Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for 'Dunning-Kruger'.


Didn't find what you were looking for? Try searching for:


More search options

  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • News
    • Forum Announcements
    • Science News
    • SFN Blogs
  • Education
    • Homework Help
    • Science Education
  • Sciences
    • Physics
    • Chemistry
    • Biology
    • Mathematics
    • Medical Science
    • Engineering
    • Earth Science
    • Computer Science
    • Amateur Science
    • Other Sciences
  • Philosophy
    • General Philosophy
    • Religion
    • Ethics
  • SmarterThanThat Forums
    • SmarterThanThat Videos
  • Other Topics
    • The Lounge
    • Politics
    • Suggestions, Comments and Support
    • Brain Teasers and Puzzles
    • Speculations
    • Trash Can

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL


Skype


Location


Interests


College Major/Degree


Favorite Area of Science


Biography


Occupation

Found 69 results

  1. Perhaps the Ig Nobel Prize. Dunning-Kruger category. and good catch on the Bingo!
  2. Dunning-Kruger effect It is a bizarre variation on the gambler's fallacy.
  3. Here's a singleverse, what I wrote. I hope it don't get on Goku's goat. If YouTube's where the theory's located I think it's author will get frustrated at many requests for proper citations and more explicit condemnations. There is no way to coat with sugar. 'Tis another case of Dunning-Kruger.
  4. MigL

    Shamima Begum

    Oh, I see, Dimreepr is trying to repeal Dunning-Kruger. When you make stupid choices in your life, everyone else is responsible for the consequences. No wonder some people never learn from their mistakes. They are never held accountable, so they never have to. And in cases of war, John, the participating states grant their combatants some leeway in what would otherwise be considered criminal. IOW killing an enemy combatant is not murder; hadn't you noticed ? Even if ISIS was a state... If she is not a combatant, she can't use that defense and must face the music for any crimes committed. If she is a combatant, she is a prisoner of war, and can be repatriated with ISIS once a peace treaty is signed. Either way, she has some acts to answer for.
  5. Something about the Dunning-Kruger effect goes in here somewhere. I'm not sure what "genius" means in this context. I have not seen much correlation between arrogance and expertise, ability, effectiveness, or accomplishment, in any arena of human life save one - achieving sexual congress with young women. As that is sufficient to explain the persistence of the personality trait, and no other benefit is necessary or visible, the matter can be left there - "genius" seems to be a separate issue.
  6. Kristalris, If mother nature intended the baboons to be the natural leaders, it would already be so, and there would not be the requirement for a "more and more" climb into the role. I am thinking that whatever the dynamics involved, those dynamics are already in action and a "final resolution" or a climb into proper position, is not in the cards, for any personality type, since they are already in their "proper" place. It is probably more of an "orbiting" body problem, such as whether the moon and the earth are orbiting each other, or some center of mass that the two together have established. Arrogance would be thinking the other body revolved around you, ignorant of the actual dynamics. Regards, TAR If intelligent people recognize thier intelligence (mass) it does not eliminate their gravity and pull on the local system, but allows for the consideration of the mass around which the local system is orbiting. This might explain the Dunning-Kruger thing.
  7. Q .If it's a verified law of physics, then stop claiming things which contradict it are true, or that things included in it are false. EQ So this is untrue (last sentence)? Gravitational redshift has been measured in the laboratory[/size]%5B52%5D and using astronomical observations.[/size]%5B53%5D Gravitational time dilation in the Earth's gravitational field has been measured numerous times using [/size]atomic clocks,[/size]%5B54%5D while ongoing validation is provided as a side effect of the operation of the [/size]Global Positioning System (GPS).[/size]%5B55%5D Tests in stronger gravitational fields are provided by the observation of [/size]binary pulsars.[/size]%5B56%5D All results are in agreement with general relativity.[/size]%5B57%5D However, at the current level of accuracy, these observations cannot distinguish between general relativity and other theories in which the equivalence principle is valid.[/size]%5B58%5D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity#Consequences_of_Einstein.27s_theory Q That's not how it works. GR has an actual framework with a mathematical model. It' not enough to say you give the same answers but then tell a fairy tale about how it all works, as a substitute for the science. EQ Well it is how it should work as a dictate of logic yet we agree it doesn't. Every hypothesis with or without mathematics can be seen as a fairy tale. If you only use mathematics to describe the world you create for yourself the illusion of a world without any assumptions (being just that). In effect you think you can pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. You always have assumptions because you can't measure everything. In fact you should then also oppose making different scenarios at a crime scene on the basis of very little data. These are fairy tales in effect. Being checked regularly these lead to quick results. They show you where to look for say dna. The police can't swipe the entire crime scene. Q Your proposal is trivially false. That you do not recognize this is the problem. EQ You want someone else to work an idea out until there is hardly any risk anymore. And then you want to claim the success for science. Q Oh good grief, this is a special kind of denial. Your statements are recorded for everyone to see. "On what evidence do you base the claim - if any - that GR holds true outside the SM?" only makes sense if one assumes GR is part of the SM. Otherwise why would one have to worry about the validity outside of the SM? EQ Of course not. Let us say that the entire SM is proven wrong. Would that leave GR unaffected? They are interlinked.What I'm saying is you can't say that GR is valid in places where all or even most of the particles of SM can not be assumed to exist. Q What sub SM particles? EQ The ignored ones. Q Photons exerting gravity is part of GR. Yes, I work with photons. And gravity, in a sense. But not for the purpose of testing GR, though we've been able to do that as a result. EQ Well then do you state that photons exert gravity? And if so has this been experimentally observed? If so,isn't above mentioned wikipedia page wrong? Q Not at all. I think n-1 of everyone reading this can spot the farce. EQ 0 no data. Very funny. specially that the data we have show mounting questions. Those data scream for an testable explanation. I give that. Q You haven't made any predictions on physics. You haven't given any quantified testable predictions. Until you do, I reject the label that it is testable. EQ Going to order or not is accurate enough for mathematical testing as is to check whether speeding up raises gravity. Illogical impractical formalism. Q Of the two of us, only one actually does science. EQ So? This reminds me of a Josh Billings quote "It ain't ignorance causes so much trouble; it's folks knowing so much that ain't so." EQ My words exactly. Q You are claiming a lot of things that just aren't true. EQ Such as? Q Funding sources are not an issue in regard to fundamental physics errors. EQ Got to go. Reproducible verification requires a mathematical model, and a precise prediction. agree That's not what you said on page 1 of this thread (emphasis added): I think he means don't misconstrue his posts to mean that he agrees with you. Yes. I find the Dunning-Kruger effect fascinating. Mine is to keep the milkman out of the operating room, because he has nothing constructive to offer.
  8. I was once tempted to ask a poster (who was being belligerent in the face of being corrected) if that's how they would talk to a teacher, because basically that was the situation. Then I realized the answer might very well be "yes". I imagine there are a lot of people who think that teachers are only bossy people, and don't actually know things. Unfortunately I think the scenario is that Dunning-Kruger is as Dunning-Kruger does. A person might not defer to a better authority on a topic, if s/he is convinced that s/he has mastered it, but lacks the ability to actually know whether or not mastery has been achieved. I don't know what the solution is.
  9. ! Moderator Note No. It's clear you don't understand relativity. There are people who make a living using this science, and they're trying to tell you you are WRONG. You are a classic example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, and you overrate your knowledge and abilities in science to such an extent that you've resorted to insisting you're right but can't show anyone else. You clearly aren't trying to remedy this ignorance, and you're ignoring any attempts to help you. Worse, you seem convinced everyone who understands relativity is in a conspiracy against you, and your bias is so strong that you become further convinced you're being tricked. You reached your conclusions emotionally, so any rational attempt to reason with you fails. You won't be fit to discuss anything with until you solve this personal problem. You can't keep posting here if all you're going to do is guess while insisting you're right. I can't continue to put the rest of the membership through the kind of denial hell you inflict on discussions. You're suspended pending staff review, and I'm going to recommend that, because you can't follow the rules we have, we ban you so you can find a place that appreciates your remolding of science.
  10. https://www.quora.com/ Not all highly intelligent people are psychologically healthy and well adjusted. Highly intelligent people aren't naturally great problem solvers... aren't naturally able to express themselves clearly... don't like criticism... They come with good hardware, that doesn't mean they are naturally able to do things that are learned skills like express themselves clearly or solving a problem in a domain. They can learn them quickly, but their skills are not innate. They also think very deeply about the ideas they come across. So much so that they trust themselves over everyone and criticism is likely to be dismissed or considered wrong. It may very well hurt their pride if they are shown to be wrong. The older they get, the more likely they'll listen to your criticism, but don't expect it to be much more than an external courtesy. If they are willing to listen and open to being wrong, they will argue the point for the specific reason of understanding - arguing is a way of testing the idea (they seem to have the attitude if you’re going to change their mind, you better be right). They are quick thinkers, and are always thinking. They are able to hold lots of information in their head at a time and create relationships where someone their own age would generally miss them. Key phrase is "their own age". Someone older and wiser should perform just as well as a younger, very intelligent person in knowledge based situations. Also, their minds are always on, and they spend inordinately more time thinking about an issue than your average person. They like ideas because they're minds are wired that way. Thinking and expanding their minds is enjoyable. Making connections is enjoyable. I would liken this to someone who's athletic that enjoys working out, or someone who is "emotional" who really enjoys the vast differing emotions in a life. The highly intelligent interact with their minds like those two types of people do with their bodies or emotions. Because of their propensity to exercise their minds, they learn new things all the time and think they've understood it beyond their real level. That might be on a higher initial level than your average person learning the same thing, but the highly intelligent might very well drop the topic thinking they know it well enough to satisfy themselves. Someone less intelligent will be able to outperform them on such topics the highly intelligent has decided they know enough of. After they've sated their desire for knowledge on a topic, they have a tendency to "Dunning-Kruger" themselves on that topic. Ergo, they are not an expert on everything, but will know a hell of a lot and think they know more than they do. They seem to underachieve because of that lack of perspective on their own knowledge level more often than fully realize themselves. They are poor judges of themselves because they have so little bearing on what average is in terms of intelligence. They'll easily rate someone with 15 points less IQ as the same as themselves. If they're told enough how smart they are, they'll develop an annoying ego and arrogance that is hard to deal with later in life (both for the highly intelligent and the people around them). Intelligent people seem to make it through on the knife edge of life into intellectual success (meaning making money off their intellects). Most topple and sever themselves into two people - the highly intelligent person, who they truly are, that comes out every so often (when sparked), and the mind numbed person they become because working a dull job kills them just as much as anyone. (I always associated this “failure” with underachievement, and acceptance of it, earlier in life). Those in the mind numbing jobs look at those who built the rockets to the moon and say “I could have done that” and then get wistful. All of this is, of course, my opinion and is based only on my life's experience. I very well may have a poor perception of highly intelligent people, but those listed are very common traits among the ones I've seen, warts and all.
  11. I've always felt that one is a bit of a double-edged sword. After all, if it turns out you really don't know what you're on about, but you brought up Dunning-Kruger... Well, I'll certainly give it a read, but I can't promise solid comprehension of post-graduate topics when (as stated before) I don't have the pre-graduate background. Thanks again, though!
  12. ! Moderator Note OK - thread locked. I did ask people to be nice in their critique and for responses to criticism to be measured; the first few posts after my modnote were completely at odds with that request. The thread may be re-opened when other staff members who are not already involved in the thread are here to moderate the discussion. DrKrettin Accusations of being an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect is not something we like to see bandied around - it is insulting and provocative; but your later post crosses the line from potentially insulting to outright abuse. Please stop - it will not be tolerated.
  13. Ok. So you just want to argue semantics. Philosophy is completely lost on you. It’s like listening to a TED talk. You’d be an incredible subject for a case study on the Dunning-Kruger effect.
  14. You don't have to be sorry, but you are being utterly ridiculous. I think we have had this conversation before. Your command of English is very poor, but your conceit prevents you from seeing it. Another repeated example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
  15. It's related to the Dunning-Kruger effect
  16. I've given your post a +1 reputation upvote. Thank you for providing, in your writing, a classic example of pseudoscience. You've managed to capture so many of its diagnostic features in only two paragraphs. Well done. Dunning-Kruger would be proud of you. /reflective despair
  17. True. The people who show up to argue the contrary-to-science viewpoint typically aren't here to learn, but rather to instigate and pontificate, and it invariably ends up that they don't have much of an understanding of what they are critiquing (both the details of the science and often, generally how science is done). It's not just climate change where this occurs. IOW, can't be addressed as an information gap problem, because they don't think they have an information gap. (See also: Dunning-Kruger syndrome)
  18. You can parade your Dunning-Kruger mental misfires around all you want, and the folks here are going to try to patiently explain where you have gone wrong, but you can't keep insulting people personally and stay here. We attack ideas here, not people. And we attack ideas to make them better, stronger, more trustworthy. I don't think you understand that any better than you do science.
  19. I think that may not be far from the truth. Much of the world seems to exist in a miasma of cognitive dissonance, where the Dunning-Kruger effect can get you elected to high office. If I were a rational person I would be a pessimist. It's only my irrationality that keeps me optimistic.
  20. So, instead of Dunning-Kruger, perhaps we call this Bungling-Reviewer.
  21. So does anyone remember the much mocked claims made by the hippies and whackos and anti-science victims of Dunning-Kruger, to the effect that one of the serious problems with the major GMOs currently marketed was their all but inevitable breeding of resistance to the relatively benign herbicides and pesticides they exploited (Bt and glyphosate), with various consequences all generally unfortunate (especially: the loss of the better chemicals to responsible use)? Among the expected consequences - expected by the Luddites etc - was to be an expansion of the GMs involved to include increasingly less benign chemicals (and of course an increasingly complex mixture of adjuvants and auxiliary stuff not available for public viewing or governmental regulation). Some update: http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/24d-captan/24d-ext.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic_acid http://www2.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/registration-enlist-duo http://www.gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/15902-farmers-and-ngos-condemn-usda-approval-of-monsanto-s-gm-dicamba-tolerant-soybeans-and-cotton http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/10/15/enlist-duo-everything-you-need-to-know-about-new-dual-herbicide-resistant-crops/ The money quote is buried about half way down, in which he validly and responsibly states (possibly for protection of whatever future his reputation still has) that his arguments in the rest of the essay do not apply to the real world: since the entire reason for the new products is to handle situations in which glyphosate resistant weeds have become a problem, and farmers do not follow best practices that cost them serious money, that combination is the real world circumstance of their use. http://www.croplife.com/crop-inputs/adjuvants/spray-drift-enters-more-complex-era/ http://msdssearch.dow.com/PublishedLiteratureDAS/dh_092a/0901b8038092a9ec.pdf?filepath=enlist/pdfs/noreg/010-80241.pdf&fromPage=GetDoc Meanwhile: http://pratoslimpos.org.br/?cat=4 Anyone with some Spanish or familiarity with Latin word roots in English can get the drift of the Portuguese - essentially, the article reports that in 2015 non-GM soybeans in Brazil gave around 5-6% higher yields (solidly consistent with most other side by side comparisons of such crops) and between 10% and 180% higher profits per acre (that’s less typical), compared with the two varieties of GM soybeans marketed there by Monsanto. There’s a problem, in that the acreage of the non-GM was comparatively restricted in scale and distribution - the comparison should be viewed warily. Also, I have no familiarity with Brazilian sources. But that restriction itself reveals a further problem with the GM soybeans: the seed market in Brazil is (essentially) controlled by Monsanto, and Monsanto enforces an 85/15 GMO/Conventional seed ratio in its Brazilian sales. So conventional seed is often not available. That is part of the reason so much acreage is planted in what by now is seen by many farmers to be less profitable crops And in the side topics: http://www.gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/16557-seralini-s-team-and-criigen-win-two-court-cases-about-their-research-on-toxicity-of-gmos-and-pesticides
  22. Ehh... There do indeed exist people who seem to be optimized for their job/hobby/sport/vocation/et cetera, but there's plenty more people who indulge in a field who are average or even bad at it. For instance, there are plenty of rotten painters, singers, and dancers, but you never really see these people because their work isn't put on display. There are plenty of people who, through the Dunning-Kruger effect consistently overrate their own skill. There are also people who believe that because they are okay or successful in one field, this intelligence spills over into another field which they know nothing about. It seems ideal to be at the top of the vocation that you choose, but unless you win the genetic/environment lottery, it probably won't happen.
  23. I'm hoping for a big Archie Bunker effect to move folks in that direction. 99% of us know something has to change, so hopefully enough people will see him as the antithesis of what we want to become. I have to admit that it would be interesting to see if Congress based a no-confidence declaration on his connections to Russia, or if they'd go after his obvious shortcomings with... most everything. Could Congress make the case that he's a victim of Dunning-Kruger effect on a level never seen before?
  24. Watch out for the fakes. Once I almost donated to the Wetlands Defense Fund, until I found out it was a group of farmers and ranchers who wanted to defend their right to do whatever they felt like doing to the wetlands on their property. I see this as akin to destroying the rainforests by defending Brazil's right to commerce. Some things are just bigger than an area, or a state or country. I'm also curious how Trump supporters view this latest move. To me, the Trump just gave up the catbird seat at the head of the negotiations table when it comes to climate and energy production for the next 50 years. Even "clean coal" wanted him to stay in the accord, because they know it's better to have a voice than not. It's becoming more obvious to me every day that Trump's business has survived mostly on momentum and size, and not on any skill on his part. He is convinced he's the world's best negotiator, but I think it's a Dunning-Kruger worthy self-assessment. His Carrier deal was ludicrous, he botched the Israeli situation by screwing up the message between himself and our ambassador, he's let his short-fuse temper send sincere partnerships down the toilet (*cough* hung up on Australian PM *cough*), he claimed to back the AHCA "100%" before it was even written (which he claimed on the campaign trail had already been written), and it's clear that he doesn't even do the basic research every negotiator does pro forma. The man doesn't read, but he thinks he can read people.
  25. If it's a verified law of physics, then stop claiming things which contradict it are true, or that things included in it are false. That's not how it works. GR has an actual framework with a mathematical model. It' not enough to say you give the same answers but then tell a fairy tale about how it all works, as a substitute for the science. Your proposal is trivially false. That you do not recognize this is the problem. Oh good grief, this is a special kind of denial. Your statements are recorded for everyone to see. "On what evidence do you base the claim - if any - that GR holds true outside the SM?" only makes sense if one assumes GR is part of the SM. Otherwise why would one have to worry about the validity outside of the SM? What sub SM particles? Photons exerting gravity is part of GR. Yes, I work with photons. And gravity, in a sense. But not for the purpose of testing GR, though we've been able to do that as a result. Not at all. I think n-1 of everyone reading this can spot the farce. You haven't made any predictions on physics. You haven't given any quantified testable predictions. Until you do, I reject the label that it is testable. Of the two of us, only one actually does science. This reminds me of a Josh Billings quote "It ain't ignorance causes so much trouble; it's folks knowing so much that ain't so." You are claiming a lot of things that just aren't true. Funding sources are not an issue in regard to fundamental physics errors. Reproducible verification requires a mathematical model, and a precise prediction. That's not what you said on page 1 of this thread (emphasis added): I think he means don't misconstrue his posts to mean that he agrees with you. Yes. I find the Dunning-Kruger effect fascinating. Mine is to keep the milkman out of the operating room, because he has nothing constructive to offer.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.