Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BootinUp

(48,897 posts)
Wed May 24, 2023, 10:09 PM May 2023

The Dunning-Kruger Effect Isn't What You Think It Is - Scientifc American

The Dunning-Kruger Effect Isn’t What You Think It Is

The least skilled people know how much they don't know, but everyone thinks they are better than average

By Eric C. Gaze, The Conversation US on May 23, 2023

The following essay is reprinted with permission fromThe ConversationThe Conversation, an online publication covering the latest research.

John Cleese, the British comedian, once summed up the idea of the Dunning–Kruger effect as, “If you are really, really stupid, then it’s impossible for you to know you are really, really stupid.” A quick search of the news brings up dozens of headlines connecting the Dunning–Kruger effect to everything from work to empathy and even to why Donald Trump was elected president.

As a math professor who teaches students to use data to make informed decisions, I am familiar with common mistakes people make when dealing with numbers. The Dunning-Kruger effect is the idea that the least skilled people overestimate their abilities more than anyone else. This sounds convincing on the surface and makes for excellent comedy. But in a recent paper, my colleagues and I suggest that the mathematical approach used to show this effect may be incorrect.


After giving students the logic test, Dunning and Kruger divided them into four groups based on their scores. The lowest-scoring quarter of the students got, on average, 10 of the 20 questions correct. In comparison, the top-scoring quarter of students got an average of 17 questions correct. Both groups estimated they got about 14 correct. This is not terrible self-assessment by either group. The least skilled overestimated their scores by around 20 percentage points, while the top performers underestimated their scores by roughly 15 points.


There are three reasons Dunning and Kruger’s analysis is misleading.

The worst test-takers would also overestimate their performance the most because they are simply the furthest from getting a perfect score. Additionally, the least skilled people, like most people, assume they are better than average. Finally, the lowest scorers aren’t markedly worse at estimating their objective performance.



https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-dunning-kruger-effect-isnt-what-you-think-it-is/
6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Dunning-Kruger Effect Isn't What You Think It Is - Scientifc American (Original Post) BootinUp May 2023 OP
Apologies to Dunning and Kruger.. Permanut May 2023 #1
has this person been a teacher? DonCoquixote May 2023 #2
It might be interesting to look into his work. nt BootinUp May 2023 #3
He is Senior Lecturer of Mathematics, Bowdoin College Jim__ May 2023 #4
Somewhat ironic. Knowing about the Dunning-Kruger Effect may not have made us as ... Jim__ May 2023 #5
The common(ly) wrong description of it always sounded a little gimicky. BootinUp May 2023 #6

DonCoquixote

(13,676 posts)
2. has this person been a teacher?
Thu May 25, 2023, 06:38 AM
May 2023

"But according to the work of my colleagues and me, the reality is that very few people are truly unskilled and unaware." Sorry, America is full such people.

Jim__

(14,438 posts)
4. He is Senior Lecturer of Mathematics, Bowdoin College
Thu May 25, 2023, 04:06 PM
May 2023

From The Conversation

Eric Gaze directs the Quantitative Reasoning (QR) program at Bowdoin College, is Chair of the Baldwin Center for Learning and Teaching, and is a Senior Lecturer in the Mathematics Department. He is the current President of the National Numeracy Network (NNN 2013 – 2019), and a past chair of SIGMAA-QL (2010-12). He has a QR textbook published with Pearson, Thinking Quantitatively: Communicating with Numbers 2e, with blog https://thinkingquantitatively.wordpress.com/ , and has written a column, Ratiocination, for the NNN website: http://serc.carleton.edu/nnn/columns.html . Eric has given talks and led workshops on the topics of QR Across the Curriculum, Creating a QR Entry Point Course, Writing with Numbers, QR Assessment, and Running a QR Program; and has served on review teams of QR programs. Eric is the Principal Investigator for a NSF TUES Type I grant (2012-14), Quantitative Literacy and Reasoning Assessment (QLRA) DUE 1140562. This collaborative project builds on Bowdoin College's QR instrument which is used for advising purposes and is available to interested schools. Prior to coming to Bowdoin, Eric led the development of a Masters in Numeracy program for K-12 teachers at Alfred University as an Associate Professor of Mathematics and Education.

Jim__

(14,438 posts)
5. Somewhat ironic. Knowing about the Dunning-Kruger Effect may not have made us as ...
Thu May 25, 2023, 04:22 PM
May 2023

... knowledgeable about human psychology as we thought it did.

BootinUp

(48,897 posts)
6. The common(ly) wrong description of it always sounded a little gimicky.
Thu May 25, 2023, 10:20 PM
May 2023

And I had never looked into the details before. I like the anaylsis in this article.

Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Science»The Dunning-Kruger Effect...