUALLY NO COMPETENCE IN CHEMISTRY... does that make my proposition incorrect?

- So a particular proposition could be made with little or no competence, and still be correct, or a person very competent in a field could make a statement that is ridiculous.


3. Incompetence, even if it IS proven, could only show a person's epistemology, or HOW they arrive at a conclusion... HOW you arrive at a conclusion is COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT from whether or not the conclusion happens to be TRUE.

Example:
I might believe it's wrong to murder because I read it in a comic book.
Even though I learned my ethic from a ridiculous source, this doesn't make the ethic incorrect.
HOW I learned this principle has nothing to do with whether or not the principle is actually true.




Conclusion:

1. Although this axiom is easily verifiable, it still gives no one logical grounds to automatically win a debate on any particular issue.

2. Simply dismissing someone as incompetent does NOT disprove their arguments - seriously, as Christians, how many times has this happened to each of us?

3. Now, in personal application, we may want to "dismiss someone as incompetent" as a sort of "rule of thumb" in order to just stop wasting time arguing with them... so it might make a good rule of thumb to gauge how to spend your time.

4. But this "rule of thumb" does nothing to win an actual debate... it has no logical power to prove anything.
 
Last edited:

maxwel

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2013
7,411
522
113
#25
Apologetics:
Why my post above is important to all Christians.


Christians are often dismissed as "incompetent" on the mere grounds of being Christians.

Our belief in God is often used as grounds to classify us as incompetent, and then our incompetence is used to claim we are AUTOMATICALLY WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING.

If you know how to quickly defeat that argument, you can stand your ground, and be heard by the people who DO want to hear you out.



When the lost world makes foolish accusations... sometimes it's appropriate to show they're being foolish.
 
Last edited:

maxwel

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2013
7,411
522
113
#26
BTW... I'm not defending the flat earthers, I'm just defending the use of rational debate in general.

In my personal life, it might be reasonable to consider the flat earthers nuts, and just dismiss them, and refuse to waste my time on their arguments. But in a public debate, I would be logically compelled to actually defeat their arguments with proper evidence.

The main point is that this principle of assessing evidence applies to ALL debate.
The logical principle that forces me to give a fair hearing to flat earthers, is the same logical principle that forces the atheist to give me a fair hearing when discussing Christianity.

The atheist can CHOOSE to dismiss my arguments merely because I'm a Christian,
but I can then PROVE and VERIFY he's being illogical and irrational.
I can prove he's acting like a fool... and show him for what he is.
 

Prov910

Senior Member
Jan 10, 2017
880
41
0
#27
In psychology, there’s an idea known as the Dunning-Kruger effect. It refers to research by David Dunning and Justin Kruger that found the least competent people often believe they are the most competent because they “lack the very expertise needed to recognize how badly they’re doing.”
i was reading an article about the behavior of a very well known American, and came across this. discuss?
Here's an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect that I experienced firsthand: I had a telecommunications background and changed jobs a few years back to work for a computer company. Part of my job involved attending a meeting where we reviewed and discussed the company's invention proposals that could potentially be filed as patent applications. We had to decide which inventions to file as patents, and which to pass on. We could only file so many. (Each patent application would eventually cost the company around $10,000 to $20,000 by the time it worked its way through the patent office.)

Most of the inventions were computer related, and I deferred to the expertise of the other members. Once in a while we'd get a cool sounding invention proposal related to telecomm. Some of them were well known in the telecomm industry. I'd tell the guys in the meeting that (the invention) had been known in that industry for years. But if it sounded cool, more often than not they'd override my suggestion and vote to file it as a patent. They made the decision simply because it sounded cool and was not known to those in the meeting (since it was from a different industry).
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
18,150
815
113
#28
I think you are trying to fit ALL flat earthers into this classification. I guess that is why you started this thread.
i started this thread because i think we see this being played out in many different ways, in many people, possibly in all of us. in the BDF in various ways, in people giving advice to strangers without really much information on their background or situation, in various ways in the conspiracy section, in comments on the news, in you coming to conclusions about my purposes without really knowing what's going on in my head, etc.

if i just wanted to malign a narrow group or idea, i probably would have brought it up in an existing thread already dedicated to that topic. i think this has much wider application than that so i made a thread just for it, hoping it would engender some thought and self-reflection. :)
 

Seedz

Senior Member
Aug 8, 2017
364
15
18
#29
i started this thread because i think we see this being played out in many different ways, in many people, possibly in all of us. in the BDF in various ways, in people giving advice to strangers without really much information on their background or situation, in various ways in the conspiracy section, in comments on the news, in you coming to conclusions about my purposes without really knowing what's going on in my head, etc.

if i just wanted to malign a narrow group or idea, i probably would have brought it up in an existing thread already dedicated to that topic. i think this has much wider application than that so i made a thread just for it, hoping it would engender some thought and self-reflection. :)

I guess it is just coincidence then that you linked this thread in the Flat earth thread.
I am sure there is no connection there...

It's a good and interesting post, don't get me wrong; but you are not fooling me with your intentions.
 

maxwel

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2013
7,411
522
113
#30
Posthuman,

I think it's perfectly fine to discuss your ideas.
And personally I DO use the "Dunning Kruger" effect as a rule of thumb in making many quick personal decisions.
(Quickly evaluating people based on their incompetence, so I can decide what to do with them.)

However, as I explained above, although the axiom is quite true, it only has so much logical power, so it cannot be a basis for logical debate.

Why?

Several reasons.
But the primary reason is that we're confusing a sufficient cause with a necessary cause.
A. Although someone's incompetence MAY cause them to give a wrong answer,
we cannot say their incompetence MUST cause them to give a wrong answer.
B. Therefore, a person's incompetence CANNOT be used to invalidate all their answers.

Very simple logic.
Not complicated at all.

* Although the Dunning Kruger affect is real,
it simply has no logical power to force certain necessary conclusions.

* Since it has no power to force necessary conclusions,
it cannot be used in debate to actually PROVE anything.






 
Last edited:

Prov910

Senior Member
Jan 10, 2017
880
41
0
#31
i started this thread because i think we see this being played out in many different ways, in many people, possibly in all of us. in the BDF in various ways, in people giving advice to strangers without really much information on their background or situation, in various ways in the conspiracy section, in comments on the news, in you coming to conclusions about my purposes without really knowing what's going on in my head, etc.
In regards to the BDF, and really in regards to Christianity in general, there's so much to know and experience that sometimes those who seem the most qualified may be lacking in some areas of faith. For example, some ministers of mainstream Christian churches believe people cannot be imbued with the Holy Spirit today in the manner they were during the period shortly after Pentecost. A minister in my town told me that very thing just a few years ago. I suspect that he believed that because he himself had never felt the presence of the Holy Spirit in a personal and powerful way. So despite his degree in divinity and extensive knowledge of scripture, he lacked wisdom in regards to the Holy Spirit--a fundamental aspect of Christianity.
 

oldethennew

Senior Member
Feb 28, 2016
7,474
309
83
#32
Max,

B.
Therefore, a person's incompetence CANNOT be used to invalidate all their answers."
====================================================

obviously you've never been 'incompetent'...but you're excused for including 'all'...
 

maxwel

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2013
7,411
522
113
#33
Max,

B.
Therefore, a person's incompetence CANNOT be used to invalidate all their answers."
====================================================

obviously you've never been 'incompetent'...but you're excused for including 'all'...

LOL.

Competence may be in the eye of the beholder.

: )
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
18,150
815
113
#35
However, as I explained above, although the axiom is quite true, it only has so much logical power, so it cannot be a basis for logical debate.
A little bookkeeping...

It's not an 'axiom' it's an observed phenomenon that's been shown through study. Axioms are things assumed without proof, this has been in some sense proven - to exist in general. Not in specific.

I'm not trying to 'prove' or 'argue' anything with this thread nor am I trying to put this out as some sort of weapon to be used in any kind of debate.

It's a tendency, not a diagnosis or a blanket characterisation.

I think it's an interesting aspect of human cognition. I think it may help explain why we get so frustrated with people who we see as very obviously wrong about one thing or another, but who nonetheless have a very high opinion of themselves in what we see as an uninformed and ignorant position.

That's all. I'm not making a case for any specific example. I'm just putting this put there because I think we all have at some point run into someone bewilderingly smug about some ridiculous claim that just a moderate amount of knowledge seems like would destroy completely.
 
Last edited:

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
18,150
815
113
#36
I guess it is just coincidence then that you linked this thread in the Flat earth thread.
I am sure there is no connection there...

It's a good and interesting post, don't get me wrong; but you are not fooling me with your intentions.
Well you know if you parse the OP you'll see that I included unnecessary details that were necessarily obfuscated, and if you were to correctly identify and interpret that, you'd actually arrive at a much more accurate psychoanalysis.
 

inlow

Junior Member
Jun 17, 2017
27
2
0
#37
I believe the Dunham- Krueger effect is when a puppet version of Freddy Krueger haunts you in your dreams. Sorry. It was killing me to say that.
 

maxwel

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2013
7,411
522
113
#38
A little bookkeeping...

It's not an 'axiom' it's an observed phenomenon that's been shown through study. Axioms are things assumed without proof, this has been in some sense proven - to exist in general. Not in specific.

I'm not trying to 'prove' or 'argue' anything with this thread nor am I trying to put this out as some sort of weapon to be used in any kind of debate.

It's a tendency, not a diagnosis or a blanket characterisation.

I think it's an interesting aspect of human cognition. I think it may help explain why we get so frustrated with people who we see as very obviously wrong about one thing or another, but who nonetheless have a very high opinion of themselves in what we see as an uninformed and ignorant position.

That's all. I'm not making a case for any specific example. I'm just putting this put there because I think we all have at some point run into someone bewilderingly smug about some ridiculous claim that just a moderate amount of knowledge seems like would destroy completely.

1. I used the word axiom because both the premises and conclusions found in the Dunning-Kruger effect have been well known to mankind for millennia, and there are axioms which relate to these things.

These aren't new ideas.
I think these ideas are so clear, even from our own personal experience, it would be ridiculous to even CONSIDER arguing against them.


2. I have no problem with your opening post, or with your comment I quoted above.

I think your points are all perfectly fine and reasonable.


3. I would actually go much further than you, and make the claim this effect can be proven to be real and expected in numerous different ways.


4. My ONLY issue with this topic was regarding HOW it might be used by some in debate.

Around here, if you give out ANY cool new information, someone is surely going to apply it in the wrong way.


So as far as I can you, I think we're both in agreement about things.
Well... unless you believe the earth is flat.
: )
 
Last edited:

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
18,150
815
113
#39
4. My ONLY issue with this topic was regarding HOW it might be used by some in debate.

Around here, if you give out ANY cool new information, someone is surely going to apply it in the wrong way.


So as far as I can you, I think we're both in agreement about things.
Well... unless you believe the earth is flat.
: )

i got the same issue, yes; i guess i just wanted to make sure there was no misunderstanding that i intended anything like that. myself being incompetent at debate, naturally i am sure of this position because i consider my debate competency to be at expert level. hence my incompetence.


i've actually got an old journal somewhere around here with a research paper in it that mathematically proves with topographical information and highly accurate scanning microscopy that Kansas is as flat as a pancake . . . but compared to the scale of the earth Kansas is a 'localized phenomenon'
;)