Today I Learned
What did you learn today? Share it with us!
We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.
** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**
Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
That graph is shaped like a gun.
Please shoot me with it, I cant take any more of those smart people
Pretty sure most lemmy users are up there. But now that I say that.. could very well be wrong. Sorry everyone
most replies to my comments on here seem to think their are foolproof geniuses while espousing that there is no such thing is nuance or complexity in the world. there is only good (agree with them) or bad (disagree with them).
super big-brained thinking, that.
Its at least partially a statistical trick. People of lower competence rate themselves closer to the middle, but people with high competence also do this.
I also find it hilarious how virtually everyone acts like an expert in diagnosing dunning-krueger. Like looking at a graph for a second and then repeating an academic mystification and 5-10 word snippet repeated ad nauseum is pretty fucking ironic given the subject
No no you see, because I have heard of the Dunning-Krüger effect on no fewer than two separate occasioms, I am a master at recognizing it in people no matter where they fall on its spectrum. You just don't understand because your overexposure to the concept has dulled your natural instincts, unlike me. /s
Everyone has an opinion and nobody holds the absolute truth. Fun thing, reality is.
that sounds like it's part of the homosexual/trans agenda!
I find that folks that just keep their mouths shut, do their jobs quietly, competently and correctly are far better to have on your team than the loudmouth know-it-all.
Bonus is that when the former does open their mouth you know you should be paying attention.
I think they call it "quiet competence".
IME the loudmouths are mostly mouthing off about things that are totally unrelated to the problem at hand. all in some weird big to appear confident and in control.
All too common I've seen those loudmouths promoted, and the quiet competent are then talked down to about something they know far more about. Then they leave.
Middle management doesn't understand a skillset unless someone tells them directly they are skilled, it's a culture of failure.
The world needs more humble geniuses. We're few and far between nowadays.
The world has plenty. They just aren't on social media.
I think you missed my sarcasm.
Well, they were right; not a genius because they are on social media.
Today?
It has been a fad for some time.
Ironically mostly used by people who think they're smart bcs they've heard of it.
smart doesn't mean anything.
It means a lot of things according to the dictionary.
You might want to look it up.
Knowledge doesn't just diffuse into everyone's minds when it hits a fad threshold. There's still a point where one first learns about it. Shocking, I know.
You gotta be part of the hive mind man, it's pretty cool
A mindset I just fell into as a much younger man for reasons I no longer remember was assuming everyone knew more than I did and did things the way they did them for a reason. And I should learn what that reason is before I go proposing changes.
That mindset has never steered me wrong. Even when I change something someone else put in place what I come up with is a better solution for taking the time to understand why the previous person did it the way that they did.
I had a soccer coach from age 7-18. Same guy, brilliant dude, Dean of law at a very large state school. He told me at 12 to never talk to the other kids at the summer camps (competition) about what i was working on. "Just go out and do it and shut your mouth about it. That's how you impress on the field."
It's stuck with me since then.
This principle is sometimes called "Chesterton's Fence" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Chesterton%27s_fence)
i assumed there was some kind of story here - it being a parable - but its kinda more like a koan.
So much anger I see in the world is directed at policies, laws, procedures, whatever, that make perfect sense if one understands the background.
Sucks, but we can't all understand everything. I try, but I ain't that smart, and certainly can't be that experienced.
As far as I can tell, we all have this, even people who are experts, it's just in different domains that those of their expertise.
what baffles me is that so many experts just willfully refuse to apply there general intelligent to problems outside of their field of expertise in the most basic ways.
like so many 'genius' techies who can't cook or understand a sentence with more than two clauses. it's not really that hard... just break it down into the functional components like you do with your code, bucko.
It has been my experience that actual domain experience almost invariably beats genius-level intelligence, even that which is all the way up at the level of Einstein (so well beyond mere genius IQ).
What intelligence does bring is a faster ability to grasp things when explained and even to ask the right questions and piece a few more things together naturally than most people would, but that's still not enough for a very high intelligence newbie to beat somebody with years of expertise on a domain: a newbie doesn't just lack direct knowledge, they even lack knowledge of what are the right things to do to get that knowledge are as well as, in many domains, training to do it in a time effective way (or to put it another way, they don't just lack the answers, they even don't know the right questions to ask).
A last point: don't confuse tech domain expertise with very above average intelligence - domain expertise in a complex intellectual domain tends to look from the outside as very high intelligence but that's really an error in perception due to the unbalance in knowledge of the domain expert versus a non-expert. In my experience, there aren't that many actual geniuses (IQ of 120 or above) in Tech even if some areas of it seem to require above average intelligence to master.
I don't. Most techies are idiots outside of anything technological.
and they overcompensate hard by trying to turn everything into a problem to be solved with a convoluted technological solution.
That's a general problem with domain experts in highly specialized intellectual areas: everything looks like a nail when the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer.
It also dovetails with what I wrote before and the Dunning-Krugger effect - just like everybody else, they are prone to think they know a ton about things outside their expert domain they really know little about, so come out as a idiots in those things. It doesn't help that Tech has been glorified in present day society causing a lot of people within it to have seriously inflated egos well beyond what their actual achievements would justify - you see this kind of thing in all "glamour" areas: for example in my experience lots low-level barely-making-ends-meet actors seem to think of themselves as "superior to the common man".
I like to think most people affected by such delusions about their inherent worth and capabilities get over it as they get older, after life has had the time to slapped them a couple of times.
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
— Isaac Asimov
Isn't it more that people who are given a test will tend to think that the test was easy when they score well (when they actually scored well because they're an expert) and people will think a test is hard when they aren't familiar with the subject (nobody could've answered these question!) .
So it's more that experts and non-experts both assume their knowledge level is more average than it actually is. Not as fun as "dummies think they're smart and smarties think they're dumb." We all just tend to think we're average and most people are at a similar level of expertise to ourselves.
I don't think DK is really about intelligence but more on how averages work. I don't know, I don't have a degree in statistics just a basic biochem one.
We see what you did there
And it's been disproven
Could you elaborate? From what I read, Dunning and Kruger did find a real phenomenon where people with limited competence in a domain overestimate their ability, but they did not suggest these individuals thought they were smarter than experts; and one theory holds that it is a statistical truism, which still means it exists.
What happens is people have the Dunning Kruger effect on the Dunning Kruger effect itself. People call it up far too often and misuse the label
They're probably talking about this. It's been too long since I read it so I won't be discussing it, but I'll share a paragraph so folks don't have to click the link to see the gist. https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2022/04/08/the-dunning-kruger-effect-is-autocorrelation/
The Dunning-Kruger effect also emerges from data in which it shouldn’t. For instance, if you carefully craft random data so that it does not contain a Dunning-Kruger effect, you will still find the effect. The reason turns out to be embarrassingly simple: the Dunning-Kruger effect has nothing to do with human psychology.1 It is a statistical artifact — a stunning example of autocorrelation.
No, no, no, I am an econometrician, this Blair Fix person is an 'enthusiast of economics' who actually doesn't know how statistics or data modelling works.
Their whole blog post boils down to them not liking the format the graph is presented in.
I can assure you this a common way to visualize this kind of a data set.
When this Blair person presents their own 'test' later in the post, they are literally making shit up, they did not perform any test, they just generated random noise and then went 'see it kinda looks the same!'
Were they serious about this ... analysis approach, they would have compared their random noise to the actual dunning krueger data set and then done actual statistical tests to see if the dk set was statistically significantly different than a battery of say 1000 runs of their statistical noise generation, and to what extent it was.
They did not do this, at all.
They then cite papers from no name colleges no one has ever heard of that basically just argue that a histogram is 'the right way to present this', even though that completely destroys any visual concept of differentiating between where ones actual ability level is vs where one estimates it to be, that just flattens it to 'look at this psuedo normal distribution of how many people are wrong by how much', again with no reference to their actual competency level as a factor in to what degree they overestimate themselves.
You've fallen for a random shit poster who shit posts on a blog instead of tiktok or instagram or reddit or WSJ/WaPo Op-Eds.
You have been bamboozeled not by lies, not by damned lies, but by an idiot attempting to do statistics.
.........
If you wanted to maybe better visually portray the DK data, you coukd have the original graph, and then another graph, a bar graph, that shows the % difference between actual and perceived competency for each quartile.
And that would look like this:
(I am doing the digital equivalent of a napkin drawing here, from a phone, this is broadly accurate, but not precise.)
The lowest competency quartile believes they score at about 55th percentile when they actually score at about 10th percentile, so they overestimate themselves by about 450%.
2nd quartile; actual score is about 35 ptile, estimated score is 60 ptile, so they overestimate themselves by about 70%.
3rd quartile; actual score is about 60 ptile, estimated score is about 70 ptile, so they overestimate themselves by about 17%.
4th quartile; actual score is about 85 ptile, estimated score is about 70 ptile, so they overestimate_themselves by about negative 20%
So, there you go, you have a bar chart with 4 bars.
1st is 45 units tall,
2nd is 7,
3rd is 1.7,
4th is -2, going under the x axis.
Vertical height represents the magnitude of overestimation of a quartile's actual competency.
That is to say, the dumbest 25% of people think they are 4.5x more competent than they actually are, in terms of comparing themselves to all people broadly, whereas the smartest 25% of people actually think they are 0.8x as competent as they actually are.
This effect at the top quartile is roughly otherwise known as 'impostor syndrome', another thing that is well studied and definitely real.
But the main thing that should be visually striking from this kind of presentation is that dumb people, that bottom quartile, are literally in another order of magnitude of overestimating their abilities, they are in fact so wildly off that the rest of the graph is basically just noise around the x axis in comparison, they are in fact so stupid that they have no idea how stupid they are.
For a real world example case of this, go visit the Oval Office.
I've often heard it's misunderstood and used in inappropriate situations, but it's still a real phenomenon.
Like laypeople tossing around "OCD" when they shouldn't. Absolutely real, but not in the same way that it's commonly used.
People with low competence fail to understand their limits, and people who are competent can identify theirs.
Lol flat earthers