The Dunning Kruger effect on our forums

[Agent Washington]

I wasn't sure if I should bother putting in the effort to actually give a well-thought-out reply. I was trying to figure out what the exact point of this discussion (if there's any) is, though admittedly I haven't read in full detail the posts subsequent to the OP. A lot of the "discussion" on this forum is primarily superfluous, and, from what I observe, there's two sorts of "flippant" replies: 1. trolls 2. people who actually DO know their shit, but simply disagree, and choose to engage their battles wisely (i.e. enough to annoy you and let you know you're wrong, but they're not willing to engage because it's a pointless task).

The real fools (that I've observed) usually type in complete sentences, use big words as if it would make up for their lack of breadth and depth of knowledge, and pretend that their own subjective "logic" is the be-all-and-end-all to interpreting reality and experiences, which is as succinctly as I can put it - because I am fundamentally UNWILLING to invest more effort into what is ultimately a useless yet mildly entertaining diversion. (I do however have moments where I am actually interested in the information presented, but that is only when said individuals demonstrate a certain ability and depth of knowledge about the topic that I personally am not as familiar with. As you have already pointed out, actually engaging on such a level is an arduous task.)

I can also think of a couple of users with allegedly high IQs (and I have no doubt they could prove it by their vocabulary range), but otherwise are just really daft people in general with a huge sense of entitlement. So there's that. I usually ignore them, but sometimes I let them know that they're utter morons.

I'm also using "you" in a general sense, since I don't know OP well.

Update: Skimmed through the article from The Atlantic. Consider the three points correct. Also consider that, people who know their worth and their weaknesses generally have nothing to prove.

 

[Cellmold]

I'm a fairly good representative of the Dunning Kruger effect.

I had this strange ego-conflict when I was growing up (maybe an inaccurate statement...I am more likely in an ongoing process of growing up) which stemmed from the kind of complicated self image which comes from being inherently anxious and reactive.

On the one hand I was nervous about everything and at the same time had a deep-seated arrogance about my own abilities to do things. Usually along the lines of "Well I could easily do that if I tried". As it turns out..no...no I couldn't and my usual response was to look for some excuse or have an outburst and disrupt other people's education "If I can't do it I don't want any one else to". A nasty case of sour grapes. This wasn't helped by my mother's refusal to see that my behavioural difficulties had nothing to do with me being intelligent and bored and everything to do with me being stupid and struggling. It took me till well into my mid 20's to even make any kind of realisation about this, embarrassing as it is to admit it.

The inability to recognise a mistake and learn from it identified in [MENTION=14179]SolitaryWalker[/MENTION]'s OP is very familiar to me. In addition to what I mention above it would also be the case that rather than accept and attempt to learn I would often simply explode or run away from the issue.

"If I run away or shout loud enough it hasn't happened"

Now the last few years have been strangely transformative (might be due to frontal lobe development because of my age) and I've undergone some kind of shift in my thinking. I can only see that as a result of the blunt force trauma that is life beating it in to me that my inflated sense of expected ability (despite my also paradoxical lack of self-worth which is tied up to the expectation of achievement) is undeserved.

I've always been a slow learner and in this case it took me far too long to generate a basic understanding of myself in the world. But it's hard to advise any course of action to safeguard against this kind of trap, as stated in the OP, being able to do so is it's own hallmark of intelligence and often one of the key factors of intelligence (despite it's complicated history of not wanting to be easily defined) is the ability to understand rapidly. Although being human in other ways tends to muddle things up.

This isn't some self-flagellation by the way, just a simple admittance & there is no condemnation or condoning I can acknowledge for it. I'm largely unrecognisable too, especially to those who have known me from birth, and anything I write these days is the influence of a lot of efforts to try and read more and learn more. I think I've been part-way successful at that, but it's never a finished thing. Hard work & discipline can compensate lack of intelligence to some extent. That and being given far too many chances from extremely kind and generous people when I didn't deserve it.

To answer the main questions posed: No, I think my posts are more likely to be meritless (maybe not as much lately but in the past they certainly were). As for thoughtful posters, I think without calling such people to attention (on here the mention function helps a great deal) it's hard to tell for what reason they might not be interacting.

That brings into question the tone or atmosphere of a public arena more than anything else. People can be put off for a number of reasons, but this might be part of it, I haven't experienced it that way personally but I can imagine others may have.

 

[LucieCat]

For me, I tend to grossly underestimate myself. I suppose this is a result of low self-esteem hammered into my head by some teachers and "friends" who treated me poorly and lots of peer rejection—some of it for the fact that I wasn't "smart enough" to be in the gifted program. I was once told by one of my favorite high school teachers, "You know exactly what you're doing. You're right more than you are wrong. You just have to trust yourself to do it."

I also try to be humble. This can lead to me blatantly downplaying my good qualities and accomplishments to the point where it's unhealthy.

My IQ was tested as a pre-teen to be either 120 or a few points less. I've never had another test conducted, and I do not have the desire to since it's not important to me. The test administrator told me that my IQ once I reached the end of adolescence would likely be a few points higher , about 125 or so, due to additional maturation. So that's probably more or less my IQ now:

It's also hard to tell because my severe anxiety really prevented me from unleashing my full potential for many many years. I was tested when it was literally at its worst (and that's saying something).

I don't put too much stock into IQ though. It's just one way to look at intelligence and I subscribe to the theory of multiple intelligences.

 

[Tilt]

I usually test around 90-110 on online IQ tests but people often remark on my intelligence so I am never sure about the discrepancy. Whenever I try to tell people that they often try to argue and call bullshit on it. They tried to convince me otherwise. It is kind of amusing actually. Throughout my early schooling, I was always placed in advanced classes and one time I placed 98% in math on a national test. Most of my undergraduate career also came very easily to me.

 

[Tilt]

And pertaining to thoughtful responses, I often get overwhelmed by really long posts not because I cannot comprehend them, I often worry that I will miss an important nuance and will put off posting a thorough response (or will try to summarize my thoughts in 1 to 2 sentences) or will get distracted by something else and never come back to it. In addition, I have compromised fine motor ability for typing and have anxiety relating to how my response will be received.

 

[Lead Guitar Wankery]

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, most replies usually have some, if little, value to me. The value heavily depends on the topic: simple and subjective topics yield more useful and satisfying responses.

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?

Not exactly. I've found that they don't want to participate as much as I want them to, which I think is related to personality differences.

 

[Quick]

I am regarded in my family to prolly be the smartest person in my immediate family.
My therapist thinks I am underchallenged.
In school I got a lot of "Quick is smart, but he needs to apply himself."
Today in Group Therapy, someone whom I regard as pretty intelligent said "you're very intellectual"
When I was going to a partial hospitalization about exactly a year ago there was an exercise where everyone in the group wrote down down something about everyone else. I remember people where writing things down like "Insightful" and "HIGHLY ARTICULATE!!"
These are all things that show I am above average intelligence.
I recently had some testing from a battery of neuropsychological testing I did on the 2nd of November.
I thought I was going to score around 115 or so.
I estimate my IQ to be anywhere from 105-110 based on the results I got. The results were not explicitly stated in number format or percentage. Instead I had 3 things I scored "Average" on and 3 things I scored in the "High Average" in the intelligence category. High Average is an IQ of 110-119 and Average is 90-110 according to the WAIS-IV scale. So if we assume that the 3 things I got as average were 100, and the high average results I got were 110 or a little higher (IDK what range within high average I scored), that puts me pretty squarely at 105-110. Even the Neuropsych who scored my test said I was "a bright guy."
THAT is what people think of someone who has mildly above average intelligence. I am not even a standard deviation above average. Jordan Peterson has said that the person that most people meet that they think is ridiculously intelligent has an IQ of 145 and this spans over the course of people's entire lives. If you have an IQ of 145, you can pretty much pick whatever career you want to in the whole world because pretty much the cap for what is necessary for most jobs (some that require quite a bit of intelligence to do) is about 130 (professor, PhD, stuff like that).
So yeah, people who say they have an IQ of 130+ are usually completely full of shit. I've taken a lot of online IQ tests that put me at about 125. I am even a part of a high IQ society and I got in by scoring 126 from the specific test that they give out that you can use to join. IQ test scores online are so inflated its not even funny.

 

[EJCC]

I don’t necessarily think that length of post correlates directly with intelligence of post. That said: OP has been my experience on the Internet at large. I find, and have always found, TypeC to be more thoughtful and introspective than any forum or social network that I’ve ever visited. That’s part of why I’m so loyal to it.

That said, my standards may be lower than OP’s.

EDIT: Other things I forgot to note:
- I don’t really give a shit about intelligence, but I DO give a shit about interesting conversation.
- I don’t have trouble encouraging specific people to participate.