Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect

Hi. An appeal
[Adapting this from a user talk page.]

Hi. My account was recently suspended for reverting edits on this page (in reality, I was repeatedly adding edits, not reverting them, but that's just semantics). I would like to request that my addition be considered as a legitimate edit, rather than a troll, as it seems to be perceived. The addition was the following:

"Typically the people who wield the term as an ad hominem attack are the ones to whom it applies most accurately."

I am not sure if you have experience with this attack. But it is truly typical that, when a person throws Dunning-Kruger into a debate to shut down the opposition, they are doing so because they lack a substantive argument. In other words, when a person verbally attacks another by exclaiming "Dunning-Kruger! You don't know how stupid you are!", the reality is that the term best applies to the attacker themselves.

I understand how my handle JustOwnedYouSon probably colored my edits to appear as a trolling attempt. Indeed it is true that I made the edits during an online debate. Nonetheless, I stand by the assertion that I added, and would like it to be considered as a genuine addition to the RationalWiki page Dunning-Kruger effect; after all, RationalWiki is supposed to include a more nuanced and candid analysis of a topic (and especially how the topic typically applies in a rational argument) than generic encyclopedias like Wikipedia.

Thank you for hearing me out.

[Furthermore, when mentioned that I would need a citation:]

Fair enough. The issue is that the attack typically comes up in the midst of a debate, where you would need the entire context in order to see how it is merely being used to deflect from a lack of substantive points. I do believe it to be verifiable, but I don't want to take up a large portion of the Dunning-Kruger effect page by adding a long quote that establishes context. Do you have any further suggestions? Thank you.

[When challenged on the veracity of this addition:]

Typically in a genuine ideological debate, when someone chooses to attack the opponent's character as means of disengaging from the debate, it is because they lack the intellectual capacity to offer a meaningful response. If this were Wikipedia I would understand if you indicated that this is conjecture, but this is RationalWiki, which I am sure you would agree involves a more nuanced take that includes implications that are not typically discussed in more formal encyclopedias. That being the case, would you agree with the addition in question if I was to offer a citation along with it? JustOwnedYouSon (talk) 15:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Open to further input, thanks. JustOwnedYouSon (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The statement you want to include in the article may well be true. It is certainly a strongly held opinion of yours. It must be true some of the time. But what if it is only true about 50% of the time? And why does a claim about the frequency that a concept is wrongly employed belong in an article about it? Also, if a person refers to Dunning-Kruger as a way to imply the person with whom they are arguing is unintelligent, they may be using it purely as an insult. If someone calls me a moron, I am no more likely to be persuaded by their arguments. But I cannot conclude I am talking to a moron, only that I have been insulted. Being rude doesn't mean one is stupid. Ariel31459 (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not like this edit, I think it should be removed. The editor is probably just butt-hurt that people accuse him/her of exhibiting DK when he/she presents conspiracy theories that defy physics. Just because you feel insulted that someone dared to school you in a gruff manner doesn't make it an ad hominem.

Dunning-Kruger and the Peter Principle
How do the D-K effect and the Peter Principle interact? Anna Livia (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I would guess that after the Peter Principle has passed any further belief in promotion could be a sign of Dunning-Kruger. 19:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

'I know enough about...'
Surely this can be a neutral statement describing 'the known unknowns' (and knowing that there will be associated unknown unknowns) - you know the point at which to call in 'the experts'/get further training/accept a plain narrative explanation on, etc. Anna Livia (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

johnny ball
it strikes me as terribly unfair to single out johnny ball for this article. despite the scare quotes johnny ball has been a very prominent and popular science advocate, yet it is he that we have chosen to illustrate this effect. could we not have come up with some one more fitting? really? AMassiveGay (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The qualities you listed make Ball an excellent example.

Evolutionary layer, sort of?
Was reading some stories about incompetent managers, thought of a different angle: an incompetent person must radiate confidence, because it is easy confused with brilliance, to bullshit their way into a good position. From then on the only competence required from them is to ascertain when it is time to hightail, while everything they've at said position falls apart. Perhaps, there's even a confirmation bias, and we don't get an input from both incompetent and uncofident because they simply lay low? Haven't encountered a research on this topic, but maybe someone else has?Arisano (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't actually think that all incompetent managers radiate confidence. Some of them just radiate incompetence. Perhaps   The Peter Principle or something similar? Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Dunning-Kruger Effect likely doesn't exist
There's research going all the way back to 2002 indicating that the Dunning-Kruger effect may not be real. Most notably (in my opinion), a pair of studies from 2016 and 2017 showed that replicating D&K's analysis but with completely randomized data showed the same effect.

I'm just a driveby reader so I'm not sure what the protocol is for making such a potentially massive change to a page as "Lol turns out this probably doesn't exist?". But I thought I should let you know.

Easy reading popsci summary

 * https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/how-do-you-know/202012/dunning-kruger-isnt-real

Oh I think it exists alright. Anyone who thinks that incompetent people have the ability to assess their competence accurately is probably an incompetent person. More likely to overestimate than underestimate their ability? That makes sense too. Also, the more educated person in a subject knows how much is unknown to them and suppose themselves to rate at a lower level and hence be less astute than they might actually be? Yes that sounds likely too. See David Dunning's reply to those who envy his renown.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)