Hacker News Reader

Comment by ballenf | Hacker News Reader

In general use, I can't recall the Effect being cited outside attacks on a political adversary or disfavored social group or group member. Basically gives a scientific basis to insulting one's ignorant opponents.

Taking the point further, can anyone think of a mechanism by which the paper has a positive effect? The ignorant person who is overly self-confident presumably would be immune from its lessons, while the informed person is not better informed about their domain.

How does the knowledge of the paper's findings benefit society? (I ask this because the paper's findings seem to be widely celebrated.)

To the extent it makes readers more hesitant to boast or claim superior knowledge, it's a good thing, but I have to think that those predisposed to such boasting will continue rather unfazed. Maybe I'm just too much a pessimist.

View on HN

I'm not sure how it benefits society at large ... but I can tell you, anecdotically, how it benefits me.

1. It keeps me aware, especially in domains where I'm a beginner, of how it can affect my self-evaluation of performance.

2. It helps me when teaching beginners; I may need to help them realize where they lay in performance; if you don't know you suck, chances are you won't improve.

3. I've 'counseled' many people who are in the upper-middle of performance, when they don't realize how good they are :) this has helped them go for more challenging jobs etc

I get what you're saying. Quoting this in a discussion will likely bring more harm than good. But on the other hand, this is just research. If uncomfortable facts surface, we need to be ok with that. All areas need to be studied, including those that shine a poor light on society and those who inhabit it.

The main lesson I take from the paper is that self assessments aren't worth all that much.

So when someone says they are good at something, don't just take their word for it.

But a main lesson you could be taking is that you shouldn't trust your own self assessment. If you think you're good at something, don't take your own word for it.

Another main lesson you could be taking is that this paper is flawed and doesn't actually prove anything about self-assessments in general, so don't automatically second-guess anyone's word for it, even your own. Find the link elsewhere in this thread titled "what the Dunning-Kruger effect is and isn’t".

>Taking the point further, can anyone think of a mechanism by which the paper has a positive effect?

Yes - by reinforcing in people that confidence is disjoint from competence, and that 'trust-but-verify' is the best policy when evaluating people's competence.

Remember the old greek that knew he knew nothing? You don't sound like him. If you don't approach the issue - unawareness of one's incompetence - with humility, I'm sorry, but there's really one thing you are. You're confident. Now of course. Me pointing this out is moot, or is it? Maybe: I don't claim I knew anything other than what both of us already know, which is what, according to the former greek, actually counts. Or is it?

I'm not claiming competence in anything. All I am doing is saying that when evaluating competence that you should test the thing you are looking for - competence - and not accept confidence as a substitute or proxy for competence.

The way I wanted to make it look was that those who thought they knew what they were talking about have no way of knowing on which side of the pond they were. :)

EDIT: ...because your tools are useless in the face of ignorance.

In general, I use it to explain why I tend to listen to those who express doubt more than those who express certainty.

It is useful in pointing out why I prefer medical professionals who express doubt vs those who are super confident.

Case in point: Physical therapists and massage therapists. The farther you go from what your hospital provides, the greater the certainty and confidence signaling. Same with a lot of alternative medical practices. It is effective in explaining why so many people flock to such professionals - because they always diagnose you and tell you what your problem is. And then the patients turn around and say "These doctors are incompetent, and their methodology is a sham. They could not tell me what my problem was, with all their years of training, whereas the <insert alternative professional> figured it out in just one sitting. And it all made sense, too!"

The benefit of any scientific paper is that is benefits science -- it is not necessary that science accomplishes anything more. (The fact that science benefits society is a nice consequence, but not necessarily an immediate one.)

While I think there are in fact useful insights that the individual can glean directly from this paper, we shouldn't forget that scientific papers exist for a larger purpose than to be the tools of self-improvement or the weapons of our social wars.

I get what you're saying, but this seems close to pushing science as a goal in itself rather than a means to an end.

Pure research is often useful to society because we don't know what's going to prove useful beforehand. Knowledge can also be useful to a person because simply because it satisfies their curiosity.

But in both cases it's the potential benefit to people that make it worth doing.

Your viewpoint is cultural, FWIW. In many cultures (eg. most Confucian ones) and subcultures (eg. academia, wealthy ancient Greeks) knowledge of the truth was considered an inherent value that's greater than its application to messy human interests. Application of science debases the pure research - it's no longer as likely to be true, because now you have introduced human incentives and emotions as a consideration.

Growing up in a bicultural Asian/white household, reconciling these two viewpoints was one of my greatest sources of childhood angst. My Asian academic dad was all about learning for its own sake, and he'd look down upon the politicians and businessmen who sought to use science to further their own ends. My white teacher mom was very much "What's the point of information if you don't use it to do some good in the world?" This is a gross generalization, but I've seen strong echoes of this in the working world as well, eg. the stereotypical Chinese Ph.D working in a lab or at a computer whose results are then going to get commercialized by a Harvard MBA.

The reconciliation I eventually came up with is basically "You get what you ask for." On a factual level, cultures that value truth for its own sake tend to have a more accurate understanding of the truth, but then they get steamrolled by cultures that value truth for what it can do for them, but only if that other culture is on the same basic technology level. Then you get a very interesting dynamic where the usage of science for military purposes (often viewed as a "deal with the devil" by those in academia) ends up "carving out" safe spaces for scientists and academics where pure research is protected and supported by politicians for its usefulness.

You're misunderstanding my post. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

I think that satisfying your own curiosity/the desire for knowledge is a valid reason to pursue knowledge.

I don't think knowledge needs to be directly useful to be worth pursuing.

But, all cultures amd people pursue knowledge they believe to be valuable in some way.

No culture encourages it's people to record the number of specs of dust on their floor before they sweep just because they value truth.

I was being casual about my phrasing. Yes, we expect there to be benefit from the general execution of science as a practice at the macro scale. My point is simply that the same expectation cannot be applied to the micro scale of an individual research effort because, as you said, the benefits are unknowable in advance.

> How does the knowledge of the paper's findings benefit society?

At a minimum (assuming that it held up; it's been widely criticized since) it would tell us that self-assessment, even aside from intentional dishonesty, is a dangerous basis for assessing ability in intellectual domains.

Conversely, it also would inform us that people that mis-assessing their own abilities in certain ways may well be honest rather than padding or demonstrating false humility.

> Basically gives a scientific basis to insulting one's ignorant opponents.

I suspect that's exactly why it's popular, and why the critiques and followup papers that show this result doesn't hold up to real-world scrutiny don't seem to have any effect on the public perception of this paper.

It gives people an excuse to feel superior. I think it's a meta effect, because it's one of those specious, great sounding results that is super easy to understand and super easy to believe, but isn't actually true. Everyone has someone in their life that is aggressive and annoyingly over-confident.

This paper has some really big flaws, it's probably a bad idea to apply it to any real world situation including opponents. It can't benefit society to have everyone making incorrect assumptions that confidence proves a lack of skill.

I think they suggest that people can be made aware of their incompetence after feedback, but the right kind of feedback often isn't given because of cultural factors that make it unacceptable to give "negative" feedback and also hard for people to accept "negative" feedback.

That idea seems positive to me. If we could change our feedback mechanisms (via education and so forth), we could increase self-awareness and reduce incompetence.

Also, we tend to think of "incompetence" as extremely negative, but they use it in a specific way that is meant to be descriptive and not an insult.

That's my take on it anyway. I really don't know.

They only highlight the problem (underestimation of skill), and its interaction with current skill level. But that doesn't mean a person's sense of their skill level couldn't be corrected. This is exactly what one-on-one expert feedback is for.

I like the paper, because it's a good reminder to seek out tutors / mentors early when learning something, and to take them seriously when they say you have a lot to learn.

You really only agree with scientific papers that have "positive effects"? You do see the irony here, right?

ballenf didn't mention anything about only agreeing with scientific papers that have positive effects. ballenf is asking if "the knowledge of the paper's findings benefit society" or if "a mechanism by which the paper has a positive effect".

Benefiting society newer was the main goal of science, those benefits are byproducts of science.

Trust me, there's a Dunning Krueger snake oil for EVERY woe.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com