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."

35 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 __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 5, Funny

      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?!

    3. 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!”
    4. 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.

    5. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by shadowrat · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

  2. Left one out by jbmartin6 · · Score: 5, Funny

    He didn't mention /. posters.

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    1. Re:Left one out by eparker05 · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    2. Re:Left one out by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:Left one out by lgw · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  3. Who? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    --
    Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    1. 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.

    2. Re:Who? by operagost · · Score: 3, Funny

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

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    3. Re:Who? by X0563511 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Whoosh.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  4. 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 bluefoxlucid · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    3. 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.

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

    Politicians...

    1. Re:Well that explains... by BringsApples · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    2. 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!”
  6. Seems consistent by Dega704 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "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

  7. And that's what's wrong today by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:And that's what's wrong today by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

  8. 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.

  9. Not a new idea by Translation+Error · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

    --
    When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
  10. Darrell Issa is a perfect example by cat_jesus · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  11. 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?

  12. The man that inspired this: McArthur Wheeler by uolamer · · Score: 5, Informative

    "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.

    --
    s/©//g
  13. I was just talking about this with my wife... by weiserfireman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  14. 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
  15. Coin a new phrase by Scottingham · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  16. 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.

  17. As John Cleese pointed out by msobkow · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:As John Cleese pointed out by silfen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.