On the Necessity of the Dunning Kruger Effect

Brendan Golledge

If you assume that there is a population distribution of intelligence/knowledge/wisdom, and that those who have less can't understand those who have more, then it is necessarily true that the stupid cannot know how stupid they are. If a stupid person understood everything that a wise person understood, he would himself be wise and not stupid. But if a person really is stupid, then he can't understand everything a wise person understands, so then he cannot tell the difference between wisdom and gibberish.

At work, this means in practice that an employee's job is not to solve problems, but to do whatever the boss says. This is because the boss (like all people) can't tell the difference between what is actually best, and what seems to him to be best. Since the boss rewards or punishes based on how things seem to him, in order to maximize one's rewards, it's best to do what the boss says, even if the employee knows that's not the best.

As for government, this means that most people will not be able to understand what the best course of action is. If the best governance is not something extremely simple and easily understood, then this must be the case.

Also, groups of people are always dumber than individuals in the group. This is because a consensus cannot be reached unless everyone agrees. But even among people of similar intelligence, they will have different experiences giving them different specialized knowledge. But their specialized knowledge is not accessible to the group. So, in groups, it's only the lowest common denominator that can ever be agreed upon.

This gives me the idea that the ideal form of government is one in which the authority is benevolent, and the subjects voluntarily submit. Things will not work well if either one of the two is missing. It must be this way, because the crowd cannot be made to understand the best ideas.

So, given that a person cannot know how dumb he is, how is he to know who is wise and who is a crank? I think there are a couple tests that do not require much intelligence.

A test for benevolence is to see how much a person has sacrificed for you. As Jesus says, there is no greater love than laying down one's life for one's friends. In less extreme examples, if someone is devoting their time, money, and energy to you in a way that clearly imposes a cost on themselves, that is a clear sign that they value you. A public figure might tell the public the truth in a manner that has negative consequences for himself, which shows genuine concern for the public. Although, sometimes crafty people can feign self-sacrifice for malicious purposes.

As for intelligence, you can look for a consistent record of success. If someone wants the same thing as you, and consistently gets better results than you, then you don't have to know how he does it to know that he has something that you don't.

The Dunning Kruger effect is also difficult for smart people. Suppose you want to be friends with someone, but he won't accept what you tell him if you tell him the whole truth. In the case of a parent with a child, it's probably fine to tell the child, "I don't think you'd understand the whole truth, so I'll give you a simplified explanation." But from one adult to another, this would be insulting and would rarely be accepted. This creates a difficult moral dilemma for smart benevolent people: do you lie in order to try to get dumb people to act in their own interests? How much and what kind of lying is permissible?

I think a lot of interest in the Dunning Kruger effect comes from pride. A lot of people think, "Ha ha, stupid people are so stupid that they don't know how stupid they are." I would think that if you were actually smart and you realized how dumb other people were, then you'd feel sad, because it would severely limit all your interactions with them. Or, in the case of a malicious smart person, I suppose he could feel greed, because he would realize that he has the opportunity to manipulate the stupid people. In this case, he might laugh at the stupid people, but he'd probably keep his laughter to himself, or else the people would be harder to manipulate.

Tom Storm

A test for benevolence is to see how much a person has sacrificed for you. As Jesus says, there is no greater love than laying down one's life for one's friends. In less extreme examples, if someone is devoting their time, money, and energy to you in a way that clearly imposes a cost on themselves, that is a clear sign that they value you. A public figure might tell the public the truth in a manner that has negative consequences for himself, which shows genuine concern for the public. Although, sometimes crafty people can feign self-sacrifice for malicious purposes. — Brendan Golledge

Don't think so.

Abusive parents/partners may well shower their children/partners with money, presents, elite education, holidays and time. But they may still be abusive.

A public figure who tells a story which is negative (on themselves) may be part of a carefully choreographed plan to distract from something else or buy credibility on the basis that they must be truthful. I've seen this recommended and implemented by public relations/spin doctors.

As for intelligence, you can look for a consistent record of success. — Brendan Golledge

I think intelligence is fetishized by culture. As Stephen Fry ( a former Mensa member) recently said in an interview, really super bright people often lack basic living skills and may struggle to even 'sit on the toilet properly'. I guess what this quip meant is that 'brains' don't necessarily equate with skill and success, even if many super successful peopel do appear to be intelligent. I have a couple of friends who are close to genius and their lives are ruins.

Not that this matters but if I could choose between being in the top 2% of super bright individuals on earth, or be a happy postman in an attractive city, I would choose the latter. :wink:

T Clark

On the Necessity of the Dunning Kruger Effect — Brendan Golledge

I think it is wonderfully ironic that you clearly don't understand the Dunning Kruger Effect very well and that your opinion of your competence in that regard exceeds your actual performance.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities... the Dunning–Kruger effect is often misunderstood as a claim about general overconfidence of people with low intelligence instead of specific overconfidence of people unskilled at a particular task. — Wikipedia - Dunning Kreuger effect

First, a personal opinion - The Dunning Kreuger effect (DK) is pretty much useless if not actually meaningless. It has only reached prominence because people can use it to insult other people and their ideas. Thinking about it, I'm not sure any reference to DK can be used in any philosophical context except as an ad hominem argument.

So, as Wikipedia says, DK has nothing to do with smart people vs. stupid people, which means that nothing you've written about in your OP has anything to do with DK. I'm going to leave it at that and not go on to comment on the rest of your thoughts even though I think they are unsupported, mean-spirited, and wrong.

Tom Storm

↪T Clark

That's very funny. :wink:

T Clark

That's very funny. — Tom Storm

I will say what my old friend Alesandro Battaglia, a passionate Italian, might have said in my place - the OP offended my essence.

Clearbury

↪T Clark

I don't think the poster has misunderstood the Dunning-Kruger effect. And isn't Wikipedia written by those who fancy themselves experts in matters they have no expertise on?

For example, the quote you gave doesn't draw a real distinction. Someone with no expertize in anything, for example, will - by the hypothesis - overestimate their competence generally. Thus, generally stupid people will consider themselves to be much cleverer than they are.

Clearbury

↪Brendan Golledge

I think there are margins here. For example, we can generally recognize when someone is a bit smarter than ourselves. It's just when someone is a lot smarter than ourselves that what they say may sound indistinguishable from what someone a lot dumber than ourselves may say - that is, both those much dumber than ourselves, and those much more intelligent than ourselves, will think in ways that seem quite alien to us.

Plus if I can recognize that Jane is a bit more intelligent than me, and Jane can recognize that Janet is a bit more intelligent than her, then even though Janet may be so much more intelligent than I am that I can't recognise it unassisted, I can learn that Janet is really clever and not dumb if, that is, Jane tells me she is. What Janet says will still sound like gibberish to me, but I now have it on an authority I can understand that this is because Janet is very clever, rather than because she's very stupid.

Nevertheless, I can see that there is a problem when it comes to rulers, as it is surely quite dumb to want to be in charge? And immoral too. It's a bit like wealth - the extremely wealthy, if they have gone out of their way to be, are not our most intelligent people, for it is rather silly to dedicate so much of one's life to acquiring vast amounts of wealth. I believe there are statistics supporting this (though I may be making it up): that above a certain income level, IQs go down. The really clever don't want the hassle that huge wealth or huge power brings, plus the really clever are typically going to be quite morally responsive too and will probably have moral problems with being so greedy for power and wealth.

Clearbury

Isn't the most moral form of government no government at all?

Governments are monopolies. Aren't monopolies bad?

T Clark

I don't think the poster has misunderstood the Dunning-Kruger effect. And isn't Wikipedia written by those who fancy themselves experts in matters they have no expertise on? — Clearbury

See below. In particular I suggest reading the Scientific American article. It's not long.

People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. — Dunning and Kreuger - Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments

Dunning-Kruger effect, in psychology, a cognitive bias whereby people with limited knowledge or competence in a given intellectual or social domain greatly overestimate their own knowledge or competence in that domain relative to objective criteria or to the performance of their peers or of people in general. — Britannica

The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people wrongly overestimate their knowledge or ability in a specific area. — Psychology Today

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. — Scientific American - The Dunning-Kruger Effect Isn’t What You Think It Is

T Clark

I think there are margins here. For example, we can generally recognize when someone is a bit smarter than ourselves. It's just when someone is a lot smarter than ourselves that what they say may sound indistinguishable from what someone a lot dumber than ourselves may say - that is, both those much dumber than ourselves, and those much more intelligent than ourselves, will think in ways that seem quite alien to us.

Plus if I can recognize that Jane is a bit more intelligent than me, and Jane can recognize that Janet is a bit more intelligent than her, then even though Janet may be so much more intelligent than I am that I can't recognise it unassisted, I can learn that Janet is really clever and not dumb if, that is, Jane tells me she is. What Janet says will still sound like gibberish to me, but I now have it on an authority I can understand that this is because Janet is very clever, rather than because she's very stupid. — Clearbury

This is all very nice, but as I noted in my response to the OP and your previous post, it doesn't have anything with DK. DK is not about who's smarter than whom. It's about who is more competent than whom in a specific area of expertise which may or may not have anything to do with intelligence, e.g. humor and grammar.

Clearbury

↪T Clark

And it follows that if someone is stupid in general then they will overestimate their intelligence in general. And so a person who identifies the DKE as involving the tendency for those who are stupid to overestimate their intelligence is correct.

AmadeusD

It's about who is more competent than whom in a specific area of expertise which may or may not have anything to do with intelligence, e.g. humor and grammar. — T Clark

Which, contra your previous comments, the "DK effect" as described in your proferrings presents a valuable, discreet metric along which to deply the DK epithet. I work in a highly-specialised area, within a highly-specialised area. Plenty of people in the former group (the wider speciality) believe they are apt to perform in the more-specialised area I am working in. They, by and large, are not, and they have not done the work to understand this fact. The effect this has on them is palpable, obvious, apparent and extremely difficult to work with.

This is a plain-reading of the DK effect in action. I see no issue. It is meaningful, identifiable and quite specific.

T Clark

it follows that if someone is stupid in general then they will overestimate their intelligence in general — Clearbury

No, it does not. It says nothing about that and the way the experiments were set up makes it clear. I think perhaps you overestimate your competence in scientific interpretation. I'm not sure, but I believe I might have made an ad hominem argument.

Clearbury

↪T Clark

I think you don't understand the DKE, for the reasons I've explained.

T Clark

This is a plain-reading of the DK effect in action. I see no issue. It is meaningful, identifiable and quite specific. — AmadeusD

Yes, it seems like the way you've presented it is consistent with the definition in the paper. But it's not what the OP said. I remain skeptical of the value of DK in any situation, but that's a different question. I suggest reading the Scientific American article I linked.

AmadeusD

↪T Clark

For sure - OP is entirely wrong. Using the dumb colloquial version for sure.

It's been read.

T Clark

I think you don't understand the DKE. — Clearbury

Too late. I've already said that four or five times about you. Anyway, that's not an argument. I've presented backup for my position and you haven't.

T Clark

It's been read. — AmadeusD

Clearbury

↪T Clark

I now think you're manifesting the DKE.

I did defend myself (and the original poster). If someone lacking expertise in a particular area will likely overestimate their abilities in that area, then someone lacking expertise in every area will likely overestimate their abilities in every area. Thus, if someone is stupid across the board, they will think they're clever across the board. Thus, characterizing the DKE as involving stupid people overestimating their abilities is quite correct.

T Clark

I did defend myself (and the original poster). If someone lacking expertise in a particular area will likely overestimate their abilities in that area, then someone lacking expertise in every area will likely overestimate their abilities in every area. Thus, if someone is stupid across the board, they will think they're clever across the board. Thus, characterizing the DKE as involving stupid people overestimating their abilities is quite correct. — Clearbury

Nuff said.

Clearbury

↪T Clark

Yes, I think so.

jgill

And isn't Wikipedia written by those who fancy themselves experts in matters they have no expertise on? — Clearbury

It varies. Topics that are popular draw the attention of experts in those areas, who, in turn, make corrections that are discussed on talk pages. Very low interest subjects may exhibit greater DK . The necessity of linking assertions to external sources, books and magazines, e.g., improves accuracy but is not infallible since those references may not be accurate. In general, Wikipedia and Britannica have approximately the same degree of accuracy, but Wiki keeps pace with discoveries faster.

Clearbury

↪jgill

i wouldn't have thought an expert would write a wikipedia page - they're too busy being experts.

But anyway, the main point is that the DKE involves precisely what the original poster said it involves. The stupider a person is, the less likely they are to realize how stupid they are.

jgill

i wouldn't have thought an expert would write a wikipedia page - they're too busy being experts — Clearbury

Mathematicians, specifically, are eager to present their research to the public. Publishing in journal reaches only very select readers. More mistakes occur on easy math pages rather than advanced topics. That's where amateurs demonstrate their DKE.

Clearbury

It's not a respectable source. But anyway, the main point is that the DKE is accurately characterized as 'the stupider a person is, the less likely they are to realize how stupid they are'

jgill

the main point is that the DKE is accurately characterized as 'the stupider a person is, the less likely they are to realize how stupid they are' — Clearbury

Are you trying to demonstrate your argument? Just curious.

Years ago, at a math conference in Marseille-Luminy, a prominent mathematician told me he could forgive someone making a mistake, but could not forgive stupidity. Can you forgive stupidity?

Clearbury

↪jgill

Do you think I have mischaracterized the DKE? Or are you implying that I am a demonstration of the DKE? (The latter would be somewhat question begging).

jgill

DKE is accurately characterized as 'the stupider a person is, the less likely they are to realize how stupid they are' — Clearbury

Not necessarily true. I have known stupid people who admit they are stupid and don't try to compete intellectually. But it's not the definition of DKE.

Can you

↪Clearbury

forgive a person for being stupid?

Clearbury

↪jgill

That's why I said 'likely'.

Of course I can forgive a person for being stupid (and in many cases there is nothing to forgive as it may not be the person's fault). But what's that got to do with the topic of the thread?

Agree-to-Disagree

↪Brendan Golledge

I think that most people suffer from the Dunning Kruger Effect to some degree. Most people overestimate their own expertise. This even applies to "intelligent" people.

Tom Storm

DKE is accurately characterized as 'the stupider a person is, the less likely they are to realize how stupid they are'
— Clearbury

Not necessarily true. I have known stupid people who admit they are stupid and don't try to compete intellectually. But it's not the definition of DKE. — jgill

Exactly. :up:

I know little about DKE, but I do know some stupid people and they are not all the same. It tends to be those who are arrogant as well as stupid, who showcase their stupidity by making 'dumb' assessments based on incomplete understanding. Lots of less smart folk are quite happy to say they don't have any expertise and 'don't know' something. I wish more people would acknowledge their ignorance.

On the Necessity of the Dunning Kruger Effect

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions