Reply
Tue 19 Jul, 2005 12:41 pm
Justin Kruger and David Dunning from Department of Psychology at
Cornell University have proven what we already know - that incompetent people are too incompetent to figure out that they're incompetent.
Using psychology students as test subjects, these Cornell University psychologists ran tests of logic, grammar, and humor. After the tests, the researchers asked the students to estimate how well they did. Students who did poorly tended to be most confident about their test results while those who performed near the top were more likely to underestimate how well they scored. The authors believe that the overconfidence of poor performers stems from an inability to accurately assess their own ability and that of others.
The results probably may help explain a lot of the stuff you see going on around us. :wink:
From the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology:
Quote:Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
Justin Kruger and David Dunning
Department of Psychology
Cornell University
Abstract
People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that 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. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.
Link to
full report
This is probably why Socrates (recognized, I would imagine, by most as being a pretty dang smart guy) said "I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance."
Walter, that is an experiment with which I am quite familiar in my own right. When I got my masters, I worked as an assistant in lieu of a thesis. One thing that my advisor was testing, was the projection of volunteers on how well they would do on an analogy test. The volunteers were randomly selected with most variables accounted for in that the ages, sex, etc. were pretty well cross sectional. In this particular case, the volunteers guessed lower than their actual scores determined, suggesting that the study then, was in direct opposition to what Kruger and Dunning found. I suspect that the age variables were the big difference.
Re: The Clueless Are Clueless That They're Clueless
Walter Hinteler wrote:Justin Kruger and David Dunning from Department of Psychology at
Cornell University have proven what we already know - that incompetent people are too incompetent to figure out that they're incompetent.
Using psychology students as test subjects, these Cornell University psychologists ran tests of logic, grammar, and humor. After the tests, the researchers asked the students to estimate how well they did. Students who did poorly tended to be most confident about their test results while those who performed near the top were more likely to underestimate how well they scored. The authors believe that the overconfidence of poor performers stems from an inability to accurately assess their own ability and that of others.
The results probably may help explain a lot of the stuff you see going on around us. :wink:
From the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology:
Quote:Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
Justin Kruger and David Dunning
Department of Psychology
Cornell University
Abstract
People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that 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. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.
Link to
full report
'Improving the skills of the participants', I think gives the game away for these researchers. The last laugh is on them. For they are too ignorant to see that 'improving the skills' merely means becoming aware of what standards are expected of a participant. The better participants were more reliable in their assessments of how well they did simply because they were used to this level of professional interaction.
The researchers made the mistake of assuming that there is an absolute measure for determining how well someone does in a test, without recognising that 'how well one does' is a matter of what one is used to finding acceptable.
So their conclusion was false. Bad philsophy is rife in science, and this is another example where researchers failed to think it through.
My goodness, J.J., Philosophy and psychology are quite different in that one attempts to measure a theory and the other simply speculates.
Letty wrote:My goodness, J.J., Philosophy and psychology are quite different in that one attempts to measure a theory and the other simply speculates.
Yes, at least these researchers are confident that
Theory must be of a higher cognitive order than thinking it through. But their results proved this theory wrong.
interesting article, Walter. it's the first time i remember reading a study that involved measuring humor ability. it certainly doesn't contradict my impression that unfunny people often think they're funnier than they actually are.
Sorry, J.J. I don't understand what you are saying. I didn't conclude that the results were accurate in either case. I simply sited the difference between forceful discussion and measurement. I am fully aware that often times, researchers make the data fit the theory. I've seen that happen ,too. In my advisor's study, I predicted that most would under guess their scores, because they would rather guess low and get a higher score, than guess higher and get a lower score.
Incidentally, the application or import of the study was to examine the under- achiever
Well, that observation was droll, Yit.
yitwail wrote:interesting article, Walter. it's the first time i remember reading a study that involved measuring humor ability. it certainly doesn't contradict my impression that unfunny people often think they're funnier than they actually are.
ifo tyoy reead my trexty wyou will see that i argue ithatthe sceientyoists did not think its thru
thank you, Letty. on the serious side, this study is ammunition for critics of the emphasis placed on fostering self-esteem in classrooms. i personally don't think there's any easy formula to determine the "right amount" of self-esteem a student should have.
Well, Yit. I have to laugh. I thought our Jack Jones was a singer, but I think that he is a pretender. I see what you're saying about self esteem, but all I can speak for is my own experience.
However, I would like to point out that Walter info can be summed up an old Arabic proverb:
He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool. Shun him.
(sorry. I misspelled a word, but I don't think anyone noticed it.)
i haven't noticed the misspelling either, but you did omit a preposition.
Them preps are jest like them yuppies.
Sorry, Walter. Your info was very interesting, but I suspect to be validated, the team should replicate it.
(should have been "cite" instead of site)
Letty wrote:Sorry, Walter. Your info was very interesting, but I suspect to be validated, the team should replicate it.
are you implying that undergraduate psych students at Cornell don't constitute a representative sample?
Letty wrote:Sorry, J.J. I don't understand what you are saying. I didn't conclude that the results were accurate in either case. I simply sited the difference between forceful discussion and measurement. I am fully aware that often times, researchers make the data fit the theory. I've seen that happen ,too. In my advisor's study, I predicted that most would under guess their scores, because they would rather guess low and get a higher score, than guess higher and get a lower score.
Incidentally, the application or import of the study was to examine the under- achiever
A higher score is not the same as a more acceptable score. The researchers assume that they are the same. The professional people scored a higher score than the non-professionals but the researchers cannot conclude from this that they had a better idea of how well (or acceptable) they did. Each group may have had different scores, but they can have different standards of what is acceptable.
We can pull out of this philosophical invetsigation this statement:
acceptability is sufficient as a standard of achievement, whereas
high score is not.
If you argue that it is speculation to consider that the two groups hold different standards for acceptability, then this must be rigorously investigated or the experimental results can be little more than speculative.
Well, when I read this report, I thought at first of a friend ... and a couple of others:
all are studying at the 'Distant University' here (a 'real' university, a bit different to the UK's 'Open University').
My friend is a hard working and harder studying person, doing extremely well, with excellent results. But after any exam, she nearly completely down, because "nearly everything went wrong", she forgot this and that.
On the other hand, someone we know and who isn't really a person, who does well in academic life, is always high up re his knowledge .... and totally surprised that he didn't pass an exam.
I made similar experiences when I wqorked as a lecturer at university.
Walter, are you drunk tonight? I had trouble making sense of your last 2(full) paragraphs.
KNOCK KNOCK
whos there?
CONTROL FREAK
NOW YOU SAY CONTROL FREAK WHO
Well, Walter. I found that there are some people who have "test-taking" skills. In other words, they psych out the method of testing.
It is my very biased opinion there should be a moratorium on test taking, just to evaluate the results. In other words, manipulate the variables.
Hey, all. This has been a great discussion.
Two men and a woman are killed in a highway accident, and appear before St. Peter at the Pearly Gates. He has them take a seat, and calls one of the men up.
Look, the Big Guy says I'm too easy on everyone, so there's got to be a test.
A test, oh my . . . i mean, i'm horrible at tests, i'm goin' to Hell for sure . . .
Hey, relax, I'm not gonna bust yer . . . well, you know . . . spell "God."
You're kiddin' me . . .
No, really, spell "God."
G-O-D
Fine, have a seat over there.
Then he calls the next man up, and makes the same explanation to him.
Great, I'm a whizz at tests, I ace tests all the time, give it to me!
Spell "God."
For real ? ! ? ! ?
Yeah, spell "God."
G-O-D
Fine, please have a seat over there.
So he calls the woman up, and begins to explain what he has told the other two, when . . .
A test ? ! ? ! ? I'm sick of this. All my life I've had to prove myself, I've had to be better than the men around me just to get accepted, and now, here I am at the gates of Heaven, and it's happening all over again ! ! !
Hey, slow down, relax . . . the others took the test . . . Hey Guys, you took the test, right ?
They nod their assent.
Well . . . i suppose . . . what is it?
Spell Czechoslovakia.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace