![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Curse of expertise page were merged into Curse of knowledge on 9 April 2021. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The first paragraph on the page does a poor job of clearly introducing the concept.
I recommend changing the first paragraph to "The curse of knowledge is a cognitive bias that occurs when, in predicting others’ forecasts or behaviors, individuals are unable to ignore knowledge they have that others do not have, or when they are unable to disregard information already processed. Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
KieraMolloy18 (
talk)
01:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
References
While it is important to highlight the evolution of the concept, this section is very scattered and does not clearly outline the important points about curse of knowledge history. Much of the section should be moved to "implications" because it has nothing to do with history. The following paragraphs are my suggestions to streamline the main points of the original section, where I have also removed sentences that are repetitive or confusing. I have also given the section structure, and explained the evolution of the concept in relation to the researchers.
KieraMolloy18 ( talk) 02:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
References
A 1990 experiment by a Stanford graduate student, Elizabeth Newton, illustrated the curse of knowledge in the results of a simple task. A group of subjects were asked to "tap" out well known songs with their fingers, while another group tried to name the melodies. When the "tappers" were asked to predict how many of the "tapped" songs would be recognized by listeners, they would always overestimate. The curse of knowledge is demonstrated here as the "tappers" are so familiar with what they were tapping that they assumed listeners would easily recognize the tune. [1]
A study by Susan Birch and Paul Bloom in 2003 used the curse of knowledge concept to explain the idea that the ability of people to reason about another person's actions is compromised by the knowledge of the outcome of an event. The perception the participant had of the plausibility of an event also mediated the extent of the bias. If the event was less plausible, knowledge was not as much of a "curse" as when there was a potential explanation for the way the other person could act.[6] In addition, and more recently, researchers have linked the curse of knowledge bias with false-belief reasoning in both children and adults, as well as theory of mind development difficulties in children. KieraMolloy18 ( talk) 02:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
References
The information in these sections seem to address the same questions, such as how the curse of knowledge is applied to real-life situations. I suggest the combination of these sections and the removal of any information that is a simple restatement of previously-mentioned information.
For example, I would like to remove the sentence, "Economists Camerer, Loewenstein, and Weber first applied the curse of knowledge phenomenon to economics, in order to explain why and how the assumption that better informed agents can accurately anticipate the judgments of lesser informed agents is not inherently true." KieraMolloy18 ( talk) 21:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
The implication paragraphs are also worded complicatedly and should be rephrased to be more succinct and clear. I also agree that both sections can be combined together. You could also add how the curse of knowledge is prevalent in fields other than education and economics.
I would also maybe add a picture as the page seems rather "unattractive" to the eye. Simple pictures/diagrams that explain the phenomenon could aid the reader's understanding.
According to Steven Pinker,The Sense of Style, 322 n 3: "The term 'curse of knowledge' was coined by Robin Hogarth and popularized by Camerer, Lowenstein, & Weber, 1989." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.70.78 ( talk) 17:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
The authors themselves make this point: "' This term was suggested by Robin Hogarth. " (12333 n 1) [The Curse of Knowledge in Economic Settings: An Experimental Analysis Author(s): Colin Camerer, George Loewenstein, Martin Weber Source: The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 97, No. 5 (Oct., 1989), pp. 1232-1254] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.70.78 ( talk) 19:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
The article says:
Just where is this experiment written up? We're not told. However, a little web-searching provides mentions of and references to:
I can't find this. However, I can find
-- it's here. And yes, it really has an entire chapter devoted to tapping.
This page of this book references both of these. What's going on here? More.coffy ( talk) 08:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I propose to merge the article on the curse of expertise into this article, or better, to replace it with a redirect to this article. I think that the former article needs much improvement anyway. For instance, it nowhere unambiguously lays out exactly what topic(s) it's intended to be about. Furthermore, at least one of its references—the 1999 article by Hinds—is about precisely the same topic as this article.— PaulTanenbaum ( talk) 17:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
No MurrayScience ( talk) 01:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Basically the same is the widely overlooked inverted part of the Dunning–Kruger effect: Not only do people with low competence ("beginners") overestimate their own competence, but people with very high competence ("experts") in turn underestimate theirs. Think of a subject you know really well, and you may also remember being surprised at what basic knowledge about that subject average people or laypeople completely lack. As an experienced Wikipedian, for example, you may be inclined to assume that average people have an understanding of or familiarity with basic Wikipedia concepts and principles and fundamental facts about how Wikipedia works – which you take for granted after having gotten used to them for years – even though they generally (or at least very frequently) don't. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 21:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Curse of expertise page were merged into Curse of knowledge on 9 April 2021. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The first paragraph on the page does a poor job of clearly introducing the concept.
I recommend changing the first paragraph to "The curse of knowledge is a cognitive bias that occurs when, in predicting others’ forecasts or behaviors, individuals are unable to ignore knowledge they have that others do not have, or when they are unable to disregard information already processed. Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
KieraMolloy18 (
talk)
01:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
References
While it is important to highlight the evolution of the concept, this section is very scattered and does not clearly outline the important points about curse of knowledge history. Much of the section should be moved to "implications" because it has nothing to do with history. The following paragraphs are my suggestions to streamline the main points of the original section, where I have also removed sentences that are repetitive or confusing. I have also given the section structure, and explained the evolution of the concept in relation to the researchers.
KieraMolloy18 ( talk) 02:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
References
A 1990 experiment by a Stanford graduate student, Elizabeth Newton, illustrated the curse of knowledge in the results of a simple task. A group of subjects were asked to "tap" out well known songs with their fingers, while another group tried to name the melodies. When the "tappers" were asked to predict how many of the "tapped" songs would be recognized by listeners, they would always overestimate. The curse of knowledge is demonstrated here as the "tappers" are so familiar with what they were tapping that they assumed listeners would easily recognize the tune. [1]
A study by Susan Birch and Paul Bloom in 2003 used the curse of knowledge concept to explain the idea that the ability of people to reason about another person's actions is compromised by the knowledge of the outcome of an event. The perception the participant had of the plausibility of an event also mediated the extent of the bias. If the event was less plausible, knowledge was not as much of a "curse" as when there was a potential explanation for the way the other person could act.[6] In addition, and more recently, researchers have linked the curse of knowledge bias with false-belief reasoning in both children and adults, as well as theory of mind development difficulties in children. KieraMolloy18 ( talk) 02:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
References
The information in these sections seem to address the same questions, such as how the curse of knowledge is applied to real-life situations. I suggest the combination of these sections and the removal of any information that is a simple restatement of previously-mentioned information.
For example, I would like to remove the sentence, "Economists Camerer, Loewenstein, and Weber first applied the curse of knowledge phenomenon to economics, in order to explain why and how the assumption that better informed agents can accurately anticipate the judgments of lesser informed agents is not inherently true." KieraMolloy18 ( talk) 21:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
The implication paragraphs are also worded complicatedly and should be rephrased to be more succinct and clear. I also agree that both sections can be combined together. You could also add how the curse of knowledge is prevalent in fields other than education and economics.
I would also maybe add a picture as the page seems rather "unattractive" to the eye. Simple pictures/diagrams that explain the phenomenon could aid the reader's understanding.
According to Steven Pinker,The Sense of Style, 322 n 3: "The term 'curse of knowledge' was coined by Robin Hogarth and popularized by Camerer, Lowenstein, & Weber, 1989." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.70.78 ( talk) 17:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
The authors themselves make this point: "' This term was suggested by Robin Hogarth. " (12333 n 1) [The Curse of Knowledge in Economic Settings: An Experimental Analysis Author(s): Colin Camerer, George Loewenstein, Martin Weber Source: The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 97, No. 5 (Oct., 1989), pp. 1232-1254] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.70.78 ( talk) 19:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
The article says:
Just where is this experiment written up? We're not told. However, a little web-searching provides mentions of and references to:
I can't find this. However, I can find
-- it's here. And yes, it really has an entire chapter devoted to tapping.
This page of this book references both of these. What's going on here? More.coffy ( talk) 08:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I propose to merge the article on the curse of expertise into this article, or better, to replace it with a redirect to this article. I think that the former article needs much improvement anyway. For instance, it nowhere unambiguously lays out exactly what topic(s) it's intended to be about. Furthermore, at least one of its references—the 1999 article by Hinds—is about precisely the same topic as this article.— PaulTanenbaum ( talk) 17:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
No MurrayScience ( talk) 01:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Basically the same is the widely overlooked inverted part of the Dunning–Kruger effect: Not only do people with low competence ("beginners") overestimate their own competence, but people with very high competence ("experts") in turn underestimate theirs. Think of a subject you know really well, and you may also remember being surprised at what basic knowledge about that subject average people or laypeople completely lack. As an experienced Wikipedian, for example, you may be inclined to assume that average people have an understanding of or familiarity with basic Wikipedia concepts and principles and fundamental facts about how Wikipedia works – which you take for granted after having gotten used to them for years – even though they generally (or at least very frequently) don't. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 21:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)