The Dunning-Kruger effect on believers and non-believers.

[mia]

Where do you look when there are no experts in the field?

Judging yourself with the Dunning-Kruger effect
“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.”–
BertranRussell

...whether you’re an artist, writer, musician or just a student trying to improve your grades, being self-aware enough to realise the DK effect can help you accelerate your progress in your field.

An easy way to counter the DK effect is to first drop any inflated value of self worth. Bring yourself down to ground zero, where you see yourself as someone with no skill. Then, ideally, get feedback from your peers as well as experts in the field.

Even after these steps, you might still find yourself unwilling to take the criticism that others have given you. Don’t. If there’s anything the DK effect should leave you with, is breaking down your perception of your own skill and taking a more humble approach results in better long term effects....

https://www.thedailystar.net/shout/health/news/judging-yourself-the-dunning-kruger-effect-1730974

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. great advice. this principle has helped me greatly in my life.

[Newest Reality]

2. Phases...

When you apply this to something like learning a new skill or entering a field of study you have:

1. Unconscious Incompetence: You are a neophyte. You don't even know what you don't know about the subject yet.

2. Conscious Incompetence: You begin to grasp a bigger picture of the subject and now realize how much you don't know which then encourages learning and training.

3. Conscious Competence: You have learned what is necessary to begin to master the subject and perform well. It becomes easier to have a cohesive comprehension and perform tasks without as much effort.

4. Unconscious Competence: Like learning to ride a bike or tie a shoe, the knowledge and skills have become ingrained and largely automatic. You have grasped it and know it well. You may be a professional or expert or master of an art at this point.

When you get to number four, their is then a new problem. Because your knowledge and skills are so automatic, you can become blind to errors and mistakes or not realize the need to update and check your knowledge/skills. This is when the "expert" or "professional" needs to be able to get feedback from peers and gain insight into the stultification. It is a point where self awareness, updates, study and other efforts are necessary.

[mia]

3. It seems like the phase of Conscious Incompetence

represents the ongoing mindset of those who want to understand more about any subject.

Thank you for the information about phases.

[Newest Reality]

4. Yes, you are correct.

That would be the case.

I would venture to say that it is essential to get to that point in order to learn and master something from there. In fact, it is obvious to anybody who has done so. Knowing how much we don't know is pivotal and hence, you usually observe a sense of humility and openness from people who grasp that and utilize their intelligence. Conversely, you notice more hubris and defensiveness from those who only know what they already know and don't know how much they really don't know, (that was fun!)

You are welcome! I am glad you found it informative. It is useful.

[smirkymonkey]

5. Very helpful, although this advice is useless to republicans because they will never admit

that they don't know everything. Sometimes I am just amazed at the boundless confidence of the biggest idiots in the party.

[guillaumeb]

6. Recommended.

[trotsky]

7. Question

How do you confirm you have a correct answer when it comes to religion/theology?

[mia]

8. I don't know how to confirm that I have a correct answer

when it comes to religion/theology. There are always more questions. How do you confirm correct answers when it comes to these matters?

[trotsky]

9. That's kind of the point.

There is no way.

Dunning-Kruger is impossible to apply to matters of religion and theology because there is no way to confirm if you know more than someone else.

[mia]

10. For me ir's not a matter of knowing more than

Someone else, but about learning more then I knew before.

[trotsky]

11. How do you know if you actually learned something, if there is no way to validate it?

What's the difference between "learning" and "making stuff up" in that case?

[mia]

16. Curiosity based learning is intrinsically driven in neonates.

Human beings are naturally stimulated by novelty and this can be measured by brain waves.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6032944/

I'm guessing that "making stuff up" probably occurs when one is unable or unwilling to consider other possibilities for a variety of reasons.

Thank you for your response. I appreciate the opportunity to explore this topic.

[trotsky]

21. You're side-stepping the key question here.

We can't verify anything in the field of theology, as you have admitted.

Therefore there is no way to confirm that something was "learned" in that field.

Therefore there is no way to rate "experts" and "laymen" in theology, as no one can truly be said to know more than someone else. It's all speculation.

Therefore, Dunning-Kruger doesn't really apply to theology.

[Act_of_Reparation]

12. See, here's the thing...

...there are experts in these fields. Guys like Bart Ehrman and (ugh) Bob Price. If you want to know what the Bible says about a thing, they have a scientific process for figuring it out.

The problem with this knowledge is that it isn't very useful, because people generally don't base their interpretations of scripture on the writings of secular historians and literary critics. So who cares what the authors of Genesis really thought about pumpkin spice lattes? I'm more concerned with what people actually believe.

[trotsky]

13. Oh sure, studying the various translations and languages and whatnot.

You can definitely find out what a particular passage likely means. Many of them, but not all.

But can they tell you what Yahweh wants?

[Act_of_Reparation]

14. What Yahweh Wants...

...that was a late '90's Mel Gibson rom-com, right?

[Voltaire2]

15. No it's a song by Jay-Z: "I know what gods like".

[guillaumeb]

17. What we see here is an attempt to excuse anyone attacking theists

as delusional by claiming Dunning-Kruger magically does not apply.

Sorry, logic does not work that way.

[trotsky]

23. What?

Provide a scrap of evidence for your creator and you'll have a completely valid point.

But you can't - you retreat to the realm of "faith" and declare that facts have no place in the discussion.

You're forming a worldview based on what you want to be true instead of what we can observe to be true, and then get apoplectic if someone uses the word "delusion." Fascinating.

[guillaumeb]

30. Your misunderstanding is understood. eom

[trotsky]

32. Your inability to answer questions, followed by insulting my intelligence, is predictable.

So much for the dialog you claim to desire.

[Major Nikon]

19. The author of the article doesn't seem to know what DK is

DK describes people whose incompetence robs them of the ability to know how incompetent they are. The idea people can use the idea of DK to will their way out of their own stupidity trap is a bit stupid. If they had the capacity for self-awareness of their incompetence, DK wouldn’t apply to begin with.

[edhopper]

20. Exactly

The DK effect is for a certain type of person, Trump for example, not everyone.

[Major Nikon]

25. Yes, and it's value is in identifying such traits

It's rather akin to the Peter Principle in it's value lies in applied sociology, mostly in the business sector. It's not as if there's a pathological diagnosis of DK in which one can then seek a cure. It's more of a condition that can afflict a certain sector through the actions of some individuals who are caught in their own trap of inflated self worth and the hazards of allowing such people to rise into leadership positions.

[edhopper]

27. perfect.

[trotsky]

24. Great point. n/t

[guillaumeb]

18. How do YOU?

And that is the point here. There is no way to do so when making statements about delusional theists.

[trotsky]

22. I don't have to.

The theist asserts facts about their god without any evidence, remember?

[Major Nikon]

26. Probably doesn't remember

Because the predictable response is atheists are the ones who have an unprovable position, even though the argument is demonstrably strawman gibberish. True to form the ones who are the most ate up with the DK are the least likely to see the flaws in their unwavering beliefs even as everyone else is facepalming around them.

[trotsky]

28. "I don't know much about Dunning-Kruger but what I do know makes me an expert!"

LOL the irony writes itself.

[Major Nikon]

34. It would be hard to invent a better parody of the DK poster child

[guillaumeb]

29. So you cannot, yet you persist

in talking about delusional theists.

Dunning-Kruger.

[trotsky]

31. Again, what?

Prove to me you are an expert on gods. Demonstrate the knowledge you have over me. Present the evidence you have for them.

[NeoGreen]

33. The article in he OP seems to be a mis-understanding of DKE...

...it's not about thinking that you "know everything" at the Low End of Knowledge in the Field (a glaring self contradiction there), it's about your confidence in what you know at any stage of knowledge.

Corrected:

[uriel1972]

35. This is more like it...

Science is a method to determine the probability of things. It is an organised system of doubt. To believe that something is *CERTAIN* is an indication of ignorance/arrogance, not of knowledge.

To state something without a shred of evidence... that's just plain weird to me. I'm not saying you're wrong theists, for all I know you might be right, but what you need to understand is that without evidence you wont convince me.

[guillaumeb]

37. Well said.

And I have no aim to convince you, or anyone. My unprovable faith is the foundation for my belief. Proof never enters the equation.

[uriel1972]

38. did you miss the first paragraph...

The one where I imply ignorance and arrogance as qualities of the *CERTAIN* crowd?

[guillaumeb]

39. Certainty is found on both sides.

And yes, I did read the entire response.

[uriel1972]

40. While that may be true...

The Dunning-Kruger Effect would mean that someone with unshakeable faith in something hasn't even taken the first step on the scale in regard to that something...

[guillaumeb]

41. Faith is a choice.

And faith, with the recognition that it is belief based, and therefor unprovable, recognizes the limitations of the person with faith.

[uriel1972]

42. uh yeah...

I guess it was pointless to include logic and reason in my attempt at dialogue, it was never going to work. So shouting won't work and reasonable dialogue wont work either.
So in the words of the immortal bard, "They who presenteth without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." You are dismissed.

Good Day

[Major Nikon]

43. Par for the course

At least you didn't get the sermon about how one must have "faith" to call bullshit on the faithers argument, ergo no more valid. As if an incredible claim is no less reasoned than an ordinary one.

[trotsky]

36. Very good adjustment.

Thanks for that.