Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect

See Also - Blind Men and Fatal Conceit

I recently added a couple items to the See Also section...Blind men and an elephant and The Fatal Conceit and they were removed for lack of relevance. Both have to do with conceit...which is the central idea regarding the Dunning-Kruger effect...overestimating one's own intelligence/expertise/knowledge. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerographica (talk • contribs) 04:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that ties the effect to those concepts. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 04:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Please provide the Wikipedia policy that states that RS are needed for See Also items --Xerographica (talk) 05:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

See WP:V, "All the material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable."

But Verifiability in a See also section only requires to show that the concept exists, not that it's related to the article where it is placed, so the most relevant policy is WP:SEEALSO:

• "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense".

As for lack of relevance,

• The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of the "See also" links is to enable readers to explore topics that are only peripherally relevant,

but

• "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous"Diego (talk) 06:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing that. With that in mind...do any editors have any objections to the addition of those two articles to the See Also section...or do I need to further explain their peripheral relevance? --Xerographica (talk) 07:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

We should be cautious of misleading the reader by using bad examples. The "blind men and the elephant" story seems a little tenuous - I'm not sure that people arguing pointlessly based on partial information about a subject are "overestimating their skill" in the way that the Dunning-Kruger effect describes. And I'm not familiar with the Fatal Conceit book, but the summary on its Wikipedia article does not appear to mention illusions of superiority. If it's somehow a big part of the book, it'd help to edit the book's article as well. --McGeddon (talk) 09:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

If the links are included you should definitely explain how those articles relate to this concept, because it's not obvious in any way. Diego (talk) 09:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems the argument is that these concepts, although they don't immediately appear directly relevant, are linked to the article's topic via another concept. In that case, the See also should be to that concept. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Well...basically I'm tying these two concepts to the political/economic implications which have already been well fleshed out. But I suppose it requires a firm grasp of politics/economics to see the connection. Here's what the founder of modern economics, Adam Smith, had to say about overestimating one's abilities...

The man of system, on the contrary, is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard either to the great interests, or to the strong prejudices which may oppose it. He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might chuse to impress upon it. If those two principles coincide and act in the same direction, the game of human society will go on easily and harmoniously, and is very likely to be happy and successful. If they are opposite or different, the game will go on miserably, and the society must be at all times in the highest degree of disorder. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)

If somebody underestimates their abilities then they are hardly going to try and arrange everybody in a society like chess pieces. From this article..."Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" - Charles Darwin...and..."One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision" - Bertrand Russell.

Smith's critique was followed by Bastiat's...

Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this superiority. - Frédéric Bastiat, The Law (1850)

Socialism fails because some people fail to appreciate that we are ALL blind men touching different parts of an elephant. Mao Zedong thought he was an exception to that rule. Unfortunately, he hasn't been the only one. All the greatest man made disasters throughout history have been caused by people who believed that they were exceptions to that rule.

Capitalism, on the other hand, works because there's a vetting process. If you overestimate your skills in a capitalist system...then other people have the freedom to not give you their money. If you overestimate your singing skills...people won't buy your albums. If you overestimate your legal skills...people won't hire you as their attorney. Capitalism is constantly redistributing resources to the people who actually do have the skills that other people value enough to voluntarily pay for. And as Henry David Thoreau said, "The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it."

So that's the political and economic implications of the Dunning-Kruger effect...and the point of Hayek's book. From my admittedly extremely limited perspective...the relevance is not even vaguely peripheral.

To take it one step further...right now we allow 538 congresspeople to spend 1/4 of our nation's revenue. That's more than $3.5 trillion dollars. Do you think that congresspeople are overestimating their abilities? The only way to be certain would be to subject them to the only vetting process that matters...giving taxpayers the freedom to decide whether they give their taxes to congress or whether they choose for themselves which public goods they are willing to exchange their lives for. If congresspeople truly believe that they are not suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect...if their superiority is actually self-evident...then why would they hesitate allowing taxpayers to be the judges of that? This is known as tax choice...which I am an advocate of. So that's my bias on the table. --Xerographica (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to share this quote by Hayek which perhaps best summarizes the point of his book...and well...perhaps the point of his life..."The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design." --Xerographica (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Anybody? Well...unless somebody would like to argue that the articles in question are not even peripherally relevant...then I'll be adding them to the See Also list. --Xerographica (talk) 09:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

If it takes 750 words to explain why these links are relevant, it may be difficult to write "a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent", but feel free to have a go. If it really would take a full paragraph to explain the relevance of a particular book or fable, we should either write about that relevance in the body of the article (provided we can source the connection) or drop it. --McGeddon (talk) 10:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Either those 750 words successfully showed you the relevance or they didn't. If they didn't...then either the concepts aren't related or I failed at choosing the right words. I frequently do fail at choosing the right words...and it is kind of hard to imagine that the Dunning–Kruger effect wouldn't have any social/political/economic implications. Somebody has an overinflated perception of self-worth...therefore...nothing? Somebody overestimates their abilities/knowledge...but there are no negative consequences to speak of? It has no bearing on their behavior? There's no tilting at windmills? There's no blind people throwing darts everywhere certain that they'll hit the bull's eye? There's no misallocation of scarce resources? From my perspective...Buddha's parable considered the broad social implications while Hayek's book considered the political and economic implications. Both are cautionary tales that warn us that our perception might not match reality. --Xerographica (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not just a matter of explaining on the talk page why the link is relevant, it's also about being able to write a "brief annotation" which clearly explains the link's relevance to the typical reader. If we can manage the former but not the latter, we should not include the link. --McGeddon (talk) 08:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

So if I can't briefly explain the link's relevance then the link is not relevant? Or is the goal to avoid constantly having to explain the link's relevance on the talk page? I bet that by the 5th time I explained the link's relevance on this talk page I'll be able to do it briefly. But I wouldn't bet much...cause I'm hardly a wordsmith. It might take me 10 tries before I got it down to a single sentence. Then again...personally...I think the word "blind" in the "blind men and an elephant" and the word "conceit" in "the fatal conceit" are all that's needed to establish that there's at least a peripheral relevance. The only reason we're having this discussion in the first place is because the person who reverted my edit mistakenly believed that a reliable source was needed for links in the See Also section. --Xerographica (talk) 08:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

"Peripheral relevance" is the problem. With a bit of imagination, hundreds of articles are peripherally relevant to this one. Hence peripheral relevance, of the kind you identify, is insufficient for a See also link. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

So you're telling me that self-efficacy and the peter principle are more relevant to the Dunning–Kruger effect than the blind men and the fatal conceit are? I'd also love to hear your argument regarding why the Anton–Babinski syndrome is more relevant than the blind men and the elephant. --Xerographica (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I think he's just suggesting that the two links under discussion are peripheral. If other links are equally peripheral (and I think you're probably right here), we should remove those as well. --McGeddon (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

But the wikipedia See Also policy clearly states that peripherally relevant topics are acceptable. It also clearly states that it is ultimately up to the discretion of editors. You just agreed that the topics are peripherally relevant...but you also do not agree that they should be included. You also believe that two other topics, which are already included, are too irrelevant to be included. The high level of subjectivity is not giving me much to go on. What will help is if you clearly articulate your guideline for inclusion listing as many objective criteria as possible and using the currently included topics as examples. --Xerographica (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose addition of see also links. Elephant is about truth rather than assessing one's competence. The article need not address or link to every example of DK. Glrx (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

A person's assessment of their competence has nothing to do with truth and/or discrepancies between perception and reality? If you're truly confident that they are not examples of DK...then why would you follow up by saying that this article does not have to link to every example of DK? Either your second argument is totally irrelevant or it is relevant but then it cancels out your first argument. So which is it? --Xerographica (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose the addition of the two links in question. The article has no business linking far-fetched, tenuous "examples" of the effect. (From Glrx, I see two orthogonal arguments, not susceptible to being framed as a dichotomy.) __ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Your opposition has absolutely no value unless you can actually articulate exactly why you believe that the two links are far fetched and tenuous examples of DK. --Xerographica (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, for the record. The elephant parable is tenuous, the book's connection is opaque, and if we can't provide the "brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent" for the latter then we shouldn't confuse the reader by including it. May be time to step away from the elephant here. --McGeddon (talk) 23:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You're doing the reader a disservice by not linking them to the political/social/economic implications of the DK effect. I mean, it would be strange to consider the DK effect real and meaningful and then argue that there are absolutely no political/social/economic implications. It would also be strange to say that there are political/social/economic implications but nobody else has ever observed or considered them. No...the idea that people suffer from a disparity between perception and reality is hardly a new idea. It was the point of Buddha's parable of the blind men and the point of Hayek's book on conceit. Either that or the DK effect is only a recent phenomenon. in any case, I already added a link to the DK effect from those two articles...we'll see how long they last before the editors of those articles object to their relevance. --Xerographica (talk) 04:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

this needs a graph

like a redraw of http://i.imgur.com/I9N5C.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.68.29 (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Hobbes

Diff — The key to "Without a reliable published source making the connection, this is WP:OR." is the part about making the connection. If there is a published source linking Hobbes' observation to the conclusions of Dunning and Kruger, then it fits in this article.

N.B. the Hobbes quote, as given in this context, says nothing about highly skilled people underestimating their capability, which is just as much a part of the D-K effect as the "unskilled and unaware" bit. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

How intelligence factors in

Have there been studies to determine whether level of intelligence plays a role in a person's ability to accurately assess their level of skill? Tad Lincoln (talk) 04:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You'd certainly be interested in the work of Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman (and his colleague Amos Tversky). A good place to start is "Thinking, Fast and Slow", but a much earlier work really knocked me off my feet. For one chapter, a group of psychologists was assembled. Among their professional duties was administering IQ tests. So they were asked: Given a random group of people, what's the average IQ? By definition it's 100, so everybody got that right. Then they were asked: Given a random group of 50 children, 1 is tested and has an IQ of 150. What is now the expected IQ of that group? Some psychologists said it was unchanged, some knew it was more, but not how to calculate it. Only a few got the right answer. (It's a simple calculation that can be done in one's head.) Leptus Froggi (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Plato/Socrates in Historical References

Socrates said, "The only thing that I know is that I know nothing." It was recorded by Plato as you can see here: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Socrates#Plato

Although it is a little different, Aristotle later said, "to know thyself is the beginning of all wisdom" (but not in English, obviously). I feel that Shakespeare is referencing the Greeks in his play. Samalander (talk) 06:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

A more pertinent quotation, perhaps:

A little Learning is a dang'rous Thing;

Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:

There shallow Draughts intoxicate the Brain,

And drinking largely sobers us again.

Alexander Pope, An Essay on Criticism, Part II

--Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

"biblical reference" edit war

I have placed protection on this page to stop the edit war that was developing here. That is not how we resolve content disputes here. Please discuss the issue here and attempt to find a consensus on this issue instead of arguing in edit sumarries. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC).

Anyone want comment on the reliablity of equip.org as used for the disputed content? --Ronz (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be a vehicle for Hank Hanegraaff, a creationist Christian apologist, with pages such as Can we be certain that evolution is a myth?, which asserts, "the fossil record is an embarrassment to evolutionists." That page, in itself, is arguably an example of the D-K effect's "uninformed and unaware" corollary.

More to the point, can anyone comment on the notability of James Patrick Holding, the author of the disputed reference? His article's talk page casts some doubt on that. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I would omit the biblical citation. The quotation "The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice" does not accurately describe the DK effect. The first clause is appropriate (the incompetent thinks he is competent), but the second clause is about listening to advice rather than self-assessment. Compare the other quotations in the historical references section that characterize the self-awareness of both the stupid (who are certain or think they are wise) and the wise (who are filled with doubt or think they are fools). Furthermore, I do not see Holding as being prominent enough in psychology for his DK views to be given weight here. Glrx (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I originally added the disputed reference to this article in January, and apologize to everyone for inadvertently touching off a controversy. The focus of the section seemed to me to be that the principle had been observed long before the research of the eponymous scientists. At that time, the oldest relevant references cited were from the Enlightenment. However, in Christian circles, I have often heard the principle discussed in the context of various biblical writings, especially those of Solomon who writes extensively about the nature of foolishness and wisdom. So, I added the Holding reference as an example of this, and was pleased when, shortly afterward, the section was further extended with relevant quotations going back to Socrates, which I felt was exactly in the same spirit as what I had added. (I note that the Socrates reference has since been removed as well, which is a shame.) I still feel that, in the intended context, both the biblical reference and the Socrates reference have value in tracing the periodic emergence of this principle from throughout human history. As for Glrx's suggestion that the second half of the chosen reference from Proverbs isn't quite spot-on, I personally think self-assessment is completely connected with a willingness to "take advice". Moreover, it's only one verse: as I said, there are tons more. I just wanted to keep the reference as short as possible, since, to me, the real focus of the section is on the DK principle throughout time. It is strongly represented in biblical writings, so that's a good data point to include, but in the end it should only be one example in a complete historical list IMHO. The verse I chose, I felt, offered the best balance of precision and conciseness. --Rnickel (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I concur. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Without better sources, it's unclear that these historical writings are relevant. --Ronz (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I was actually wondering why there wasn't a bible reference. "Thinking themselves wise, they became fools." That's DK, no? Bible has a hundred more like it. 131.203.134.73 (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Without a source saying it is DK, it is original research. --Ronz (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Ronz; the connection does need to be sourced. My thoughts here are addressed to those who asserted inadequacy of the CRI Journal article I originally cited. The original question was, is that a reliable source? On the one hand, it is editorially reviewed, in print for more than 40 years, and widely circulated. (The organization describes itself as "the largest, most effective apologetics ministry in the world.")

On the other hand, there can be some objections:

• WP:RS makes a distinction between factual content and opinion content. I would not have used this particular source for factual content. (For example, as noted above by Just Plain Bill, their positions on evolution are, shall we say, controversial.) Nevertheless, such sources "are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author." That is why I originally entered the reference as an attributed statement: "Christian scholars such as James Patrick Holding note..."
• WP:RS notes that questionable sources include "publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist". The CRI Journal is certainly controversial, though whether it is "widely acknowledged as extremist" I suspect depends upon whom you ask. What made up my mind was that "A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim". I just never felt that the claim being sourced was particularly exceptional-- as noted by the IP user above. The bible clearly talks about foolishness and wisdom, and clearly draws conclusions similar to DK. Where is the controversy? The Socrates quote, I get it, that one was totally unsourced so probably WP:OR, but the biblical stuff... Is it just that people don't want the bible mentioned in a scientific article? Personally, I was all the more shocked by the edit war because I thought this statement would be less controversial than average: if both science and faith can point to the same conclusion, then who is left to object?

Anyway, I'm getting off the topic of the source: on the balance, for sourcing a single sentence in the appropriate context, I felt it was an adequate reference. If not, then what would meet the test? For example, what if the same connection had been drawn on Focus on the Family or in Christianity Today? I would just like some guidance. As noted before, I think the emergence of DK-like observations from throughout history is one of the theory's most interesting aspects, but would like to be sure of my footing before I make another attempt to flesh that out in the article. Thanks, --Rnickel (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell quote

Why does the quote from Bertrand Russel lead to a secondary source? The linked paper also does not have a reference to the original source.

..."and Bertrand Russell ("One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision")[4]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.229.179.81 (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It links to the Dunning-Kruger paper, whose abstract opens with this exact quote. We're using a secondary source because the statement we're sourcing is not "Bertrand Russell said this", but "Dunning and Kruger noted the relevance of Bertrand Russell having said this". Per previous threads on this talk page, it's important that this kind of thing is sourced as being relevant, rather than just being "this reminds me of a story" WP:OR from passing Wikipedia editors.

The Charles Darwin quote is just referenced to a primary source, and that seems to be because Dunning and Kruger did not note the relevance of the Darwin quote - the apparently false statement that "Dunning and Kruger themselves quote Charles Darwin" has been sitting in the article for years, as their paper does not appear to mention Darwin once. (Although their original paper does quote Confucius, so I'll add that instead.) --McGeddon (talk) 11:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Darwin was quoted by Kruger and Dunning in the original 1999 "Unskilled and unaware of it" paper, in its third paragraph (p. 1121: "...as Charles Darwin (1871) sagely noted over a century ago, "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" (p. 3)"), so I've reinstated it, referenced to the paper. Brunton (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

For the original wording and source of the Bertrand Russell quote, see Wikiquote. The popular paraphrase is "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts"; I wonder where the variant sourced to the paper (is it really in there?) comes from. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Great example - one's skill in driving a motor vehicle.

No longer have the references, but apparently about 90% of people believe that their ability to drive a car is "above average". Old_Wombat (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

This is an example of illusory superiority and is discussed in that article. I'm not aware of D-K type research being applied to driving. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Real term?

It is argued that the term "Dunning-Kruger" is a bullshit term that is used for people to feel superior themselves. By using an obscure word that may or may not actually be from psychology, it makes the user sound authoritative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.86.26 (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

It is argued that "it is argued that" is a bullshit WP:WEASEL phrase used by people to make their baseless homespun "theories" sound authoritative. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not a term "from psychology" in that the name "Dunning-Kruger effect" started on this Wikipedia article, stuck, and has since been used by independent sources. However, since it has stuck it is now a legitimate term referring to an experimental finding. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Easier explanation

Maybe I am not understanding something, but it seems that regardless of actual ability, people judge themselves to be slightly above average. Wouldn't the easier explanation be that everyone is not a very good assessor of their own ability and those that just happen to be "slightly above average" end up looking like they can judge their own abilities. I am thinking something like this: for any given task J=50 + 0.2R where J is percentile score of self-judged ability and R is the percentile score real ability. Eiad77 (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

No. From the article: "Meanwhile, people with true ability tended to underestimate their relative competence. Roughly, participants who found tasks to be relatively easy erroneously assumed, to some extent, that the tasks must also be easy for others." (emphasis mine) Furthermore the article refers to "unskilled individuals" and "incompetent people" when referring to the effect. TimL • talk 16:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Your answer does nothing to contradict my point. A person in the 20th percentile (R=20) would estimate themselves to be in the 54th percentile (J=54) (overestimating their ability). A person in the 90th pecentile (R=90) would underestimate their own ability to be in the 68th percentile (J=68) Eiad77 (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello there! In fact it does, please re-read the "people with true ability tended to underestimate their relative competence" part of the quote. It's about the other class of people putting themselves down the ladder, so to speak. — Dsimic (talk) 01:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

My explanation would also have people with true ability underestimate their relative competence. Eiad77 (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

You're right, initially I didn't take enough time to look at the equation, sorry. Though, how do we know about those exact numbers within the formula? Wouldn't it be less understandable to an average article reader that way, even if you're dead-on with the equation? — Dsimic (talk) 02:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I just made up the numbers, and I don't think this should be added to the article. I just thought that this "effect" is kind of misleading. It seems that few people can accurately assess their own abilities on many tasks. Eiad77 (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Isn't this kind of human behavior misleading in the first place? This article just describes it, nothing more. :) — Dsimic (talk) 04:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The article is about a set of psychology experiments reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) with a substantial Impact factor. This provides strong support for the scientific value of the subject. Disagreements about the article are mainly about whether specific parallels and analogies that appear elsewhere are actually related to the subject, not the subject itself. As a scientific contribution to the Portal:Psychology, the article is made stronger by limiting the parallels and analogies and focusing on the scientific elements so that these stand out. Richard I. Cook, MD (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

@Eiad77: You made an entirely valid point here, and in fact it's similar to what is said in the D-K paper and other papers. It's a pity you've been so misunderstood in the subsequent discussion. It's worth distinguishing between the first empirical finding and the subsequent theory: struck by the discrepancy between the real and judged rank of the bottom quarter, D and K proposed a weakness of metacognition in those unskilled people. This weakness, explaining the discrepancy, is what's more properly called the Dunning-Kruger effect. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Incomplete Introduction? (Causes for this bias)

My guess would be that this bias not only originates from that metacognitive inability mentioned in the introduction. Given a concrete problem, the cause could be just that people do not know about some more subtle problems that go along. Or am I now falling into that bias myself? Or is this bias-concept meant to be only applied to things such as reading or doing something “nicely”– activities which require a minimum of knowledge but rather talent/practice and the like? 2A02:8071:30A:4F00:BE5F:F4FF:FEA6:C2A9 (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Added reference to the Inspiration for the Research

I added a bit about McArthur Wheeler with corresponding citation. I've also cross-linked this with Wheeler's BLP, which is new and needs work. Help is welcome! Jaydubya93 (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Merge McArthur Wheeler to here

I propose McArthur Wheeler be merged/redirected to here per WP:PSEUDO. 183.89.164.87 (talk) 08:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I support this. @Jaydubya93: I really don't think there is a justification for a separate article about McArthur Wheeler because he is not notable beyond the robberies which are briefly mentioned in the D-K paper. The article you have created gives the impression - intentional or not - of being a WP:COATRACK. There are lots more psychology papers about this topic and it would be better to summarise more of them rather than creating Wikipedia content about quite minor detail of this one paper. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I created this article 72 hours ago. This is premature. Jay Dubya (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Jaydubya, I've just read your explanation at Talk:McArthur_Wheeler#Notability_and_Citation of why you think Wheeler is notable. Sorry to say that after reading it I'm even more convinced that there shouldn't be a Wikipedia article on him. I've replied on that page as to why. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The central problem is that in the article you have "Social psychologists Justin Kruger and David Dunning were inspired to use his case..." followed by a citation of a reference which does not say that at all. If you have other references to back up this point, then please cite those references. Otherwise, please delete the statement from the article as speculation, and stop using it as justification for the notability of the subject. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Wheeler is listed in two highly reputable sources as Dunning's inspiration for the study. First, he is described in depth in the study itself by Dunning here: “Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties of Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-assessments,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1999, vol. 77, no. 6, pp. 1121-1134. Second, the New York Times lists him as Dunnings inspiration here: New York Times, The Anosognosic’s Dilemma: Something’s Wrong but You’ll Never Know What It Is (Part 1) By ERROL MORRIS JUNE 20, 2010, 9:00 PM http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/the-anosognosics-dilemma-1/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

Here is the NY Times quote, which is much easier to reproduce because it is listed in full online. I will need time to reproduce the relevant content from the study because of its length.

"David Dunning, a Cornell professor of social psychology, was perusing the 1996 World Almanac. In a section called Offbeat News Stories he found a tantalizingly brief account of a series of bank robberies committed in Pittsburgh the previous year. From there, it was an easy matter to track the case to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, specifically to an article by Michael A. Fuoco: "ARREST IN BANK ROBBERY, SUSPECT’S TV PICTURE SPURS TIPS" At 5 feet 6 inches and about 270 pounds, bank robbery suspect McArthur Wheeler isn’t the type of person who fades into the woodwork. [...] As Dunning read through the article, a thought washed over him, an epiphany. If Wheeler was too stupid to be a bank robber, perhaps he was also too stupid to know that he was too stupid to be a bank robber — that is, his stupidity protected him from an awareness of his own stupidity. Dunning wondered whether it was possible to measure one’s self-assessed level of competence against something a little more objective — say, actual competence. Within weeks, he and his graduate student, Justin Kruger, had organized a program of research. Their paper, “Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties of Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-assessments,” was published in 1999." Jay Dubya (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I considered the Pseudo-biography issue prior to creation. As you stated, I believe that the issue of whether this is a Pseudo-biography or not hinges on whether Wheeler served as the inspiration for further study. WP-PSEUDO provides a number of questions for review for purposes of testing an article for inclusion. Let's address them here.

• "Was the person the main focus of relevant coverage? For instance, it is not necessary to include biographies on every person who was present at the Virginia Tech massacre. The event is notable; individual people are not." The Virgina Tech example is helpful IMO. Virginia Tech was not the only school shooting. Wheeler is not the only bank robber. However, Virgina Tech was used as a spring board for wider discussion of the phenomenon of school shootings; as a result we have a substantial article on Seung-Hui Cho. Seung-Hui Cho is notable for multiple events: 1. The shooting and 2. The reaction to it. Similarly, IMO Wheeler is notable for multiple events 1. The robberies and 2. The research of his planning of those robberies. Finally, Wheeler is named specifically in all mentions of the robberies, and is the main focus of all subsequent coverage of those robberies (which is more substantial than is currently included in the article) - since he was the perpetrator and not a spectator of the robberies, he is more notable (right or wrong) than the people in the bank that he robbed. Similarly, VA Tech's coverage in wikipedia does not include an article for every student who attended school the day of the shooting. Contrast Wheeler's coverage in Fuoco or Morris's work, GQ, Telegraph, the BBC, Cognizance, Focus in Germany ("Das Imperium der Doofen", Überall Unfähigkeit und Selbstüberschätzung – US-Psychologen beweisen, dass dahinter ein System steckt!) and a typical Florida bank robbery notification like this one by a Central Florida regional, the Sentinal:

"A suspect in Jan. 6 robbery of a bank in Orange County was arrested in Tampa Friday. The Orlando Police Department said David Jefferson Decker, 40, was identified by detectives as the man who entered the TD Bank located at 2859 S. Delaney Avenue in Orlando and gave a note to the teller demanding money. Police said an arrest warrant was obtained and the the US Marshals task force in Tampa arrested him Friday evening.Investigators said Decker will be transported back to Orange County." That was the entire article! IMO, the PSEUDO rule is to prevent articles on people like Decker, not people like Wheeler. Nobody in Germany is calling Decker a Doofen.

• "Do any reliable sources cover the individual themselves as a main or sole focus of coverage, or is the person mentioned only in connection with an event or organization?" Multiple reliable sources deal with substantial coverage of McArthur Wheeler. Coverage deals with Wheeler's planning of the crime, his motivation, his education, his family life, his intelligence and Wheeler's subsequent life in prison. These sources include national and regional newspapers, books, and scientific periodicals. Sometimes, these sources use that coverage as a spring board for a larger discussion of human meta cognition. Similarly, many reliable sources that we use on Seung-Hui Cho use a discussion of his planning, education, family life and intelligence as a spring board for a larger discussion of the social problem of random acts of violence. This is not typically seen as justification for dismissal as a Wikipedia source. Wheeler is not mentioned as representative of an organization. Furthermore, Wheeler is mentioned in contexts outside of a single event. Specifically, he is mentioned as representative of people incapable of meta-cognition of competence.
• "Is the person notable for any other events in their life?" No. This is most likely where the controversy comes from, and I empathize with your concern. However, dismissal of one term of the test is not commonly seen as a reason for complete removal of the piece. Again, let's use Seung-Hui Cho. Other than the Virginia Tech shooting, was Cho involved with any other notable event? Sadly, no - the violence was the only notable part of his life. Still, we saw fit to include him because of the wider social context his actions had.

I hope this helps. Finally, I just wanted to say I appreciate your concerns and while I my not agree they are certainly valid and I appreciate your work on the encyclopedia. Should the article indeed need to be merged I will not be any worse for it. Certainly, I do not own this article or any part of Wikipedia and have no "ax to grind" re: Wheeler; just an interesting bit of information that readers and students might find helpful in their understanding of the history of Psychology. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. Jay Dubya (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Copying and pasting relevant concerns from the other page here:

That's a genuine surprise to learn that he was the inspiration- thanks for correcting me. I don't know why you point out that Wheeler is mentioned in the D-K paper since I've already repeatedly said this myself in the text you are responding to. Do you now accept that it was false to say that Wheeler's exploits "have inspired articles in" the New York Times and New York Post? Are we only talk about one academic journal article or multiple papers? Your original claims still seem to be unsupportable and misleading. For the question of notability, it still seems a very clear case of only being notable for one event. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC) "Do you now accept that it was false to say that Wheeler's exploits "have inspired articles in" the New York Times and New York Post?" No, I am not sure why that would be the case. Wheeler inspired Dunning. Dunning and Wheeler are both covered in depth in the Times, Post and elsewhere. Here are quotes from the NY Post story I believe you are referring to: "Charles Darwin observed that “ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.” That was certainly true on the day in 1995 when a man named McArthur Wheeler boldly robbed two banks in Pittsburgh without using a disguise. Security camera footage of him was broadcast on the evening news the same day as the robberies, and he was arrested an hour later. Mr. Wheeler was surprised when the police explained how they had used the surveillance tapes to catch him. “But I wore the juice,” he mumbled incredulously. He seemed to believe that rubbing his face with lemon juice would blur his image and make him impossible to catch." [...] "The story of McArthur Wheeler was told by social psychologists Justin Kruger and David Dunning in a brilliant paper entitled “Unskilled and Unaware of It.” http://nypost.com/2010/05/23/why-losers-have-delusions-of-grandeur/ Here is GQ Magazine on Wheeler: "In 1995, a criminal called McArthur Wheeler did something stupid: he walked into two banks in Pittsburgh with a gun and demanded money, in full view of the cameras. When police arrested Wheeler that evening, he was incredulous. "But I wore the juice!" he said. Detectives realised that Wheeler believed scrubbing lemon juice on to his face would hide his features on CCTV. When psychologist David Dunning read about Wheeler's story, he was intrigued by one facet: Wheeler was so confident in his abilities, despite his stupidity. Could other people have similar blind spots about their incompetence?" http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/comment/articles/2014-01/10/stupidity-for-dummies Here is Cognizance Magazine on Wheeler: "The story above is from Unskilled and Unaware of It – the psychological study behind the Dunning-Kruger effect. Even though it sounds like a story from D.A.R.E. class, the authors cited Mr. Wheeler’s sober adventure to communicate that incompetent individuals are competent at two things – failing to recognize their shortcomings and overestimating their abilities." Here is the Telegraph on Wheeler: "In 1995, McArthur Wheeler walked into two Pittsburgh banks and robbed them in broad daylight, with no visible attempt at disguise. He was arrested later that night after videotapes of him taken from surveillance cameras were broadcast on the 11 o'clock news. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/4755925/Netlife.html Here are studies and books other than the ones cited that mention Wheeler: There Is an I in Team, Mark De Rond "McArthur Wheeler who, in 1995, robbed two Pittsburgh banks in broad daylight. He had made no visible attempt at disguis. Aided in surveillance tapes, the police were able to arrest him later at night" I can't easily copy+paste these but he is mentioned in the following also: Improving Student Achievement, 2005 Lewis C. Solmon, Kimberly Firetag Agam, Tamara Wingard Schiff Profiling and Serial Crime: Theoretical and Practical Issues, Wayne Petherick Coverage of Wheeler went international and was mentioned in 20 Minutos and in Germany.

I'm trying my best to understand the complaint at this point - I believe you are concerned that Wheeler was non-notable prior to Dunning's work. While prior to Dunning Wheeler was certainly one-issue, I do believe he was noticeable (although of course, less notable). The robberies occurred in 1995, and as a result most of the coverage is in newspapers that are not on the internet. That is one of the reasons why further time is needed for this article; I noted problems with notable references at the beginning of this talk page and what I meant was that most of the information is in newspapers and other non-digital sources. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wrote multiple front-page stories either devoted to or prominently featuring Wheeler from 1995 to 1997. Here is one of the few that has been digitized (which is separate from the story I cited in the article): http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1129&dat=19960321&id=ZNlRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=DXADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6777,3720310

He was also mentioned in the 1996 Almanac where Dunning found him. Jay Dubya (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I discussed one-event notability on the other page briefly, however let's review the one event test so I can demonstrate why in my view Wheeler passes. -"If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." Reliable sources, as noted ad nauseum in sources above I have not had time to actually add to the article, cover the person in the context of two events: #1 Wheeler's bank robberies #2 Dunning's research inspired by Wheeler

-"If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." IMO Wheeler *was* a high profile individual. It is my hope that his mentions in the sources above and in the article help establish that. The coverage of Wheeler extended from 1995 and has continued through 2012.

-"If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley, Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented." Hinckley is a great example as a one-event person who deserves his own article, and for largely the same reasons as Wheeler. Wheeler's role in the robberies was #1 substantial, as he was the only robber and the inspiration for a high profile and widely-cited research paper and #2 those events were well documented by multiple sources as cited above. Jay Dubya (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

In short, BLP1E says: "Secondly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals." Wheeler is high-profile, as a result BLP1E does not apply. Jay Dubya (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to include more material from the Wheeler article in here. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

David Dunning Publicly Cites this Article

http://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2010/07/07/what-the-dunning-kruger-effect-is-and-isnt/comment-page-1/#comment-1555

Good work.

Jay Dubya (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

New article by Dunning on his research program with links to other authors

I saw a new popular article today by David Dunning,

Dunning, David (27 October 2014). "We Are All Confident Idiots". Pacific Standard. Miller-McCune Center for Research, Media, and Public Policy. Retrieved 28 October 2014.

and it does a good job of summing up research on human beings evaluating their own knowledge and competence. I will add this reference immediately to the article as further reading, and then you are very welcome to follow the links in the article to build more references into this Wikipedia article, in collaboration with other editors. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Could someone clarify the SCOPE of the Dunning-Kruger Effect?

The first section of this article is confusing, for me, despite studying this and all linked articles. I can't understand the specific scope of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Is it limited to those people of below average ability?

Does the Dunning-Kruger Effect include BOTH -1- OVER-estimation of one's skills by those of BELOW average ability, AND -2- UNDER-estimation of one's skills by those of ABOVE-average ability?

Or does the Dunning-Kruger include only the former case? Possibly, the latter case is described by "The curse of knowledge"? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_knowledge) And if not the "The curse of knowledge", what other descriptive term could be used, for the latter case?

More confusion is introduced if you consider the "Impostor Syndrome". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_syndrome) And, also consider that somehow, some people who lack skills, DO have the ability to recognize that they lack those skills.

Perhaps, someone could write an article, and explain the similarities and differences among the reported effects, in this article "Dunning–Kruger effect", and the articles in the "see also" section? Would it be possible to construct a venn diagram, to clarify the relationships?

68.35.173.107 (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)