Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Untitled

To some, the Kruger Dunning effect is more a matter of believe. Looking at the original paper it appears that the estimated quality of ones own performance is almost independent of the actual test performance: all test subjects rated themselves with 55 to 70%. Hence, test performance and the own perception of test performance may not be related at all, since both smart and clueless people responded with the same standard guess.

Or, to put it into a better phrase: All people think that they are smart.  :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.151.220 (talk) 11:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not what the paper actually demonstrated. Much more interesting are the changes in self-evaluation after seeing the work of others and after receiving training. Incompetent people do not change their inflated estimates of themselves even when presented with the work of others, but they do change after receiving training — thus becoming more competent, and more capable of evaluating their previous poor performance. Conversely, highly competent people fall prey to the false consensus effect and underestimate themselves because they assume everyone is as good as they are, barring evidence to the contrary. Training increases both the estimate of their own competence (since they receive confirmation that they were correct) and of their competence with respect to others.

It is true that all (or most) people think they are above average, which is probably just a mechanism for keeping a positive (and hence productive) self-image. What the paper demonstrated was that a large factor in why incompetent people do not recognize their own incompetence is because they cannot competently evaluate their performance. They suck even at knowing that they suck.

If you're bad at something you're also likely to be bad at recognizing that you're bad at it. Obviously this applies much less to tasks where success or failure can be trivially correlated with the results and/or do not require knowledge to establish (your ability in cooking a nice souffle is easily measured by tasting the end result) but many tasks are complicated and/or knowledge-based, and the outcome is not immediately obvious to relate to one's own ability. JRM · Talk 10:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That jibes with my memory of it. However, there is little value to discussing this on the talk page. Why not improve the article itself? Uucp 10:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Another study showed that 80% of all questions related to Wikipedia editing can be answered with "because I'm lazy". :-) Actually, I only wrote the above because I'd just read the paper and the remark I replied to seemed inappropriate. You're quite right that the article could use some attention too, however. I don't know whether the "Dunning-Kruger effect" doesn't happen to be exactly what the anon describes, though; I'm not a psychology student. I'll see if I can expand on the description of the paper in the next few days. (I'm off to catch a train, so I have a good excuse this time. :-) JRM · Talk 11:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

---

I found this to be interesting (from [1] ) <>< tbc 19:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

In a final experiment, Dunning and Kruger set out to discover if training would help modify the exaggerated self-perceptions of incapable subjects. In fact, a short training session in logical reasoning did improve the ability of low-scoring subjects to assess their performance realistically, they found.

The findings, the psychologists said, support Thomas Jefferson's assertion that "he who knows best knows how little he knows."

paper critique

All that the paper finds is that in domains where competence and metacognitive ability (to use their terms) are the same -- as they are in black and white knowledge-based domains such as knowing whether "I walk" or "Walk I" is grammatical English -- that competence and metacognitive ability are the same. What a surprise. Fortunately they do mention something like this at the end:

When can the incompetent be expected to overestimate themselves because of their lack of skill? Although our data do not speak to this issue directly, we believe the answer depends on the domain under consideration. Some domains, like those examined in this article, are those in which knowledge about the domain confers competence in the domain. Individuals with a great understanding of the rules of grammar or inferential logic, for example, are by definition skilled linguists and logicians. In such domains, lack of skill implies both the inability to perform competently as well as the inability to recognize competence, and thus are also the domains in which the incompetent are likely to be unaware of their lack of skill.
In other domains, however, competence is not wholly dependent on knowledge or wisdom, but depends on other factors, such as physical skill. One need not look far to find individuals with an impressive understanding of the strategies and techniques of bas- ketball, for instance, yet who could not "dunk" to save their lives. (These people are called coaches.) Similarly, art appraisers make a living evaluating fine calligraphy, but know they do not possess the steady hand and patient nature necessary to produce the work themselves. In such domains, those in which knowledge about the domain does not necessarily translate into competence in the domain, one can become acutely—even painfully—aware of the limits of one's ability. In golf, for instance, one can know all about the fine points of course management, club selection, and effective "swing thoughts," but one's incompetence will become sorely obvious when, after watching one's more able partner drive the ball 250 yards down the fairway, one proceeds to hit one's own ball 150 yards down the fairway, 50 yards to the right, and onto the hood of that 1993 Ford Taurus.

All that they really show is that the incompetents overestimate the number of questions that they themselves got right. And that people assign themselves a percentile score of a bit above average when presented with a group of people of unknown ability.
Furthermore I have to point out that they got their answer to the example with the cards wrong. For their answer to be correct you need to make the additional assumption that each card has a letter on one side and a number on the other. The correct answer without that extra assumption is A and 4 (as they say) but also B which might have E on its other side.
So what is this Dunning-Kruger effect??? --MarSch 17:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Notable enough?

This "effect" doesn't seem to satisfy notability concerns. Even though it was published, there doesn't seem to be third-party evaluation of this theory. Can anyone find sources? .V. _[Talk|Email] 07:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Try Googling for "dunning" and "kruger". There are hundreds of thousands of hits, both online and traditional print publications. They don't all call it the "Dunning-Kruger effect" but they are discussing this phenomenon sometimes with slightly different names. Uucp 12:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure these aren't the only people who have the names Dunning and Kruger. As such, there's no surprise there would be plenty of hits. But are there third-party reliable sources that don't simply report the study? I'm talking about replicating the study, etc. .V. _[Talk|Email] 20:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I added a couple of new papers to the page. There are others too Codec 21:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

V, try typing it into Google yourself; there are pages and pages of citations clearly about this study. Uucp 02:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I've not heard of this study being replicated, but it *did* win an ignobel award. imho, that ads to it's notability. (and I was surprised that this wasn't mentioned on the page... Nemo 07:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Check the Deletion log on Wikipedia. While not evidence of Dunning–Kruger effect/Archive 1's notability, it certainly is evidence of the effect, as Wikipedia attracts a steady flood of new users who vastly overestimate their competence at creating new articles appropriate for Wikipedia. A common scenario seems to be that a new user has little or no knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and yet assumes that no such knowledge is necessary. On the Help desk we get a steady stream of folks asking Why was my article deleted?, and it often turns out they are really demanding to know why Wikipedia does not conform to their ignorant and wildly erroneous assumptions about how it works. Clearly, vast numbers of people do conclude they know everything they need to know about completely new and unfamiliar subjects. That is why Dunning and Kruger's work has been so widely cited; see for example: Google:Incompetent and unaware of it which produces many citations such as this one. --Teratornis 22:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

im sure that if you look in places like usenet and forum archives from around that AOL users got access to the world wide web, you will see it start to develope. and even today, you can still see people who seem to have this delusion of knowing more about things than other people. Just look at Loose Change and you will see experts in fields pretend that they are experts in totaly unrelated, or very barely related fields of science. --Alphamone 02:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we site this discussion as an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect?

I suggest this article is renamed to "Explanation of Youtube and digg.com comments"

Implications?

Can someone write up implications of this effect? Or examples of its implications? Comments observed in many high-traffic websites / services might be an example. What about in business, at home, at play? Jackvinson 22:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe: http://xkcd.com/202/ Yishan 00:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The implication is simply that human nature poses major limitations on the improvement of human society. A good example is that the events of September 2008 proved some theories (or aspects of theories) about economics false. However, what we found in 2009, is that those same theories massively grew in popularity and this affected election results. A similar phenomenon occurred in 1937/1938.

This effect is not noticed due to the difference between concrete knowledge - such as how to fix a television - and abstract knowledge - such as how to achieve peace in the Middle East.

The effect has lately been greatly strengthened by media's desire to pander to viewers in order to increase viewership. For example, after a report on the Middle East, they ask viewers "tell us what you think". The absurdity of this is either lost on media members, or they do it cynically. No one would want their brain surgeon to ask onlookers what they thought ! (Or even their TV repairman.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.220.4 (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The media have been interviewing random members of the public about anything and everything for as long as they have existing, only the precise methods used have changed. --86.161.77.208 (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Is the report of the Ames and Kammrath study misleading?

Daniel Ames and Lara Kammrath extended this work to sensitivity to others, and the subjects' perception of how sensitive they were.[3]

Some more work by Burson Larrick and Joshua Klayman[4] has suggested that the effect is not so obvious and may be due to noise and bias levels.

The statement regarding the work by Ames and Kammrath appears to apply to the whole article, rather than just the preceeding paragraph.

While their work does bring doubt regarding the extension of the effect regarding sensitivity, it does not raise any questions regarding the 4 core assertions.

The study by Ames and Kammrath test for social judgement and mind-reading.

Dunning and Kruger tested for humor, grammar, and logic.

The Dunning-Kruger effect predicts that the persons ability to asses a skill is improved when their own skill level is raised.

Mind reading, however, is not a skill that can be acquired. It is therefore impossible to raised the presons skill level in order to observe the Dunning-Kruger effect.

It may be possible to improve somebodies social judgement, but it is still a difficult skill to measure. As a skill becomes more difficult to measure, then it also become more difficult to estimate. It is also possible for false measurements to be introduced.

Grammar and logic, on the other hand, are hard skills that can be both taught and measured.

This gives two qualities for a skill: measurability and acquirability.

Mind reading is a skill that cannot be acquired.

Social judgement and humour are difficult to acquire and measure.

Grammar and Logic can be consistently acquired and measured.

The Dunning-Kruger effect should show strongest in the last category, but is not addressed in the Ames and Kammrath study. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ged Byrne (talk • contribs) 10:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Downing effect?

Doesn't this sound like the same topic: Downing effect? Can these be merged? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minnaert (talk • contribs) on 4 March 2008.

It is most definitely the same topic. Famspear (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

against this simply isnt the same effect. the dunning kruger effect can explain the lower IQs over estimating but not the higher IQs underestimating.--77.99.150.12 (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

against Positive illusions and negative illusions tend to spring from different sources. Although both self-assessment effects seem on the surface to be each other's complement, best current research suggests different root causes: failure of metacognition and perhaps self-serving bias in this one, false consensus and perhaps a measuring bar set differently solely as the result of a greater background of knowledge in the other. However, since "failure of metacognition" is still being explained, it is possible that future research may uncover a unifying foundation between these two.

As long as we are looking at what does and does not belong together

1) "imposter syndrome" probably could be merged with the downing effect, since they derive from similar causes and appear to fall at different points along the same spectrum.

2) For the same reason, could the "Lake Wobegon effect" article and this one be merged into a single "above average effect" article?

- Tenebris

Someone has already started absorbing the content of the Downing effect article into Illusory superiority (Link updated 7 March 2009), and I've made an attempt to include the Dunning and Kruger material in that article. Contra User 77.99.150.12 above, Kruger and Dunning did also find that the highest performing subjects underestimated their performance, due to a ceiling effect. I'd have rather one reallly good article than four or five (at present) patchy and slightly different articles. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Since the highest performing subjects underestimated their performance this is not a subset of illusory superiority. Should be kept distinct from illusory superiority. --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Title constitutes original research

Naming this effect the "Dunning-Kruger effect" constitutes Original Research: I haven't seen it called that in the literature. Dunning and Kruger showed that superiority bias/illusory superiority is greater for people who are the least competent, in the context of well-defined tasks. Hence it's misleading to give this effect its own article. Instead it should be a section in an article on superiority bias. You can't clearly explain what the paper says without introducing superiority bias, as the current version of the article unfortunately illustrates. WP has at least two other articles on superiority bias: Lake Wobegon effect and Overconfidence effect. All of these have major flaws as encyclopedia articles. I will have a day working on WP on Tuesday 27th May: I will try to sort these issues out then.13:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)MartinPoulter (talk)

I somewhat agree that the naming may original research (i.e. the sources do not prove that the term Dunning-Kruger effect is used, they only explain the phenomenon without using that name. Google Scholar only delivers to hits for the term Dunning-Kruger effect and 1 hit for its German version, that is indeed pretty thin. However here is another scientific paper that apparently uses the term: [2]. Being bold one might say to justify the name for the lemma, however being cautious WP might be well advised not using that term, until there's better evidence that it has indeed become a common term within the scientific community (and within psychology community in particular).--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I share this concern Power.corrupts (talk) 10:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps when this first was posted, it was somewhat original. But it has hit the standard and is no longer a debatable issue, I'd say. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolved-primate/201006/when-ignorance-begets-confidence-the-classic-dunning-kruger-effect is an article from June of 2010 from Psychology Today, about the "classic" (no less) Dunning-Kruger effect. Since it is well into the year 2012 as I write, I would say that the argument in this section is definitely moot. Shoe (talk) 04:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hyphen/en dash

"Dunning-Kruger effect" should not have an en dash. If Olivia Newton-John was one of the co-writers of the paper, or if it were generally known as the "David Dunning–Justin Kruger effect" it would, but you use a hyphen if it's just two single-word names like this.—Chowbok ☠ 04:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not what WP:DASH says, and a very recent attempt to change it failed. It has "diode–transistor logic" as a specific example for "some uses of and, to, or versus" with a dash, and MOS has the even more relevant Michelson–Morley experiment as an example of an article that is spelled with a dash and therefore needs a redirect from the version with a hyphen. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Weird thing is, that single dash comes across as THREE character codes when copied and pasted. Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect What's with that? Chrome and Firefox understand the weirdness and automatically change the displayed characters. IE8 understands it but keeps the three codes displayed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 10:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a three-byte character. Unicode is like that. Algebraist 13:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Socrates

If I had more energy I'd read the original papers and see if the authors referenced Socrates- "I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance", and suggested an illustrative quote for the effect would be "I know everything except the fact of my ignorance", but I am a lazy individual. Ninahexan (talk) 04:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Colbert example

I'm not sure of the meaning of the Colbert example — is my following explanation correct? I'll say: "The character of Stephen Colbert (not the actor himself) manifests the D-K effect". Nyttend (talk) 03:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge - Demerge

Note that this article was merged with illusory superiority and then demerged. Demerged because the highly competent "suffer" from illusory inferiority.--Michael C. Price ^talk 10:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It might be very useful to have a section that compares, contrasts, and contextualizes this phenomenon with related ones. In fact, such a section might tell readers more about this effect than a plain description, as it would clearly indicate the boundaries. Do you think that you could write something like that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but I'm sure I could contribute. Finding an agreed term to cover everything might difficult.--Michael C. Price ^talk 20:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a single term would be necessarily required. It's probably good enough to say things like "It differs from illusory superiority in the effect on highly competent people" (which is what I gather from your comment above). I'd guess that about half of the terms in ==See also== could be useful into this section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I mean a single term for an umbrella article's name.--Michael C. Price ^talk 21:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking about just a section in this article, not a new article -- sort of a differential diagnosis list to direct readers to other concepts if this isn't quite what they're after. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Heroes of Newerth

Should it be noted somewhere in this article the online community for the game known as the "Heroes of Newerth" is a perfect case study for this effect? 69.157.123.116 (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Broken link

The link to the first reference is broken: http://www.apa.org/404-error.aspx?url=http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf gives "Page Not Found". I fixed it by following the pubmed link: http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121

Informationtheory (talk) 05:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Neologisms policy

Adding to my previously-voiced concerns that this article is Original Research, I note this policy: WP:NEO. This article might violate "A new term does not belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term — not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing." The terms I'm thinking of are both the article title and "illusory inferiority". What do others think?

Also, it still seems to be the case that none of the article's references actually mention "Dunning–Kruger effect". In order to keep the article in existence, we need some appropriate sources, and that's before we get to the neologism issue above. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The quoted phrase "Dunning-Kruger effect" gets a third of a million hits at my FWSE -- and that's after excluding any page that includes the words "wiki" or "Wikipedia". I do not think that your belief that the name is just made up by editors in violation of our policies or naming conventions can be supported by any objective evidence.

It's normal for a new effect to be called one thing by the original authors (whom conventional modesty prohibits naming an effect after themselves), another by early respondents to the idea, and a third thing (conventionally an eponymous name referring to the original authors) in the end. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's already been established that there are lots of hits for the phrase, although they almost always seem to be based on Wikipedia. The article was created on Wikipedia on 22 July 2005. I do not think that there is objective evidence that the phrase originated in the academic community before this time. I welcome being shown I'm wrong: just find me some references. Of course, references that are based on the article are not acceptable.

The crucial thing is, who decides that this was a distinct phenomenon from other documented psychological phenomena, warranting its own term? If it's the academic community, then why aren't those references present in the article? MartinPoulter (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged the article as original research until appropriate sources are provided. MartinPoulter (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Martin, you're sounding like a broken gramophone record; we been through this before. The origins of the terms are irrelevant, as has been previously explained, and I refer you back to those discussions. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, the name itself can't violate WP:NOR, because it does not make any conclusions. "That thing that Dunning and Kruger wrote about" is clearly the subject of this article, and the page name indicates exactly (and only) that.

Of course, if you think that a different name is more widely accepted among experts and other reliable sources, then please feel free to propose it. There must be a name for this page, even if no "real" name exists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

True. But a real name does exist, as google scholar demonstrates. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I find exactly the name we're using at Google Scholar. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I'm aware that since this article has existed, the term has been adopted in some peer-reviewed literature. For that reason, there's a prima facie case for an article, but other conditions have to be met. Are any of those references used in this article? If not, how do we know that this article's definition matches that given in the literature? The article doesn't answer "What exactly is the Dunning-Kruger effect" in a securely non-OR way.

Note that the Change blindness article was merged into Introspection illusion: even though they are two terms used in academic sources, they cover so much of the same thing that there wasn't a case for having two separate articles.

I also note that when Michael C. Price de-merged the article, he changed the definition so that "the effect is composed of illusory superiority and illusory inferiority". It's not clear what sources this redefinition was based on, and why "illusory inferiority" (which itself looks like a WP:NEO) is used rather than Worse-than-average effect. You have to admit, it at least looks like a blatant case of original research.

I don't see how either or your posts address the WP:NEO policy with which I started this thread. "the name itself can't violate WP:NOR" doesn't address WP:NEO.

Apologies if I'm sounding like a broken record, but wikipedia still has No Original Research as one of its core policies, just as it did when I first raised this issue. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You should try reading the sources given before making OR accusations. Illusory superiority and inferiority are both described in the DK original paper.--Michael C. Price ^talk 14:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I've posted about this issue at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Dunning-Kruger_effect. My accusation is that your (re)definition of the D-K effect is itself OR. I don't dispute the content of the D-K paper itself. You haven't provided a source (after all this time) backing up your definition. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No OR at all. Their paper states that the highly competent underestimate their abilities. Do you dispute that? --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

So does the article Groupthink, a term that predates Dunning-Kruger (1972[3] vs 1999[4]).I concur with MartinPoulter that the so called "Dunning-Kruger" is a neologism and trying to pad the article with original research to make it look more like an established topic is not acceptable. Perhaps the topics Groupthink, Illusory superiority or Dunning-Kruger are not defined identifically, but they address the same subject matter, and to present this as a new theory is disingenious. There really needs to be merger of this article into one or more more notable topics. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sufficient overlap with groupthink? You must be kidding. BTW the OR claim was rejected at the OR noticeboard. As for merging, critical information would be lost, as we already saw with the previously clumsy merge. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I also find the groupthink claim to be untenable. "Everybody in the team meeting followed the leader's suggestion -- right over the cliff" is not the same as "When an average individual is filling out an anonymous survey in his own home, he's very likely to incorrectly claim that he has above-average driving skills". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate quotations in lead?

We now have stand-out quotations in the lead from William Butler Yeats, Bertrand Russell and the Prairie Home Companion, none of whom are specifically talking about the Dunning–Kruger effect, or who (so far as I can see) are having their quotation invoked by an academic who has considered it a relevant or useful example. A few individual editors saying "you know, this reminds me of a quotation I heard once" seems like WP:OR from here, and cquoted one-liners in the lead doesn't seem to fit with Wikipedia's aesthetics (where "a quotation is visually on the page, but its relevance is not explained"). What do other editors think? --McGeddon (talk) 10:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The Russell quote seems the most appropriate (IMO it does directly relate to the article, whereas the others do not.) Does the relevance of quotes have to be explicitly sourced? Not as far as I know, as long as they are left to speak for themselves. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing the context of quotes ensures that they're relevant to the subject, and aren't misrepresenting the speaker (Russell is actually talking about the rise of British fascism in the 1930s, which is possibly a little off-topic here), or pushing the viewpoint of an individual editor. There's actually a good example of a tangential quotation being used correctly later in the article, where we mention Kruger and Dunning using a phrase of Darwin's in their own paper.

Do many other Wikipedia articles have tangential little quotes in the lead? I haven't seen it elsewhere, and I assume that's because it's discouraged by the "relevance is not explained" of WP:QUOTE. --McGeddon (talk) 12:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that I have seen other articles with similar quotes.

But I like the Russell quote especially because it says it all in a nutshell. I didn't know it was about fascism -- I must look up the context. But does that matter? Does the quote, standing alone without commentary, make the article more comprehensible? I think it does.

--Michael C. Price ^talk 13:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The Russell and Yeats quotes aptly describe the effect. In my view, their pertinence is so glaringly obvious that it needs no further explanation. Dunning and Kruger did not invent their eponymous effect; they described and quantified something that poets, philosophers, and other observers of humanity had noticed long before. Apt and succinct, I believe those quotes help make the introductory section clearer. Even though we haven't found "an academic who has considered it a relevant or useful example", I believe that keeping them is no crime, and makes the article more easily understandable.

The Keillor quote is less useful here; it does not address the reciprocal nature of the effect. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The Yeats quote was less about ability than the Russell quote. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It's mostly the style of it - it seems more appropriate to have the quote in context as part of a flat "Bertrand Russell expressed a similar statement with regard to British fascism in the 1930s, saying that..." sentence in the lead. I assume this is what the "relevance is not explained" of WP:QUOTE is getting at; that it's more useful to the reader if we say "Bertrand Russell remarked on this in the 1930s" or "this Oscar Wilde quote on the subject became widely known".

Little pop quotes seem entirely out of keeping with Wikipedia's house style - there are lots of articles that could have pithy little one-liners in their lead, but I don't remember having seen any before this one. (I hope that isn't just confirmation bias...) --McGeddon (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Like Just plain Bill, I don't think the Russell quote needs any explanation - its relevance is self-evident; indeed it is more useful as a stand-alone quote.

Stylistically, IMO, it might be better boxed in to one side, rather than spanning the page. Howabout displaying it as over in wikiquote, with an image? [5]

--Michael C. Price ^talk 21:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

--I looked at the Russell quote in context, and it's not a comment on skill per se. Russell is talking about the world political atmosphere in the early years of the Great Depression, and we all know that politics -- especially during periods of economic chaos -- makes idiots of very bright people sometimes. Also note that this Wikipedia article is not about intelligence per se. It's about self-perception of skill. The original research was done on undergraduates admitted to a very good university; they were probably almost all in the upper 10% of the population by any measure of intelligence. I know a very intelligent person who thinks she's a good driver, despite many collision accidents. I know a very intelligent person who thinks he's a great conversationalist, despite the fact that most people find him a total bore when they don't find him profoundly irritating. And I know some people who might be rather average in intelligence who make for good conversation partners on long drives, drives during which I feel completely safe because they are pretty good drivers. Perhaps the person who (cocksurely, I would venture) added this Russell quote is a very intelligent person who doesn't look at quotes in context to make sure they are really addressing the topic of the article? That is, after all, a skill. It takes practice, to which one is spurred by self-doubt. It's not something that you're automatically good at just because you're smart. Perhaps they added it under the assumption that their skill at selecting and highlighting relevant quotes for Wikipedia articles is much higher than most people's, when in fact it might be no better than average? Yakushima (talk) 04:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The relevance of the quote is now sourced. --Michael C. Price ^talk 05:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The quote was already sourced. What does it mean to "source relevance"? I say this quote (and especially showcasing it) is misleading, because it makes the reader think that the Dunning-Kruger Effect is about intelligence vs stupidity. It's not. It's about self-perception of skill, regardless of intelligence. Yakushima (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, WP:QUOTE has this:

As a matter of style, quoteboxes should generally be avoided as they draw special attention to the opinion of one source, and present that opinion as though Wikipedia endorses it. Instead of using quoteboxes to highlight its notability, explain its importance before introducing the quote or in an introduction to the quote.

Bertrand Russell was not talking about the Dunning-Kruger Effect. He died long before it was proposed as such. To treat Russell as if he were talking about it is not just WP:SYNTH, it's synthesis of a proposition that is contradicted by the quote itself (limited to intelligence) and its context (limited to politics). Now, Dunning and Kruger themselves use a very similar quote from Russell in one of their papers, and others noting the Dunning-Kruger Effect have dragged out their own quotes by Russell and others by way of comparison. These quotes might bear mention in some way or other, but not (per WP:QUOTE) highlighted as if the sentiments expressed represented Wikipedia's authoritative statement on the matter or a summary of the entire theory. Yakushima (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not synth if a source makes the connection - which it does. --Michael C. Price ^talk 04:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

A mere connection is not enough. Yes, a source has made the connection, but the Dunning Kruger Effect is independent of intelligence, and your blaring style of quotation drowns out important distinctions between the Dunning Kruger position (which is about perceptions of skill independent of intelligence) and Russell's (unscientific) political sentiment. I have shown you how I believe it should be done in conformance with WP:QUOTE (though undoubtedly not as competently as some could do it.) The quote now used in the article text is the one that Dunn et al. themselves use. Your (admittedly pithier) earlier version has been relegated to a footnote -- I don't know the context of the Russell quote Dunning et al. use, so I don't know whether it's WP:SYNTH to equate the two. Your citation of someone's politically tendentious blog entry as support has been deleted (despite my agreement with the sentiment expressed -- blogs shouldn't be used as RSes, and especially not when there are already better ones.) The onus is now on you to show us how my treatment might put WP:UNDUE emphasis on an apparently common misperception (that Dunning-Kruger is about intelligence), and that your boxed quote somehow isn't in violation of any policy at all. As I see it (and I'm not alone here), it violates several of them. Yakushima (talk) 05:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You have now mangled the lead beyond belief. Not only is the point about "general intelligence" a complete non-sequitur but you quote the professorial self-evaluation non-sensically. --Michael C. Price ^talk 05:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Whether the lead is "mangled" I'll leave to others here, who can look at it more dispassionately -- and perhaps with greater WP editing skill -- than either of us. The second paragraph now incorporates the Darwin quote about ignorance, used by Dunning et al., so it's no longer restricted to "general intelligence". I find your objection strange anyway. My bringing up the relative irrelevance of intelligence to this topic is somehow a non sequitur to you, when I point out that the topic is hardly limited to the exercise of "intelligence" (however one might measure it). But (equally "somehow" -- i.e., completely baffling to me), you seem to think that mention of intelligence is OK when it's the be-all-and-end-all given -- or at least strongly implied -- in your out-of-context quote of Bertrand Russell. (Whom I greatly admire, by the way; this is not about him). Yakushima (talk) 06:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, mangled:

The lead raises the issue of intelligence, with a "however", with no earlier reference to the subject. The Russell quote which you have removed would have provided the required context.

Wouldn't you expect the average professor to be "above average"? I would, unless academic standards have bombed. The study says they rated their work better than the average of other professorial work.

--Michael C. Price ^talk 08:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I have not removed the original Russell quote. You can find it again easily, in the footnotes for the article. I have explained why I have substituted another Russell quote that's to similar effect: Dunning and Kruger actually use it in one of their papers. Did you read my explanation? It appears not.

What you consider a non sequitur with my "however" in fact has its context established clearly by the quotes of Russell and Darwin, as given by Kruger, Dunning et al., immediately previous. Did you read that part? It appears not.

As to "mangling", this article is about what Kruger, Dunning, et al. think on this topic, so how they summarize other research for support is part of the topic regardless of whether their summaries are accurate or not. And how do they summarize in this case?

A survey of college professors revealed that 94% thought they do ‘‘above average’’ work—a figure that defies mathematical plausibility (Cross, 1977).

Exactly how is my paraphrase a "mangling" of that? Or are you saying that Dunning, Kruger et al. have "mangled" Cross? If so, they appear to be in good company. Here [6], from an abstract presumably (very possibly written by Cross herself), we have:

When more than 90 percent of faulty members rate themselves as above-average teachers, and two-thirds rate themselves among the top qwzrter [(sic), the outlook for much improvement in teaching seems less than promising.

How does this contradict (or as you have it "mangle") the quote from the Kruger/Dunning source? Another reader of Cross [7] puts it this way:

A survey of professors at the University of Nebraska a number of years ago showed that 94 percent of them thought they were better than average teachers at their own institution.

Is that also "mangled"? And then we have this, from a book, The Philosophy of Economics

Ninety-four percent of college professors believe they are more productive than their average colleage. [8].

Is that also "mangled"? Well, then: Be Bold. Fix my wording after quoting Cross herself to clear up these misunderstandings of her. Surely, if you can see an error here that I cannot, you are better equipped to fix it than I am. Certainly, Dunning and Kruger would agree. But: do it without violating WP:QUOTE and (implicitly) WP:SYNTH, as your previous edits so obviously (well, obviously to some of us) have done. My edits may be rough, but I believe they are improvements to the article, because they help clarify a point about Dunning-Kruger that many people (very possibly even you) have gotten wrong: it's not about intelligence per se. A Nobel laureate in physics who's a legend in his own mind about his pinball playing skills would be an excellent example of Dunning-Kruger. So would a pinball wizard with an IQ of 80 who doesn't think he's really all that great at pinball, and thinks most people might play reasonably well with a little practice. The quote you want highlighted for the reader is a red herring in this respect. And it doesn't take a degree in cosmology to see that. Yakushima (talk) 11:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I have corrected some of your errors. I find it amusing that one of your quotations above makes exactly the point I was making, but no matter. BTW you answered your two rhetorical questions incorrectly. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean now about the college professor self-assessment. I just assumed that anyone with half a brain would know that it was about college professors comparing themselves to their peers. After all, we're hardly writing for readers who don't know that that college professors tend to be significantly more intelligent and knowledgeable than your average person. What a low opinion you must have of the kind of reader who would make it as far as halfway through the second paragraph! And it seems that you thought that I thought those professors were comparing themselves to average people. Well: what a low opinion you must have of my intelligence. (Or at least that's how your gibe appeared to me: I assumed that if you saw a real need for clarification of that point, instead of conducting massive reverts back to your boxed quote version, you would have just edited the article directly to add this clarification that strikes me as redundant.) Well, I suppose it hardly matters: your desired treatment of the Russell Quote violates WP:QUOTE, and implicitly WP:POV and WP:SYNTH. That's the issue here. Go ahead, snipe around the edges. Tweak my wording until you're sure that even an idiot could understand it. The original pithy Russell quote, blaring out of a box? Your average idiot thinks he's a genius, so he'd only take comfort in what Russell said there, and probably skip the rest of the article. Yakushima (talk) 05:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The current lead reads a little bit WP:SYNTHetically, but seems to be supported by the sources, from a quick skim of them (I've bumped one reference to the end of a sentence, to show that Dunning and Kruger raise the "even academics demonstrate this" example to make the point mentioned, rather than it being a statistic buried with no comment in the paper). Saying "Similar notions have been expressed -- albeit less scientifically -- for some time." is much better than throwing the reader a quote with no explanation and seeing if they have the historical knowledge and deduction to work out an unstated message behind it. --McGeddon (talk) 07:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the citation fix. As for the WP:SYNTH issue, esp. in P.2 of the intro, perhaps what I've written there is still too influenced by polarized debate on this talk page. To be clear: my problem isn't so much with the "unstated message behind" what Russell wrote (i.e., the political commentary). It's with what he actually states: that the world's problems owe to the diffidence of the bright combined with the hyper-confidence of the dim. I don't disagree with the sentiment; I can appreciate it as a major factor in the world's problems, but ... it's just that the Dunning-Kruger Effect would predict that even the intelligent, knowledgeable and imaginative can, at times, be a big part of the world's problems (perhaps because high intelligence, education, and imagination make one think that one has grasped a problem when actually one hasn't, and because these endowments often make a person more influential). For all we know, general hesitation and uncertainty among the intellectually better-endowed might be leaving us with a better (or rather, less bad) world than one in which they were all more "cocksure." To categorically deny that counterfactual (even implicitly), well, that's what makes conspicuously boxing the Russell quote so WP:POV and somewhat WP:SYNTH, even if Russell had actually been commenting directly on the Dunning-Kruger effect rather than on the politics of his time. That kind of abuse of quotes -- implicit argument by reference to authority, stripped of context -- was probably a factor leading to WP:QUOTE discouragement of this sort of quoting. Yakushima (talk) 12:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Errol Morris discussion on effect in NY Times

Someone should incorporate this information [9] if they have time. Remember (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Yakushima (talk) 05:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Some balance added, more needed

I started a section on cross-cultural variation that helps indicate the somewhat parochial nature of the Effect. The article lacks opposing views and alternative explanations, and cross-cultural variation is not nearly the end of this. However, I don't know the field or the literature well enough to assess such research contributions effectively, and I'm not very conversant with policies on balance, so some help would be appreciated. Yakushima (talk) 05:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The added quote is about the tendency to inflate self-worth, i.e. illusory superiority. It doesn't seem to be specifically about the D-K effect. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Popular views section added

I didn't think the Ignoble award mention should be in "Studies" (which I've renamed "Supportive studies" in the interests of the above-mentioned balanced-view requirement.) I moved it to a new section, "Popular views", but I'm not satisfied with that heading, nor with my added comment (which in retrospect seems [[WP:SYNTH]y and POV) where I cite Marginal Revolution. I do think citing that notable blog bears (positively) on the not-completely-settled issue of notability of the Effect under the name "Dunning-Kruger effect", since Tabarrok's title is "The Dunning-Kruger Effect." Very possibly, this Wikipedia article has bootstrapped that name into notability. But if it happened that way, it nevertheless happened. Yakushima (talk) 06:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I've moved it back because the fact that the study received an award is a fact about a study. It doesn't make sense to put it under the "popular views" heading. This whole article has a problem with WP:SYNTH unfortunately. It needs to be based on sources that mention the D-K effect. Thanks for adding Marginal Revolution: that's an improvement. Would be nice to have academic literature as well as blogs. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Cross-cultural variation

This section of the article does not seem to be about the D-K effect. It should be deleted to avoid confusion. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that there are no citations to studies like those in the rest of the article. Who observed these cultural dependencies? Where was it published? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.248.156.241 (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. So, why is the section still there? I've lived in three different countries in Asia, and my own humble (but psychologically educated) opinion, is that this concept still is true. Oh, there may be differences when one keeps the concept tightly in the academic realm, but in the real world? Hubris is king. I'm removing the section. Shoe (talk) 04:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

When we delete content we don't leave a "content deleted" notice in articles. Anyway the section shouldn't be deleted, it quotes an article published by a reliable source that is relevant to the topic. If you have other sources supporting your anectdotal evidence in the real world, add them instead of deleting the available ones. Diego (talk) 09:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't look like it has a lot of due weight associated with it and we may be overstating the significance of this one researchers conclusion. It also appears to border on a copyright violation as it does not clearly show it's a quote and the quote is overly large. I would suggest only a mention under studies and not more. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

That's OK. Diego (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Dunning and Ehrlinger paper

In 2003 Dunning and Joyce Ehrlinger, also of Cornell University, published a study that detailed a shift in people's views of themselves influenced by external cues. Participants in the study (Cornell University undergraduates) were given tests of their knowledge of geography, some intended to positively affect their self-views, some intended to affect them negatively. They were then asked to rate their performance, and those given the positive tests reported significantly better performance than those given the negative.[11]

Could someone clarify this paragraph. It seems to be saying that students given easier tests thought they had done well, and those that were given harder tests thought they had done poorly. Surely, this result is so trivial it cannot be what the study examined? There are a few abiguities in the text: "to positively-affect" can be interpreted as "to reinforce", which, when applied to someone with a low opinion of his ability, means that his opinion of himself was lowered still more, and "performance" can refer to attainment in just the test, or ability in general.
JBel (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

students given easier tests thought they had done well compared to others, and those that were given harder tests thought they had done poorly compared to others. This is why it's a non-trivial finding. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Analysis far from complete.

This paper, as written today, emphasises only the "incompetence" aspects of the paper: i.e. "you can't fix stupid". It undertreats the far more useful and interesting aspects of the research - namely that the most competent people don't realize their competence, and how that reflects on the characteristics which make them competent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.169.58 (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Immigrant studies?

Does anyone know if immigrant plus 2nd generation have been compared to 3rd+ generation Americans? Just wondering.Dogface (talk) 01:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

I have been asked by non-autoconfirmed user DANKASHEN (talk) to move this page to Kruger-Dunning effect, with the following rationale:

the- Dunning–Kruger_effect should be: Kruger-Dunning_effect as u can see here: Kruger, Justin; David Dunning (1999). "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 (6): 1121–34. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121. PMID 10626367.

I have no opinion, but do not wish to unilaterally move the page from such a long-standing title without discussion. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 07:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The proposed title is clearly minority usage: 0 hits on GBooks and 2 on GScholar (+ a 3rd as an alt name), vs. 21 and 42 for the current order. — kwami (talk) 08:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per previous comment and WP:COMMONNAME. --McGeddon (talk) 09:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per common usage trumps minority usage. --Quartermaster (talk) 12:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose NYT and Psych Today use D-K. There's a redirect here from K-D, so bases are covered. Glrx (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The article title should be based on sources. The given source mentions neither the "Dunning-Kruger effect" (which was actually coined on Wikipedia) nor the "Kruger-Dunning effect", so it's obviously not appropriate to decide the issue. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Need more than 1 source to prove that this D-K is minority vs. K-D. So far the sources show the contrary but if more evidence is presented I'd be willing to switch. BaShildy (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Study Dates?

The article says: "Kruger and Dunning set out to test these hypotheses on Cornell undergraduates in various psychology courses. In a series of studies, they examined...". It goes on to say: "Across four studies", however no dates are provided. There are no references provided from which the dates can be ascertained except for the paragraph regarding four studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.241.58 (talk) 03:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The four studies are published together in a single paper. It's not customary to give the dates of individual studies, just the date of the paper. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Could the DK study be incomplete?

Can someone explain this to me? According to the papers, the researchers provided the participants the test followed by asking them to rate their performances. In my opinion the context of this test is insufficient as it does not take into account the state of the participant before they took the test. I believe there is a correlation to the results before and after taking the test that should have been explored by the study to properly come to the conclusions. It is only accurate to say that low performers overestimate themselves if prior to taking the test, they had all made an unrealistic estimation of their performance prior and after taking the test. A low performer may have graded himself very lowly pre-test, followed by a higher performance post-test. This would indicate that low performers do not always have an inflated self worth, but the inflation is caused by a degree of lacking in self worth which is very different from the statement that "stupid people tend to think that they are quite brilliant, because they are too stupid to tell that they are, in fact, stupid."118.100.76.143 (talk) 09:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's incomplete; it's just four similar experiments in a set of work by these and other authors that spans decades. See illusory superiority or self enhancement for overviews. Your explanation of the relevance of pre-test estimates is hard for me to follow and seems to make the experiment more complicated than it needs to be. The D-K experiments compare where people thought they were in rank order of performance to where they actually were. Asking for their estimate after the test is surely more accurate? MartinPoulter (talk) 13:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Socratic irony

The historical references section should probably mention Socratic irony, found in several dialogs, particularly the Euthyphro, where Euthyphro's overconfidence is due to his ignorance, while Socrates professes ignorance due to his deeper understanding of the vexing questions at hand. Or see quotes such as "...He, O men, is the wisest, who like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing" or "I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This would be WP:OR unless there are sources specifically linking it to the D-K effect. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Historical references

Some people keep adding quotes to the Historical references section from authors which purport to support the idea of the effect. Even if this is so, without other sources making that connection, it's OR and should not be included. The Nietzsche quote had a reference, but it was just a source for the quote itself, not any connection to D-K. —Al E.^(talk) 19:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems that these are the same quotations which are being discussed in Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect#Inappropriate quotations in lead? —Al E.^(talk) 15:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support removal of quotations that do not have sourced link to DK. Glrx (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Shakespeare quote?

There's a few relevant quotes in the article. Would this one fit anywhere? “The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.” From Shakespeare's As You Like It. 71.17.57.31 (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Unless you have a reliable source somewhere that speaks to this effect and Shakespeare, probably not. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

See Also - Blind Men and Fatal Conceit

I recently added a couple items to the See Also section...Blind men and an elephant and The Fatal Conceit and they were removed for lack of relevance. Both have to do with conceit...which is the central idea regarding the Dunning-Kruger effect...overestimating one's own intelligence/expertise/knowledge. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerographica (talk • contribs) 04:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that ties the effect to those concepts. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 04:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Please provide the Wikipedia policy that states that RS are needed for See Also items --Xerographica (talk) 05:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

See WP:V, "All the material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable."

But Verifiability in a See also section only requires to show that the concept exists, not that it's related to the article where it is placed, so the most relevant policy is WP:SEEALSO:

• "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense".

As for lack of relevance,

• The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of the "See also" links is to enable readers to explore topics that are only peripherally relevant,

but

• "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous"Diego (talk) 06:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing that. With that in mind...do any editors have any objections to the addition of those two articles to the See Also section...or do I need to further explain their peripheral relevance? --Xerographica (talk) 07:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

We should be cautious of misleading the reader by using bad examples. The "blind men and the elephant" story seems a little tenuous - I'm not sure that people arguing pointlessly based on partial information about a subject are "overestimating their skill" in the way that the Dunning-Kruger effect describes. And I'm not familiar with the Fatal Conceit book, but the summary on its Wikipedia article does not appear to mention illusions of superiority. If it's somehow a big part of the book, it'd help to edit the book's article as well. --McGeddon (talk) 09:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

If the links are included you should definitely explain how those articles relate to this concept, because it's not obvious in any way. Diego (talk) 09:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems the argument is that these concepts, although they don't immediately appear directly relevant, are linked to the article's topic via another concept. In that case, the See also should be to that concept. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Well...basically I'm tying these two concepts to the political/economic implications which have already been well fleshed out. But I suppose it requires a firm grasp of politics/economics to see the connection. Here's what the founder of modern economics, Adam Smith, had to say about overestimating one's abilities...

The man of system, on the contrary, is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard either to the great interests, or to the strong prejudices which may oppose it. He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might chuse to impress upon it. If those two principles coincide and act in the same direction, the game of human society will go on easily and harmoniously, and is very likely to be happy and successful. If they are opposite or different, the game will go on miserably, and the society must be at all times in the highest degree of disorder. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)

If somebody underestimates their abilities then they are hardly going to try and arrange everybody in a society like chess pieces. From this article..."Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" - Charles Darwin...and..."One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision" - Bertrand Russell.

Smith's critique was followed by Bastiat's...

Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this superiority. - Frédéric Bastiat, The Law (1850)

Socialism fails because some people fail to appreciate that we are ALL blind men touching different parts of an elephant. Mao Zedong thought he was an exception to that rule. Unfortunately, he hasn't been the only one. All the greatest man made disasters throughout history have been caused by people who believed that they were exceptions to that rule.

Capitalism, on the other hand, works because there's a vetting process. If you overestimate your skills in a capitalist system...then other people have the freedom to not give you their money. If you overestimate your singing skills...people won't buy your albums. If you overestimate your legal skills...people won't hire you as their attorney. Capitalism is constantly redistributing resources to the people who actually do have the skills that other people value enough to voluntarily pay for. And as Henry David Thoreau said, "The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it."

So that's the political and economic implications of the Dunning-Kruger effect...and the point of Hayek's book. From my admittedly extremely limited perspective...the relevance is not even vaguely peripheral.

To take it one step further...right now we allow 538 congresspeople to spend 1/4 of our nation's revenue. That's more than $3.5 trillion dollars. Do you think that congresspeople are overestimating their abilities? The only way to be certain would be to subject them to the only vetting process that matters...giving taxpayers the freedom to decide whether they give their taxes to congress or whether they choose for themselves which public goods they are willing to exchange their lives for. If congresspeople truly believe that they are not suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect...if their superiority is actually self-evident...then why would they hesitate allowing taxpayers to be the judges of that? This is known as tax choice...which I am an advocate of. So that's my bias on the table. --Xerographica (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to share this quote by Hayek which perhaps best summarizes the point of his book...and well...perhaps the point of his life..."The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design." --Xerographica (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Anybody? Well...unless somebody would like to argue that the articles in question are not even peripherally relevant...then I'll be adding them to the See Also list. --Xerographica (talk) 09:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

If it takes 750 words to explain why these links are relevant, it may be difficult to write "a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent", but feel free to have a go. If it really would take a full paragraph to explain the relevance of a particular book or fable, we should either write about that relevance in the body of the article (provided we can source the connection) or drop it. --McGeddon (talk) 10:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Either those 750 words successfully showed you the relevance or they didn't. If they didn't...then either the concepts aren't related or I failed at choosing the right words. I frequently do fail at choosing the right words...and it is kind of hard to imagine that the Dunning–Kruger effect wouldn't have any social/political/economic implications. Somebody has an overinflated perception of self-worth...therefore...nothing? Somebody overestimates their abilities/knowledge...but there are no negative consequences to speak of? It has no bearing on their behavior? There's no tilting at windmills? There's no blind people throwing darts everywhere certain that they'll hit the bull's eye? There's no misallocation of scarce resources? From my perspective...Buddha's parable considered the broad social implications while Hayek's book considered the political and economic implications. Both are cautionary tales that warn us that our perception might not match reality. --Xerographica (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not just a matter of explaining on the talk page why the link is relevant, it's also about being able to write a "brief annotation" which clearly explains the link's relevance to the typical reader. If we can manage the former but not the latter, we should not include the link. --McGeddon (talk) 08:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

So if I can't briefly explain the link's relevance then the link is not relevant? Or is the goal to avoid constantly having to explain the link's relevance on the talk page? I bet that by the 5th time I explained the link's relevance on this talk page I'll be able to do it briefly. But I wouldn't bet much...cause I'm hardly a wordsmith. It might take me 10 tries before I got it down to a single sentence. Then again...personally...I think the word "blind" in the "blind men and an elephant" and the word "conceit" in "the fatal conceit" are all that's needed to establish that there's at least a peripheral relevance. The only reason we're having this discussion in the first place is because the person who reverted my edit mistakenly believed that a reliable source was needed for links in the See Also section. --Xerographica (talk) 08:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

"Peripheral relevance" is the problem. With a bit of imagination, hundreds of articles are peripherally relevant to this one. Hence peripheral relevance, of the kind you identify, is insufficient for a See also link. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

So you're telling me that self-efficacy and the peter principle are more relevant to the Dunning–Kruger effect than the blind men and the fatal conceit are? I'd also love to hear your argument regarding why the Anton–Babinski syndrome is more relevant than the blind men and the elephant. --Xerographica (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I think he's just suggesting that the two links under discussion are peripheral. If other links are equally peripheral (and I think you're probably right here), we should remove those as well. --McGeddon (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

But the wikipedia See Also policy clearly states that peripherally relevant topics are acceptable. It also clearly states that it is ultimately up to the discretion of editors. You just agreed that the topics are peripherally relevant...but you also do not agree that they should be included. You also believe that two other topics, which are already included, are too irrelevant to be included. The high level of subjectivity is not giving me much to go on. What will help is if you clearly articulate your guideline for inclusion listing as many objective criteria as possible and using the currently included topics as examples. --Xerographica (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose addition of see also links. Elephant is about truth rather than assessing one's competence. The article need not address or link to every example of DK. Glrx (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

A person's assessment of their competence has nothing to do with truth and/or discrepancies between perception and reality? If you're truly confident that they are not examples of DK...then why would you follow up by saying that this article does not have to link to every example of DK? Either your second argument is totally irrelevant or it is relevant but then it cancels out your first argument. So which is it? --Xerographica (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose the addition of the two links in question. The article has no business linking far-fetched, tenuous "examples" of the effect. (From Glrx, I see two orthogonal arguments, not susceptible to being framed as a dichotomy.) __ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Your opposition has absolutely no value unless you can actually articulate exactly why you believe that the two links are far fetched and tenuous examples of DK. --Xerographica (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, for the record. The elephant parable is tenuous, the book's connection is opaque, and if we can't provide the "brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent" for the latter then we shouldn't confuse the reader by including it. May be time to step away from the elephant here. --McGeddon (talk) 23:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You're doing the reader a disservice by not linking them to the political/social/economic implications of the DK effect. I mean, it would be strange to consider the DK effect real and meaningful and then argue that there are absolutely no political/social/economic implications. It would also be strange to say that there are political/social/economic implications but nobody else has ever observed or considered them. No...the idea that people suffer from a disparity between perception and reality is hardly a new idea. It was the point of Buddha's parable of the blind men and the point of Hayek's book on conceit. Either that or the DK effect is only a recent phenomenon. in any case, I already added a link to the DK effect from those two articles...we'll see how long they last before the editors of those articles object to their relevance. --Xerographica (talk) 04:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

this needs a graph

like a redraw of http://i.imgur.com/I9N5C.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.68.29 (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Hobbes

Diff — The key to "Without a reliable published source making the connection, this is WP:OR." is the part about making the connection. If there is a published source linking Hobbes' observation to the conclusions of Dunning and Kruger, then it fits in this article.

N.B. the Hobbes quote, as given in this context, says nothing about highly skilled people underestimating their capability, which is just as much a part of the D-K effect as the "unskilled and unaware" bit. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

How intelligence factors in

Have there been studies to determine whether level of intelligence plays a role in a person's ability to accurately assess their level of skill? Tad Lincoln (talk) 04:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You'd certainly be interested in the work of Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman (and his colleague Amos Tversky). A good place to start is "Thinking, Fast and Slow", but a much earlier work really knocked me off my feet. For one chapter, a group of psychologists was assembled. Among their professional duties was administering IQ tests. So they were asked: Given a random group of people, what's the average IQ? By definition it's 100, so everybody got that right. Then they were asked: Given a random group of 50 children, 1 is tested and has an IQ of 150. What is now the expected IQ of that group? Some psychologists said it was unchanged, some knew it was more, but not how to calculate it. Only a few got the right answer. (It's a simple calculation that can be done in one's head.) Leptus Froggi (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Plato/Socrates in Historical References

Socrates said, "The only thing that I know is that I know nothing." It was recorded by Plato as you can see here: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Socrates#Plato

Although it is a little different, Aristotle later said, "to know thyself is the beginning of all wisdom" (but not in English, obviously). I feel that Shakespeare is referencing the Greeks in his play. Samalander (talk) 06:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

A more pertinent quotation, perhaps:

A little Learning is a dang'rous Thing;

Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:

There shallow Draughts intoxicate the Brain,

And drinking largely sobers us again.

Alexander Pope, An Essay on Criticism, Part II

--Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

"biblical reference" edit war

I have placed protection on this page to stop the edit war that was developing here. That is not how we resolve content disputes here. Please discuss the issue here and attempt to find a consensus on this issue instead of arguing in edit sumarries. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC).

Anyone want comment on the reliablity of equip.org as used for the disputed content? --Ronz (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be a vehicle for Hank Hanegraaff, a creationist Christian apologist, with pages such as Can we be certain that evolution is a myth?, which asserts, "the fossil record is an embarrassment to evolutionists." That page, in itself, is arguably an example of the D-K effect's "uninformed and unaware" corollary.

More to the point, can anyone comment on the notability of James Patrick Holding, the author of the disputed reference? His article's talk page casts some doubt on that. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I would omit the biblical citation. The quotation "The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice" does not accurately describe the DK effect. The first clause is appropriate (the incompetent thinks he is competent), but the second clause is about listening to advice rather than self-assessment. Compare the other quotations in the historical references section that characterize the self-awareness of both the stupid (who are certain or think they are wise) and the wise (who are filled with doubt or think they are fools). Furthermore, I do not see Holding as being prominent enough in psychology for his DK views to be given weight here. Glrx (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I originally added the disputed reference to this article in January, and apologize to everyone for inadvertently touching off a controversy. The focus of the section seemed to me to be that the principle had been observed long before the research of the eponymous scientists. At that time, the oldest relevant references cited were from the Enlightenment. However, in Christian circles, I have often heard the principle discussed in the context of various biblical writings, especially those of Solomon who writes extensively about the nature of foolishness and wisdom. So, I added the Holding reference as an example of this, and was pleased when, shortly afterward, the section was further extended with relevant quotations going back to Socrates, which I felt was exactly in the same spirit as what I had added. (I note that the Socrates reference has since been removed as well, which is a shame.) I still feel that, in the intended context, both the biblical reference and the Socrates reference have value in tracing the periodic emergence of this principle from throughout human history. As for Glrx's suggestion that the second half of the chosen reference from Proverbs isn't quite spot-on, I personally think self-assessment is completely connected with a willingness to "take advice". Moreover, it's only one verse: as I said, there are tons more. I just wanted to keep the reference as short as possible, since, to me, the real focus of the section is on the DK principle throughout time. It is strongly represented in biblical writings, so that's a good data point to include, but in the end it should only be one example in a complete historical list IMHO. The verse I chose, I felt, offered the best balance of precision and conciseness. --Rnickel (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I concur. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Without better sources, it's unclear that these historical writings are relevant. --Ronz (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I was actually wondering why there wasn't a bible reference. "Thinking themselves wise, they became fools." That's DK, no? Bible has a hundred more like it. 131.203.134.73 (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Without a source saying it is DK, it is original research. --Ronz (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Ronz; the connection does need to be sourced. My thoughts here are addressed to those who asserted inadequacy of the CRI Journal article I originally cited. The original question was, is that a reliable source? On the one hand, it is editorially reviewed, in print for more than 40 years, and widely circulated. (The organization describes itself as "the largest, most effective apologetics ministry in the world.")

On the other hand, there can be some objections:

• WP:RS makes a distinction between factual content and opinion content. I would not have used this particular source for factual content. (For example, as noted above by Just Plain Bill, their positions on evolution are, shall we say, controversial.) Nevertheless, such sources "are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author." That is why I originally entered the reference as an attributed statement: "Christian scholars such as James Patrick Holding note..."
• WP:RS notes that questionable sources include "publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist". The CRI Journal is certainly controversial, though whether it is "widely acknowledged as extremist" I suspect depends upon whom you ask. What made up my mind was that "A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim". I just never felt that the claim being sourced was particularly exceptional-- as noted by the IP user above. The bible clearly talks about foolishness and wisdom, and clearly draws conclusions similar to DK. Where is the controversy? The Socrates quote, I get it, that one was totally unsourced so probably WP:OR, but the biblical stuff... Is it just that people don't want the bible mentioned in a scientific article? Personally, I was all the more shocked by the edit war because I thought this statement would be less controversial than average: if both science and faith can point to the same conclusion, then who is left to object?

Anyway, I'm getting off the topic of the source: on the balance, for sourcing a single sentence in the appropriate context, I felt it was an adequate reference. If not, then what would meet the test? For example, what if the same connection had been drawn on Focus on the Family or in Christianity Today? I would just like some guidance. As noted before, I think the emergence of DK-like observations from throughout history is one of the theory's most interesting aspects, but would like to be sure of my footing before I make another attempt to flesh that out in the article. Thanks, --Rnickel (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)