That's just called Dunning-Kruger and is a well-studied phenomenon.
You see it all over HN too, for instance, people coming up with a "new" idea, writing a blog post about it, and self-promoting as if they've contributed something novel.
You see it all over HN too, for instance, people coming up with a "new" idea, writing a blog post about it, and self-promoting as if they've contributed something novel.
Also the effect isn't that people misjudge their knowledge, it's that they misjudge their place within a distribution. Suppose I give an exam to 30 people, and the results are normally distributed around a score of 70 with a low of 40 and a high of 97. The bottom of the distribution may accurately predict that they scored about 40 on the exam, but if you ask them how they performed relative to their peers, they will believe that they are about average and guess that a sizable portion of the class performed worse than them. Alternatively, if you ask the top performer who scored a 97, they will say that they think they scored about 97, but they will think maybe a few other people scored higher and maybe that the average was in the high 80s. The Dunning-Kruger effect posits that people are actually pretty good at accessing their own knowledge without being a good judge of how knowledgeable others are.
Put differently, isn’t this saying it’s a misattribution of confidence? In the context of the original claim about investing, that seems very relevant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dunning%E2%80%93K...
It started as a syndrome. I don't think it would survive Wikipedia's modern standards if it hadn't generated its own support by existing in a different era.
I like it. Better than "reification."
That's _not_ Dunning-Kruger
It's why people say "and I" as an object and don't know what question begging is or whatever. It just doesn't matter in the long run.
Look through any etymological dictionary and you'll see this phenomenon. What does a computer have to do with "to strike" in PIE? Something! But it's not the literal meaning.
Fantastic to learn from in terms of seeing lots of varying opinions with different arguments
It seems obvious to me that Substack assesses your quality as a writer by checking on click-throughs from various sources and I would wager good money that they pay out differently depending on the behavior of the users who follow those links, either algorithmically in realtime or whenever it comes time to renegotiate terms. It's not even 2+2 here, Bob.
PS: morality is more than just "would someone else do it". Don't make me start quoting cliches typically reserved for 5 year olds.
Maybe you should try writing something people like to read. Come back and tell us how it went.
Tell you what: all publicity is good publicity. Why don't you mention my book titles next time?