The Dunning-Kruger Effect

[Bravus]

Probably something worth knowing about.

[CoAspen]

[ClubV12]

I listened to about half of it and then bailed out. Actually, I only needed to listen to the first minute, about 45 seconds, before I knew it was "false doctrine" for lack of a better phrase.

The biblical account of Sodom stands as fact, it's not an opinion, or a theory. Except, to those who are so diluted and brain washed they cannot accept the historical biblical truth of the matter and consider it little more than an "opinion".

Sounds like a classic case of higher education (falsely so called) replacing simple faith and belief in a higher power with their new god, "intellectualism".

But saying the above, I may have inadvertantly proven their theory on "superiority"! Oh well, sometimes you just gotta call it like you see it and let the chips fall where they may. :)

[Bravus]

Dude, *none* of it, except one example at the very beginning, was about homosexuality.

Pity he picked that example, but to ignore the substantive argument on the grounds of that...

...pretty much bears out the argument.

[ClubV12]

Well, I did listen to about half of it at least! An interesting theorum, but frankly, he really lost me with that first example. A poor choice indeed, difficult to make a correction after such a blatant error.

[CoAspen]

You really need to watch the whole video....really...it would be beneficial!!

[Bravus]

OK, looks like we won't get past it, so let's briefly look at the example.

The person says it's a FACT that homosexual people are 'filth', and claims the Bible supports that. First, the idea that any group of people are 'filth' is not a fact, it is an opinion (and a repugnant one at that). Second, the Bible does *not* say that homosexual people are 'filth'. It deplores their *practices*, but they remain God's creations for whom Jesus died. I guess perhaps their righteousness, like that of all of us, is like 'filthy rags', but in themselves they are precious enough to warrant the sacrifice of God the Son.

The point being made in the video was that the poster accused someone of being unable to distinguish between opinion and fact, and then claimed that his own opinion was a fact. Homosexuality per se was irrelevant: the opinion in question could as easily have been that the L A Lakers are the best team or that chocolate is the worst ice-cream flavour.

Now, can we *please* get past our hangups and address the actual issue?!

[Overaged]

Probably something worth knowing about.

Hmmmm; no. I don't think so my friend. It's not really worth knowing. I think the dude is greatly lacking in "metacognition" and that he sounds like a frustrated forum member making fun of the way some people discuss stuff on whatever forum he belongs to.

I agree; his first example was a poor choice.

BTW; it must be nice to have time and energy to scour the net for such things! (no offence intended).

[Bravus]

NB I didn't post this to put anyone down (if it needs to be said)

I posted it to further promote peace and calm debate.

If someone's argument infuriates you with its lack of logic, take a moment to think that it might be an issue of competence.

Heck, it's even a faint possibility that it's *their* competence that's the problem.

[Overaged]

NB I didn't post this to put anyone down (if it needs to be said)

I posted it to further promote peace and calm debate.

If someone's argument infuriates you with its lack of logic, take a moment to think that it might be an issue of competence.

Heck, it's even a faint possibility that it's *their* competence that's the problem.

You express a lot of concern in a lot of your posts about the way people post; and I am starting to wonder if this isn't more about you, and some issue you have?

[Overaged]

It's actually none of your business to examine someone's "competence" on this forum.

[Bravus]

The application to forum arguments is only one very narrow application of what is a very common-sense and useful concept.

He ends on the hopeful note that competence can be *learned*: no-one needs to remain incompetent in any field in which they'd like to be competent.

(And no scouring required - Facebook is a handy tool for finding things that my interesting friends find interesting)

[Bravus]

It's actually none of your business to examine someone's "competence" on this forum.

Might be worth re-reading what I wrote: it was a bit slyly expressed, but the strong message was that the best place to start was looking at my *own* competence.

[Bravus]

...and the other part of it is that quote often attributed to Napoleon: "Never ascribe to malice what is adequately explained by incompetence". It's better to believe someone is incompetent than malicious, and I see way too much of the latter assumption around here.

Of course, assuming others are neither and perhaps we've misunderstood them is also very powerful.

[Overaged]

Yes; I caught that before I posted; but my comment still stands.

[Overaged]

and I see way too much of the latter assumption around here.

Well; atleast I know I was right.

[ClubV12]

"The person says it's a FACT that homosexual people are 'filth',"

No, he doesn't. He says the Sodomites are "filth". Opinion or fact?

The example is not about "homosexuals", THAT is an opinion.

A specific group of people in a specific town at a specific time, the city of Sodom, the Sodomites. A group of people who attempted to take, by force, by killing if necessary, for the purpose of rape, sodomy specifically, some innocent travelers who had just entered the city to spend the night. And they WOULD have prevailed, willing to KILL Lot, AND his family if necessary, in the process. Their "filthy" goal would have met success had it not been for a miraculous intervention by the very angels they sought to sodomize! This was a group that far surpassed any reasonable norm of what todays society will tolerate among "homosexuals".

"Filthy" is not to strong a word to use to describe this group from Sodom. Murders, sodomites, all manner of cruel intentions and acts, whose thoughts were continually evil. Not ten among the whole city could be found worthy of salvation. Sodomy was the tip of the ice berg for this group!

I can think of other words to use to accurately describe them, "filthy" is one of the nicest I can think of. It's much closer to fact than to opinion.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

hmm. Finally figured out why I hadn't heard of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. It wasn't hypothesized until 1999. I got my Psych degree in 1983.

Reading over the theory made me twitch. There's something about it I don't like, but can't put my finger on it...

[Bravus]

For those choking on the video, here's a link to download the actual paper: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.64.2655&rep=rep1&type=pdf

(Pam, I assume you might have found it already)

[Overaged]

For those choking on the video, here's a link to download the actual paper: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.64.2655&rep=rep1&type=pdf

(Pam, I assume you might have found it already)

The paper is just as bad as the video. Totally out of touch with reality...

[Bravus]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

and I see way too much of the latter assumption around here.

Well; atleast I know I was right.

Nice use of irony to illustrate the point! You pretended to think I was being malicious when of course you knew I was really being incompetent.

That *is* what you meant, right?

[Overaged]

Where did I use the word "malicious?" It looks to me like you are the only one throwing that word around. Hmmm; maybe you have some kind of warp in your "metacognition?"

[Bravus]

Shrug. Tried to make it friendly and fun.

[Tom Wetmore]

For what it's worth, Bravus, I found it amusing...

What was the bit about perception of humor! Hmmm... Some get it, some don't. Those that don't, think their own cleverness far superior.

Painfully obvious to see, right here...

[Overaged]

You make some far-reaching assumptions; but for the record, yes. I did notice the "humor."