I think this is quite an oversimplification to the point of misunderstanding. You're very probably not dumb (unless your IQ is proven to be below 90) and neither are we. The Dunning-Kruger-effect is decidedly not about intelligence, but about ignorance and confidence.
It may not even be a psychological effect, but it is still true that you can gain confidence faster than knowledge and thus will much more likely overestimate your own abilities and underestimate those of others.
It is one of the greatest properties of development that it is constantly evolving so there's always something new to learn. Unfortunately, this can also cause an inverse Dunning-Kruger-effect, better known as impostor syndrome: when you overestimate your own ignorance and underestimate everyone else's.
Yes, inexperienced maybe a more accurate term, but dumb is the term used in the McGill article linked so I thought I'd use it.
Dunning-Kruger-effect, if it exists, is often defined to include not just inexperienced people being confident, but also experienced people being less confident. So imposter syndrome could be related to it, just a different part of the curve they found, not its inverse.
Either way, it seems like it may not exist :shurg:
The curve itself is an issue, because, as the paper you cited notes, it is also reproducable with static noise (no significant p-value)
I would still disagree, because the Dunning-Kruger-effect is defined as the relation between actual knowledge and confidence, but impostor syndrome is the relation between perceived ignorance of oneself and confidence, so it is not a part of the curve, but some other dimension instead - and actual knowledge and perceived ignorance are exact opposites, as I previously stated.
I think this is quite an oversimplification to the point of misunderstanding. You're very probably not dumb (unless your IQ is proven to be below 90) and neither are we. The Dunning-Kruger-effect is decidedly not about intelligence, but about ignorance and confidence.
It may not even be a psychological effect, but it is still true that you can gain confidence faster than knowledge and thus will much more likely overestimate your own abilities and underestimate those of others.
It is one of the greatest properties of development that it is constantly evolving so there's always something new to learn. Unfortunately, this can also cause an inverse Dunning-Kruger-effect, better known as impostor syndrome: when you overestimate your own ignorance and underestimate everyone else's.
Yes, inexperienced maybe a more accurate term, but dumb is the term used in the McGill article linked so I thought I'd use it.
Dunning-Kruger-effect, if it exists, is often defined to include not just inexperienced people being confident, but also experienced people being less confident. So imposter syndrome could be related to it, just a different part of the curve they found, not its inverse.
Either way, it seems like it may not exist :shurg:
The curve itself is an issue, because, as the paper you cited notes, it is also reproducable with static noise (no significant p-value)
I would still disagree, because the Dunning-Kruger-effect is defined as the relation between actual knowledge and confidence, but impostor syndrome is the relation between perceived ignorance of oneself and confidence, so it is not a part of the curve, but some other dimension instead - and actual knowledge and perceived ignorance are exact opposites, as I previously stated.
Oh interesting. How are perceived ignorance and low confidence different?
Certainly some people seem to think its the same:
It's nowhere on this graph. Since the perceived ignorance is first high, drops steep, and then had its ups and downs.