The Dunning Kruger effect on our forums

[SolitaryWalker]

As some of you may already know, the Dunning Kruger effect can be summarized as follows.

YouTube

Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia

The least competent and capable of people tend to be the most likely to grossly overestimate their own abilities.

For example, people who score in the 11th percentile of all standardized test-takers are likely to rate their abilities as being in the 99% percentile. The same goes for typing skills, music, IQ tests and so on.

Conversely, the exceptionaly capable performers tend to underestimate their own abilities.

The reason for this mismatch between the actual abilities of people and their perception of their own competencies is simple. The lower our skill level is in any craft, the less likely we are to be capable of identifying our own deficiencies. In other words, the skills required for one to optimize their performance overlap with the ones we need to understand what we must improve upon. So, the most incompetent of us tend to be deficient to the point where we have no idea how we can raise our skill-level. In the absence of knowledge of our own short-comings, we tend to presume ourselves to be excellent.

Conversely, the superb performers have a highly refined ability to identify flaws in their own performance. Naturally, they are constantly aware of the many ways in which they can improve.

---------------------------------------------

I haven't been active on this forum for a long time, but I can confess the following.

One of the reasons I have stopped posting is that my general knowledge and verbal communication skills have improved. In part because of this, I've heightened my awareness of how my previous posts could have used plenty of improvement. Moreover, it has dawned on me that if I were to even begin enhancing them, I'd need to devote far more time to them than I was willing to.

I have also noticed that even if I were to do that, I would get very little feedback from other thoughtful people who were also willing to take the discussion to the next level. The reason for it is simple: the thoughtful posters are also well aware of how much time and effort it takes for them to contribute intellectual value to a fairly complex discussion.

On the other hand, there would be no shortage of ill-conceived and flippant replies from folks who know next to nothing, yet somehow presume themselves to be exceptionally bright.

This seems to explain why various social media sites are awash in comments from young adults who proclaim that their IQ is higher than Einstein's. Surely, had these college kids taken just an hour of their time out of their wide open schedule to learn the basic facts about IQ, they wouldn't be sputtering such non-sense.

I must admit, I am quite wary of people who appear to be much brighter than I am and the more learned I become, the easier time I have of identifying such individuals. On the other hand, when I see someone boast of their "totally awesome, off the charts IQ", I know that I have nothing to worry about. I can say the same about the regular forum members who never get tired of posting self-congratulatory drivel.


---------------------------------------------

Admittedly, to some extent, this post can count as an example of the same kind of rhetoric that I am railing against, so I don't pretend to be the humblest and the most capable of the members of our community.

Had I been as accomplished and articule as I'd like myself to be, I probably wouldn't be posting here, let alone trying to initiate a conversation on the Dunning-Kruger effect. The irony of the situation I am creating is not lost on me and I fully expect that the majority of the replies I'll receive here will carry very little substance.

Yet again, I shall ask our readers the following questions.

Have you noticed that regardless of how carefully you try to frame the issue or how thoroughly you attempt to support your claims with facts or cogent arguments, the lion's share of replies you'll get will always be completely meritless?

Likewise, have you noticed that when you identify a few thoughtful posters whom you'd like to engage in your discussions, it is next to impossible to encourage them to participate?

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I think I'm usually pretty good at sniffing out the bullshitters whenever there's an IQ discussion and 7 out of 10 people report having 140+ IQs. However, it is probably just the Dunning-Kruger and my abilities to sniff out bullshitters are being grossly overstated.

Personally I'm much more humble and guess my own IQ to be somewhere around 125, at the most. Hey, it would be nice to have 140 IQ, but if everyone were that smart, there wouldn't be any advantage to being that smart, would there?

 

[Atomic Fiend]

May I ask you a question?

Why have you decided to ask those questions here, on this forum? Both of the quotes in your signature allude to the ideas you've mentioned in your post and I'm guessing you've had that signature for longer then this post has been up. Surely you've found sites with these "Thoughtful posters"? What do you hope to find out here? What's your measure of the user base? What are you hoping to learn or prove?

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Surely you've found sites with these "Thoughtful posters"?

What makes you sure?

Personally I'm much more humble and guess my own IQ to be somewhere around 125, at the most.

125 is very high.

Without knowing anything about your intellectual performance, I cannot affirm or challenge your estimate.

However, if your IQ is 125, it is likely that you've exhibited the majority of these traits.

-Youthful precociousness: excelled in elementary school, your teachers always regarded you as a bright pupil and recommended you for advanced courses

-Rapid learning: learned faster than most of your peers and showed an interest in advanced issues that most kids your age were indifferent to

-Coasting through formal education: performed well on standardized tests, often with minimal preparation

-Social alienation: often found yourself alienated from your peers because of your sophisticated interests, advanced vocabulary and a complex way of seeing the world that's quite uncommon for your age

-Cognitive vitality: just as the gifted athletes strive to remain physically activity and maintain their form, you read broadly, enjoy brain-teasers, show an interest in the arts and are willing to raise your skill level in a specific intellectual craft


Of course, this is not to say that all people with an IQ of 125 exhibit every single one of these traits, but as a matter of statistical probability, the majority of people whose IQ is in that range tend to display the majority of these traits.

 

[Atomic Fiend]

What makes you sure?

Because Typology C isn't some last bastion,of intellectual discussion. You took a three year hiatus from the site, you haven't found anywhere else to go during that time to meet your needs of discussion? I'm genuinely curious about the other questions I asked as well.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

You took a three year hiatus from the site, you haven't found anywhere else to go during that time to meet your needs of discussion?

I have not and this seems to be the problem with online forums in general.

Granted, I have not looked especially carefully, but I am not willing to invest the time and the effort that may be necessary to find the kind of an erudite community that you seem to have in mind.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

What makes you sure?



125 is very high.

Without knowing anything about your intellectual performance, I cannot affirm or challenge your estimate.

However, if your IQ is 125, it is likely that you've exhibited the majority of these traits.

-Youthful precociousness: excelled in elementary school, your teachers always regarded you as a bright pupil and recommended you for advanced courses

-Rapid learning: learned faster than most of your peers and showed an interest in advanced issues that most kids your age were indifferent to

-Coasting through formal education: performed well on standardized tests, often with minimal preparation

-Social alienation: often found yourself alienated from your peers because of your sophisticated interests, advanced vocabulary and a complex way of seeing the world that's quite uncommon for your age

-Cognitive vitality: just as the gifted athletes strive to remain physically activity and maintain their form, you read broadly, enjoy brain-teasers, show an interest in the arts and are willing to raise your skill level in a specific intellectual craft


Of course, this is not to say that all people with an IQ of 125 exhibit every single one of these traits, but as a matter of statistical probability, the majority of people whose IQ is in that range tend to display the majority of these traits.

It's Dunning-Kruger, I'm actually 95.

 

[Sacrophagus]

The least competent and capable of people tend to be the most likely to grossly overestimate their own abilities.

An INTP works for me with a vast knowledge on many topics. She's blessed by an ability to recall facts and data about many problems, but she tends to lose herself amidst that database. She has some self-esteem issues which we luckily circumvent, but I always tell her that she can really make it big on her own, if she fosters the courage required.

I must admit, I am quite wary of people who appear to be much brighter than I am and the more learned I become, the easier time I have of identifying such individuals. On the other hand, when I see someone boast of their "totally awesome, off the charts IQ", I know that I have nothing to worry about.

The more we know, the more we realize how much we don't know. It is humbling, but it should not stop other people from celebrating themselves no matter how big their accomplishments. People re born free, and you should not concern yourself with what others do with their lives.

I can say the same about the regular forum members who never get tired of posting self-congratulatory drivel.

The fact that you should address, is that you have issues.

Had I been as accomplished and articule as I'd like myself to be, I probably wouldn't be posting here, let alone trying to initiate a conversation on the Dunning-Kruger effect. The irony of the situation I am creating here is not lost on me and I fully expect that the majority of the replies I'll receive here will carry very little substance.

Ability is not the vertex of components in life. Amiability and optimism are building ingredients, whereas oblviousness and pessimism are destructive ingredients. On which will you invest your energy?

You're projecting your feelings about past experiences into the future, and you'll likely to create the same circumstances again. Otherwise, everyone would be willing to engage you in whatever topic you want, provided you don't carry ill intentions about them beforehand.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

It's Dunning-Kruger, I'm actually 95.

That's quite clever, but not nearly good enough.

The natural response to the Dunning-Kruger effect is to deliberately underestimate our own abilities as a way of convincing others that we're astute.

To be sure, it is better to underestimate ourselves than to overestimate, yet neither is a genuine substitute for thoughtful commentary on the Dunning-Kruger effect.

An INTP works for me with a vast knowledge on many topics. She's blessed by an ability to recall facts and data about many problems, but she tends to lose herself amidst that database. She has some self-esteem issues which we luckily circumvent, but I always tell her that she can really make it big on her own, if she fosters the courage required.

Do you truly think you're helping her with this kind of encouragement?

The more we know, the more we realize how much we don't know..

That's a good starting point.

It is humbling, but it should not stop other people from celebrating themselves no matter how big their accomplishments..

There is some truth to this, but we need to be clearer on what counts as a genuine accomplishment. For example, nowdays, it is not uncommon for children to receive participation ribbons simply for attending an after-school event.

I think this is partly why many of our posters tend to become irate when others do not offer them the kind of incessant praise they've become accustomed to, regardless of how little aptitude, knowledge or effort they display here.

People re born free, and you should not concern yourself with what others do with their lives..

That's an interesting bit of moralizing here, but I am at a loss to see what any of this may mean.

People are born free, how? Who should not be concerned with what others do. Do you mean that we should not be concerned with the psychology underpinning the behavior of other people?

In that case, the study of typology must surely be meritless.

The fact that you should address, is that you have issues.

Thank you for that unsolicited advice.

Ability is not the vertex of components in life.

What does that mean?

Amiability and optimism are building ingredients, whereas oblviousness and pessimism are destructive ingredients. On which will you invest your energy?

You have your causal arrow backwards.

I suggest you spend a little bit of time reading the results of the most recent studies on self-esteem.

The Gift of Failure | Psychology Today

I would also highly recommend the following book by Jean Twenge and Keith Campbell.

The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement: Jean M. Twenge, W. Keith Campbell: 9781416575993: Amazon.com: Books

For multiple decades, psychologists believed that they could empower the youth to become high-achievers by artifically boosting their self-esteem. They arrived at this conclusion based on the observation that high achievers tended to have high self-esteem and presumed the latter to cause the former.

Why are so many millennials depressed? A therapist points the finger at Mom and Dad. - The Washington Post

Yet, the reality is that this form of adult guidance only saddled the youth with unrealistic expectations and deprived them of the genuine motivation to build genuine life skills.

The reality is that self-esteem is a result of achievement, not the other way around.

You're projecting your feelings about past experiences into the future, and you'll likely to create the same circumstances again.

This is an interesting bit of speculation, but I trust you realize that such a bold assertion reveals your own tendency to engage in projection.

Otherwise, everyone would be willing to engage you in whatever topic you want, provided you don't carry ill intentions about them beforehand.

Everyone, really?

I am afraid I don't share your optimism.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

What makes you sure?



125 is very high.

Without knowing anything about your intellectual performance, I cannot affirm or challenge your estimate.

However, if your IQ is 125, it is likely that you've exhibited the majority of these traits.

-Youthful precociousness: excelled in elementary school, your teachers always regarded you as a bright pupil and recommended you for advanced courses

-Rapid learning: learned faster than most of your peers and showed an interest in advanced issues that most kids your age were indifferent to

-Coasting through formal education: performed well on standardized tests, often with minimal preparation

-Social alienation: often found yourself alienated from your peers because of your sophisticated interests, advanced vocabulary and a complex way of seeing the world that's quite uncommon for your age

-Cognitive vitality: just as the gifted athletes strive to remain physically activity and maintain their form, you read broadly, enjoy brain-teasers, show an interest in the arts and are willing to raise your skill level in a specific intellectual craft


Of course, this is not to say that all people with an IQ of 125 exhibit every single one of these traits, but as a matter of statistical probability, the majority of people whose IQ is in that range tend to display the majority of these traits.

Joking aside, I was a bright kid, but I wouldn't say gifted. Placed in advanced reading groups by 1st grade because I was reading books at a 3rd and 4th grade level, sometimes higher if the subject matter interested me greatly. I excelled in elementary school but had some issues later on and began to become very bored with school, doing the bare minimum to get average grades, unless it was a subject I liked, in which case I generally performed well with little to no effort. Family and adults said I spoke and carried myself like a little professor as a child Social alienation, check. Cognitive vitality, check. I would and still do enjoy "brain exercising" and begin to feel tired, depressed and nihilistic if I am not being stimulated.

Ultimately though, I think IQ is probably overrated and no guarantee of success, or even wisdom. I've met my share of highly intelligent, almost savant like individuals who were far from what I would consider wise, and in some cases open-minded. IQ usually is a good measure of abstract intelligence, however I think that is not the only form of intelligence.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Joking aside, I was a bright kid, but I wouldn't say gifted. Placed in advanced reading groups by 1st grade because I was reading books at a 3rd and 4th grade level, sometimes higher if the subject matter interested me greatly. I excelled in elementary school but had some issues later on and began to become very bored with school, doing the bare minimum to get average grades, unless it was a subject I liked, in which case I generally performed well with little to no effort. Family and adults said I spoke and carried myself like a little professor as a child Social alienation, check. Cognitive vitality, check. I would and still do enjoy "brain exercising" and begin to feel tired, depressed and nihilistic if I am not being stimulated.

Based on that, it does seem reasonable that your IQ is as high as you'd think it is.

Ultimately though, I think IQ is probably overrated and no guarantee of success, or even wisdom.

In most cases, this is true. It is worth noting that the average IQ among professionals of white-collar trades tends to be between 105 and 115, not 135 and 145.

Modern IQ ranges for various occupations

YouTube

For most people, work ethic, character and preparation play a bigger role in determining how successful they are.

On the other hand, if you intend to be a theoretical physicist, you better have an IQ of 150 or higher. Likewise, it is not a coincidence that the average IQ of a career criminal is 85.

IQ certainly carries far more predictive value for the few people who are on the radical ends of the spectrum than for the majority of individuals who are close to the middle.

I've met my share of highly intelligent, almost savant like individuals who were far from what I would consider wise, and in some cases open-minded. IQ usually is a good measure of abstract intelligence, however I think that is not the only form of intelligence.

In the strictest sense of the word, IQ is the only form of intelligence because intelligence refers to the ability to solve complex problems quickly and accurately. By its nature, such an endeavor heavily emphasizes abstract thinking.


YouTube

What most people tend to find difficult with this claim is that we all know rather dull individuals who have life skills that their smarter counterparts lack.

You don't have to be verbally fluent or adept at deductive reasoning in order to be dexterous with your hands, to excel at handling interpersonal situations and to remain calm under pressure.

People have a variety of talents, but only a tiny fraction of them overlap with intelligence.

 

[Sacrophagus]

Do you truly think you're helping her with this kind of encouragement?

She lived in an environment where she was incessantly ostracized because of her odd and unprecedented way of thinking. In that same place where her family thought that she can only succeed if she does what others do, and if she smiles more, or, forced herself to like people she does not respect. It was never her intention, but after much trauma, she proved them wrong. There is still much about her that she can reveal to the world, but she wallows in thoughts of fear and indecisiveness, and I highly encourage that potential not as her boss, but as a friend.

There is some truth to this, but we need to be clearer on what counts as a genuine accomplishment. For example, nowdays, it is not uncommon for children to receive participation ribbons simply for attending an after-school event.

This indeed brings forth a generation of self-entitled kids who think they are special snowflakes just because their parents said so. But I'd rather, have them instil inside of their children a sense of worthiness, respect, and confidence that go along with a volition to make their dreams come true. An idea which crystallizes itself into productivity through intelligent effort.

I suggest you spend a little bit of time reading the results of the most recent studies on self-esteem.

The Gift of Failure | Psychology Today

I would also highly recommend the following book by Jean Twenge and Keith Campbell.

The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement: Jean M. Twenge, W. Keith Campbell: 9781416575993: Amazon.com: Books

For multiple decades, psychologists believed that they could empower the youth to become high-achievers by artifically boosting their self-esteem. They arrived at this conclusion based on the observation that high achievers tended to have high self-esteem and presumed the latter to cause the former.

Why are so many millennials depressed? A therapist points the finger at Mom and Dad. - The Washington Post

Yet, the reality is that this form of adult guidance only saddled the youth with unrealistic expectations and deprived them of the genuine motivation to build genuine life skills.

The reality is that self-esteem is a result of achievement, not the other way around.

Those who have seen failure become much resilient than those who have been granted special treatment all of their lives. It's an opportunity to learn, introspect, and carry on. The horror movie is not as horrifying when you watch it again, and you build immunity which allows you to navigate through the most tempestuous weather with confidence.

You have your causal arrow backwards.

I'm not. I was in a dark place once. My knowledge and aptitudes wouldn't have serve me a thing, if I didn't switch from being skeptical and pessimistic, and start believing more in myself, even against odd, circumstances, economy, situation...etc. I just followed my intuition and put to rest my logical analysis of the condition and brought forth my dreams.

I am afraid I don't share your optimism.

Everything in due time.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Everything in due time.

Yes, and the same goes for building the attitude of optimism.

I am not disputing that we can change our circumstances by first changing our attitude. That is the cornerstone of modern psychology dating all the way back to William James.

Even today, to grasp the value of optimism, we may look no further than Martin Seligman's work on the subject.



Learned Optimism: How to Change Your Mind and Your Life - Kindle edition by Martin E.P. Seligman. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.

Notice that he titled his book as "Learned Optimism" and not "Bestowed Optimism".

While we may try to energize ourselves by deliberately overestimating our abilities, that is merely fool's gold. Genuine optimism is a result of character-building achievements.

Those who have seen failure become much resilient than those who have been granted special treatment all of their lives. It's an opportunity to learn, introspect, and carry on. The horror movie is not as horrifying when you watch it again, and you build immunity which allows you to navigate through the most tempestuous weather with confidence.

Yes, failure is the prerequisite for success.

I'm not. I was in a dark place once. My knowledge and aptitudes wouldn't have serve me a thing, if I didn't switch from being skeptical and pessimistic, and start believing more in myself, even against odd, circumstances, economy, situation...etc. I just followed my intuition and put to rest my logical analysis of the condition and brought forth my dreams.

Skepticism and pessimism are a natural response to failure. The proper response is not delusional optimism, but tenacity and resilience.

In turn, these virtues beget optimism which propels people to amplify their achievements.

Granted, a smidgen of positive thinking is necessary in order for one to be perseverent enough to overcome failure, but that should never be confused with the true cause of human achievement.

This indeed brings forth a generation of self-entitled kids who think they are special snowflakes just because their parents said so.

Seemingly, this error stems from the confusion I've just addressed.

 

[LovecraftianMonstrosity]

I recommend you find a community that focuses on intellectual discussion for the stimulation you crave. I would suggest IEEE spectrum's community, but then again I am studying engineering. Perhaps a community based on whatever professional interests you have, but I think because people are very high functioning in those environments it might be a test of your social skills.

 

[Yuurei]

I know this well-my husband brings it up CONSTANTLY.

INTJ are a great example. They keep throwing around that nonsense " We replace emotion with logic" meme.

So when you get into an argument with one, and they get HIGHLY emotional and angry over really stupid shit like " Waifus" and "Best girls" things which are purely subjective they can argue " No, I'm not being emotional because I'm an INTJ." Suddenly " Emotion" is not at all what it actual IS and what it IS is whatever and INTJ says it.

TBH Most INTJ I Know are INCREDIBLY emotional -because the very act of attempting to use "Logic" to argue opinions is a purely emotional reaction-

Yet it seems to be a favorite past-time and they still hold onto to that ridiculous concept of being logical-and have others believe it- because of dunning Kruger.

not to pick on INTJ though. I have noticed that many ENTJ do it too. Though I don't know many of them well here on that other horrible MBTI forum the ENTJ sub thread is full of just the worst examples of my own type. I don't get along with most of of them.
My reasoning is that I find them grossly disingenuous as people- that they have no personality beyond the ENTJ stereotype. It's because they find that stereotype so flattering. They constantly shout their strength and plans for world domination because, we ENTJ do it everyday!

It is not hard to see at all how insecure and on-edge everyone of them is; constantly self-cannibalizing and bullying one another should they stray even slightly from properly scripted ENTJ material because each one of them is SO terrified that the rest my question their type.
What does this have to Dunning Kruger? Well, because hiding behind that stereotype makes them look much stronger than they actually are and hiding behind it means that they have never truly had to become the strong and effective individuals that they pretend to be. All they need to do is attack anyone who enters their domain and everyone believes it.
Anyone who has lived in the real world for even a day will tell you that it is impossible to know your own strength without taking a few hits.

As for IQ; definitely. I do not know my IQ. I don't care to.

In Kindergarten I was reading at a 3rd grade level. No, not because I'm a genius but for the simple fact that my Mother took the time to read with me everyday at age 3. I was never put into the "Advanced" reading class because when they did test my IQ it was not high enough. ( 109 I think.)

I actually really hate it because it dismisses hard work and effort. If you just happen to have an above average IQ you're HANDED the tools to succeed.
Meanwhile, the reason so much talent goes to waste, the reason people never even find their talent, is because they lack the tools to succeed. Makes no damned sense.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I caught this editorial a few days ago, and I'll admit the forum (or, at least a couple members) did come to mind.

How Actual Smart People Talk About Themselves (Hint: Not By Discussing IQ)

As far as D-K in this forum though, I'm not sure I'd say there's more of it in this forum than most other environments. Though it's possible I'm inclined to avoid the types of discussion where it surfaces.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

[...] Yet again, I shall ask our readers the following questions.

Have you noticed that regardless of how carefully you try to frame the issue or how thoroughly you attempt to support your claims with facts or cogent arguments, the lion's share of replies you'll get will always be completely meritless?

Likewise, have you noticed that when you identify a few thoughtful posters whom you'd like to engage in your discussions, it is next to impossible to encourage them to participate?

My answer probably isn't going to be helpful. I imagine you're aiming your questions more at Thinkers. But I'll give you the Feeler outlook for the heck of it.

I know I'm smart; I was a member of Mensa for 15 years or so when I lived in the city. But I'm an INFP so I'm not really looking to do any hard-core intellectualizing. I just pop into a thread here or there and play the garrulous old man: Impart some advice, or relate my own experiences dealing with the topic in question. Kind of what I'm doing here.

So no, I'm not bothered by disparities in IQ. Mostly I'm about the feels and the connection. If someone replies in an overly simple manner, that doesn't bother me. Instead, what puts me off is snappishness, quibbling over small points, and pushiness. A lot of time I end up ducking precisely the most intelligent and best-educated members here because I register them as fractious and irritating. Or I'm simply not interested in the topics that interest them. Similarly, I know that many members see my old-man garrulousness as exasperating. When I register that, I try to make a note and leave them alone in the future.

Anyway, that's all by way of responding to your two questions that I quoted. You're a typical INTP. Looking at your blog, you look like you're into debating deep philosophical issues. So I imagine Dunning-Kruger would be a problem and create a lot of static for you. But since I'm an F, disparities in IQ aren't a big deal for me. For me, the game is more about drifting around and registering the feels and the connection from one poster to the next.

Don't get me wrong: I prefer intellectual topics over pure fluff. I don't socialize and fluff-post on the message board; I don't have the free time for that. But when I post, I tend to want to post into a cooperative environment rather than a competitive environment. I'm into "abundance mentality" (reference to Covey's "7 Habits of Highly Effective People") rather than zero-sum mentality.

 

[skimpit]

I'm probably one of those people that will post a response that you view as inane.
I think the more knowledge you gain, the less you think about IQ. I know I used to be obsessed with being smart, probably because I'm not smart. But if I actually shut up and listen and read, I get to learning. And after cross-checking to make sure I've got some solid facts, I have power. I can help people. This is the feeling I want, a different type of smartness that is better than IQ I think. You can have debates, you can make friends. It's better for your health.

On what part of the spectrum of Dunning-Kruger are you if you know you suck, but don't know how to improve and have no motivation to? What part of the spectrum do you think most people fall on? (Obviously there's bell curves, but...)

 

[deathwarmedup]

If someone replies in an overly simple manner, that doesn't bother me. Instead, what puts me off is snappishness, quibbling over small points, and pushiness. A lot of time I end up ducking precisely the most intelligent and best-educated members here because I register them as fractious and irritating.

This all puts me off too (esp. the emboldened). A few years on INTJf made me feel that way, which was the forum I thought of when I read the OP, not this one.

I find discussion more productive and agreeable than debate and you can extract more useful information out of people.

Have you noticed that regardless of how carefully you try to frame the issue or how thoroughly you attempt to support your claims with facts or cogent arguments, the lion's share of replies you'll get will always be completely meritless?

No. My posts just seem to be ignored.

Likewise, have you noticed that when you identify a few thoughtful posters whom you'd like to engage in your discussions, it is next to impossible to encourage them to participate?

I get that sense, yeah.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

As some of you may already know, the Dunning Kruger effect can be summarized as follows.

YouTube

Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia

The least competent and capable of people tend to be the most likely to grossly overestimate their own abilities.

For example, people who score in the 11th percentile of all standardized test-takers are likely to rate their abilities as being in the 99% percentile. The same goes for typing skills, music, IQ tests and so on.

Conversely, the exceptionaly capable performers tend to underestimate their own abilities.

The reason for this mismatch between the actual abilities of people and their perception of their own competencies is simple. The lower our skill level is in any craft, the less likely we are to be capable of identifying our own deficiencies. In other words, the skills required for one to optimize their performance overlap with the ones we need to understand what we must improve upon. So, the most incompetent of us tend to be deficient to the point where we have no idea how we can raise our skill-level. In the absence of knowledge of our own short-comings, we tend to presume ourselves to be excellent.

Conversely, the superb performers have a highly refined ability to identify flaws in their own performance. Naturally, they are constantly aware of the many ways in which they can improve.

---------------------------------------------

I haven't been active on this forum for a long time, but I can confess the following.

One of the reasons I have stopped posting is that my general knowledge and verbal communication skills have improved. In part because of this, I've heightened my awareness of how my previous posts could have used plenty of improvement. Moreover, it has dawned on me that if I were to even begin enhancing them, I'd need to devote far more time to them than I was willing to.

I have also noticed that even if I were to do that, I would get very little feedback from other thoughtful people who were also willing to take the discussion to the next level. The reason for it is simple: the thoughtful posters are also well aware of how much time and effort it takes for them to contribute intellectual value to a fairly complex discussion.

On the other hand, there would be no shortage of ill-conceived and flippant replies from folks who know next to nothing, yet somehow presume themselves to be exceptionally bright.

This seems to explain why various social media sites are awash in comments from young adults who proclaim that their IQ is higher than Einstein's. Surely, had these college kids taken just an hour of their time out of their wide open schedule to learn the basic facts about IQ, they wouldn't be sputtering such non-sense.

I must admit, I am quite wary of people who appear to be much brighter than I am and the more learned I become, the easier time I have of identifying such individuals. On the other hand, when I see someone boast of their "totally awesome, off the charts IQ", I know that I have nothing to worry about. I can say the same about the regular forum members who never get tired of posting self-congratulatory drivel.


---------------------------------------------

Admittedly, to some extent, this post can count as an example of the same kind of rhetoric that I am railing against, so I don't pretend to be the humblest and the most capable of the members of our community.

Had I been as accomplished and articule as I'd like myself to be, I probably wouldn't be posting here, let alone trying to initiate a conversation on the Dunning-Kruger effect. The irony of the situation I am creating here is not lost on me and I fully expect that the majority of the replies I'll receive here will carry very little substance.

Yet again, I shall ask our readers the following questions.

Have you noticed that regardless of how carefully you try to frame the issue or how thoroughly you attempt to support your claims with facts or cogent arguments, the lion's share of replies you'll get will always be completely meritless?

Likewise, have you noticed that when you identify a few thoughtful posters whom you'd like to engage in your discussions, it is next to impossible to encourage them to participate?

I just PM them. It is a public forum, so everyone gets a bite and a chain is only as strong as it’s weakest link. So it doesn’t take much to turn anything into a chaos. I have thought about a Socratic Method style post. Where each poster would have to pose a question about the OP topic, and the OP answers/researches back and asks another. I think a list of approved sources would have to be agreed upon first to avoid the bias argument taking things off track. But it would be better than the editorial syle commentary. Or at least, mix things up.

But then sarcasm would abound sooner or later.