Dunning Kruger

[DLaurent]

Is their theory true? Does 'too stupid to know it' apply? Have you ever felt this way in life?

It seems to make sense to me, as I often encounter people with limited ability, knowledge or experience behaving in overconfident ways.

I think they are more likely to make boldly stated inaccuracies, and the bolder something is stated, the more likely other people with limited knowledge are to believe them. I think the theory goes that as you become more knowledgeable, you become more confident again, but never to the extent of those at 'mount stupid'.

It's also something I recognise in myself in various areas of life, so now when I encounter a 'mount stupid' person, I usually just try to just pacify them, or depending on what it is, recognise the limit of my own knowledge and somewhere in the despair stage.

I may have added some of my own interpretation to the theory.

 

[Clinamenic]

I totally think its valid, at least in my experience. One way I think about it is in terms of unknown unknown, known unknown, known known, and unknown known. For any given topic, its as if there is a field of potentially knowable (or "familiarizable") information, and the subject "knows" (or is familiar with) some of it, and doesn't know the rest of it. Of their particular unknown, they may have a vague sense of some of what they don't know (known unknown), and now have any awareness of the rest (unknown known).

I think the dunning-kruger effect applies when their known unknown starts to drastically outweigh their aggregate known (both their known known, i.e. conscious knowledge, and unknown known, i.e. internalized/felt knowledge).

 

[Clinamenic]

UU -> KU -> KK -> UK is sorta like a processing pipeline for our particular epistemic modality of conscious intelligence, where (KU -> KK) is the segment of this process we are conscious of, perhaps.

 

[DLaurent]

I've been on mount stupid myself in political opinion (aged late 20s), film music art and literature knowledge (early 20s), and more recently fishing.

I'm still in valley of despair when it comes to political opinion. Which I think is down to unknown unknowns, of which there are plenty.

Take for example Brexit. If you speak to many who were pro Brexit, it's given them confidence in their opinion. If you're like me, and still have reason to think Brexit is a bit of charade, and part of a deceitful long term strategy, then you must think Brexiteers are on mount stupid, but I don't have any evidence it's a charade so I just keep quiet. Valley of despair - I could be right or wrong.

I know I'm good at certain styles of fishing, still learning at others, but can spot bad advice when it's given from those that must be on mount stupid. And then music and film etc I'm just more honest these days about when I have seen and heard than I used to be.

Taste is where it gets difficult though. Eg I've been reading a country music recommendation thread and came across some really bad pop stuff. I don't think I can say the people are on mount stupid, as they might just like that kind of music.

 

[IdleRich]

Couldn't this have gone in the NIghtmare on Elm Street thread?

 

[DLaurent]

Couldn't this have gone in the NIghtmare on Elm Street thread?

Not seen it! Valley of despair is me.

 

[DLaurent]

If this is true then we're all on mount stupid.

 

[IdleRich]

Not seen it! Valley of despair is me.

Just a joke cos the baddie in that is called Freddie Kruger.

 

[catalog]

UU -> KU -> KK -> UK is sorta like a processing pipeline for our particular epistemic modality of conscious intelligence, where (KU -> KK) is the segment of this process we are conscious of, perhaps.

Is there any way you can shoehorn an additional K in on the last one?

 

[Mr. Tea]

I totally think its valid, at least in my experience. One way I think about it is in terms of unknown unknown, known unknown, known known, and unknown known. For any given topic, its as if there is a field of potentially knowable (or "familiarizable") information, and the subject "knows" (or is familiar with) some of it, and doesn't know the rest of it. Of their particular unknown, they may have a vague sense of some of what they don't know (known unknown), and now have any awareness of the rest (unknown known).

I think the dunning-kruger effect applies when their known unknown starts to drastically outweigh their aggregate known (both their known known, i.e. conscious knowledge, and unknown known, i.e. internalized/felt knowledge).

Can you give an example of an "unknown known"? Not unknown to you, obviously! I mean an example of something that might be known to someone without them knowing it.

Are you talking unarticulated instincts here, or what?

 

[.....]

I've been reading a country music recommendation thread and came across some really bad pop stuff.

There's a country music thread on here?

 

[DLaurent]

There's a country music thread on here?

No on another forum.

Beyonce
Ashley McBryde
Carrie Underwood
Trisha Yearwood
Patsy Cline
LeAnn Rimes
Shania Twain
Larkin Poe
Casey Musgraves
Emmylou Harris
Miles Cyrus
Emmylou Harris
Reba McIntire
Billy Joe Spears
Lucinda Williams


I don't understand how it's music but it's not for me to say the listeners are uneducated.

 

[catalog]

There's a country music thread on here?

My kinda Country

Not even sure if these two are country, but you'll get a sense of the vibe I'm interested in getting more of from these:

www.dissensus.com

 

[Clinamenic]

Can you give an example of an "unknown known"? Not unknown to you, obviously! I mean an example of something that might be known to someone without them knowing it.

Are you talking unarticulated instincts here, or what?

Yeah thats basically what I have in mind, like "effective knowledge" which you just aren't conscious of, you could say. It could be knowledge which you have deeply internalized or habituated, such that it doesn't enter your awareness (unless you choose to conjure it back into the known known). Might also be something to be said for inherited/genetic knowledge, like aversion to certain predators or something.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Yeah thats basically what I have in mind, like "effective knowledge" which you just aren't conscious of, you could say. It could be knowledge which you have deeply internalized or habituated, such that it doesn't enter your awareness (unless you choose to conjure it back into the known known). Might also be something to be said for inherited/genetic knowledge, like aversion to certain predators or something.

I see what you mean, but I'd say knowledge has to be acquired to really count as knowledge. That is, it's a distinct thing from instinct.

 

[luka]

whats dunning kruger?

 

[shakahislop]

saying things confidently is a brilliant trick and a lot of fun

being very specific and careful in your claims is really fun as well a lot of the time, and people tend to trust you in the long run if you do that

 

[IdleRich]

whats dunning kruger?

It's when someone tells you an author is terrible but then it turns out they've never read him/her.

 

[IdleRich]

Or just generally makes really confident pronouncements with no evidence or argument for them. In fact I'm just realising that this whole thread is a subtle but extremely vicious attack on you..

 

[luka]

or a celebration. it feels more celebratory to me.