This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | â | Archive 5 |
To some, the Kruger Dunning effect is more a matter of believe. Looking at the original paper it appears that the estimated quality of ones own performance is almost independent of the actual test performance: all test subjects rated themselves with 55 to 70%. Hence, test performance and the own perception of test performance may not be related at all, since both smart and clueless people responded with the same standard guess.
Or, to put it into a better phrase: All people think that they are smart.  :-) â Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.151.220 ( talk) 11:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I found this to be interesting (from [1] ) <>< tbc 19:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
All that the paper finds is that in domains where competence and metacognitive ability (to use their terms) are the same -- as they are in black and white knowledge-based domains such as knowing whether "I walk" or "Walk I" is grammatical English -- that competence and metacognitive ability are the same. What a surprise. Fortunately they do mention something like this at the end:
When can the incompetent be expected to overestimate themselves because of their lack of skill? Although our data do not speak to this issue directly, we believe the answer depends on the domain under consideration. Some domains, like those examined in this article, are those in which knowledge about the domain confers competence in the domain. Individuals with a great understanding of the rules of grammar or inferential logic, for example, are by definition skilled linguists and logicians. In such domains, lack of skill implies both the inability to perform competently as well as the inability to recognize competence, and thus are also the domains in which the incompetent are likely to be unaware of their lack of skill.
In other domains, however, competence is not wholly dependent on knowledge or wisdom, but depends on other factors, such as physical skill. One need not look far to find individuals with an impressive understanding of the strategies and techniques of bas- ketball, for instance, yet who could not "dunk" to save their lives. (These people are called coaches.) Similarly, art appraisers make a living evaluating fine calligraphy, but know they do not possess the steady hand and patient nature necessary to produce the work themselves. In such domains, those in which knowledge about the domain does not necessarily translate into competence in the domain, one can become acutelyâeven painfullyâaware of the limits of one's ability. In golf, for instance, one can know all about the fine points of course management, club selection, and effective "swing thoughts," but one's incompetence will become sorely obvious when, after watching one's more able partner drive the ball 250 yards down the fairway, one proceeds to hit one's own ball 150 yards down the fairway, 50 yards to the right, and onto the hood of that 1993 Ford Taurus.
All that they really show is that the incompetents overestimate the number of questions that they themselves got right. And that people assign themselves a percentile score of a bit above average when presented with a group of people of unknown ability.
Furthermore I have to point out that they got their answer to the example with the cards wrong. For their answer to be correct you need to make the additional assumption that each card has a letter on one side and a number on the other. The correct answer without that extra assumption is A and 4 (as they say) but also B which might have E on its other side.
So what is this Dunning-Kruger effect??? --
MarSch 17:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
This "effect" doesn't seem to satisfy notability concerns. Even though it was published, there doesn't seem to be third-party evaluation of this theory. Can anyone find sources? .V. Talk| Email 07:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Can someone write up implications of this effect? Or examples of its implications? Comments observed in many high-traffic websites / services might be an example. What about in business, at home, at play? Jackvinson 22:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The implication is simply that human nature poses major limitations on the improvement of human society. A good example is that the events of September 2008 proved some theories (or aspects of theories) about economics false. However, what we found in 2009, is that those same theories massively grew in popularity and this affected election results. A similar phenomenon occurred in 1937/1938.
This effect is not noticed due to the difference between concrete knowledge - such as how to fix a television - and abstract knowledge - such as how to achieve peace in the Middle East.
The effect has lately been greatly strengthened by media's desire to pander to viewers in order to increase viewership. For example, after a report on the Middle East, they ask viewers "tell us what you think". The absurdity of this is either lost on media members, or they do it cynically. No one would want their brain surgeon to ask onlookers what they thought ! (Or even their TV repairman.) âPreceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.220.4 ( talk) 18:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Daniel Ames and Lara Kammrath extended this work to sensitivity to others, and the subjects' perception of how sensitive they were.[3]
Some more work by Burson Larrick and Joshua Klayman[4] has suggested that the effect is not so obvious and may be due to noise and bias levels.
The statement regarding the work by Ames and Kammrath appears to apply to the whole article, rather than just the preceeding paragraph.
While their work does bring doubt regarding the extension of the effect regarding sensitivity, it does not raise any questions regarding the 4 core assertions.
The study by Ames and Kammrath test for social judgement and mind-reading.
Dunning and Kruger tested for humor, grammar, and logic.
The Dunning-Kruger effect predicts that the persons ability to asses a skill is improved when their own skill level is raised.
Mind reading, however, is not a skill that can be acquired. It is therefore impossible to raised the presons skill level in order to observe the Dunning-Kruger effect.
It may be possible to improve somebodies social judgement, but it is still a difficult skill to measure. As a skill becomes more difficult to measure, then it also become more difficult to estimate. It is also possible for false measurements to be introduced.
Grammar and logic, on the other hand, are hard skills that can be both taught and measured.
This gives two qualities for a skill: measurability and acquirability.
Mind reading is a skill that cannot be acquired.
Social judgement and humour are difficult to acquire and measure.
Grammar and Logic can be consistently acquired and measured.
The Dunning-Kruger effect should show strongest in the last category, but is not addressed in the Ames and Kammrath study. âPreceding unsigned comment added by Ged Byrne ( talk ⢠contribs) 10:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't this sound like the same topic: Downing effect? Can these be merged? âPreceding unsigned comment added by Minnaert ( talk ⢠contribs) on 4 March 2008.
It is most definitely the same topic. Famspear ( talk) 22:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Naming this effect the "Dunning-Kruger effect" constitutes Original Research: I haven't seen it called that in the literature. Dunning and Kruger showed that superiority bias/illusory superiority is greater for people who are the least competent, in the context of well-defined tasks. Hence it's misleading to give this effect its own article. Instead it should be a section in an article on superiority bias. You can't clearly explain what the paper says without introducing superiority bias, as the current version of the article unfortunately illustrates. WP has at least two other articles on superiority bias: Lake Wobegon effect and Overconfidence effect. All of these have major flaws as encyclopedia articles. I will have a day working on WP on Tuesday 27th May: I will try to sort these issues out then.13:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC) MartinPoulter ( talk)
Perhaps when this first was posted, it was somewhat original. But it has hit the standard and is no longer a debatable issue, I'd say. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolved-primate/201006/when-ignorance-begets-confidence-the-classic-dunning-kruger-effect is an article from June of 2010 from Psychology Today, about the "classic" (no less) Dunning-Kruger effect. Since it is well into the year 2012 as I write, I would say that the argument in this section is definitely moot. Shoe ( talk) 04:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
"Dunning-Kruger effect" should not have an en dash. If Olivia Newton-John was one of the co-writers of the paper, or if it were generally known as the "David DunningâJustin Kruger effect" it would, but you use a hyphen if it's just two single-word names like this.â Chowbok â 04:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
If I had more energy I'd read the original papers and see if the authors referenced Socrates- "I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance", and suggested an illustrative quote for the effect would be "I know everything except the fact of my ignorance", but I am a lazy individual. Ninahexan ( talk) 04:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the meaning of the Colbert example â is my following explanation correct? I'll say: "The character of Stephen Colbert (not the actor himself) manifests the D-K effect". Nyttend ( talk) 03:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Note that this article was merged with illusory superiority and then demerged. Demerged because the highly competent "suffer" from illusory inferiority.-- Michael C. Price talk 10:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Should it be noted somewhere in this article the online community for the game known as the "Heroes of Newerth" is a perfect case study for this effect? 69.157.123.116 ( talk) 22:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The link to the first reference is broken: http://www.apa.org/404-error.aspx?url=http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf gives "Page Not Found". I fixed it by following the pubmed link: http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121
Informationtheory ( talk) 05:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Adding to my previously-voiced concerns that this article is Original Research, I note this policy: WP:NEO. This article might violate "A new term does not belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term â not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing." The terms I'm thinking of are both the article title and "illusory inferiority". What do others think?
Also, it still seems to be the case that none of the article's references actually mention "DunningâKruger effect". In order to keep the article in existence, we need some appropriate sources, and that's before we get to the neologism issue above. MartinPoulter ( talk) 14:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I've posted about this issue at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Dunning-Kruger_effect. My accusation is that your (re)definition of the D-K effect is itself OR. I don't dispute the content of the D-K paper itself. You haven't provided a source (after all this time) backing up your definition. MartinPoulter ( talk) 16:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
We now have stand-out quotations in the lead from William Butler Yeats, Bertrand Russell and the Prairie Home Companion, none of whom are specifically talking about the DunningâKruger effect, or who (so far as I can see) are having their quotation invoked by an academic who has considered it a relevant or useful example. A few individual editors saying "you know, this reminds me of a quotation I heard once" seems like WP:OR from here, and cquoted one-liners in the lead doesn't seem to fit with Wikipedia's aesthetics (where "a quotation is visually on the page, but its relevance is not explained"). What do other editors think? -- McGeddon ( talk) 10:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Someone should incorporate this information [9] if they have time. Remember ( talk) 17:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I started a section on cross-cultural variation that helps indicate the somewhat parochial nature of the Effect. The article lacks opposing views and alternative explanations, and cross-cultural variation is not nearly the end of this. However, I don't know the field or the literature well enough to assess such research contributions effectively, and I'm not very conversant with policies on balance, so some help would be appreciated. Yakushima ( talk) 05:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I didn't think the Ignoble award mention should be in "Studies" (which I've renamed "Supportive studies" in the interests of the above-mentioned balanced-view requirement.) I moved it to a new section, "Popular views", but I'm not satisfied with that heading, nor with my added comment (which in retrospect seems [[WP:SYNTH]y and POV) where I cite Marginal Revolution. I do think citing that notable blog bears (positively) on the not-completely-settled issue of notability of the Effect under the name "Dunning-Kruger effect", since Tabarrok's title is "The Dunning-Kruger Effect." Very possibly, this Wikipedia article has bootstrapped that name into notability. But if it happened that way, it nevertheless happened. Yakushima ( talk) 06:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
This section of the article does not seem to be about the D-K effect. It should be deleted to avoid confusion. MartinPoulter ( talk) 11:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that there are no citations to studies like those in the rest of the article. Who observed these cultural dependencies? Where was it published? â Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.248.156.241 ( talk) 22:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree. So, why is the section still there? I've lived in three different countries in Asia, and my own humble (but psychologically educated) opinion, is that this concept still is true. Oh, there may be differences when one keeps the concept tightly in the academic realm, but in the real world? Hubris is king. I'm removing the section. Shoe ( talk) 04:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
In 2003 Dunning and Joyce Ehrlinger, also of Cornell University, published a study that detailed a shift in people's views of themselves influenced by external cues. Participants in the study (Cornell University undergraduates) were given tests of their knowledge of geography, some intended to positively affect their self-views, some intended to affect them negatively. They were then asked to rate their performance, and those given the positive tests reported significantly better performance than those given the negative.[11]
Could someone clarify this paragraph. It seems to be saying that students given easier tests thought they had done well, and those that were given harder tests thought they had done poorly. Surely, this result is so trivial it cannot be what the study examined? There are a few abiguities in the text: "to positively-affect" can be interpreted as "to reinforce", which, when applied to someone with a low opinion of his ability, means that his opinion of himself was lowered still more, and "performance" can refer to attainment in just the test, or ability in general.
JBel (
talk) 15:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
This paper, as written today, emphasises only the "incompetence" aspects of the paper: i.e. "you can't fix stupid". It undertreats the far more useful and interesting aspects of the research - namely that the most competent people don't realize their competence, and how that reflects on the characteristics which make them competent. âPreceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.169.58 ( talk) 19:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know if immigrant plus 2nd generation have been compared to 3rd+ generation Americans? Just wondering. Dogface ( talk) 01:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I have been asked by non-autoconfirmed user DANKASHEN ( talk) to move this page to Kruger-Dunning effect, with the following rationale:
the- DunningâKruger_effect should be: Kruger-Dunning_effect as u can see here: Kruger, Justin; David Dunning (1999). "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77 (6): 1121â34. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121. PMIDÂ 10626367.
I have no opinion, but do not wish to unilaterally move the page from such a long-standing title without discussion. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 07:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The article says: "Kruger and Dunning set out to test these hypotheses on Cornell undergraduates in various psychology courses. In a series of studies, they examined...". It goes on to say: "Across four studies", however no dates are provided. There are no references provided from which the dates can be ascertained except for the paragraph regarding four studies. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.241.58 ( talk) 03:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Can someone explain this to me? According to the papers, the researchers provided the participants the test followed by asking them to rate their performances. In my opinion the context of this test is insufficient as it does not take into account the state of the participant before they took the test. I believe there is a correlation to the results before and after taking the test that should have been explored by the study to properly come to the conclusions. It is only accurate to say that low performers overestimate themselves if prior to taking the test, they had all made an unrealistic estimation of their performance prior and after taking the test. A low performer may have graded himself very lowly pre-test, followed by a higher performance post-test. This would indicate that low performers do not always have an inflated self worth, but the inflation is caused by a degree of lacking in self worth which is very different from the statement that "stupid people tend to think that they are quite brilliant, because they are too stupid to tell that they are, in fact, stupid." 118.100.76.143 ( talk) 09:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
The historical references section should probably mention Socratic irony, found in several dialogs, particularly the Euthyphro, where Euthyphro's overconfidence is due to his ignorance, while Socrates professes ignorance due to his deeper understanding of the vexing questions at hand. Or see quotes such as "...He, O men, is the wisest, who like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing" or "I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know." -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 02:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Some people keep adding quotes to the Historical references section from authors which purport to support the idea of the effect. Even if this is so, without other sources making that connection, it's OR and should not be included. The Nietzsche quote had a reference, but it was just a source for the quote itself, not any connection to D-K. â Al E.( talk) 19:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
There's a few relevant quotes in the article. Would this one fit anywhere? âThe fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.â From Shakespeare's As You Like It. 71.17.57.31 ( talk) 00:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I recently added a couple items to the See Also section... Blind men and an elephant and The Fatal Conceit and they were removed for lack of relevance. Both have to do with conceit...which is the central idea regarding the Dunning-Kruger effect...overestimating one's own intelligence/expertise/knowledge. Thoughts? â Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerographica ( talk ⢠contribs) 04:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Anybody? Well...unless somebody would like to argue that the articles in question are not even peripherally relevant...then I'll be adding them to the See Also list. -- Xerographica ( talk) 09:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
like a redraw of http://i.imgur.com/I9N5C.jpg â Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.68.29 ( talk) 23:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Diff â The key to "Without a reliable published source making the connection, this is WP:OR." is the part about making the connection. If there is a published source linking Hobbes' observation to the conclusions of Dunning and Kruger, then it fits in this article.
N.B. the Hobbes quote, as given in this context, says nothing about highly skilled people underestimating their capability, which is just as much a part of the D-K effect as the "unskilled and unaware" bit. __ Just plain Bill ( talk) 21:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Have there been studies to determine whether level of intelligence plays a role in a person's ability to accurately assess their level of skill? Tad Lincoln ( talk) 04:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Socrates said, "The only thing that I know is that I know nothing." It was recorded by Plato as you can see here: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Socrates#Plato
Although it is a little different, Aristotle later said, "to know thyself is the beginning of all wisdom" (but not in English, obviously). I feel that Shakespeare is referencing the Greeks in his play. Samalander ( talk) 06:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
-- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 01:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I have placed protection on this page to stop the edit war that was developing here. That is not how we resolve content disputes here. Please discuss the issue here and attempt to find a consensus on this issue instead of arguing in edit sumarries. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC).
I agree with Ronz; the connection does need to be sourced. My thoughts here are addressed to those who asserted inadequacy of the CRI Journal article I originally cited. The original question was, is that a reliable source? On the one hand, it is editorially reviewed, in print for more than 40 years, and widely circulated. (The organization describes itself as "the largest, most effective apologetics ministry in the world.")
On the other hand, there can be some objections:
Anyway, I'm getting off the topic of the source: on the balance, for sourcing a single sentence in the appropriate context, I felt it was an adequate reference. If not, then what would meet the test? For example, what if the same connection had been drawn on Focus on the Family or in Christianity Today? I would just like some guidance. As noted before, I think the emergence of DK-like observations from throughout history is one of the theory's most interesting aspects, but would like to be sure of my footing before I make another attempt to flesh that out in the article. Thanks, -- Rnickel ( talk) 18:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | â | Archive 5 |
To some, the Kruger Dunning effect is more a matter of believe. Looking at the original paper it appears that the estimated quality of ones own performance is almost independent of the actual test performance: all test subjects rated themselves with 55 to 70%. Hence, test performance and the own perception of test performance may not be related at all, since both smart and clueless people responded with the same standard guess.
Or, to put it into a better phrase: All people think that they are smart.  :-) â Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.151.220 ( talk) 11:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I found this to be interesting (from [1] ) <>< tbc 19:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
All that the paper finds is that in domains where competence and metacognitive ability (to use their terms) are the same -- as they are in black and white knowledge-based domains such as knowing whether "I walk" or "Walk I" is grammatical English -- that competence and metacognitive ability are the same. What a surprise. Fortunately they do mention something like this at the end:
When can the incompetent be expected to overestimate themselves because of their lack of skill? Although our data do not speak to this issue directly, we believe the answer depends on the domain under consideration. Some domains, like those examined in this article, are those in which knowledge about the domain confers competence in the domain. Individuals with a great understanding of the rules of grammar or inferential logic, for example, are by definition skilled linguists and logicians. In such domains, lack of skill implies both the inability to perform competently as well as the inability to recognize competence, and thus are also the domains in which the incompetent are likely to be unaware of their lack of skill.
In other domains, however, competence is not wholly dependent on knowledge or wisdom, but depends on other factors, such as physical skill. One need not look far to find individuals with an impressive understanding of the strategies and techniques of bas- ketball, for instance, yet who could not "dunk" to save their lives. (These people are called coaches.) Similarly, art appraisers make a living evaluating fine calligraphy, but know they do not possess the steady hand and patient nature necessary to produce the work themselves. In such domains, those in which knowledge about the domain does not necessarily translate into competence in the domain, one can become acutelyâeven painfullyâaware of the limits of one's ability. In golf, for instance, one can know all about the fine points of course management, club selection, and effective "swing thoughts," but one's incompetence will become sorely obvious when, after watching one's more able partner drive the ball 250 yards down the fairway, one proceeds to hit one's own ball 150 yards down the fairway, 50 yards to the right, and onto the hood of that 1993 Ford Taurus.
All that they really show is that the incompetents overestimate the number of questions that they themselves got right. And that people assign themselves a percentile score of a bit above average when presented with a group of people of unknown ability.
Furthermore I have to point out that they got their answer to the example with the cards wrong. For their answer to be correct you need to make the additional assumption that each card has a letter on one side and a number on the other. The correct answer without that extra assumption is A and 4 (as they say) but also B which might have E on its other side.
So what is this Dunning-Kruger effect??? --
MarSch 17:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
This "effect" doesn't seem to satisfy notability concerns. Even though it was published, there doesn't seem to be third-party evaluation of this theory. Can anyone find sources? .V. Talk| Email 07:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Can someone write up implications of this effect? Or examples of its implications? Comments observed in many high-traffic websites / services might be an example. What about in business, at home, at play? Jackvinson 22:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The implication is simply that human nature poses major limitations on the improvement of human society. A good example is that the events of September 2008 proved some theories (or aspects of theories) about economics false. However, what we found in 2009, is that those same theories massively grew in popularity and this affected election results. A similar phenomenon occurred in 1937/1938.
This effect is not noticed due to the difference between concrete knowledge - such as how to fix a television - and abstract knowledge - such as how to achieve peace in the Middle East.
The effect has lately been greatly strengthened by media's desire to pander to viewers in order to increase viewership. For example, after a report on the Middle East, they ask viewers "tell us what you think". The absurdity of this is either lost on media members, or they do it cynically. No one would want their brain surgeon to ask onlookers what they thought ! (Or even their TV repairman.) âPreceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.220.4 ( talk) 18:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Daniel Ames and Lara Kammrath extended this work to sensitivity to others, and the subjects' perception of how sensitive they were.[3]
Some more work by Burson Larrick and Joshua Klayman[4] has suggested that the effect is not so obvious and may be due to noise and bias levels.
The statement regarding the work by Ames and Kammrath appears to apply to the whole article, rather than just the preceeding paragraph.
While their work does bring doubt regarding the extension of the effect regarding sensitivity, it does not raise any questions regarding the 4 core assertions.
The study by Ames and Kammrath test for social judgement and mind-reading.
Dunning and Kruger tested for humor, grammar, and logic.
The Dunning-Kruger effect predicts that the persons ability to asses a skill is improved when their own skill level is raised.
Mind reading, however, is not a skill that can be acquired. It is therefore impossible to raised the presons skill level in order to observe the Dunning-Kruger effect.
It may be possible to improve somebodies social judgement, but it is still a difficult skill to measure. As a skill becomes more difficult to measure, then it also become more difficult to estimate. It is also possible for false measurements to be introduced.
Grammar and logic, on the other hand, are hard skills that can be both taught and measured.
This gives two qualities for a skill: measurability and acquirability.
Mind reading is a skill that cannot be acquired.
Social judgement and humour are difficult to acquire and measure.
Grammar and Logic can be consistently acquired and measured.
The Dunning-Kruger effect should show strongest in the last category, but is not addressed in the Ames and Kammrath study. âPreceding unsigned comment added by Ged Byrne ( talk ⢠contribs) 10:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't this sound like the same topic: Downing effect? Can these be merged? âPreceding unsigned comment added by Minnaert ( talk ⢠contribs) on 4 March 2008.
It is most definitely the same topic. Famspear ( talk) 22:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Naming this effect the "Dunning-Kruger effect" constitutes Original Research: I haven't seen it called that in the literature. Dunning and Kruger showed that superiority bias/illusory superiority is greater for people who are the least competent, in the context of well-defined tasks. Hence it's misleading to give this effect its own article. Instead it should be a section in an article on superiority bias. You can't clearly explain what the paper says without introducing superiority bias, as the current version of the article unfortunately illustrates. WP has at least two other articles on superiority bias: Lake Wobegon effect and Overconfidence effect. All of these have major flaws as encyclopedia articles. I will have a day working on WP on Tuesday 27th May: I will try to sort these issues out then.13:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC) MartinPoulter ( talk)
Perhaps when this first was posted, it was somewhat original. But it has hit the standard and is no longer a debatable issue, I'd say. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolved-primate/201006/when-ignorance-begets-confidence-the-classic-dunning-kruger-effect is an article from June of 2010 from Psychology Today, about the "classic" (no less) Dunning-Kruger effect. Since it is well into the year 2012 as I write, I would say that the argument in this section is definitely moot. Shoe ( talk) 04:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
"Dunning-Kruger effect" should not have an en dash. If Olivia Newton-John was one of the co-writers of the paper, or if it were generally known as the "David DunningâJustin Kruger effect" it would, but you use a hyphen if it's just two single-word names like this.â Chowbok â 04:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
If I had more energy I'd read the original papers and see if the authors referenced Socrates- "I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance", and suggested an illustrative quote for the effect would be "I know everything except the fact of my ignorance", but I am a lazy individual. Ninahexan ( talk) 04:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the meaning of the Colbert example â is my following explanation correct? I'll say: "The character of Stephen Colbert (not the actor himself) manifests the D-K effect". Nyttend ( talk) 03:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Note that this article was merged with illusory superiority and then demerged. Demerged because the highly competent "suffer" from illusory inferiority.-- Michael C. Price talk 10:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Should it be noted somewhere in this article the online community for the game known as the "Heroes of Newerth" is a perfect case study for this effect? 69.157.123.116 ( talk) 22:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The link to the first reference is broken: http://www.apa.org/404-error.aspx?url=http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf gives "Page Not Found". I fixed it by following the pubmed link: http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121
Informationtheory ( talk) 05:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Adding to my previously-voiced concerns that this article is Original Research, I note this policy: WP:NEO. This article might violate "A new term does not belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term â not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing." The terms I'm thinking of are both the article title and "illusory inferiority". What do others think?
Also, it still seems to be the case that none of the article's references actually mention "DunningâKruger effect". In order to keep the article in existence, we need some appropriate sources, and that's before we get to the neologism issue above. MartinPoulter ( talk) 14:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I've posted about this issue at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Dunning-Kruger_effect. My accusation is that your (re)definition of the D-K effect is itself OR. I don't dispute the content of the D-K paper itself. You haven't provided a source (after all this time) backing up your definition. MartinPoulter ( talk) 16:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
We now have stand-out quotations in the lead from William Butler Yeats, Bertrand Russell and the Prairie Home Companion, none of whom are specifically talking about the DunningâKruger effect, or who (so far as I can see) are having their quotation invoked by an academic who has considered it a relevant or useful example. A few individual editors saying "you know, this reminds me of a quotation I heard once" seems like WP:OR from here, and cquoted one-liners in the lead doesn't seem to fit with Wikipedia's aesthetics (where "a quotation is visually on the page, but its relevance is not explained"). What do other editors think? -- McGeddon ( talk) 10:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Someone should incorporate this information [9] if they have time. Remember ( talk) 17:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I started a section on cross-cultural variation that helps indicate the somewhat parochial nature of the Effect. The article lacks opposing views and alternative explanations, and cross-cultural variation is not nearly the end of this. However, I don't know the field or the literature well enough to assess such research contributions effectively, and I'm not very conversant with policies on balance, so some help would be appreciated. Yakushima ( talk) 05:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I didn't think the Ignoble award mention should be in "Studies" (which I've renamed "Supportive studies" in the interests of the above-mentioned balanced-view requirement.) I moved it to a new section, "Popular views", but I'm not satisfied with that heading, nor with my added comment (which in retrospect seems [[WP:SYNTH]y and POV) where I cite Marginal Revolution. I do think citing that notable blog bears (positively) on the not-completely-settled issue of notability of the Effect under the name "Dunning-Kruger effect", since Tabarrok's title is "The Dunning-Kruger Effect." Very possibly, this Wikipedia article has bootstrapped that name into notability. But if it happened that way, it nevertheless happened. Yakushima ( talk) 06:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
This section of the article does not seem to be about the D-K effect. It should be deleted to avoid confusion. MartinPoulter ( talk) 11:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that there are no citations to studies like those in the rest of the article. Who observed these cultural dependencies? Where was it published? â Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.248.156.241 ( talk) 22:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree. So, why is the section still there? I've lived in three different countries in Asia, and my own humble (but psychologically educated) opinion, is that this concept still is true. Oh, there may be differences when one keeps the concept tightly in the academic realm, but in the real world? Hubris is king. I'm removing the section. Shoe ( talk) 04:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
In 2003 Dunning and Joyce Ehrlinger, also of Cornell University, published a study that detailed a shift in people's views of themselves influenced by external cues. Participants in the study (Cornell University undergraduates) were given tests of their knowledge of geography, some intended to positively affect their self-views, some intended to affect them negatively. They were then asked to rate their performance, and those given the positive tests reported significantly better performance than those given the negative.[11]
Could someone clarify this paragraph. It seems to be saying that students given easier tests thought they had done well, and those that were given harder tests thought they had done poorly. Surely, this result is so trivial it cannot be what the study examined? There are a few abiguities in the text: "to positively-affect" can be interpreted as "to reinforce", which, when applied to someone with a low opinion of his ability, means that his opinion of himself was lowered still more, and "performance" can refer to attainment in just the test, or ability in general.
JBel (
talk) 15:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
This paper, as written today, emphasises only the "incompetence" aspects of the paper: i.e. "you can't fix stupid". It undertreats the far more useful and interesting aspects of the research - namely that the most competent people don't realize their competence, and how that reflects on the characteristics which make them competent. âPreceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.169.58 ( talk) 19:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know if immigrant plus 2nd generation have been compared to 3rd+ generation Americans? Just wondering. Dogface ( talk) 01:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I have been asked by non-autoconfirmed user DANKASHEN ( talk) to move this page to Kruger-Dunning effect, with the following rationale:
the- DunningâKruger_effect should be: Kruger-Dunning_effect as u can see here: Kruger, Justin; David Dunning (1999). "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77 (6): 1121â34. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121. PMIDÂ 10626367.
I have no opinion, but do not wish to unilaterally move the page from such a long-standing title without discussion. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 07:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The article says: "Kruger and Dunning set out to test these hypotheses on Cornell undergraduates in various psychology courses. In a series of studies, they examined...". It goes on to say: "Across four studies", however no dates are provided. There are no references provided from which the dates can be ascertained except for the paragraph regarding four studies. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.241.58 ( talk) 03:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Can someone explain this to me? According to the papers, the researchers provided the participants the test followed by asking them to rate their performances. In my opinion the context of this test is insufficient as it does not take into account the state of the participant before they took the test. I believe there is a correlation to the results before and after taking the test that should have been explored by the study to properly come to the conclusions. It is only accurate to say that low performers overestimate themselves if prior to taking the test, they had all made an unrealistic estimation of their performance prior and after taking the test. A low performer may have graded himself very lowly pre-test, followed by a higher performance post-test. This would indicate that low performers do not always have an inflated self worth, but the inflation is caused by a degree of lacking in self worth which is very different from the statement that "stupid people tend to think that they are quite brilliant, because they are too stupid to tell that they are, in fact, stupid." 118.100.76.143 ( talk) 09:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
The historical references section should probably mention Socratic irony, found in several dialogs, particularly the Euthyphro, where Euthyphro's overconfidence is due to his ignorance, while Socrates professes ignorance due to his deeper understanding of the vexing questions at hand. Or see quotes such as "...He, O men, is the wisest, who like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing" or "I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know." -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 02:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Some people keep adding quotes to the Historical references section from authors which purport to support the idea of the effect. Even if this is so, without other sources making that connection, it's OR and should not be included. The Nietzsche quote had a reference, but it was just a source for the quote itself, not any connection to D-K. â Al E.( talk) 19:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
There's a few relevant quotes in the article. Would this one fit anywhere? âThe fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.â From Shakespeare's As You Like It. 71.17.57.31 ( talk) 00:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I recently added a couple items to the See Also section... Blind men and an elephant and The Fatal Conceit and they were removed for lack of relevance. Both have to do with conceit...which is the central idea regarding the Dunning-Kruger effect...overestimating one's own intelligence/expertise/knowledge. Thoughts? â Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerographica ( talk ⢠contribs) 04:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Anybody? Well...unless somebody would like to argue that the articles in question are not even peripherally relevant...then I'll be adding them to the See Also list. -- Xerographica ( talk) 09:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
like a redraw of http://i.imgur.com/I9N5C.jpg â Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.68.29 ( talk) 23:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Diff â The key to "Without a reliable published source making the connection, this is WP:OR." is the part about making the connection. If there is a published source linking Hobbes' observation to the conclusions of Dunning and Kruger, then it fits in this article.
N.B. the Hobbes quote, as given in this context, says nothing about highly skilled people underestimating their capability, which is just as much a part of the D-K effect as the "unskilled and unaware" bit. __ Just plain Bill ( talk) 21:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Have there been studies to determine whether level of intelligence plays a role in a person's ability to accurately assess their level of skill? Tad Lincoln ( talk) 04:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Socrates said, "The only thing that I know is that I know nothing." It was recorded by Plato as you can see here: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Socrates#Plato
Although it is a little different, Aristotle later said, "to know thyself is the beginning of all wisdom" (but not in English, obviously). I feel that Shakespeare is referencing the Greeks in his play. Samalander ( talk) 06:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
-- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 01:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I have placed protection on this page to stop the edit war that was developing here. That is not how we resolve content disputes here. Please discuss the issue here and attempt to find a consensus on this issue instead of arguing in edit sumarries. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC).
I agree with Ronz; the connection does need to be sourced. My thoughts here are addressed to those who asserted inadequacy of the CRI Journal article I originally cited. The original question was, is that a reliable source? On the one hand, it is editorially reviewed, in print for more than 40 years, and widely circulated. (The organization describes itself as "the largest, most effective apologetics ministry in the world.")
On the other hand, there can be some objections:
Anyway, I'm getting off the topic of the source: on the balance, for sourcing a single sentence in the appropriate context, I felt it was an adequate reference. If not, then what would meet the test? For example, what if the same connection had been drawn on Focus on the Family or in Christianity Today? I would just like some guidance. As noted before, I think the emergence of DK-like observations from throughout history is one of the theory's most interesting aspects, but would like to be sure of my footing before I make another attempt to flesh that out in the article. Thanks, -- Rnickel ( talk) 18:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)