Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate decisions because their incompetence robs them of meta-cognitive ability to realize it.
The unskilled therefore suffer from "Illusory Superiority" rating their own ability much higher than actuality. By contrast the highly skilled underrate their capability suffering from illusory inferiority.
Or like the saying we have in the Hindu mythology, quoting Sri Ramakrishna here "A tree laden with fruits always bends low. Humility is a sign of greatness"
But anyhow, what the effect talks about is also called the confidence paradox wherein the less competent people end up rating their capabilities much higher than the competent people.
It goes on to explain how gaining competence can actually weaken self-confidence as because they assume others to have an equivalent understanding, thus the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from the self while the miscalibration of the the competent stems from errors about others.
Basically, the smart assume everyone has figured out what they have, it's "COMMON SENSE" isn't it? But actually these things are not.
What I feel also plays a role is that since the competent are much more adept at figuring out what went wrong than the incompetent they often over-weigh the importance/critcality of the things they are worried about, everyone has what I have figured out and I don't have this figured out.
I love the beautiful quotes somebody has placed in the wiki, this wiki for sure is one of the better wikis. Anyhow here are the quotes
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity" - W.B. Yeats
"In the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt" - Bertrand Russell
I don't somehow reading the first quote reminds of something Tom Hanks said in the movie Forrest Gump "I might be stupid but I know what love is" ... I don't know how to relate the two, but somehow I feel the two have a connection.
The hypothesis was given by Justin Kruger and David Dunning of Cornell University in 1999. However the phenomenon had been assumed by philosophers over a century ago, as it clear by Bertrand Russell's quote. I think Indians figured this out a long time back ;)
The same results have been replicated in fields as diverse as reading comprehension, operating a motor vehicle, playing chess or tennis.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" - Charles Darwin
They hypothesis includes the following four points,
1. Incompetent individuals often tend to overestimate their own level of skill
2. Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skills in others
3. Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy
4. If they can be trained to substantially improved their own skill level, these individuals can recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill
The effect is based on the study wherein the researchers conducted tests for logicalreasoning and grammatical skills and then after being shown their test scores they were asked to estimate their ranks.
Wherein the competent group accurately estimated their rank while the incompetent group still overestimate their own rank.
Across four studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of
humor, grammar and logic overestimated their test performance and ability. Although test scores put them in the 12th percentile,
they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Talk about overestimation
While on the other hand, the ones with true knowledge tended to underestimate their competence. Roughly people who found the exercises too easy expected them to just as easy for everyone else
Now, I just found all this to be smart, maybe because I have a proclivity and interest in such things, but some people found one of their research papers really funny and they even have an Ig Nobel to their credit for the year 2000. =)
A further research by the guys indicate that people who had been tutored were able to estimate their rank better and realize the previous lack of social.
Now, something of a tangent, we humans as I understand are still primates still quite hierarchical in our arrangements and for social skill a key importance is realizing your worth and rank in the groups. A gross estimation could lead to something similar to the young gorillas who get killed for messing with the high rank males (I learnt this from Sapolsky, I will do my next blog on something by him).
In 2003 Dunning conducted a study with Joyce Ehrlinger, also of Cornell University about confidence and social cues. They studied the effect of positive and negative social cues on people's estimation of their ranks. People given positive cues tended to overestimate their ranks, while people given negative cues tended to underestimate their rank. Now the wiki doesn't talk much about social cues, but come on, we all know that a lot of times, these social cues have nothing to with competence, somebody pleasant looking will get much more positive social cues, somebody with a nurturing parents and peer group will tend to again receive a lot more of them. Not that there is anything wrong with being aesthetic or having nice people around you, just it would be nice if we are aware of this phenomenon.
I think this is one of the reasons why we are often told to avoid negative people, because people tend to give more negative cues, and thus their negativity can get to you and you will end up underestimating yourself, but just like that, be wary of overly positive people too because they might inflate your ego to the sky and after you up like a helium balloon bursting and coming down is no fun.
=) and we are done with 10.. now in two digits, now I know that I am starting slow, but don't worry, I intend to fulfill this project as intended for myself.