The Reverse Dunning Kruger Effect

[Minimalist]

Post super-obviously ignores power the  dynamics that skew these discussions, but what do I know? I'm suss to this particular puppet. Best actual advice in these situations is get out your camera and film, so that the viewers can provide context, experience, and interpretation. Then we can actually move society in a more informed, more positive direction.

That other thread is complete.
You are not welcome in this thread unless you can communicate without casting ridiculous aspersions.

This one is going to have a short shelf-life, guys!

[Vorpal]

That other thread is complete.
You are not welcome in this thread unless you can communicate without casting ridiculous aspersions.

Ooh, I guess I'll have to post without being welcome. 

If you'd like to ignore my replies, you've demonstrated that you're familiar with the block function. The other thread, while not particularly relevant here, is not complete. No one asked you to resurrect it with your rape apologetics; doubtless other incels will find this thread and add to it as time goes on. 

You are all for a thread staying open that you never wanted resurrected. Mmkay. Makes perfect sense.

Truth is I set the record straight doing a solid job.  No one refuted what I actually said.  You  can cling to a straw man and beat it up all you want. Have at it. You are smart enough to know what is being done.

[Vorpal]

Another example that I think is more common involved nurses and emphatic language. I hear examples of nurses contradicting a patients direct experience and memory deferring to the chart as absolute truth regardless. Did anyone experience this as well?

[Bucky Ball]

A "Reverse Dunning-Krueger" would be a cognitive bias whereby people with high knowledge or extraordinary competence in a given social or intellectual domain greatly UNDERTESTIMATE their own knowledge and/or competence relative to objective criteria, the performance of their peers, or of people in general".

That already has a name: the imposter syndrome.

Nope.

They are not "imposters" if they actually have (as I stated) "high knowledge or extraordinary competence in a given social or intellectual domain."
There are some, (many) people with very high competence. They are not imposters.

[Fireball]

Another example that I think is more common involved nurses and emphatic language. I hear examples of nurses contradicting a patients direct experience and memory deferring to the chart as absolute truth regardless.  Did anyone experience this as well?

I'm curious. Are you an anti-vaxxer?

[Bucky Ball]

Another example that I think is more common involved nurses and emphatic language. I hear examples of nurses contradicting a patients direct experience and memory deferring to the chart as absolute truth regardless.  Did anyone experience this as well?

No.

[julep]

That already has a name: the imposter syndrome.

Nope. ".

They are not "imposters" if they actually have (as I stated) "high knowledge or extraordinary competence in a given social or intellectual domain."
There are some, (many) people with very high competence. They are not imposters.

The OP is definitely mistaken about imposter syndrome. 

Imposter syndrome involves a a person feeling as though their skills in a field are lacking no matter how much that person has learned or accomplished. E.g., Hilary Hahn feeling that someday she will be exposed as a less than adequate violinist.   

Dunning-Kruger includes both people who don't recognize their own stupidity as well as those who believe their skills or advanced degrees are transferable to other domains when they haven't done the work to master that field. E.g., Jordan Peterson, who has a doctorate in psychology yet fancies himself an evolutionary biologist capable of rendering judgments about the behavior of lobsters.

[Vorpal]

Another example that I think is more common involved nurses and emphatic language. I hear examples of nurses contradicting a patients direct experience and memory deferring to the chart as absolute truth regardless.  Did anyone experience this as well?

I'm curious. Are you an anti-vaxxer?

No I'm not.   The actual effect is just as bad as the reverse.

[Vorpal]

That already has a name: the imposter syndrome.

Nope.

They are not "imposters" if they actually have (as I stated) "high knowledge or extraordinary competence in a given social or intellectual domain."
There are some, (many) people with very high competence. They are not imposters.

Just because you don't like the name of something, means squat unless you evaluate that something and not just the name.   I didn't make up the imposter syndrome.   Feeling inadequate is the key, not whether any question over adequacy or even high competence. People with more competence often feel mcq test to be harder than someone less educated taking the same test because they appreciate the nuance that the novice is unaware of.

[Bucky Ball]

Nope.

They are not "imposters" if they actually have (as I stated) "high knowledge or extraordinary competence in a given social or intellectual domain."
There are some, (many) people with very high competence. They are not imposters.

Just because you don't like the name of something, means squat unless you evaluate that something and not just the name.   I didn't make up the imposter syndrome.   Feeling inadequate is the key, not whether any question over adequacy or even high competence. People with more competence often feel mcq test to be harder than someone less educated taking the same test because they appreciate the nuance that the novice is unaware of.

I said nothing about liking or disliking the name of something.
All I did was answer your false notion of what a reverse of the DK effect was.

"This phenomenon is called Imposter syndrome in which we experience chronic self-doubt, intimidation, and inadequacy in our capabilities and accomplishments. Despite the education, experience, and success, we are unable to internalize our accomplishments. These moments make us feel fraudulent despite the evidence of our success because it attacks our confidence and changes our self-belief. These negative self-beliefs can make us anxious or depressed. This experience occurs across many different populations and careers. In fact, many psychological researchers have linked these phenomena with perfectionism in highly successful people, especially in minorities and women."

I can't help it if you can't track the progress of the thread.

[Fireball]

I'm curious. Are you an anti-vaxxer?

No I'm not.   The actual effect is just as bad as the reverse.

What does this response even mean? 

[Vorpal]

No I'm not.   The actual effect is just as bad as the reverse.

What does this response even mean? 

The actual DK effect  (as in anti vaxers) is just as bad as the reverse DK effect.

[Vorpal]

Just because you don't like the name of something, means squat unless you evaluate that something and not just the name.   I didn't make up the imposter syndrome.   Feeling inadequate is the key, not whether any question over adequacy or even high competence. People with more competence often feel mcq test to be harder than someone less educated taking the same test because they appreciate the nuance that the novice is unaware of.

I said nothing about liking or disliking the name of something.
All I did was answer your false notion of what a reverse of the DK effect was.

No.

[Fireball]

What does this response even mean? 

The actual DK effect  (as I'm anti vaxers) is just as bad as the reverse DK effect.

Yeah, you're not making a whole lot of sense. Have a nice life.

[Vorpal]

The actual DK effect  (as I'm anti vaxers) is just as bad as the reverse DK effect.

Yeah, you're not making a whole lot of sense. Have a nice life.

Stop being a tool.

[rocinantexyz]

No I'm not.   The actual effect is just as bad as the reverse.

What does this response even mean? 

Thank you, I was starting to feel like I was going crazy.

[Fireball]

Yeah, you're not making a whole lot of sense. Have a nice life.

Stop being a tool.

No, U.

[Thumpalumpacus]

That other thread is complete.
You are not welcome in this thread unless you can communicate without casting ridiculous aspersions.

You need a double-dose of getthefuckoveryourbadself. Take two and don't call.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I do not like being called an incel or apologist especially when there is no justification to do so.   Further such mentions are obvious trolling.

You may or may not be an incel, but you are certainly a rape apologist, given your propensity for victim-blaming. If you want to discuss that further, let's go back to that thread and we'll cover that a-gain ... since you seem to be having problems following the reasoning.

If you don't like being called a rape-apologist, perhaps you should stop being one. Truth hurts, when it's that ugly.

[epronovost]

There is a tendency for certain mediocre professionals to make analysis errors occasionally based on some kind of cognitive dissonance.

Here are the elements of the effect:
1) the professional has some special training on a general understanding of a phenomenon that is valid.

2) specific details are made available by a lay person emersed in an issue related to the specialized understanding that controvert the usual wisdom in some fashion.

3) The lay person questions the professionals course of action.

4) The professional cites years of experience.

5) The professional insists on proceeding according to the protocol used generally.

Example A:
You are an 18 year old black woman who sees an intoxicated male on the street naked and disoriented. Police arrive but so does a man claiming to be the boyfriend of this dude.  The officers help the purported gay couple back an apartment.  You follow up and the cops did not treat the situation as an emergency.  You think the boy was too young and not just drunk.  The office states he has had 20 years of experience and an in-service training in alternative lifestyles.  He says you are overreacting to the existence of gay people and dismisses your concerns.

Anyone experience the reverse DK effect?

A few things first, the Dunning-Kruger effect was, allegedly, the idea that experts have a tendency to underestimate their level of expertise a little bit though they do recognize their greater expertise while novices have a tendency to overvalue their level of expertise though they do recognize their lower level of expertise in general.

Thus, if I understand you correctly, the "reverse Dunning-Kruger effect" would be the idea that experts, in general, overvalue their already impressive level of expertise while novices undervalue their already underwhelming level of expertise and thus would be statistical effect that would debunk the Dunning-Kruger effect itself. 

Thus, you are asking us if we have met an expert that overestimated their knowledge and skills in their domain of expertise and was wrong as a result of this overconfidence. Well, inevitably that's going to happen at some point. Experts are wrong, less often than novices in their domain, but they are sometime wrong nonetheless for no expert has complete and total knowledge of everything there is to be known in that field and experts generally know they can and sometime do some mistakes because of that.

Of course, the Dunning-Kruger effect is called as such because it's a statistical observation on the discrepancy of people expectations of performance in specific tasks and their result. The "reverse Dunning-Kruger effect" is not. The Dunning-Kruger effect, as far as you described it, is a misnomer as it doesn't address the same thing than the Dunning-Kruger effect. The Dunning-Kruger effect doesn't talk about actual performance or capacity, but talks about the gap between expectation of results and the results themselves. It's also a statistical observation thus in any evaluation, you will find novices who assess their skills correctly, overestimate themselves and underestimate themselves. On average though, if the Dunning-Kruger effect is indeed real (and it's not without it's critique and I personally think this effect is vastly overblown due to regression towards the mean), novice tend to overestimate themselves while experts are closer to the mark and tend to underestimate themselves a little bit.

This leads me to my last point. I hate scientism. Why is it that people, in a effort to sound smart, will talk about phenomenon as if they were scientists and name those phenomenon by fancy scientific-sounding titles even if they are often inappropriate like calling something the "reverse Dunning-Kruger effect" when it's not a statistical effect that contradicts the Dunning-Kruger effect. What's wrong with just talking like human beings? Why this obtuse prose to say the most basic things? What's wrong with the following: "hey guys, have you ever met an expert or specialist who got something wrong because they were too arrogant and self confident to even question their judgement on that specific instance? Ain't that a bitch when it happens.". To which I would answer "Yeah, it happened to me a few times. Almost got an "accidental" heart surgery because of that". That's pretty simple.

[Vorpal]

I choose to title the phenomenon this way for purposes of irony rather than precision. It is satire. Ordinary mistakes do not fall under it. Only mistakes borne of defensiveness that impairs the ability to appropriately weigh existing and apparent data.

[Vorpal]

Care to describe how the flawed recommendation for heart surgery occurred?

[epronovost]

Care to describe how the flawed recommendation for heart surgery occurred?

To make a long story short some hospital administrator got confused and schedule a surgery instead of scan test for a heart issue I had in my infancy. Doctors were prepping everything for the surgery until my mother started to freak the fuck out and the lead surgeon realized something was off and called off the entire thing, made a scan test and dismissed the need for surgery altogether.

[epronovost]

I choose to title the phenomenon this way for purposes of irony rather than precision.  It is satire. Ordinary mistakes do not fall under it. Only mistakes borne of defensiveness that impairs the ability to appropriately weigh existing and apparent data.

Mistakes born our of defensiveness, arrogance or carelessness are the most ordinary mistakes of them all. Moral of the story, stop trying to do satire, you suck at it.

[Kim]

Mistakes born our of defensiveness, arrogance or carelessness are the most ordinary mistakes of them all. Moral of the story, stop trying to do satire, you suck at it.

I had a somewhat lengthy response about how satire on the internet really doesn't go over well.

Thank you for your succinctiness.