The Dunning-Kruger Effect | Two Minute Papers #58

Dear Fellow Scholars, this is Two Minute Papers with Károly Zsolnai-Fehér. This episode is about a classic, the Dunning-Kruger effect. I wonder how we could go on for almost 60 Two Minute Papers episodes without the Dunning-Kruger effect? Here is the experiment: participants were tested in different subjects, their test scores were computed, and at the same time, without the scores, they were asked to assess their perceived performance. The test subjects were humor, grammar, and logic. Things, of course, everyone excels at... or do they? And here is the historic plot with the results. Such a simple plot, yet it tells us so much about people. From left to right, people were ordered by their score as you see with the dotted line. And the other line with the squares shows their perceived score, what they thought their scores would be. People from the bottom 10 percent, the absolute worst performers are convinced that they were well above the average. Competent people, on the other hand, seemed to underestimate their skills. Because the test was easy for them, they assumed that it was easy for everyone else. The extreme to the left is often referred to as the Dunning-Kruger effect, and the extreme to the right, maybe if you imagine the lines extending way-way further, is a common example of impostor syndrome. By the way, everyone thinks they are above average, which is neat mathematical anomaly. We would expect that people who perform poorly should know that they perform poorly, and people who're doing great should know they're doing great. One of the conclusions is that this is not the case, not the case at all. The fact that incompetent people are completely ignorant about their own inadequacy, at first, sounds like such a surprising conclusion. But if we think about it, we find there's nothing surprising about this. The more skilled we are, the more adept we are at estimating our skill level. By gaining more competence, incompetent people also obtained the skill to recognize their own shortcomings. A fish, in the world of Poker, means an inadequate player who is to be extorted by the more experienced. Someone asked how to recognize who the fish is at a poker table. The answer is a classic: if you don't know who the fish is at the table, it is you. The knowledge of the Dunning-Kruger effect is such a tempting tool to condemn other people for their inadequacy. But please, try to resist the temptation, remember, it doesn't help, that's the point of the paper! It is a much more effective tool for our own development if we attempt to use it on ourselves. Does it hurt a bit more? Oh yes, it does! The results of this paper solidify the argument that we need to be very vigilant about our own shortcomings. This knowledge endows you with a shield against ignorance. Use it wisely. Thanks for watching, and for your generous support, and I'll see you next time!