Video: Dunning-Kruger


Conformity, signalling and confidence itself have nothing to do with this effect.
I love how the video itself misexplains. You can look up the papers.

It’s 2 things – 1. lower IQ assuming everyone is their level. The more quant side. The big find you cannot deny.
2. People inept on a task assuming it must be easy or they can already do it. Example: scrutiny or being good at sex.

This effect is an impersonal test of ability and specifically performance. Self-report differs, but it always does. To some extent people need to be delusional or depressive realism kicks in. The problem is the depth and extent to which is impacts anything else, including memory.
Stupid people have false memories of what smarties said BECAUSE they didn’t understand them.
That is the big take.
They suck on IQ in part because they cannot interpret the question. This is why tests exist. Again, this is why the testing concept exists.
Deep down, they suspect this, and THAT is why they do not link (like this video does not link to a single fucking thing).
It works in reverse, they think they can communicate, a performance task, when they objectively cannot.
The distance of subjective and objective performance is easier to garner on more objective topics and skills.
These types of video stop at wikipedia, and do not link any papers. I won’t because I’ve read so many and each concludes something subtly different. Yet they didn’t link a single thing and had no reason not to. It’s hilarious.
This is like the Schrodinger’s Cat of psychology, basically almost everyone gets it wrong for personal reasons – a false performance which proves the effect. Acting like you get it – and you never read the paper, any paper. Never genuinely understanding something. This is the scary part, most of the talkers know nothing about the subject and their sentences are taken as valid opinions.
I don’t blame normal people for this effect, average 100 IQ-ers. It also involves a lesser known ‘cognitive dissonance’, the two are often mentioned in tandem by scholars who know. *cough cough*
Humility is punished as stupidity, so the average, feeling the distance and squeezed in the middle, pinched by category, will usually arrogantly feign, hoping to wing it. The winging it they know, although this disconnects to their knowledge that isn’t -knowledge on the topic. Later, they misremember, false memories are yet another topic and these are highly related but distinct, no wonder normal people can’t cite them.
Misconceptions are not lies, lying to third parties is still a lie and they chose never to check, there’s no cover for that.

They’re bluffing, the bad boss who can’t do their own work for example.

Referencing my first point, low IQ people have shitty metacognition. They don’t know, but they don’t know that. They cannot argue for this reason, especially with a person who has new and scary opinions. They can never be controversial and basically marry the ‘accepted’ and ‘settled’ information in a society. They have no weapon to draw and you can see by some rude comments where this comes in here. Their ego is attached to appearing to people, a way other people have never perceived them. It’s funny because they assume everyone is stupid as they are, another assumption of shitty metacognition that can’t properly read other people either. Hence stupid people online are confused for autistic, the autistic too have shitacular metacognition.

They can’t think and they don’t know what to think.

They pretend they definitely know what they think.

What to do, apart from read around every angle and the original science articles where available?
Note: 99/100, a newspaper will not link to the original science journal paper. They don’t want you to know the truth and possibly disagree with them.

By comparison, I rarely use myself as an authority unless I’m giving a firm opinion. I mean, that’s why you’re here, my take.
I ask a lot of questions. This implies I do not know.
I allow comments that insult me and provide new information. No bubble. The bitchy ones embarrass themselves.
There is a range of references, from other blogs to newspapers to journals.
I do not hide resources I disagree with, on the contrary, I want people to read them, safe in the knowledge other intelligent people will see what I did. Plus it’s fun to mock.
I link papers but not too much.
Nobody’s going to read 200+ links.

Be realistic.

It’s ok to say you dunno.

1. Be civil. 2. Be logical or fair. 3. Do not bore me.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s