The Dunning-Kruger effect, sound like someone you know?

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You earn ridicule when you pretend to have knowledge of science and then say ridiculous things that prove you don't understand what you are talking about.

The point of the Dunning-Kruger effect is that it takes time and effort to develop expertise in a field. People, such as yourself, who haven't studied science are confident they know what they are talking about. People who have actually studied science and developed expertise see that what they are saying is nonsense.

The issue is expertise.

You talk endlessly about 'expertise,' but you don't actually explain why anything is right or wrong.

I think it is because you don't actually have any capacity for discerning why things are right or wrong beyond comparing them to information you've received from sources you trust.

That is why you are so obsessed with 'expertise.' If you had to listen to unfamiliar claims and you didn't have some way of assessing the credentials of the claims-makers, you would just be clueless as to how to evaluate the claims in the absence of 'expert' guidance.

Another way to put it is you are a person who could be easily misled/tricked by people claiming to have expertise if you didn't have some source of authority to tell you whether to trust/believe them or not.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Plenty of people have explained in some detail why you're wrong. It's not their fault you don't understand.

Never mind, you can do what you normally do when you don't understand something, post a load of incomprehensible word salad. That always shows how smart you are.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Plenty of people have explained in some detail why you're wrong. It's not their fault you don't understand.

Never mind, you can do what you normally do when you don't understand something, post a load of incomprehensible word salad. That always shows how smart you are.

Can you post an example of what you consider, 'word salad,' to see why you have trouble reading it?

I might be able to help you with complex reading skills.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

You're confusing verbosity with intelligence.

0 Replies

Expertise is about understanding. It is about the ability to solve problems and the experience working with concepts. I developed my expertise in science the hard way; hours and hours learning math, solving problems, working with other people, presenting my ideas for feedback, working in the lab.

In the Einstein thread Lava uses terms that you might find in a science textbook although he clearly doesn't understand what they mean. For example, in one section he implies "inertia" is a form of propulsion (it isn't). When I pointed this out, he changed it to "pass propulsion". This is also wrong... but he is just making stuff up anyway.

If Lava were able to do basic high school Physics (in this case) he would understand the mathematics. He would know what "propulsion" is and what "inertia" means because he would need it in order so solve the problems.

It is not a matter of memorizing facts... if he had the understanding required to solve actual problems and model actual orbits, he would understand why what he is saying is nonsense.

The is a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Someone who has no expertise spouting off things that he doesn't understand, where someone with true expertise (having taken the time to actually learn about the topic) sees that it is nonsense.

1 Reply

@bobsal u1553115,

Quote:

Oralloy and his sock, coldjoint.

If one of us posted on this thread, the post is gone. I guess that makes your post irrelevant like so many other posts of yours.

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

See? You proved me right. Thank you.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Expertise is about understanding. It is about the ability to solve problems and the experience working with concepts. I developed my expertise in science the hard way; hours and hours learning math, solving problems, working with other people, presenting my ideas for feedback, working in the lab.

If you had done that, you would be doing it here instead of talking about having done it and not continuing to do it.

Quote:

In the Einstein thread Lava uses terms that you might find in a science textbook although he clearly doesn't understand what they mean. For example, in one section he implies "inertia" is a form of propulsion (it isn't). When I pointed this out, he changed it to "pass propulsion". This is also wrong... but he is just making stuff up anyway.

This is a stupid bland rhetorical issue you keep raising about inertia and propulsion. Obviously propulsion means something different than passively remaining in motion due to inertia, but it is helpful to think of inertia as causing moving objects to remain in motion as a form of propulsion because the object is not standing still.

E.g. if you're teaching why a bowling ball maintains a constant speed on a flat smooth surface when thrown, it helps to clarify it is not being propelled by some kind of motor, but rather its inertia keeps it moving by resisting friction that would otherwise slow it down. If the bowling ball was a light inflatable ball, the air friction would slow it down and/or cause it to veer off its straight path. So the mass/density/inertia of the bowling ball is like a form of stored power that keeps it overcoming the air resistance and other forms of friction, which an inflatable ball of the same size/shape wouldn't do because it lacks that same inertia.

Quote:

If Lava were able to do basic high school Physics (in this case) he would understand the mathematics. He would know what "propulsion" is and what "inertia" means because he would need it in order so solve the problems.

Math doesn't clarify concepts for many people. Even people who can do the procedures required for calculation often don't understand what their calculations and equations mean. They just plug in numbers, do algebra, and if they get the right answers they think they understand.

Quote:

It is not a matter of memorizing facts... if he had the understanding required to solve actual problems and model actual orbits, he would understand why what he is saying is nonsense.

The is a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Someone who has no expertise spouting off things that he doesn't understand, where someone with true expertise (having taken the time to actually learn about the topic) sees that it is nonsense.

I've never read you explain/discuss any actual science. All you do is classify people into scientists/non-scientists. It's like you are a sociologist of science who can't actually think scientifically.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

If you were in a high school Physics class, your misconception about inertia and propulsion would get in the way of your understanding. You would start to learn the math and solve real problems. You would either drop your misconception (a process we call "learning") or you would have problems with the class.

You aren't in a high school Physics class, so you can say any nonsense you want because you don't need to show your work. And you don't need to learn from your misconceptions.

You feel like you understand something... although it is clear to anyone who has passed a high school Physics class that you are spouting nonsens.

And that is the Dunning-Kruger effect.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

If you were in a high school Physics class, your misconception about inertia and propulsion would get in the way of your understanding. You would start to learn the math and solve real problems. You would either drop your misconception (a process we call "learning") or you would have problems with the class.

High school classes are not the ultimate crucible for truth any more than college classes or any other social context are. Truth is beyond social context.

Until you learn how to make sense of things independently of social contexts, you can't understand something like inertia being a form of propulsion. Understanding that occurs at a deeper level, one that you might just not get.

I can try to help you, but you can just go on rejecting what I'm saying by talking about math or high school or college or textbooks or whatever you can muster: Propulsion is understood as generating motion in objects, therefore if you understand motion in terms of propulsion, you could be inclined to wonder how a bowling ball stays in motion without any form of active propulsion.

That is exactly what Newton wondered with regard to the Aristotelian assumption that constant motion requires constant energy-addition. So when Newton discovered that inertia was sufficient to keep objects passively in motion, that effectively 'realized' momentum/inertia as a form of propulsion that keeps objects in motion passively, without external energy being added.

Quote:

You aren't in a high school Physics class, so you can say any nonsense you want because you don't need to show your work. And you don't need to learn from your misconceptions.

Learning to calculate the relationship between force, momentum, speed, acceleration, power, energy, work, etc. is a good excuse to do math; and doing math is a good way to grade student performance; but that doesn't mean it is the ultimate truth about physical reality and the mechanics that govern how physical things and systems function.

Quote:

You feel like you understand something... although it is clear to anyone who has passed a high school Physics class that you are spouting nonsens.

And that is the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Things can seem 'clear' to you because you understand an equation and you don't want to think any further or more deeply about it. That is not actual clarity of understanding, but rather avoidance of understanding by reference to some pony trick(s) you learned that make you feel superior to others who can't do them.

What you are doing with math is no different from someone who doesn't think deeply about scripture but nevertheless has memorized loads of quotes, which they can cite. If you explain something about the meaning of a given Bible quote to them, they might go off on all the quotes they've memorized just because they feel slighted by you explaining something they hadn't thought of yet. That is what you are doing in terms of math and physics.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You feel like you understand something... although it is clear to anyone who has passed a high school Physics class that you are spouting nonsens.

And that is the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Which is also true of physicists who claim to know what good writing is.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Hi Izzy.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Excellent Lava! You are giving a superb example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

LivingLava is claiming that his expertise in Physics is due to the fact that he doesn't understand high school Physics. He claims that his insight in to the topic are better for the fact that he doesn't understand the basics.

LivingLava is funny, but he also perfectly illustrates the point.

3 Replies

@maxdancona,

“If you’re incompetent, you can’t know you’re incompetent,” Dunning wrote in Self-Insight: Roadblocks and Detours on the Path to Knowing Thyself.

Not that I'm one to talk. I never took high-school physics

1 Reply

@coluber2001,

I don't know if I agree with that. There are a number of fields in which I know I am incompetent. These are fields which I haven't spent any time studying.

There is a process to developing expertise. It should be pretty easy to distinguish the fields you have earned a degree in, or reached measurable success professionally.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

The example I always use is legal... I started explaining to a lawyer about how something was "priveleged" based on the hours I spent watching Law and Order.

When he told me I didn't know what I was talking about (and pointing out in this case my ignorance could get me in trouble) I accepted my ignorance pretty quickly.

There is a reason that smart people hand pay a lawyer well when they need a legal expert.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Excellent Lava! You are giving a superb example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

LivingLava is claiming that his expertise in Physics is due to the fact that he doesn't understand high school Physics. He claims that his insight in to the topic are better for the fact that he doesn't understand the basics.

LivingLava is funny, but he also perfectly illustrates the point.

I've explained to you several times how momentum/inertia is a form of propulsion even though it's technically passive locomotion instead of active locomotion; yet still you disregard the value of what I've said to condescend toward me instead.

You should understand that making sense of this basic difference/similarity between active and passive locomotion is also crucial for understanding how energy efficiency works in something like a train, which transports more cargo/passengers than trucks/buses/cars that use more energy to overcome rolling resistance and wind drag.

Yes, you can quantify and calculate these things, but those are ultimately just ways of reasoning. If you don't calculate exactly how much wind-drag is overcome by a train compared with a convoy of trucks/buses on the highway, it doesn't prevent you from reasoning that the trucks/buses have more air-space between them than the train cars.

You don't need exact measurements, calculations, and equations to apply scientific concepts. In fact, if you do use exact equations and calculations, they will never perfectly reflect/predict reality because there are always more complexities in reality than can be accounted for mathematically. Still, doing the math can help your reasoning process.

The really important thing, however, is understanding concepts in order to apply them to the task of analyzing various aspects of reality. E.g. first you understand how inertia and momentum are passive forms of propulsion, then you apply that to analyzing how a train is more energy-efficient than trucks/buses/cars.

Science is really about analyzing and modeling reality in order to better understand how it works, but mathematical modeling and calculation, equations, etc. can be powerful tools in the process, depending on how you use them.

Math can also lead people astray from good reasoning and logic, as I've explained in other posts, but there is mathematical hubris that prevents many people from seeing and/or acknowledging that math has a dark side; probably because it is the way that they gained the good grades and test scores that weeded away lots of other students while they ascended through the ranks of academic privilege.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

You are completely wrong about a basic principle of high school physics. "Momentum/inertia" is not a form of propulsion. In fact, if you took a high school class... the very first thing you would learn is Newton's first law (which is about inertia). The second thing you would learn is Newton's second law (which is about propulsion). In a Physics high school class, you would have to use these concepts to solve actual problems. You would get the wrong answers because you don't understand the difference.

This is literally the most basic Physics. You are wrong. The stuff about "passive locomotion" is just nonsense you are making up yourself.

There are two problems you have.

1) You don't know basic Physics.
2) You are claiming to have expertise.

So let's ask the real question here relating to the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Where do you think your knowledge of Physics comes from? What would someone have to do to reach your level of expertise in the subject?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Excellent Lava! You are giving a superb example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

You've been singing from the same songbook for some time now, two sides of the same coin.

0 Replies

@bobsal u1553115,

bobsal u1553115 wrote:

Oralloy

You cannot provide any examples of me not being able to back up what I say with reputable cites.

bobsal u1553115 wrote:

and his sock, coldjoint.

Which one of us has been suspended for using multiple IDs to circumvent a2k rules?

It is dishonorable to falsely accuse people of using your own tactics.

You also cannot point out any cases of coldjoint not being able to back up what he says with reputable cites.

1 Reply

The Dunning-Kruger effect, sound like someone you know?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know