The fool doth think himself wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool. — William Shakespeare
The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. — Stephen Hawking
In 1999 Dunning and Kruger reported study results from which they concluded that incompetent [1] people not only make poor decisions but that their incompetence implies they can not recognize their errors.
They administered a series of tests to participants and asked them to rate their performance. Test results were divided into quartiles and compared to how well participants thought they did. The results varied somewhat across the type of tests but generally resembled:
Poor performers estimated their performance to be above average (i.e. 50th percentile). The best performers underestimated their performance. Tempting to conclude that Shakespeare got it right.
The paper is controversial and still generates articles supporting and challenging its conclusions 25 years after publication. If you wish to follow up several references are included at the end of this article which explore the controversy.
Things get really interesting if you do an image search for Dunning Kruger. The search will return a lot of images that resemble:
Not what Dunning Kruger measured or reported and there’s really no valid way to get from what they reported to a graph resembling the one above.
But it is certainly is tempting to think the graph reflects something we “know” to be true. When I first came across this graph it was being used to illustrate the maxim that “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing”. The peak was labelled “Mount Stupid”.
If you start looking through that image search you’ll find the curve is used to describe all kinds of situations and experiences - the evolution of a tech startup, self-improvement, the hype cycle which surrounds most tech launches these days or the introduction of a new public policy which receives initial support followed by opposition as details become known and subsequent support once implemented and the benefits become clear.
There are a couple of consequential lessons here. One is that once that it's likely appropriate to be skeptical of internet memes especially if they reinforce "common sense" perceptions. No surprise there. The second is that while each of us may be especially competent or knowledgeable in a few domains that's not going to be the case for the vast majority of subject areas. We all need to be aware of the tendency for the confidence associated with that expertise to be inappropriately applied to areas in which we realistically lack meaningful expertise. Humility serves us – and others – well.
References
Kruger, Justin, and David Dunning. “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, no. 6 (1999): 1121–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.77.6.1121.
Nuhfer, Edward, California State University (retired), Steven Fleischer, California State University - Channel Islands, Christopher Cogan, Ventura College, Karl Wirth, Macalester College, Eric Gaze, and Bowdoin College. “How Random Noise and a Graphical Convention Subverted Behavioral Scientists’ Explanations of Self-Assessment Data: Numeracy Underlies Better Alternatives.” Numeracy 10, no. 1 (January 2017). https://doi.org/10.5038/1936–4660.10.1.4.
“Yes, The Dunning-Kruger Effect Really Is Real | Skeptical Inquirer,”
-
Dunning and Kruger defined incompetent to mean “less competent than their peers” and not as an absolute measure. ↩
No comments:
Post a Comment