[NT] Anosognosia - Being too stupid to realize you're stupid.

[uumlau]

I understand this part, the bolded. The underlined doesn't quite make sense to me. Above average would mean good. The way I see you meaning it is that they are above average to the bad, but below average to the good... this would mean that they deem themselves average and not incompotent, which goes against the test results. This reasoning also covers the unaltered text. This is a weird test anyway. So many fallacies.

Agreed. The conclusion "sounds deep," but really isn't.

The essence of what I mean is, when asked to evaluate one's own skill level, with respect to something that is an extremely common skill, such as reading, math, grammar, driving, and so on, the tendency is to estimate one's own skill as "pretty good, but not great". I know how to drive a car, I'm way better at driving a car now than when I was a kid, but I know I'm not a professional driver. So I don't evaluate myself as a bad driver, even if I am. I don't evaluate myself as a great driver, even if I am. I have no basis for comparison w/r to my skill as a driver, so I simply conclude "good, better than average, maybe, but not great." I would conclude this whether I am extremely good or extremely bad or truly average. So even if I am having near accidents all the time, I judge my skill as pretty good since I manage to avoid hitting anyone. Even if my habits are so good that I rarely have a close call, I have no way of realizing how unusually good my good habits are.

Given that hypothesis as the base phenomenon, I think that other conclusions are a bit far-fetched. There is a tendency to conclude that it is overconfidence that causes the incompetence, or the concern over one's adequacy causes one to try harder and thus be more competent. This might indeed be happening on an individual basis, but I see no way to separate out such effects from the base selection effect that people will tend to regard themselves as "somewhat above average drivers."

This totally breaks down for skills like physics knowledge. Most people are well aware of how ignorant they are of physics, and those who have a Ph.D. in physics are well aware that they are experts in the subject. The phenomenon is limited to very common skills that everyone has to some degree or another, for which there is very little communal feedback of one's skill. E.g., cooking is a common skill, but one is usually very aware of how bad or good one is at it, due to feedback from others and trying others' cooking.

 

[Blank]

That falls under the realm of known unknowns.

The professional physicist, out of anyone, knows that he or she knows very little about physics in the grand scheme of things; much less than anyone would think, yet they still know leaps and bounds more than the average person.

The pro would have a proper grasp on how much he or she doesn't know, while the amateur would not.


It's kind of a "You don't know how bad you are at something until you realize what 'bad' is." Unfortunately, a great deal of people don't have the foresight to see how skilled/perceptive/whatever they are at something.


I really felt like I was just repeating myself the entire time in this post. <= (

 

[highlander]

Also being too smart to realize that you're smart.

Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How completely and utterly true. I like this.

 

[Totenkindly]

Smart people tend to be very aware they're smart. It's idiots that are generally affected by the Dunning-Kruger effect.

That's not what the theory itself says.

On a personal level, I know I usually have had the issues where I overestimate everyone else's understanding/skill and underestimate my own. I might know how I score on standardized tests, but in real life situations, I tend to just assume everyone sees what I see and assume they're making decisions out of competence. I'm far too aware of what I DON'T know and assume everyone else has the same sort of self-monitoring, but eventually I've had it beaten into me that sometimes they don't and even when I'm unsure, it's still worth offering my opinion.

 

[Red Herring]

Smart people tend to be very aware they're smart. It's idiots that are generally affected by the Dunning-Kruger effect.

I congratulate you if you are smart and know it and are very happy with yourself, but I personally know several gifted people suffering from self doubt and inferiority complexes or who simply assume that everybody starts reading Hegel at the age of 12.

 

[Riva]

Lolz...

Whatever extreme one chooses to identify himself with, would end up making him appear to be the opposite in other's eyes.

might as well select the middle path and call oneself Average.

I am Average. *big grin*

 

[InsatiableCuriosity]

Also being too smart to realize that you're smart.

Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank you the title of this thread provided much levity in my office today as we marked students' end of semester work. We were even able to find a few examples in the work we marked (with apologies to the intelligent and serious students here)

 

[forzen]

I rather be stupid and think I'm smart or rather, just be average and be happy. Happiness sound like a good trade for mediocre. Not saying I'm smart, but I just don't see the point of it anymore. Now a bad place to be is being smart enough to realize your not a genius and still see other people's shortcoming and not fit in. Talk about being in Limbo.

 

[LunarMoon]

I rather be stupid and think I'm smart or rather, just be average and be happy. Happiness sound like a good trade for mediocre. Not saying I'm smart, but I just don't see the point of it anymore. Now a bad place to be is being smart enough to realize your not a genius and still see other people's shortcoming and not fit in. Talk about being in Limbo.

I agree to an extent in that it's difficult to see the practical benefits of being intelligent but lacking in the confidence to put one's intelligence into use. Assuming, for instance, that above average writers never submit their literary works because they believe them to be inferior, this would seemingly result in the vast majority of published literary works being written by below average writers, those with the confidence to believe that they have a chance of publication. This would assumedly be true for every field, resulting in the bizarre paradox in which individuals of below average ability and intelligence are responsible for the vast majority of scientific and artistic advancements, bringing into serious question what skill and intellectual ability actually are. After all, can a person really be called competent if he is too indecisive to make any contributory works whatsoever?

Then there is of course the fact that geniuses that go around denigrating themselves seem to be rather rare. The only one that immediately comes to mind is the turn of the century physicist, Oliver Heaveside, who actually referred to himself as a "worm". The likes of Stephen Hawkings and Thomas Edison on the other hand seem to be fairly confident in their ability to accomplish the seemingly impossible. That said, as the theory implies that those of above average ability are not so much more likely to denigrate themselves as below average ("full of doubt") but are simply to regard themselves as average, it is at least a tad easier to swallow.

 

[Amethyst]

Don't mean to derail the thread, but by what terms are you defining to be 'smart' as? First impressions? Multiple intelligences? IQ?

 

[Blank]

I'm not defining smart. It's a moot point. Reread the thread.

 

[Resonance]

Meh, I'll seriously bite then.

This is absolutely bogus.

First I'll amuse myself... *shrug*

A 'dumb' person doing something vaguely right will take great pride, in his attempts to belong. This is natural.

A 'smart' person realizes that, although he might excel in something, he will not excel in everything, and may at times wish he would excel in other things. Which will naturally show as an inferior sensation.

I sense that is the hypothesis of the article. But now for the real problem.

But the contrast being made between 'dumb' and 'smart' people is a short-sighted and narrow-minded perspective at best. To keep it MBTI style: everyone has their own set of skills. Be it intellectually, or emotionally. Intuitively or sensory. It is a fact that each brain is capable of near similar possibilities, and our strengths merely lie in our preferences. So there are no 'dumb' or 'smart' people.

I don't have inferiority complexes. I am painfully aware of both my geniosity in some areas and my severe short-comings in other areas. But I take solice in the fact that it gives me a unique identity. And that is something everyone should be consciously proud off. My self-confidence amazes me at times, I have a big ego, I have my strengths and my weaknesses. I am neither dumb nor smart.

Where I can see an article like this and put it off as bogus merely upon looking into it, seeing it has no evident usefullness whatsoever as it painstakingly attempts to get results out of an obviously incomplete function. There will be something that stands against that, something I am incapable of, where others may excel.

Geniosity resides within us all.


There is something to be said about people who use that and people who don't use it though. But the capability still remains.

It works on a micro scale, too. I'm ok at playing the piano, but not good. Like, maybe a grade 3 level (RCM) or so. The difference between me and, say, Diana Krall are huge. But the only differences I can recognize are the ones that I know to be lacking in my own playing; she is at so much higher of a level than me, that I can't even fathom all the mistakes and technique she has hammered out compared to me.

Whether my IQ is higher than hers, or I am better at WoW than her, or I know more trivia about the history of social psychology - all of this is irrelevant to the D-K effect as it applies to piano playing, except for the fact that I know about it and can use that knowledge to compensate for my own bias.

It's generalizable to the extent that intelligence is generalizable... better nutrition, abundant stimulation, lack of brain damage, etc. all make a child grow into a more intelligent person in general. But it's in the specialization of intelligence that the Dunning-Kruger effect becomes apparent. Nothing to do with potential - it's the actualization that is being considered, here.

Don't mean to derail the thread, but by what terms are you defining to be 'smart' as? First impressions? Multiple intelligences? IQ?

"good at X" where X involves some degree of cognitive ability

can apply to lots of things

 

[Salomé]

Meh. Socrates did this one to death.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Meh. Socrates did this one to death.

But those hoity toity Greek philosophers thought they were above doing experimentaion or emperical study, so they didn't have the figures to prove it!

 

[Red Herring]

But those hoity toity Greek philosophers thought they were above doing experimentaion or emperical study, so they didn't have the figures to prove it!

 

[forzen]

I agree to an extent in that it's difficult to see the practical benefits of being intelligent but lacking in the confidence to put one's intelligence into use. Assuming, for instance, that above average writers never submit their literary works because they believe them to be inferior, this would seemingly result in the vast majority of published literary works being written by below average writers, those with the confidence to believe that they have a chance of publication. This would assumedly be true for every field, resulting in the bizarre paradox in which individuals of below average ability and intelligence are responsible for the vast majority of scientific and artistic advancements, bringing into serious question what skill and intellectual ability actually are. After all, can a person really be called competent if he is too indecisive to make any contributory works whatsoever?

Then there is of course the fact that geniuses that go around denigrating themselves seem to be rather rare. The only one that immediately comes to mind is the turn of the century physicist, Oliver Heaveside, who actually referred to himself as a "worm". The likes of Stephen Hawkings and Thomas Edison on the other hand seem to be fairly confident in their ability to accomplish the seemingly impossible. That said, as the theory implies that those of above average ability are not so much more likely to denigrate themselves as below average ("full of doubt") but are simply to regard themselves as average, it is at least a tad easier to swallow.

Haha, if a person has to worry about his or her ability or intelligence when publishing a piece of work then that person's heart/motive is not in the right place.

The measurement of intelligence cannot exist without a benchmark, because without a benchmark the measurement of intelligence would be meaningless. Ultimately, the perception of being unskilled or not being intelligent enough rest not on oneself, but how one see oneself compare to other people.
Too much pride in one's intelligence is all too similar to vanity, too little and it hampers one's confidence to succeed. So ultimately, intelligence like other form of human benchmarks against each other is a waste of time. It's another form of distraction that can prevent a person from reaching his or her goal. Unless of course, his or her goal is to appear smart.

 

[Little_Sticks]

Omg, what if I'm too stupid to realize this is stupid?!

Omg, wait, what if I'm too smart to realize this is smart?!

Omg, wait, what if I'm too stupid to realize this is smart?!

Omg, wait, what if I'm too smart to realize this is stupid?!

Paradox man! Like Woooh man. I know what would be a good idea - thinking about this more .

 

[Glycerine]

Thank you the title of this thread provided much levity in my office today as we marked students' end of semester work. We were even able to find a few examples in the work we marked (with apologies to the intelligent and serious students here)

Ohhh I want to hear more.

 

[Salomé]

But those hoity toity Greek philosophers thought they were above doing experimentaion or emperical study, so they didn't have the figures to prove it!

Maybe they were just too smart to be impressed by studies which prove what everyone already knows?

I mean, do we really need a study to tell us that stupid is stupid?
What's next? Proof that water is wet?

 

[InsatiableCuriosity]

Ohhh I want to hear more.

My lips are sealed

but we did have to reassure some of the colleagues to whom we emailed the definition that it wasn't intended to apply to them