The Dunning-Kruger effect isn't real btw.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-dunning-kruger-effect-isnt-what-you-think-it-is/
Put your money where your mouth is and show us your best script.
Poll Should the fans be running the show?
- Thread starter Timofnine
- Start date
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-dunning-kruger-effect-isnt-what-you-think-it-is/
If we're talking about adding to the lore, remaking it, or creating something from scratch where they're finding their way? Seems to be the same, surely?
IMHO, they don't need to be fans as some of them screw things up too, if that needs to be said, but anyone can watch the show and see what makes it tick, what works or what can be changed with some deftness or what can be added. For the cultural zeitgeist, that was proven in 1982 and again by 1989, and by luck and happenstance it survived 1979 (which was style over substance).
Conversely, anyone who says upfront they hate a show probably wants to make it better, though define what's wrong with it might not hurt either?
IMHO, they don't need to be fans as some of them screw things up too, if that needs to be said, but anyone can watch the show and see what makes it tick, what works or what can be changed with some deftness or what can be added. For the cultural zeitgeist, that was proven in 1982 and again by 1989, and by luck and happenstance it survived 1979 (which was style over substance).
Conversely, anyone who says upfront they hate a show probably wants to make it better, though define what's wrong with it might not hurt either?
I’d say the article title is more accurate than your statement. “Isn’t what you think it is” does not make something unreal. But the general assessment, in the article, of its overuse (and a widespread misunderstanding of what it represents) is reasonably persuasive (subject to further research). Moreover, its core point remains true—a very strong majority of people (incorrectly) believe they are better than average at whatever task they are doing. As such, people untrained in a particular activity are likely to overestimate the quality of their “work” vs someone trained in that activity. While it’s not impossible for a particular amateur to outperform a particular professional, one should be quite sceptical of generalized claims of this type.
But reproducing the effect in a simulation with random numbers makes it not meaningful, it's just a mathematical side effect of everyone thinking they're better than they are.
Yes but highly qualified people overestimate their qualifications too but the Dunning-Kruger effect as commonly described or understood implies this is something less qualified people do, it's often described as "Smart people know how much they don't know but dumb people don't know what they don't know" and that is simply not true.
If you look at the actual numbers the level at which the lowest performing people estimated themselves to be is still below the actual level the best performing people were, so this idea that less qualified people think they are experts doesn't hold water, like everybody else they simply thought they were a little bit better than they actually were but the numbers show they were in fact very well aware there was a lot they didn't know and they left a lot of room to be outperformed.
But that's not what Dunning-Kruger's study showed, in their study almost everyone overestimated the quality of their work/knowledge, this seems to be simply human nature and has nothing to do with actual qualification/education.
That proves people can be easily manipulated by misinformation and propaganda which is an entirely different problem.
They don't have to think themselves "expert" to be dangerous. Anyone whose response to "vaccines clearly diminish the harmful effects of a disease (any given disease for which there is a vaccine)" is "I want to do my own (entirely unqualified) research" AND refuses to actually take the vaccine, as well as urging others to not take it (which, in the case of COVID, was a serious, ongoing problem for all of society) is demonstrating the danger of assuming they are more qualified than they really are AND acting as though that (erroneous) degree of "qualified" is enough to dismiss expertise. The dismissal of expertise to the degree it has risen in the past couple of decades, partly and increasingly, albeit not entirely, driven by the notion that a couple of hours of internet research makes one competent enough to dismiss the advice of actual experts (frequently driven by "a feeling") is a problem.
The fact that the concept of the D/K effect has been shown to have flaws, thanks to the work of competent experts, only serves to illustrate the importance of expertise itself, along with creating an incentive to improve the quality of critical thinking skills across society (beginning with schools--and the curricular trends in the US and, to be fair, many other places, is not promising in that regard).
Edit to add: I will end it here as this is not the proper forum for discussions of this nature as it can easily stray into topics best suited to discuss elsewhere on the BBS.
