The Dunning Kruger effect

The Dunning Kruger effect

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2761-the-dunning-kruger-effect

Charles Darwin (1871) sagely noted over a century ago,
"ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

Stephen Hawking
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”

garrulous,
having the habit of talking a lot, especially about things that are not important

Circumlocutions and a loquacious sesquipedalian.
talking too much and using grandiloquent words

Grandiloquent
pompous or extravagant in language, style, or manner, especially in a way that is intended to impress.

logorrhea
In psychology, logorrhea or logorrhoea (from Ancient Greek λόγος logos "word" and ῥέω rheo "to flow"), also known as press speech, is a communication disorder that causes excessive wordiness and repetitiveness, which can cause incoherency.

Sometimes, it seems as if some people's butt must be jealous of the quantity of waste that comes out of their mouth. Generally, people who know little, talk a lot, and those who know much speak little. While intelligent people are able to express a lot in a few words, limited people, in contrast, are able to talk much but say nothing

Describing people who talk a lot
loquacious sesquipedalian
garrulous
grandiloquent
logorrhea
talkative
chatty
voluble
longwinded
gabby
mouthy
yappy

Arrogant:
haughty
conceited
hubristic
self-important
opinionated
egotistic
overbearing
pompous

self-centered
egotistic
self-infatuated
solipsistic

Outspoken:
point-blank
vociferous
vocal
strident
turkey talking

Foolish:
berk
chump
dummy
bonehead
clod
nincompoop
ninny
blockhead
dimwit
dolt
jackass
loon
mug
nitwit
clot
dullard
git
halfwit
dipstick
dumbo
plonker
prat
twit
wally
sap
fathead
bozo
dunderhead  
numbskull
pea-brain
thickhead
dumb-bell
dum-dum
goon
numpty
plank
airhead
birdbrain
chucklehead
illiterate knucklehead
muttonhead
pinhead
pudding-head
wooden-head
donkey geek
noodle putz
turkey twerp
chowderhead
dingbat
ding-dong

Lack of understanding:
oblivious
vacuous
gormless  
oafish
asinine  
nitwitted  
doltish
incurious  
absent-minded  
vapid    
dozi  
stolidity  
pueril
feeble-minded
stupefact



People tend to hold overly favourable views of their abilities in many intellectual domains. This overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. 1 It is one of the essential features of such incompetence that the person so afflicted is incapable of knowing that he is incompetent.  In many domains in life, success and satisfaction depend on knowledge, wisdom, or savvy in knowing which rules to follow and which strategies to pursue. Not only do they reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it.

In essence, the skills that engender competence in a particular domain are often the very same skills necessary to evaluate competence in that domain—one's own or anyone else's. Because of this, incompetent individuals lack what cognitive psychologists variously term metacognition, metamemory, metacomprehension, or self-monitoring skills. These terms refer to the ability to know how well one is performing, when one is likely to be accurate in judgment, and when one is likely to be in error. 

For any given skill, some people have more expertise and some have less, some a good deal less. What about those people with low levels of expertise? Do they recognize it?  People with substantial deficits in their knowledge or expertise should not be able to recognize those deficits. Despite potentially making error after error, they should tend to think they are doing just fine. In short, those who are incompetent, for lack of a better term, should have little insight into their incompetence—an assertion that has come to be known as the Dunning–Kruger effect. Because poor performers were choosing the responses that they thought were the most reasonable, this would lead them to think they were doing quite well when they were doing anything but.

4 HABITS OF STUPID PEOPLE THAT SMART PEOPLE DON’T HAVE
1. Stupid people blame others for their own mistakes
2. Stupid people always have to be right
3. Stupid people react when they realize their views were defeated with anger and aggression
4. Stupid people think they are better than everyone else

Some people are easily recognized by being descendants from the two families, Dunning and Kruger, and suffer from cognitive dissonance, and ultracrepidarianism.

They are descendants all from the same traditional family, and gained by heredity the Dunning–Kruger syndrome, which is a cognitive bias wherein people of low ability have illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority derives from the metacognitive inability of low-ability persons to recognize their own ineptitude; without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their actual competence or incompetence.

It accompanies also cognitive dissonance, which is the mental discomfort (psychological stress) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. The occurrence of cognitive dissonance is a consequence of a person performing an action that contradicts personal beliefs, ideas, and values; and also occurs when confronted with new information that contradicts said beliefs, ideas, and values.

Furthermore, they cultivate the bad habit of ultracrepidarianism, which is the habit of giving opinions and advice on matters outside of one's knowledge.

And a big branch has evolved which thinks that willful ignorance is honourable and nothing to be ashamed of. " We don't know yet how everything came to be, but it wasn't God".

A good example is Richard Dawkins. He has little knowledge of theology but thinks he has the ability to criticise theism. He writes:

"Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?”

He might have forgotten the Chinese dictum: " Know your enemy".

Their common worldview follows common lines, like the strong faith in physicalism, where they are their own highest ultimate instance, there is nobody else above. They are usually full of certainty and right on everything, and when confronted with the fact that their mind, which has been developed in their view from the mind of the lower animals, the dissonance arises. Is what they believe is of any value or at all trustworthy? Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?

They usually argue that they do not need God to live upon a high moral standard, only believers need God as crutches to avoid behaving like a jerk. And are blind by the fact that morals are prescriptive - and when there is no superior entity, objective moral values cannot exist.

Usually, these people have high confidence in science, peer review, and consensus, and what scientists postulate. But truth said Krugers resist to acknowledge where the evidence leads to. They held the opinion that chemicals self-assembled spontaneously by orderly aggregation without any higher guidance to create life,  and interference and that there is more than enough to show that man evolved from apes and all life from lower forms over a very long period of time — evolution.

DNA, the mechanism responsible, has every attribute of a software code or language, and both of these without exception in human history have been written by a writer - but they deny both. In their view, DNA is not a Code, and, logically do not need a coder.

They also argue that the founder of the most powerful force that forever changed the world,  Christ, did not exist, nor resurrected. He is the result of the fertile imagination of unnamed sheep herders of the bronze age - so they say.

Be cautious. Don’t be too certain of any claim that begins with: Once there was absolutely nothing. And that nothing exploded......



The Dunning Kruger Effect]The Dunning Kruger Effect
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FGnb2lgPBA


1. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e320/9ca64cbed9a441e55568797cbd3683cf7f8c.pdf

Cranio-rectal impaction, Ultracrepidarianism, The Dunning Kruger effect, Cognitive dissonance - the effects of the adoption of a false Worldview

Cranio-rectal impaction

http://iddxblog.blogspot.com.br/2008/05/kevin-warns-you-about-cranio-rectal.html

Symptoms:
Commonly misdiagnosed among the general population, a patient with cranio-rectal impaction will present with gross ignorance of current events or sociopolitical issues yet remain very outspoken. Unlike someone who is simply misinformed, people with CAI will claim to be experts in all fields of knowledge and refuse to acknowledge any information contrary to their own point of view (from inside the rectum). CAI patients are often combative, obstinate and generally annoying to be around.

Treatment:
Standard treatment for CAI is difficult due to poor patient compliance. Symptomatic treatments via well-supported, cogent, arguments are usually useless, especially in cases of severe impaction. Family and friends of CAI patients are encouraged to take a hands-off approach and simply ignore the symptoms. Anecdotal evidence has suggested that unsuccessful attempts at treatment may exacerbate the symptoms, causing the patient’s head to be firmly impacted within the rectum.

Ultracrepidarianism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultracrepidarianism

Symptoms:
is the habit of giving opinions and advice on matters outside of one's knowledge. The term ultracrepidarian was first publicly recorded in 1819 by the essayist William Hazlitt in an open Letter to William Gifford, the editor of the Quarterly Review: "You have been well called an Ultra-Crepidarian critic." It was used again four years later in 1823, in the satire by Hazlitt's friend Leigh Hunt, Ultra-Crepidarius: a Satire on William Gifford.

The term draws from a famous comment purportedly made by Apelles, a famous Greek artist, to a shoemaker who presumed to criticise his painting.The Latin phrase "Sutor, ne ultra crepidam", as set down by Pliny and later altered by other Latin writers to "Ne ultra crepidam judicaret", can be taken to mean that a shoemaker ought not to judge beyond his own soles. That is to say, critics should only comment on things they know something about. The saying remains popular in several languages, as in the English, "A cobbler should stick to his last", the Spanish, "Zapatero a tus zapatos" ("Shoemaker, to your shoes"), the Dutch, "Schoenmaker, blijf bij je leest", the Danish "Skomager, bliv ved din læst", and the German, "Schuster, bleib bei deinen Leisten" (the last three in English, "cobbler, stick to your last")

The Dunning Kruger effect

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e320/9ca64cbed9a441e55568797cbd3683cf7f8c.pdf

Charles Darwin (1871) sagely noted over a century ago,
"ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

Stephen Hawking
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”

Symptoms:
People tend to hold overly favourable views of their abilities in many intellectual domains. This overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. 1 It is one of the essential features of such incompetence that the person so afflicted is incapable of knowing that he is incompetent.  In many domains in life, success and satisfaction depend on knowledge, wisdom, or savvy in knowing which rules to follow and which strategies to pursue. Not only do they reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it.

4 HABITS OF STUPID PEOPLE THAT SMART PEOPLE DON’T HAVE
1. Stupid people blame others for their own mistakes
2. Stupid people always have to be right
3. Stupid people react when they realize their views were defeated with anger and aggression
4. Stupid people think they are better than everyone else

Treatment:
A miracle. 

Cognitive dissonance

“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief.”
-- Frantz Fanon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Symptoms:
In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort (psychological stress) experienced by a person who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. This discomfort is triggered by a situation in which a person’s belief clashes with new evidence perceived by the person. When confronted with facts that contradict beliefs, ideals, and values, people will find a way to resolve the contradiction to reduce their discomfort.

Treatment: 
Get a sound worldview based on Christian theism, and instant cure is guaranteed.

Sealioning

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning?fbclid=IwAR01oNIziU2iWPHSYAA-nmsO5DJ4Qqu21g-G7jKzG8xwk2LDIx-2vOn0k0w

Sealioning (also spelled sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment which consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity. It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate".

Playing pigeon's chess

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Pigeon%20chess

Refers to having a pointless debate with somebody utterly ignorant of the subject matter, but standing on a dogmatic position that cannot be moved with any amount of education or logic, but who always proclaims victory.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning?fbclid=IwAR01oNIziU2iWPHSYAA-nmsO5DJ4Qqu21g-G7jKzG8xwk2LDIx-2vOn0k0w

Many don't like the idea of God, because it restricts their freedom to sin. And they don't like the idea of naturalism, because it's nonsensical. So they stick to agnosticism. It frees them to stick to God, and it frees them to stick to naturalism, and to nonsensicalism. So they can happily dwell on the grey zone of not being committed to anything. And they spend their time, going from door to door, to evangelize and propagate the gospel of skepticism and rationalism, which they think makes them look smart and rational, but in reality, it is a confession of foolishness. But as ultracrepidarians and Dunning Kruger's that they are, they are never going to recognize it.  The one who is wise in his own eyes is a fool to God.  The solution for the fool is to turn from his folly, from trusting in himself to fearing God.

John Cleese: Having the problem with people like this is that they are so stupid that they have no idea how stupid they are you see if you're very very stupid how can you possibly realize that you're very very stupid you'd have to be relatively intelligent to realize how stupid you are there's a wonderful bit of research by a guy called David Dunning it Cornell this is a friend of mine and prior to say who's pointed out that in order to know how good you are at something requires exactly the same skills as it does to be good at that thing in the first place which means and it's just every funny that if you're absolutely no good at something at all then you lack exactly the skills that you need to know that you're absolutely no good at it.

John Cleese on Stupidity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU

It is frustrating when you point out to an atheist, that calls himself the "Rational messiah", that he is making an irrational claim, expose 3 times in all possible ways why he is irrational, and in the end, he still keeps repeating the irrational claim and is unable to grasp why he is wrong.

Ghalib argued that the principle of cause and effect only applies inside this universe. When I explained to him that it doesn't matter, if in, or outside the universe, it is always in place, because, nothing, which is the absence of anything, has no causal powers, therefore, even if outside, or beyond our universe, nothing would remain nothing, he kept repeating that his ignorance about what could or could not happen beyond this universe was warranted. Then, someone else came in, arguing that I had a problem with my argument, because, in order for cause and effect to apply, there has always to be something to transform it, and implied, that God would have had no matter or energy to start the universe. I tried to explain that without God, the situation was even worse. Then, there would be nothing creating something from nothing....

Then, they asked me to give an example of something starting without physical preconditions. I said: A thought from the mind does not depend on any physical precondition. Then they started arguing that the mind depends on the brain. When I quoted experts, they argued that the experts that I was quoting, were not experts in the field.
I could not stand it anymore, and left the stream.... I come in at 42 minutes

John Cleese: Having the problem with people like this is that they are so stupid that they have no idea how stupid they are you see if you're very very stupid how can you possibly realize that you're very very stupid you'd have to be relatively intelligent to realize how stupid you are there's a wonderful bit of research by a guy called David Dunning it Cornell this is a friend of mine and prior to say who's pointed out that in order to know how good you are at something requires exactly the same skills as it does to be good at that thing in the first place which means and it's just every funny that if you're absolutely no good at something at all then you lack exactly the skills that you need to know that you're absolutely no good at it.

John Cleese on Stupidity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHF_QFt7RzA

In January 1995, a man named McArthur Wheeler and his accomplice robbed two banks in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Despite the expected presence of numerous security cameras and his prior experience with armed robberies, Wheeler made no apparent effort to disguise his identity.

However, when arrested and told he was identified from security footage, he was genuinely shocked, exclaiming, "But I put lemon juice on myself! I put lemon juice on myself!"

Wheeler believed that dousing his face with lemon juice would render him invisible to security cameras, a misconception likely arising from the old technique of using lemon juice as invisible ink in secret messages. Before the robbery, as a form of "scientific test", Wheeler even took a Polaroid picture of himself where he didn't appear, possibly due to a misalignment or defective film.

This unusual case piqued the interest of David Dunning, a social psychology professor at Cornell University. He was intrigued by Wheeler's confidence in his misguided belief, leading him to wonder if other people might also be oblivious to their own incompetence. Together with Justin Kruger, Dunning explored this phenomenon.

In their experiments, they had participants engage in various tasks, including rating jokes for humor, logic tests, and grammar exercises. Following each task, participants were asked to assess their own performance. A consistent pattern emerged: participants in the bottom 25% dramatically overestimated their abilities, often believing they performed above average.

Further testing revealed that as participants gained more knowledge in a particular domain, their ability to accurately assess their skills improved. Dunning and Kruger concluded that incompetent individuals not only make erroneous decisions but also lack the self-awareness to realize their mistakes. This observation was termed the "Dunning-Kruger effect."

Over the years, this effect has been observed across diverse fields, from chess to medicine to firearm safety. Those in the lowest quartile of performance consistently prove least capable of accurately gauging their abilities.

Yet, it's important to note that this doesn't necessarily equate to a lack of intelligence. Dunning writes about how people are often unaware of the vastness of their ignorance. This isn't just about not knowing the answers; it's about not even knowing the questions. He terms this condition "anosognosia of everyday life" - borrowing from a neurological condition where patients are unaware of their own deficits.

In essence, confidence and knowledge can sometimes be inversely related, leading individuals to overestimate their capabilities. So, the next time you're utterly sure of your knowledge, it might be worth pausing to consider the vastness of what you don't know.