Dunning-Kruger Effect

Hi caffeine,try html:test

​

test

​

note that this link does not lead to a proper page because I inserted the square brackets.

​

Enjoy

​

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

So I waded through to the end, wondering if there were any connection with cognitive dissonance. It was not until part 5 that something close came up, regarding the ability of people to process information, how it was easy when the information conformed to their beliefs, but difficult when it didn't. Dunning had this venn diagram: Then I went back to the wiki article on D-K to see if there was a connection.

quote:

---

Original study

​

The psychological phenomenon of illusory superiority was identified as a form of cognitive bias in Kruger and Dunning's 1999 study "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments".[1] The identification derived from the cognitive bias evident in the criminal case of McArthur Wheeler, who robbed banks with his face covered with lemon juice, which he believed would make it invisible to the surveillance cameras. This belief was based on his misunderstanding of the chemical properties of lemon juice as an invisible ink.[2]

​

Other investigations of the phenomenon, such as "Why People Fail to Recognize Their Own Incompetence" (2003), indicate that much incorrect self-assessment of competence derives from the person's ignorance of a given activity's standards of performance.[3] Dunning and Kruger's research also indicates that training in a task, such as solving a logic puzzle, increases people's ability to accurately evaluate how good they are at it.[4]

​

In Self-insight: Roadblocks and Detours on the Path to Knowing Thyself (2005), Dunning described the Dunning—Kruger effect as "the anosognosia of everyday life", referring to a neurological condition in which a disabled person either denies or seems unaware of his or her disability. He stated: "If you're incompetent, you can't know you're incompetent ... The skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is."[5][6]

---

If you lack the skills to recognize incompetence you lack the skills to recognize your own incompetence, but you also lack the skills to recognize competence in others.To connect this to cognitive dissonance:

quote:

---

In A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (1957), Leon Festinger proposed that human beings strive for internal psychological consistency in order to mentally function in the real world. A person who experiences internal inconsistency tends to become psychologically uncomfortable, and so is motivated to reduce the cognitive dissonance, by making changes to justify the stressful behavior, either by adding new parts to the cognition causing the psychological dissonance, or by actively avoiding social situations and contradictory information likely to increase the magnitude of the cognitive dissonance.[1]

​

Magnitude of dissonance

​

The reduction of the psychological stress of cognitive dissonance is a function of the magnitude of the dissonance caused by the existential inconsistency, between two contradictory beliefs held by the person; or by the contradiction between the person's beliefs and an action he or she has taken.[3] Two factors determine the degree of psychological dissonance caused by two conflicting cognitions or by two conflicting actions:

​

1. The importance of cognitions: The greater the personal value of the elements, the greater the magnitude of the dissonance in the relation.
2. Ratio of cognitions: The proportion of dissonant-to-consonant elements.

​

Reduction

​

... In practice, people reduce the magnitude of their cognitive dissonance in four ways:

​

1. Change the behavior or the cognition ...
2. Justify the behavior or the cognition, by changing the conflicting cognition ...
3. Justify the behavior or the cognition by adding new cognitions ...
4. Ignore or deny information that conflicts with existing beliefs ...

---

ie

1. Change an existing belief at odds with apparent reality ...
2. Justify the existing belief, by changing the perception of reality ...
3. Justify the existing belief by adding new beliefs ...
4. Ignore or deny information that conflicts with existing beliefs ...

In debates on this forum we often see people employing {2} and {4}, usually accompanied by their inability to recognize their level of (in)competence in the fields they argue in or the repercussions/consequences of their proposed revisions of science and objective empirical evidence that conflicts with their belief/s ... because they lack the skills to recognize in/competence.We see denial, self-deception and cluelessness ...Enjoy

One can also throw in worldview here

quote:

---

A world view[1] or worldview is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the whole of the individual's or society's knowledge and point of view. A world view can include natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics.[2] ...

​

A worldview can be expressed as the "fundamental cognitive, affective, and evaluative presuppositions a group of people make about the nature of things, and which they use to order their lives."[10]

​

Assessment and comparison

​

One can think of a worldview as comprising a number of basic beliefs which are philosophically equivalent to the axioms of the worldview considered as a logical theory. These basic beliefs cannot, by definition, be proven (in the logical sense) within the worldview precisely because they are axioms, and are typically argued from rather than argued for.[30] However their coherence can be explored philosophically and logically.

​

If two different worldviews have sufficient common beliefs it may be possible to have a constructive dialogue between them.[31]

---

And problems arise for people holding beliefs that are incompatible with the world around them, the evidence for extreme age for the world as an example.Enjoy

That would fall under the self-deception part of the venn diagram: Enabled by the Dunning-Kruger Effect where ignorant/incompetence is unable to recognize their failing ability and think they have a superior understanding. Because they don't know much they think by comparison the scientists (& everyone else) don't know much, so their opinions are equal to the task. Take creation ... please ... Except those who have never done this for any of their beliefs/opinions don't know why it needs to be done to validate those beliefs/opinions. Congrats. But they have to want to learn, and that is another issue. It's the ones that don't want to learn that are the problem. Those that want to learn, do learn, they are the ones who can modify beliefs to conform to reality.EnjoyEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix first quote box.