Incompetent People Too Ignorant to Know It

Incompetent People Too Ignorant to Know It


A growing body of psychology research shows that incompetence (this describes why people believe in LIBERALISM) deprives people of the ability to recognize their own incompetence. To put it bluntly, dumb people are too dumb to know it. Similarly, unfunny people don't have a good enough sense of humor to tell. QueerOldGuy, you fall under incompetent and unfunny!!!! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!
This disconnect may be responsible for many of society's problems.
With more than a decade's worth of research, David Dunning, a psychologist at Cornell University, has demonstrated that humans find it "intrinsically difficult to get a sense of what we don't know." Whether an individual lacks competence in logical reasoning, emotional intelligence, humor or even chess abilities, the person still tends to rate his or her skills in that area as being above average.
Dunning and his colleague, Justin Kruger, formerly of Cornell and now at New York University, "have done a number of studies where we will give people a test of some area of knowledge like logical reasoning, knowledge about STDs and how to avoid them, emotional intelligence, etcetera. Then we determine their scores, and basically just ask them how well they think they've done," Dunning said. "We ask, 'what percentile will your performance fall in?'"
The results are uniform across all the knowledge domains: People who actually did well on the test tend to feel more confident about their performance than people who didn't do well, but only slightly. Almost everyone thinks they did better than average. "For people at the bottom who are really doing badly — those in the bottom 10th or 15th percentile — they think their work falls in the 60th or 55th percentile, so, above average," Dunning told Life's Little Mysteries. The same pattern emerges in tests of people's ability to rate the funniness of jokes, the correctness of grammar, or even their own performance in a game of chess. "People at the bottom still think they're outperforming other people." [Graph]
It's not merely optimism, but rather that their total lack of expertise renders them unable to recognize their deficiency. Even when Dunning and his colleagues offer study participants a $100 reward if they can rate themselves accurately, they cannot. "They're really trying to be honest and impartial," he said.
If only we knew ourselves better. Dunning believes people's inability to assess their own knowledge is the cause of many of society's ills, including climate change denialism. "Many people don't have training in science, and so they may very well misunderstand the science. But because they don't have the knowledge to evaluate it, they don't realize how off their evaluations might be," he said.
Moreover, even if a person has come to a very logical conclusion about whether climate change is real or not based on their evaluation of the science, "they're really not in a position to evaluate the science."
Along the same lines, people who aren't talented in a given area tend not to be able to recognize the talents or good ideas of others, from co-workers to politicians. This may impede the democratic process, which relies on citizens having the capacity to identify and support the best candidate or policy.
The ultimate takeaway of the research is the reminder that you really may not be as great as you think you are. And you might not be right about the things you believe you're right about. And if you try to joke about all this, you might not come off as funny as you think.

strawman----> <-------QueerOldGuy


Look! QueerOldGuy is sucking the man's straw!!! Now we understand his obsession with strawmen perfectly! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

Crazy people don't know they're crazy.

Hi Marsha! Thank you for your steaming turd of wisdom.

What bothers me about the article is presumes there is always a "ground truth". I don't know if the original research makes that assumption, or a writer trying to summarize.

Specifically the comment, "Along the same lines, people who aren't talented in a given area tend not to be able to recognize the talents or good ideas of others, from co-workers to politicians. This may impede the democratic process, which relies on citizens having the capacity to identify and support the best candidate or policy." which implies there is an objective "best" candidate or policy, when in reality they often is not.

What bothers me about the article is presumes there is always a "ground truth". I don't know if the original research makes that assumption, or a writer trying to summarize.

Specifically the comment, "Along the same lines, people who aren't talented in a given area tend not to be able to recognize the talents or good ideas of others, from co-workers to politicians. This may impede the democratic process, which relies on citizens having the capacity to identify and support the best candidate or policy." which implies there is an objective "best" candidate or policy, when in reality they often is not. Originally Posted by Old-T

I find one observation in the article to be interesting, the idea that most people have an overly optimistic sense of their own abilities. I think this a psychological survival mechanism. A little self delusion is probably a necessary way of coping for most people. Imagine the state of mind of someone who was below average intelligence, with no sense of humor, no real gifts of any kind and was keenly aware of all his short comings.

Thoreau said that most men lead lives of quiet desperation. Self delusion is what makes life tolerable for many people.

What bothers me about the article is presumes there is always a "ground truth". I don't know if the original research makes that assumption, or a writer trying to summarize.

Specifically the comment, "Along the same lines, people who aren't talented in a given area tend not to be able to recognize the talents or good ideas of others, from co-workers to politicians. This may impede the democratic process, which relies on citizens having the capacity to identify and support the best candidate or policy." which implies there is an objective "best" candidate or policy, when in reality they often is not. Originally Posted by Old-T

Old-farT, Objective Truth exists. You liberal filth don't understand that. Your belief in subjectivity leads the liberal scum to wrong beliefs, wrong policies and bad/immoral candidates. Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism is correct. Of course discovery of the truth may be limited, though conservatives are lightyears ahead of libtards in discovery of truth....................

Liberals don't think, they only feel. They don't read to gain knowledge. Rather than ask themselves "What do I think about that?" they ask themselves "How do I feel about that?"..................

Objective Truth exists. You liberal filth don't understand that. Your belief in subjectivity leads the liberal scum to wrong beliefs, wrong policies and bad/immoral candidates. Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism is correct. Of course discovery of the truth may be limited, though conservatives are lightyears ahead of libtards in discovery of truth....................

Liberals don't think, they only feel. They don't read to gain knowledge. Rather than ask themselves "What do I think about that?" they ask themselves "How do I feel about that?".................. Originally Posted by Marshall

What a pompas stupid comment. Typical small minded thinking that all the world is a simplistic: 100% one way or 100% another.

Sometimes Objective Truth is nothing but propaganda. For you or anyone else to tell me what I value is nothing but arrogance on your point. Most candidates hold views I support on some major issues--and hold views I vehimently oppose. If life was a one-issue business it might be possible, but as soon as you can show me the definitive Objective Truth about chocolate vs vanilla ice cream we can talk that more.

Dunning believes people's inability to assess their own knowledge is the cause of many of society's ills, including climate change denialism. "Many people don't have training in science, and so they may very well misunderstand the science. Originally Posted by Marshall

This was the funniest part of the article. Dunning is too stupid to figure out Global Warming is a hoax!!!! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

What a pompas stupid comment. Typical small minded thinking that all the world is a simplistic: 100% one way or 100% another.

.................... If life was a one-issue business it might be possible, but as soon as you can show me the definitive Objective Truth about chocolate vs vanilla ice cream we can talk that more. Originally Posted by Old-T

Old-farT, some may even say it's pompous. Is your sexuality 100% heterosexual? Or are you somewhere is the squishy middle? Maybe 46% heterosexual? 53%? 13%?!!!!? HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!


The objective truth is that they taste different and I like vanilla ice cream but I don't like chocolate ice cream.

The objective truth is that they taste different and I like vanilla ice cream but I don't like chocolate ice cream. Originally Posted by Marshall

And if you would stay there, I would have nothing to critique. But if you ventured to tell me that my objective truth--or eveyone's objective truth was to like vanilla, that would clearly be untrue.

That is the analogy to the original article's commenting "This may impede the democratic process, which relies on citizens having the capacity to identify and support the best candidate or policy." which implies there is an objective "best" candidate or policy. My point was it is arrogant for anyone to claim they know what someone else's "best" candidate or policy is since in most cases it is highly subjective.

And if you would stay there, I would have nothing to critique. But if you ventured to tell me that my objective truth--or eveyone's objective truth was to like vanilla, that would clearly be untrue.

That is the analogy to the original article's commenting "This may impede the democratic process, which relies on citizens having the capacity to identify and support the best candidate or policy." which implies there is an objective "best" candidate or policy. My point was it is arrogant for anyone to claim they know what someone else's "best" candidate or policy is since in most cases it is highly subjective. Originally Posted by Old-T

These aren't Objective Truths?: American streets should be free of murders and rapists.....America should be rich rather than poor.......America should be safe from its enemies.....American government should protect the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of its citizens.......

Are you saying some citizens don't want these things?!!!!

Again, your inability to think shines through.

There are indeed some objective truths, I never said there weren't. That does not imply that all things have objective truths.

You vastly oversimplify--as usual. I don't recall the last time a politician promoted unsafe streets, but there is always a cost--be it dollars for police or technology which has costs in terms of both dollars and privacy. We are long overdue for a serious national discussion about how much privacy we are willing to give up for safe streets. That is the kind of point I do not believe has an objective truth. Reasonable people may disagree on how much privacy should or should not be surrendered.

Most your other points have similar subjective gray areas in the details. One person's liberty is another person's infringement. One person's life is another person's welfare.

Again, your inability to think shines through.

There are indeed some objective truths, I never said there weren't. That does not imply that all things have objective truths.

You vastly oversimplify--as usual. I don't recall the last time a politician promoted unsafe streets, but there is always a cost--be it dollars for police or technology which has costs in terms of both dollars and privacy. We are long overdue for a serious national discussion about how much privacy we are willing to give up for safe streets. That is the kind of point I do not believe has an objective truth. Reasonable people may disagree on how much privacy should or should not be surrendered.

Most your other points have similar subjective gray areas in the details. One person's liberty is another person's infringement. One person's life is another person's welfare. Originally Posted by Old-T

Oh, you mean some liberal filth may want me to give them my money and I don't want to give them my money.......is that what you mean?

Well, the objective truth is that the liberal filth will be better off if they get off their lazy asses and get a job. So, I guess I'm still right. They just don't know I'm right! My candidate is right for them but they don't have the intellectual capacity to understand that! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!................

I'm done with you Old-farT, GTFO and read some Ayn Rand! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!................



Of course liberals don't read so he won't read Ayn Rand........

Typical. Can't address the question asked so you decree you're done with the topic.

Enjoy your sandbox.