Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

We Are All Confident Idiots

Posted by Soulskill on from the welcome-to-the-party dept.

An anonymous reader writes: If you've ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect, you'll be familiar with David Dunning, professor of psychology at Cornell. He's written an article on the "psychology of human wrongness," explaining how confidence in one's answers tends to be high for people who don't know what they're talking about. He says, "What's curious is that, in many cases, incompetence does not leave people disoriented, perplexed, or cautious. Instead, the incompetent are often blessed with an inappropriate confidence, buoyed by something that feels to them like knowledge."

Dunning goes on: "A whole battery of studies conducted by myself and others have confirmed that people who don't know much about a given set of cognitive, technical, or social skills tend to grossly overestimate their prowess and performance, whether it's grammar, emotional intelligence, logical reasoning, firearm care and safety, debating, or financial knowledge. College students who hand in exams that will earn them Ds and Fs tend to think their efforts will be worthy of far higher grades; low-performing chess players, bridge players, and medical students, and elderly people applying for a renewed driver's license, similarly overestimate their competence by a long shot."

15 of 306 comments (clear)

  1. Sounds like Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This sounds a lot like many of the +5 insightful comments on Slashdot these days. Bold, confident one-liners to get that quick +5 but not actually knowing what one is talking about...

    1. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by mc6809e · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I was thinking about the press.

      There's no way a journalist can crank out story after story unless they're completely unaware that they don't know what they're talking about.

      Any doubts in their own understanding would stop dead their fingers on their keyboards.

    2. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Insightful

      OH I think they're perfectly aware of what they are doing, and it is intentional. They just don't care.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well I think the proper behavior for a journalist is to try to be aware of how ignorant they may be, and instead focus on reporting what they've been told by experts-- making it clear that they're reporting what they're being told by experts, and making it clear which expert told them which thing.

      For journalists, it's not really their job to be experts. They're reporters, not philosophers. Sometimes they lose sight of that.

  2. Summary doesn't support headline by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know this is petulant and pedantic, but Dunning-Kruger is statistical, and only reflects the naturalness of a lack of detailed introspection.

    More over, some people are genuinely competent at things. I want to object to the notion that it's an inescapable human failing, because Dunning and Kruger's research didn't show that. Just a strong overall trend.

    1. Re:Summary doesn't support headline by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't need total confidence to have a point. I know you're joking, but I don't post on slashdot hoping everyone comes and tells me I'm right.

      I post and hope someone comes and tells me I'm wrong in a way that's interesting enough to show me something new.

    2. Re:Summary doesn't support headline by wrook · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Dunning-Kruger, no matter that it doesn't predict the competence of a person based on their confidence, has significant consequences. For example, take a large group of people. Note that their competence in some field is a random variable with probably a gamma distribution. In other words, most people are around average competence and as you move into higher competence, there are considerably less people. Now allow those people to self organize and choose leaders. To make things simple, lets split everything up into groups of 10 people. 10% are leaders. They are chosen for their self confidence and outgoing nature.

      Interestingly, this will favour the less competent people, because they will be more confident. In fact, because most people are grouped around the middle, it will be difficult for them to distinguish competent from incompetent. This could make the incompetent candidates very much more successful. Now consider a second round. We are going to take 10% of the leaders and make them super leaders. They will be chosen by their peers based on their self confidence and outgoing nature. But now most of the people making the decisions are of lower competence. This will favour the incompetent even more.

      This is the beginning of a "talent inversion". Incompetent, but confident people rise to the top while competent, but cautious people stay at the bottom. Now imagine the politics that will evolve from this very simple starting point. Every time an incompetent senior person asks for the impossible, an incompetent junior person confidently strides up and promises results. Because they are both incompetent, they can happily fail, but convince themselves that they have actually succeeded. If you have ever worked in a big company, then you probably don't have to imagine.

      In other words, because of Dunning-Kruger life is unlikely to be a meritocracy. There are clear advantages to being competent, but one should not overlook the network effect of a group of confident, but incompetent people. Understanding that *you must deal with these people to ensure success* is key. In my career, I have found that borrowing some confidence from an "incompetent" co-worker, while lending some of my "competence" has been very successful. In fact, it is so useful to me that I have redefined my definition of competence. In truth, I was never very successful until I learned to look at things from other perspectives. No matter how right you are, if you can't act on it, it doesn't make much difference. And even if you are very wrong, acting often wins the day.

      It's a bitter pill to swallow for someone whose ego is bound up in their competence. But life is not fair.

  3. Well that explains... by meerling · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Politicians...

    1. Re:Well that explains... by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wrong, sir. Politicians are perfectly competent at what they were hired to do. The people who finance them are very pleased. And it shows in the reelection rates. They are not idiots by a long shot, not the winners anyway. Now, the voters, there you might have a point.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  4. Actually it makes a certain amount of sense by the_skywise · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Incompetence generally isn't fatal in today's society.

    So long as you can back it up with deflection ("Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM") which is a basic two year old skill ("I didna take da cookie!") you're not going to lose your position until you reach the level of GROSS incompetence and maybe not even then.

    The real problem is when you have skilled people who make mistakes, KNOW they make mistakes and qualify their answers because they know they may not be right. They're overridden by these same people that never accept failure but still give the wrong answers.

  5. Re:Who? by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You must not work in the corporate world. If you were not a confident idiot before joining, you will be after (or you'll be laid off). The guy who marches in the room with all the answers -> high value employee who knows his job and gets shit done. The guy who has more questions than answers? Incompetent idiot who ratholes meetings and deviates from the issue.

    The irony is that usually the second guy is the more knowledgeable person, he knows enough to know he doesn't know shit. Unfortunately as in politics, the person with the snappy answer sets policy.

  6. Re:Left one out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    You mean like Bennett Haselton?

  7. You forgot half the effect... by yorgo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Each time I see someone mention the D-K effect, they focus only on the first manifestation: unskilled individuals tend to suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate.

    But, there is an equal-but-opposite manifestation, as well: highly skilled individuals tend to rate their ability lower than is accurate.

    Why is this one typically ignored?

  8. Intelligence is.. by Rinikusu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Intelligence is knowing that everyone around you is full of shit.
    Wisdom is knowing you are, too.

    --
    If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
  9. I blame women by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    that sounds a bit confident. maybe it's too confident. maybe you are succumbing to Dunning-Kruger yourself!

    I have found that if I sound confident, other people will listen and follow, regardless of whether I know what I am talking about. I have also found that women tend to be attracted to confident, self-assured men, and are less concerned about whether the guy is actually right or wrong. So, if my theory is correct, men should display more self-confidence. Maybe the author already considered gender differences, but I didn't RTFA, I am just assuming that I am right.