We Are All Confident Idiots

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."

Comments

Sounds like Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:Sounds like Slashdot

[mc6809e]

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.

Re:Sounds like Slashdot

[__aaclcg7560]

Bold, confident one-liners to get that quick +5 but not actually knowing what one is talking about.

You mean I wasn't getting +5 because I was awesome?!

Re:Sounds like Slashdot

[roc97007]

Mod this up! Oh, wait...

Re:Sounds like Slashdot

[fustakrakich]

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

Re:Sounds like Slashdot

[lgw]

The more you know, the more you're unsure about. Of course, the more you know, the more you're sure about as well, but any sort of deep study perpetually raises more questions than it answers. Further, the deeper you study a subject, the more you realize you have only approximations - good, useful approximations one hopes, but still.

Or, in the words of someone wiser than me, "the larger the island of knowledge, the longer the shore of uncertainty."

Re:Sounds like Slashdot

[nine-times]

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.

Re:Sounds like Slashdot

[Layzej]

Good point. In the article Dunning suggests that you would need to be competent to even recognize incompetence: "Kruger and I published a paper that documented how, in many areas of life, incompetent people do not recognize -- scratch that, cannot recognize -- just how incompetent they are, a phenomenon that has come to be known as the Dunning-Kruger effect. Logic itself almost demands this lack of self-insight: for poor performers to recognize their ineptitude would require them to possess the very expertise they lack. To know how skilled or unskilled you are at using the rules of grammar, for instance, you must have a good working knowledge of those rules, an impossibility among the incompetent. Poor performers -- and we are all poor performers at some things -- fail to see the flaws in their thinking or the answers they lack."

but also that "common sense" provides undue confidence for the uninformed:

"An ignorant mind is precisely not a spotless, empty vessel, but one that's filled with the clutter of irrelevant or misleading life experiences, theories, facts, intuitions, strategies, algorithms, heuristics, metaphors and hunches that regrettably have the look and feel of useful and accurate knowledge. This clutter is an unfortunate by product of one of our greatest strengths as a species. We are unbridled pattern recognizers and profligate theorizers. Often our theories are good enough to get us through the day, or at least to the age when we can procreate."

Re:Sounds like Slashdot

[shadowrat]

the same way us programmers have mental shortcuts that help us get through extremely complex code in a day that would take a novice a month worried over minutea.

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

i find after 15 years on the job, i spend a lot more time worrying about the things i'm not thinking of. I was a lot more productive in my youth when i just blindly charged ahead; applying whatever pattern-du-jour to everything.

Left one out

[jbmartin6]

He didn't mention /. posters.

Re:Left one out

[eparker05]

Based on my experience, I'm pretty sure yours will be a highly rated comment :)

Re:Left one out

[Jane Q. Public]

The problem here is that Prof. Dunning's principle could apply to anybody, including college professors.

So how does he know he is correct?

---
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." -- Richard Feynman

Re:Left one out

[i kan reed]

How does he know he's correct is a fucking 20 page journal paper and bulky quantities of empirical data. Science has methodology to help test and validate hypotheses. It doesn't mean he's absolutely right about everything, but it is evidence the idea didn't come from nowhere.

Re:Left one out

[lgw]

The problem here is that Prof. Dunning's principle could apply to anybody, including college professors.

  So how does he know he is correct?

It's a good joke, but it's also the key realization that led to the use of double-blind studies. Someone had published a paper to the effect that no human studies could be trusted, because the observer effect would taint the study. It was a really depressing paper until someone pointed out that it was itself based on human studies, and thus the conclusion shouldn't be taken too seriously. More serious contemplation of the problem eventually led to double-blind studies being the norm for serious work.

Who?

[ArcadeMan]

If you've ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect, you'll be familiar with David Dunning, professor of psychology at Cornell.

I've never heard about David Dunning nor of the Dunning-Kruger effect, but I'm pretty sure I don't need to know.

Re:Who?

[Austerity Empowers]

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.

Re:Who?

[operagost]

Are you confident that's not a jet plane WHOOOOOSHING over your head?

Re:Who?

[X0563511]

Whoosh.

Re:Who?

[LessThanObvious]

Yeah, I've been both of those guys at one time or another. I'll admit to falling into the confidence trap. If you think you are a smart person it easy to think you are also better at guessing the right answer. I find it difficult to hold both the idea that I am smart and that guessing is never reliable and often makes one seem stupid. I'm finding this is also a principle flaw in democracy. People vote without doing any research whatsoever on the issues and are very willing to have a firm opinion about things that they know nothing about.

Summary doesn't support headline

[i kan reed]

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.

Re:Summary doesn't support headline

[i kan reed]

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.

Re:Summary doesn't support headline

[bluefoxlucid]

This is why deliberate practice, as described by K Anders Ericsson, is so important. Deliberate practice is what makes experts, and summarizes in three simple concepts: goal-oriented behavior; a focus on technique; and constant, immediate feedback.

By deliberate practice, a person is *looking* for their flaws, setting goals to push their competence, and immediately getting burned when they push beyond their abilities. This style of practice aims to draw attention to those behaviors which are incorrect--gaps in knowledge, weakness in skill--so that a person may reconcile these things and improve.

Such practice continuously slims down the level of overconfidence, even as confidence increases. A person is appraised of their shortcomings, but also reduces them, simultaneously becoming more skilled and more aware of the weaknesses in their skill in that area.

Re:Summary doesn't support headline

[the_skywise]

Think about it. Even for those of us who are smart enough to qualify our answers, we'll STILL say we're right even without a majority of the information needed to make a valid decision because we "know" better because usually, with experience, we're right. (But we're not really, we're just lucky) Sure, there's exceptions like heart surgery and rocket launches where you want to make a "go" decision with close to 100% accuracy as possible (but generally we still don't even get that close) but the great majority of decisions you'll make in life can't be made with that much accuracy. Should I marry this person, should I start this company, should I invest in this company, where should I concentrate my efforts to have a fulfilling life? By natural instinct you HAVE to develop an inner monologue and gut reaction to events and you have to do it without sufficient information to make that decision because you will never have the time or ability to GET that information before the decision must be made.

Don't believe me? How about Colin Powell?
"Use the formula P=40 to 70, in which P stands for the probability of success and the numbers indicate the percentage of information acquired. Once the information is in the 40 to 70 range, go with your gut.”

Re:Summary doesn't support headline

[wrook]

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.

Well that explains...

[meerling]

Politicians...

Re:Well that explains...

[BringsApples]

Politicians actually don't have any of their own confidence, they take yours. That's the whole schtick to politics these days: Gain The People's Confidence. They each know how full of shit they are, and more importantly, they know how full of shit you are.

Re:Well that explains...

[fustakrakich]

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.

Re:Well that explains...

[Beck_Neard]

It explains everyone. Society rewards confidence, even if that confidence is wrong. It does not reward ability at all, at least not directly.

If you know something and are confident in it, people listen.
If you don't know something but are confident in it, people listen.
If you know something but aren't confident in it, people won't listen.
If you don't know something and aren't confident in it, people won't listen.

The only exception to this is when you have been wrong so many times that people gradually stop taking your confidence at face value. But you can still rile up support again through a few sound-bites and appeals to the lowest common denominator. After all, we all know that the ability to come up with a witty one-liner on the spot demonstrates intelligence and wit.

People are dumb (myself included).

Seems consistent

[Dega704]

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

And that's what's wrong today

[Opportunist]

People who know their stuff also know just how little they really know, and they tend to be cautious with their answers. People who don't, but know just enough to THINK they know a lot lack that inhibition. And they won't hesitate to use this to assert they know a lot. This in turn will be seen as determination and having a vision by management and now take a wild guess who will be in charge of making all the important decisions.

And sometimes I can't help but wonder if knowing too much is actually keeping people from climbing the corporate ladder. It seems, the less you know, the higher your chance that you'll end up at the C-Level.

Re:And that's what's wrong today

[AthanasiusKircher]

And sometimes I can't help but wonder if knowing too much is actually keeping people from climbing the corporate ladder. It seems, the less you know, the higher your chance that you'll end up at the C-Level.

I'm pretty sure I remember reading a study some years back about average IQ vs. salary. (Given the thread I'm discussing this in, I'm hesitant to say I'm sure of anything.) Anyhow, the conclusion was that people who made the big money in business tend not to be the smartest -- they tend to be somewhat above average, but not more than a standard deviation or two. Those results make some intuitive sense, given not only the parent's argument about ignorance, but also the fact that the people who possess rare intelligence often also end up with weird and eclectic interests, which means they often may be driven by some more esoteric obsession than the simple accumulation of wealth.

But perhaps I'm just rationalizing, as TFA says.

Anyhow, I would also agree with the parent to some extent because I think our current corporate culture specifically REQUIRES a certain level of ignorance to produce the results that many businesses want. There are very few corporations satisfied to be relatively "stable" from year-to-year. Growth, expansion, innovation, etc. are the normal desired features, even in businesses where basic methods don't change very fast.

The most rational choice -- and probably the one adopted by intelligent, informed people -- would be one that probably approximates the average growth rate of the economy as a whole. For example, it's like the "invest in index funds" strategy -- from a rational, informed perspective, it's probably the course most likely to keep your investments stable.

But lots of people are convinced that they have a strategy that will beat the market. Similarly, lots of people in mid-level management think they have a plan for a business that will involve risky choices to get ahead of competition, to expand at a great rate, etc.

Obviously there will be a few people who actually ARE smart enough to figure out a strategy that's likely to beat the average. But there are probably 10 times as many people who THINK they can beat the average, but they're deluded.

The problem is that if you gather enough such people together, a few of them are bound to have a string of "hits" just by chance. And those people tend to get promoted in our current corporate culture, because they apparently produce "results" which are far ahead of what the rational, informed, safer course would be... even if their "hits" were just a string of luck.

And once you reach a certain level of management and size of business, even really bad decisions won't sink your career. For one thing, you increasingly rely on delegating those decisions to underlings who will take the fall unless a true disaster happens where they call for the head of the CEO. Instead of promoting the risky decisions yourself, you are in change of promoting the people who will do it, and some will get lucky... just like you did. And if you have a string of luck, you become a "great CEO." If you fail miserably (as is just as likely with chance), you take your golden parachute and retire.

Basically, this is bound to be a case in a system where we promote people based on the idea that they will be overly aggressive and make strong decisions outside the norm, expecting results outside the norm. We're essentially demanding a level of exceptionalism that will tend to favor promotion on the basis of chance success (since few people have the skills to actually succeed that way due to skill). The demand for those sort of people will always exceed their supply -- which means lots of people will just get promoted for having a string of positive results outside the norm... even if it's the blind luck of someone who's too ignorant to choose a more rational and safer course.

Actually it makes a certain amount of sense

[the_skywise]

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.

Not a new idea

[Translation Error]

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" - Charles Darwin

Darrell Issa is a perfect example

[cat_jesus]

In Hearing, GOP Chairman Issa Misnames African Country, Repeatedly Mispronounces ‘Ebola’

Issa also thinks he knows more about ebola than doctors at the CDC

Idiocracy is happening.

You forgot half the effect...

[yorgo]

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?

The man that inspired this: McArthur Wheeler

[uolamer]

"The study was inspired by the case of McArthur Wheeler, a man who robbed two banks after covering his face with lemon juice in the mistaken belief that, as lemon juice is usable as invisible ink, it would prevent his face from being recorded on surveillance cameras." - Wikipedia

In 1995 McArthur Wheeler actually tested this beforehand with a camera. One way or another his test proved he was invisible, at least to himself.... (lens cap maybe? bad film? somehow didn't get himself in frame when taking the picture?).. He robbed two banks in plain daylight. Later was showed the CCTV footage and still didn't understand how it captured his face..

I read about this a few months ago and just found this to be one of the funniest things. Imagine doing something so stupid a whole psychological theory was inspired.

Re:The man that inspired this: McArthur Wheeler

[Quirkz]

Maybe with lemon juice in his eyes he couldn't see anything, and assumed the picture itself was blurry, rather than his vision?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I was just talking about this with my wife...

[weiserfireman]

She asked me, "how do you know you are a good computer technician"

Me, "because I know how little I really know. When I was a good amateur, I thought I knew a lot, and was confident, but now, I know so much more that I know what I don't know. That makes me a good technician."

She was confused, but I now I know there there is a scientific name for what I was trying to explain.

Intelligence is..

[Rinikusu]

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

Re:I'm I smart? I guess I'll never know.

[dgatwood]

Of course that could just be Dunning-Kruger blinding me to the brilliance of the current Republican vision.

Quite the opposite. The Dunning-Kruger effect exhibited by those candidates blinds people to their general ignorance and lack of knowledge of even relatively recent history, economics, technology, or really much of anything as far as I can tell. They campaign on a few wedge issues that they know they'll never actually make progress on (e.g. abortion), while showing utter incompetence at everything they touch.

Mind you, the Democrats aren't all that great, either. Given free reign, they tend to spend more and more money on social programs without critically evaluating whether those programs work, raise taxes to pay for it, and end up just making a mess of things.

Economically, what we need is a group of people who are true fiscal conservatives. That means people who are careful about spending money and who constantly reevaluate programs to ensure that the money is being used effectively (which the Democrats fail at). That also means people who know not to spend huge amounts of money on credit, hoping that economic expansion will "fix" their crippling debt (which the Republicans fail at). That means not pumping money into their cronies' businesses (which both parties fail at, just with different cronies). That means setting up tax systems that don't favor the wealthy with lower tax rates under a false belief that this will create jobs (which the Republicans fail at), and that don't overly burden small businesses that create jobs (which the Democrats fail at). And it also means creating an environment that favors competition while disrupting monopolies (which the Republicans badly fail at, and the Democrats also often fail at).

From there, we need people who defend liberty and civil rights, and who stand up for those who are powerless. Both Democrats and Republicans suck at that, just in different ways. Both parties attack the fourth amendment. Republicans and some Democrats (e.g. Hillary Clinton) attack the free speech aspects of the first. Republicans vigorously defend freedom of religion, but only for Christian religions. Democrats attack the second amendment. And neither party respects the remaining amendments very much, with the exception of the third (which nobody cares much about).

Coin a new phrase

[Scottingham]

I'd like to coin a new phrase: The Kruger Hump.

This is the inflection point where you realize just how little you actually know. Up to that point is marked by the D-K effect.

I thought ...

[PPH]

... Dunning-Kruger was the name of the business school our CEO got his degree from.

Re:This is merely proof of the old adage:

[R3d M3rcury]

I was thinking of: "All things are easy to those who don't have to do them."

I blame women

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

Re:I blame women

[Neo-Rio-101]

...which is funny because in East Asian countries (specifically China, Japan), being and sounding overly confident comes off arrogant and boastful.... EVEN IF you ARE confident about certain things. You'll just sound pompous, to the point where you have to fake inadequacy to get people to take you seriously.

This would explain why nerdy and geeky men typically hook up with Asian women.
*ducks*

Re:I blame women

[Neo-Rio-101]

... I mean that Asian girls prefer men who lack self-confidence. Maybe because they're easier targets to walk all over?
this isn't scientific, so I'll stop here.

Re:I blame women

[nukenerd]

This would explain why nerdy and geeky men typically hook up with Asian women.

..and here was I foolishly thinking it was because the Asian women in question were hot.

Nerdy men get hot women? I think that this thread has taken a wrong turning somewhere.

As John Cleese pointed out

[msobkow]

As John Cleese pointed out, you need a minimum level of intelligence to even realize that you are stupid.

Sadly, a huge percentage of the population is too stupid to realize that they're morons.

Re:As John Cleese pointed out

[gweihir]

Indeed. Matches my experience. And unfortunately, the confident ones tend get promoted or elected.

Re:As John Cleese pointed out

[silfen]

Sadly, a huge percentage of the population is too stupid to realize that they're morons.

More importantly, a huge percentage of intellectuals, politicians, government advisers, economists, regulators, and administrators are too stupid to realize that they're morons in almost everything other than a (usually irrelevant) narrow specialty.

This does _not_ mean confident people are stupid!

[gweihir]

The statement is "stupid people are confident" as in stupid(p) => confident(p).
It is not "confident people are stupid" (i.e. confident(p) => stupid(p)). Confident people are a mix of a small group that actually has a clue and a large group that is stupid.

As this discussion thread so far nicely shows, quite a few of the people here get the implication wrong. They are in the "large group".

He knows just enough to be dangerous.

[pz]

Seems to explain the effect where a little knowledge in a field appears to make one reckless and dangerous, whereas deeper knowledge makes one cautious.