The Dunning-Kruger Effect is Everywhere Now!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator and Elite Member
Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
25,396
10,961
146
Women can change a guy's mind with sex (actually right after, is when they softly whisper their demands into the guy's ear, acting all romantic and cutesy). A man trying to do that may not always be guaranteed success.
Pillow talk? The correct response is - Why are you still here?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Captante

Fritzo

Lifer
Jan 3, 2001
41,754
1,964
126
you want to see hate, go to the politcal forum here. It is full of hate, you cant have a politics discussion without name calling, personal attacks, downright rudeness. It is rare to find someone to have a political discussion with and it not turn into personal attacks and name calling
The second they start name calling is the second they have no defense on their issue. You'll notice Trump did this a lot to reporters during press conferences.
 

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
28,206
9,008
136
I think some are using this to their advantage, by telling lies so often enough that it seems like the truth to people who recognize their limits of knowledge/intelligence and as a result, are keen to listen.
Don't forget it doesn't actually matter a whole lot WHAT bad people say in terms of making ignorant people into "believers", only that they say it loudly and repeat it constantly.

Bonus-points if it gives people an excuse to blame somebody other than themselves for whatever their problems happen to be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: igor_kavinski

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
32,025
21,072
136
While I agree that the cost and availability of education directly threatens our foundational notion of equal opportunity in this country, I do not believe that it is the root of this problem. The root of this problem is the populist-pushed "free thinker" distrust of those among us who as a result of education and experience are experts in their fields.

Taking myself as an example, I've had the benefits of a good education; I'll even claim to be something of an expert in the field of electrical power engineering (what a surprise! ). But that good education hasn't made me an expert in any other field of knowledge. For instance, I do not believe I am anywhere close to knowledgeable enough to dispute medical experts on matters relating to my health (e.g. COVID and vaccines) -- I'd be a fool to think so. And yet, one doesn't have to search very hard these days to find someone spouting anti-vax and/or COVID hoax conspiracy drivel (many supposedly graduating college with some non-medical degree).

The truth is that we are all "people with limited knowledge or competence" in all but the handful of areas in which we have education or experience. It's best if we recognize the limits of our own knowledge and listen to those who know more than we do.
We can’t be experts in everything but I’m sure you are smart enough to know where and not where to go for useful advice
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
11,608
6,472
136
We can’t be experts in everything but I’m sure you are smart enough to know where and not where to go for useful advice
Isn't that part of the problem? Who do you go to for 'useful advice'? Can you even get access to those people? And how do you know who they are? Who do you trust to tell you who you should trust?
 

PowerEngineer

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2001
3,485
620
126
Isn't that part of the problem? Who do you go to for 'useful advice'? Can you even get access to those people? And how do you know who they are? Who do you trust to tell you who you should trust?
IMHO the most reasonable (i.e. rational) choice is to accept the 'useful advice' provided by the majority consensus of the experts in a particular field. To me an expert is a person who has specialized in that particular field through education and/or years of work experience. What the majority of these experts believe has a much higher probability (but less than 100%) of being true than the contrarian experts. And even those contrarian experts have a much better change of being right than the fringe internet conspiracy theorists.

I look at it this way. By choosing to go with the majority consensus I am yielding to their better collective judgment (and I end up being right along with them most of the time). When someone instead decides to latch on to any one of the other beliefs being promulgated by small minorities (even if some 'experts' are involved) then what is really happening is that this person is effectively deciding what he/she wants to believe (i.e. choosing one from a menu of highly unlikely fringe beliefs that appeals to him/her for some reason). Choosing to believe in fringe theories (especially rabbit-hole conspiracy theories) seems a lot like choosing to have a particular religious belief. It is an expression of (often questionable) personal taste rather than a product of rational thought. Or so it seems to me...
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
11,608
6,472
136
IMHO the most reasonable (i.e. rational) choice is to accept the 'useful advice' provided by the majority consensus of the experts in a particular field. To me an expert is a person who has specialized in that particular field through education and/or years of work experience. What the majority of these experts believe has a much higher probability (but less than 100%) of being true than the contrarian experts. And even those contrarian experts have a much better change of being right than the fringe internet conspiracy theorists.

I look at it this way. By choosing to go with the majority consensus I am yielding to their better collective judgment (and I end up being right along with them most of the time). When someone instead decides to latch on to any one of the other beliefs being promulgated by small minorities (even if some 'experts' are involved) then what is really happening is that this person is effectively deciding what he/she wants to believe (i.e. choosing one from a menu of highly unlikely fringe beliefs that appeals to him/her for some reason). Choosing to believe in fringe theories (especially rabbit-hole conspiracy theories) seems a lot like choosing to have a particular religious belief. It is an expression of (often questionable) personal taste rather than a product of rational thought. Or so it seems to me...
Yeah, I guess. But I feel there are a lot of complications. As in some fields are highly polarised/politicized and it's not entirely clear what the "consensus" is (economics comes to mind). And then there are the cases where the 'expert' view contradicts direct personal experience. Or where the 'expert' consensus is "we don't know".

And how does one decide what the 'majority concensus' is? Just a matter of numbers? Counting individuals? Or do you give weight to credientails? But doesn't that unavoidably make it political? I mean, one could argue the top 'experts' in law, are those who have the ultimate credential of a Supreme Court position...
 
Last edited:

PowerEngineer

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2001
3,485
620
126
Yeah, I guess. But I feel there are a lot of complications. As in some fields are highly polarised/politicized and it's not entirely clear what the "consensus" is (economics comes to mind). And then there are the cases where the 'expert' view contradicts direct personal experience. Or where the 'expert' consensus is "we don't know".

And how does one decide what the 'majority concensus' is? Just a matter of numbers? Counting individuals? Or do you give weight to credientails? But doesn't that unavoidably make it political? I mean, one could argue the top 'experts' in law, are those who have the ultimate credential of a Supreme Court position...
Yes, there certainly are complications! The majority consensus goal I suggest is easier to describe than to reach.

I will add that there always is (and needs to be) a healthy froth of other ideas stirring around the majority consensus, and we all know that the majority consensus often shifts (sometimes dramatically) in the face of new information (COVID being a good example). Going with the majority consensus when taking making decisions for ourselves, our family, and our society seems to me to be the best bet - even if it isn't a sure bet.

In a rational world (I can dream can't I?) the process of arriving at a majority consensus shouldn't be polarizing or political. That they are seen this way is a symptom of the time we live in. Too many people only want to accept ideas that mesh with what they wish to be true.

I think we need to be careful about how far we project our personal experiences. If I happen to win the lottery perhaps I shouldn't encourage others to buy lottery tickets with their life savings. Despite my personal experience, the likely results for most all players will still be piles of torn up tickets. This seems somewhat similar to the personal experiences of a few people who have adverse reactions to vaccines. IMHO they shouldn't see this as a reason to become anti-vax zealots.

I agree that sometimes the majority consensus isn't all that well defined or helpful (or often is well defined as "we don't know"). That leaves us without expert guidance and we have to choose what to do as best we can. My point is that it would be wise for us to use the expert guidance when it is available to us.

On most matters it seems to me that the majority consensus is pretty clear by which I mean that it is supported by a huge majority of the experts in that field. If there are two or three ideas that are all garnering significant support then the majority consensus usually comes out as "we don't know".

I understand your argument about the 'experts' on the Supreme Court, but perhaps I would dispute the rationality of the politically charged process by which they were selected. But any more on that will have this thread moved to P&N...
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
32,025
21,072
136
Isn't that part of the problem? Who do you go to for 'useful advice'? Can you even get access to those people? And how do you know who they are? Who do you trust to tell you who you should trust?
If I have a medical issue I ain’t going to Joe Rogan.
Aaron Rogers is the perfect example of someone shopping for the answer they want vs the consensus of medical experts.

Tribalism when it comes to their health is just plain stupid
 
  • Like
Reactions: Captante

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
28,206
9,008
136
Just to toss a quick monkey in the wrench lol... one MAJOR problem with assuming the "smart" thing to do is go with the majority-opinion is that quite often the "majority" consists mainly of id10t's.

When choosing the best brand of ketchup or least likely to break automobile model, going with the "majority consensus" can be a good bet.

However the more specialized the knowledge required to actually BE an "expert", the more likely the opposite is to be true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: igor_kavinski

Torn Mind

Lifer
Nov 25, 2012
10,385
2,206
136
Yeah, I guess. But I feel there are a lot of complications. As in some fields are highly polarised/politicized and it's not entirely clear what the "consensus" is (economics comes to mind). And then there are the cases where the 'expert' view contradicts direct personal experience. Or where the 'expert' consensus is "we don't know".

And how does one decide what the 'majority concensus' is? Just a matter of numbers? Counting individuals? Or do you give weight to credientails? But doesn't that unavoidably make it political? I mean, one could argue the top 'experts' in law, are those who have the ultimate credential of a Supreme Court position...
If one wanders out of the political realm and into more mundane matters real life, the cold hard reality is that "experts and professionals" in a field have not only a knowledge advantage, but also a "respect advantage" that populace grants to them, which results in a de facto state of clemency and anarchy to fuck their clients/patients/etc up.

Every field has a "code of conduct", but unless the layperson makes a complaint, the "expert" can basically continue his misconduct as he/she pleases. To make a solid complaint...requires understanding of the experts' profession; the disadvantage is clearly and obvious. Someone basically has to learn a profession to complain about misconduct in it.

Laypeople get enculturated into thinking professionals ought to be judged like fellow laypeople and not a people presumed to know "best practices".

With respect to vaccines, the majority's experience will be nothing more than harmless shots. Where the legitimate misconduct and disgusting side of the profession shows is when a complication does arise. The financial incentive to not label as a vaccine complication, and the exploitation of diagnostic ambiguity--which occurs far more frequently. To disprove such a diagnosis would likely require frequent visits to the doc for a checkup...which people don't do either because of cost/lack of insurance or because they simply don't feel the need.

Cops are another profession of "experts" who fuck up things even in small issues(well, wrong dates are not insignificant or trivial even if no "real damage" was inflicted by the cops. There is great latitude in making errors on reports or not putting things into reports.
 

Torn Mind

Lifer
Nov 25, 2012
10,385
2,206
136
Just to toss a quick monkey in the wrench lol... one MAJOR problem with assuming the "smart" thing to do is go with the majority-opinion is that quite often the "majority" consists mainly of id10t's.

When choosing the best brand of ketchup or least likely to break automobile model, going with the "majority consensus" can be a good bet.

However the more specialized the knowledge required to actually BE an "expert", the more likely the opposite is to be true.
It might majority consensus now...but I think when the first took over the market, Toyota reeled in customers by anecdote from other customers--word of mouth. After all, no internet back then meant it was much harder to transmit information to local communities.

And some would still argue their Ford or Chevy did better than their experience with a Toyota.
 

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
28,206
9,008
136
And some would still argue their Ford or Chevy did better than their experience with a Toyota.
Even the absolute least reliable cars on the road work just fine for roughly 70% of the people who buy them which is why I brought it up as an example of majority-consensus being effective and useful.

Consumer Reports made accurate "frequency of repair" stats for cars a regular feature during the early 1970's so that information HAS been available to those with working brains for many years.

Ford and GM (ie: Chevy) were passed out in build-quality by the Japanese in the mid-late 1970's and have never recovered. Although in recent years they've gotten much better they are still a long way behind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: igor_kavinski

igor_kavinski

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2020
7,769
4,491
106
Where the legitimate misconduct and disgusting side of the profession shows is when a complication does arise.
True Story: Medical Malpractice & Informed Consent | Patrick Malone Law

The doctor knew that there was an existing hole in the patient's skull. He didn't discuss it with him before the surgery. Drilled another hole and then tried to close it with surgical gelfoam, to contain the leakage of blood. And he didn't inform the patient of this surgical complication for obvious reasons. Patient developed short term memory loss and lost control of his temper because part of the brain that modulated emotions was affected. The doctor treated the patient nothing more than a sheep for his "experiment", even though he wasn't qualified for the particular procedure in this specific instance.
 

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
28,206
9,008
136
Here's the REAL bottom line folks. (and it's a bit sobering sorry)

NOBODY is an actual "expert" on anything really.... we're ALL just "winging it" and even those among us who have managed to absorb every scrap of human knowledge on a particular topic in school are STILL profoundly ignorant.

The "experts" that I have the most respect for personally are the ones who will readily admit to this fact. THEY are the actual "smart people".
 
  • Love
Reactions: igor_kavinski

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
35,287
6,818
126
Definition of the Dunning-Kruger effect: In psychology, a cognitive bias whereby people with limited knowledge or competence in a given intellectual or social domain greatly overestimate their own knowledge or competence in that domain relative to objective criteria or to the performance of their peers or of people in general.

When I was getting gas I had the gas attendant give me a break down on COVID. How it's not a real virus. And then he switched gears, and told me with conviction that Joe Biden stole the election. It dawned on me that this man pumps gas for a living. I have nothing against that. He can do what he wants for a living. But, the fact is he is a gas attendant. He isn't a doctor. He isn't a politican, or a political analysis. He pumps gas. And where did he get his information? Fox News. The internet. Social Media: Facebook, Instagram, and yes TikTok. Do these people read? Ha. Yea right. Its not just this guy. Its the majority of the American public. Republican and Democrat. Christian or atheist. It doesn't matter. I do think atheist tend to know more about Christanity than most Christians. My point is people today overestimate what they truly know and understand. Which isn't much. But they watch a few YT videos on Covid. Or, watch videos on how Biden stole the election. And now they think they are experts.

These people also vote. Which is scary.
No argument here. Of course, not all these idiots vote, but many do, and IMO too many idiots do (because it dilutes the power of democracy).

Myself, I never talk to people like that. I'm pretty careful of my news sources and am a pretty good "bullshit detector." Never watch Fox News, the little I see is rebroadcast on network TV news, it's just bits to show you how stupid and out there the Fox people are. I live in a relatively enlightened area, Republicans are very very scarce (standing in line to vote maybe 15 years ago I saw the political affiliation of a long list of voters taped to the wall, so I know!).

Does this mean I know what's going on? Make me some kind of expert??? Hell no! I am no kind of expert.
 
  • Like
Reactions: igor_kavinski

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
35,287
6,818
126
True Story: Medical Malpractice & Informed Consent | Patrick Malone Law

The doctor knew that there was an existing hole in the patient's skull. He didn't discuss it with him before the surgery. Drilled another hole and then tried to close it with surgical gelfoam, to contain the leakage of blood. And he didn't inform the patient of this surgical complication for obvious reasons. Patient developed short term memory loss and lost control of his temper because part of the brain that modulated emotions was affected. The doctor treated the patient nothing more than a sheep for his "experiment", even though he wasn't qualified for the particular procedure in this specific instance.
In one week it will be exactly 6 months since I had an accident quad roller skating (king pin broke while I was going 10+ mph downhill and the front wheels of left skate shot ahead of me by 20 feet and I tumbled onto the pavement). No broken bones but badly sprained pinky finger on dominant hand. Developed painful condition known as Boutonniere deformity. Saw every hand surgeon at my HMO's local facility (3) by and by, also semi-regular appointments with their senior hand therapist. The condition only seemed to worsen rather than improve in the way they anticipated. I asked if an MRI might be beneficial, and got one and the doctor (the senior) recommended surgery, explained his plan. I asked if a 2nd opinion might be beneficial and he said it's always a good idea. To my surprise, his colleague strongly recommended against the surgery, said the odds of my being happy with the aftermath were not good and recommended 24/7 straight splinting for 6 weeks. Those two doctors conferred and agreed. After those 6 weeks (stretched to 8 on recommendation from the other hand surgeon there), I am now doing exercises to redevelop range of motion in the finger, but the pain, swelling are pretty much gone. I have had foot and shoulder surgery in the past but the prospect of this finger surgery had me very nervous (much more than for the shoulder and foot) and am really glad I didn't have it.
 

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
28,206
9,008
136
In one week it will be exactly 6 months since I had an accident quad roller skating (king pin broke while I was going 10+ mph downhill and the front wheels of left skate shot ahead of me by 20 feet and I tumbled onto the pavement). No broken bones but badly sprained pinky finger on dominant hand. Developed painful condition known as Boutonniere deformity. Saw every hand surgeon at my HMO's local facility (3) by and by, also semi-regular appointments with their senior hand therapist. The condition only seemed to worsen rather than improve in the way they anticipated. I asked if an MRI might be beneficial, and got one and the doctor (the senior) recommended surgery, explained his plan. I asked if a 2nd opinion might be beneficial and he said it's always a good idea. To my surprise, his colleague strongly recommended against the surgery, said the odds of my being happy with the aftermath were not good and recommended 24/7 straight splinting for 6 weeks. Those two doctors conferred and agreed. After those 6 weeks (stretched to 8 on recommendation from the other hand surgeon there), I am now doing exercises to redevelop range of motion in the finger, but the pain, swelling are pretty much gone. I have had foot and shoulder surgery in the past but the prospect of this finger surgery had me very nervous (much more than for the shoulder and foot) and am really glad I didn't have it.

I have some recurring neck pain that could potentially be corrected with surgery but it's not serious enough to take the very real risk of making things worse per several doctors.

My ex-wife had carpal-tunnel surgery that was supposed to "fix" her hand and wrist issues and all it did long-term was trash her ability to lift heavy stuff with her wrists.

Surgery of any kind isn't something to go into lightly.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY