Dunning–Kruger effect and flat-earthers: An exploratory analysis
journals.sagepub.com
journals.sagepub.com
Unfortunately, exactly the same attitude would lead the people in question to reject the validity of the result! Not only does the round earth conspiracy insist on using garbage 'science' to propagate the big lie, they are also using that same science to insult the flat earthers! This will therefore agree with their intuition.
Hey - that's what everyone thinks the Dunning-Kruger effect does!
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/how-do-you-know/2020...
There really ought to be a "meta Dunning-Kruger effect" that states something like "everyone overconfidently thinks that everyone else is overconfident, so of course you're correct, smart, and good looking."
Someone who has read the intro: Aww shucks, I’m surrounded by fools again…
Someone whose knowledge of it is limited to watching other people talk about it: Aah, the Dunning-Kruger Effect strikes yet again! Oh, how predictable these overconfident hobgoblins are! But I see right through them!!
Regarding the overt judgment of "sadly", is that common in research papers in some fields? I'm more accustomed to the appearance of more intellectual distance.
And, the host actually goes to a really long, calm lake and using a camera, shows the curvature of the earth in a visceral, visual way that is way more moving than I thought it would be.
As for intellectual follies leading to disasters, it can be argued that our own follies did indeed lead to disasters.
We don't actually do the experiment.
It's basically a blind, insectile conformity. Which isn't all bad, of course. But don't be smug about it.
Less than 1 percent of us tried an experiment proving the earth's (non) flatness.
Contrary to me. In fact, I think the earth is not flat, because I think it is the conclusion of common sense reasoning. Yes, Dunning Kruger at work.
TLDR nobody can be sure of anything. The paper does not change that.
I can relate with that.
Second, believing something with overwhelming evidence is not 'rubber stamping mere authority'.
Third, if someone wanted to not 'rubber stamp authority' why would they start with the earth being round? That's almost like not believing in gravity. There are so many fights to pick where conventional wisdom might be wrong or actual authorities could be lying or omitting the truth, why pick something with no evidence?
It would be justifiable to say "I don't know the shape of the world and it doesn't matter to me." It probably doesn't matter to them. If they fly in an airplane, the pilot will take care of it. If they don't understand why it's winter when they get to the other hemisphere, it doesn't matter if they can just pack right anyway.
But instead they're picking a contrarian argument and not validating it themselves. That's just appealing to a different authority -- and an authority who is not only wrong, but readily disproven with only trivial effort. That seems like it's undercutting whatever epistemological taste they might claim.
1) It is hilarious to see people defend a fact they've just accepted blindly without understanding any of it. It doesn't matter if it is true or not, what matters is how you've decided it was.
2) There are many topics people don't want you to talk about. They feel obligated to bother you with their hysteria indefinitely or until you shut up about it.
1 and 2 combined they come raging at you that you must accept this reality they've accepted on faith. They cant debate a topic! In stead they talk with others about that person following the wrong believes.
It is entirely fine to know things, it is fine to take things on faith, believe in the lord if you want. Just say you trust the scientists who say the earth is round. If flat earth bothers you explain how one can check the findings and what is wrong with the experiments that so clearly show the earth is flat.
If the boat doesn't vanish behind the horizon because the light bends around the curvature, does that demonstrate the earth is round?
Ubuntu is the only valid OS. I can't explain why but I know it to be true. You should really just accept it.
> Instead of interventions focused on objective knowledge alone, these findings suggest that focusing on changing individuals’ perceptions of their own knowledge may be a helpful first step. The challenge then becomes finding appropriate ways to convince anti-consensus individuals that they are not as knowledgeable as they think they are. One option may be to encourage people to try to explain the mechanisms underlying the complex scientific phenomena at issue. This has been shown to reduce subjective knowledge (33, 44) and increase deference to experts (45). Another way to potentially make feelings of ignorance more salient to people is to give them reference points. People feel uncertain about choices they understand less well when considering options together, but not when evaluating them separately (38).This finding suggests that people may be led to realize that they know less about vaccination, for example, than about mechanisms they are more familiar with (from their careers or hobbies say), if presented in parallel.
* https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo0038
Or, as Boing Boing stated, "Scientists study why people do not believe in scientific studies":
* https://boingboing.net/2023/06/14/scientists-study-why-peopl...
Nobody thinks the earth is flat, dumbasses.
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking/dunning-...
It's an attractive idea that people love to believe, but unfortunately it isn't real.
How many of them when told "hey, you are over-confident aka you are wrong on things you think you are right on" said "oops, my bad" and changed their perspective?
Cough cough American politics/American society in general