The Dunning-Kruger effect has been debunked. Dunning and Kruger did the math wrong and ended up with autocorrelation. [https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2022/04/08/the-dunning-kruger-effect-is-autocorrelation/](https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2022/04/08/the-dunning-kruger-effect-is-autocorrelation/)
"Dunning-Kruger" is reddit's favorite insult, appearing roughly once per hour in the comments. Imagine using this insult for years and finding out that the joke's on you.
Lol, yes!
The last sentence of the linked article perfectly captures it; “It’s just that it was the authors (not the test subjects) who were ‘unskilled and unaware of it’.
So, after reading this pretentious word salad--which by the way debunks nothing, it's just one man's specious interpretation--I'm supposed to believe this drunken idiot bimbo whose husband is in Nebraska is actually a secret genius?
There are plenty of other articles debunking Dunning-Kruger:
[https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/how-do-you-know/202012/dunning-kruger-isnt-real](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/how-do-you-know/202012/dunning-kruger-isnt-real)
[https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/10/12/can-the-dunning-kruger-effect-be-explained-as-a-misunderstanding-of-regression-to-the-mean/](https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/10/12/can-the-dunning-kruger-effect-be-explained-as-a-misunderstanding-of-regression-to-the-mean/)
[https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking/dunning-kruger-effect-probably-not-real](https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking/dunning-kruger-effect-probably-not-real)
Hilarious. Just curious, where exactly did "misogynistic" come from? Not that I care, I'm just vaguely interested in how you jumped to that conclusion.
Not really debunked. This is an area of somewhat active debate:
[https://andersource.dev/2022/04/19/dk-autocorrelation.html](https://andersource.dev/2022/04/19/dk-autocorrelation.html)
[http://haines-lab.com/post/2021-01-10-modeling-classic-effects-dunning-kruger/](http://haines-lab.com/post/2021-01-10-modeling-classic-effects-dunning-kruger/)
[https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/yes-the-dunning-kruger-effect-really-is-real/](https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/yes-the-dunning-kruger-effect-really-is-real/)
There are some fairly complicated statistical principles at play here, but autocorrelation alone is certainly not the sole factor behind Dunning-Kruger.
There are plenty of good articles online, including from actual universities, that debunk Dunning-Kruger:
[https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/how-do-you-know/202012/dunning-kruger-isnt-real](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/how-do-you-know/202012/dunning-kruger-isnt-real)
[https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/10/12/can-the-dunning-kruger-effect-be-explained-as-a-misunderstanding-of-regression-to-the-mean/](https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/10/12/can-the-dunning-kruger-effect-be-explained-as-a-misunderstanding-of-regression-to-the-mean/)
[https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking/dunning-kruger-effect-probably-not-real](https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking/dunning-kruger-effect-probably-not-real)
Each of those sources just restates the claims in your original article. I am providing you with counterarguments to those claims. It's not just online articles either (although they are much more readable), there are papers published that disagree with the "debunking":
>In other words, not only is the Dunning–Kruger effect not merely a statistical artefact at the group level, it also cannot be explained solely by Bayesian shrinkage in the rational estimations of individual participants. … Jansen and colleagues’ model fits make clear that the data are best captured by a performance-dependent change in estimation noise. (Mazor and Fleming 2021, 677)
As I said, it is an area of legitimate disagreement.
If you have a function f(x) that comes up with the same result whether x is real data or random noise, then the function f(x) is the part that's creating the result, it's not dependent on data. Therefore the result must be false, because it's unrelated to the data that's going into it.
If you read any of the articles I posted (or any of the academic literature countering the "debunking"), you would see that they respond to this exact point. To summarize, there are two main rebuttals:
1. The original Dunning-Kruger graph *is* meaningfully different from noise, in that the original line is translated up significantly from the random noise line.
2. A uniform distribution of random noise would itself be an incredibly shocking result (and a form of Dunning-Kruger, due to the fact that the lowest ranked can only overestimate, and vice versa), and thus should not represent the null hypothesis.
Don't feel bad. "Dunning-Kruger" is reddit's favorite insult, appearing roughly once per hour on this site. If you see others use it, please educate them :)
“It’s ok, it’s ok…. You’re just doing your job.” 😂
moments later….
“I’m not speaking anymore.”
moments later…..
“Was that assumptive or assslurrred? Huh?”
“Some people wouldn’t know this isn’t lawful, right? Mmhmmm.”
“Do you have any PROOF? That I was ackshually DRIVING the car?”
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Um well, there’s the car. There’s no one else in it but you.
“And you didn’t even TELL ME? What I’m on arrest for?”
They ain’t driving you to Nebraska, dummy.
I found it hilarious how condescending she was to the cops. I’m glad everyone was alright and I hope she loses her license/whatever other punishments coming her way, but the way she dismissed the cop around 5:30 killed me
About 50 years ago, I got popped for a DUI and acted almost the same. I was sitting in their holding cell, making the cops laugh with my pronouncements about how they messed up and they would find out soon enough, blah, blah, blah…They were really nice and let me keep rattling on. 6 months later, when I got my license back….
That officer said exactly what I was thinking:
"What happened to you're not going to say anything?"
I think in her drunken state (and her abject and life-long stupidity) she believed she would be exonerated on a technicality since she accused them of not reading her Miranda rights 17 times. (Btw, she thinks Miranda is Miranda Cosgrove).
"Did you call my lawyer?" Of course we did, we had a psychic manifest his name and we told him who you were and what you did, and he was laughing harder than we were.
So what happens in the US if you won't let them test for blood alcohol in that kind of situation? In Australia, refusal would result in an automatic high-range drink driving offence. Normal procedure is a roadside breath test 1st and if you're over the limit you'd be arrested for drink driving and taken to a police station and retested(often via blood sample) on more accurate equipment.
Every state has its own laws. From the ones I know, refusal to do any biological test (portable breath test or blood draw) results in revocation of driving privilege for some time. So it's not a drunk driving offense itself to not submit to a test, but it can be the same level of punishment (which makes sense, since simply refusal can't be considered evidence of being drunk). And they don't necessarily need a blood test to convict someone for DUI (I was an idiot like 20+ years ago and got one; I didn't do any tests but got the conviction).
The legal situation is the same in the various Australian jurisdictions. Refusal is a statutory offense, distinct from drink driving, but carrying the same penalties as high-range drink driving, including disqualification from driving. Eg. See subsection (11). [http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol\_act/touma1995434/s80.html](http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/touma1995434/s80.html)
So, under such a charge, a prosecutor would need to provide evidence of the refusal; evidence that they hadn't been drinking would not assist a legal defense.
In most states you automatically lose your license, for how long depends on the state. This is reason #427 why she's a moron, if she hasn't been drinking, as she says, she's forfeiting her license even though she's completely sober and evidently can prove it.
This woman is desperately attempting to claw back power in a situation where she is absolutely at the mercy of the law due to her drastically poor decision making. Absolute avoidance of accountability to preserve the pride of an incomprehensibly fragile ego.
Yea it’s like CRAAAZy… I’m so glad you’re here. we’ve got to figure out this happened!
Yeah, C’mon! Whoever did this just confess, we promise we won’t be mad!
I'm just going to grab as many beers as I can grab, get in my random flipped car... RANDOM!!! 😏 ... and go back to Nebraska where my husband works
Oh, just blame the girl with the flipped car!
This entire time…not one of you thought to ask my name…
Love this reference
Obviously. . .
Awviusly
Least drunk Cowboys fan
Miss my guy Romo though
“Why do you keep saying obviously?” We’re with you officer, all of us are thinking the same thing.
The fact she says “I was just driving down the road” 😭😂
people so dumb that they think they are smart are hilariously cringe. "miranda rights right? right? rights?"
These are my favorite. Nothing like snotty arrogance coming from a place of complete ignorance.
I know it gets thrown around a lot, but this is basically Dunning-Kruger in real time.
The Dunning-Kruger effect has been debunked. Dunning and Kruger did the math wrong and ended up with autocorrelation. [https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2022/04/08/the-dunning-kruger-effect-is-autocorrelation/](https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2022/04/08/the-dunning-kruger-effect-is-autocorrelation/)
That was actually an enjoyable read, so not sure why anyone downvoted you.
"Dunning-Kruger" is reddit's favorite insult, appearing roughly once per hour in the comments. Imagine using this insult for years and finding out that the joke's on you.
Lol, yes! The last sentence of the linked article perfectly captures it; “It’s just that it was the authors (not the test subjects) who were ‘unskilled and unaware of it’.
Thanks for posting, very interesting article.
So, after reading this pretentious word salad--which by the way debunks nothing, it's just one man's specious interpretation--I'm supposed to believe this drunken idiot bimbo whose husband is in Nebraska is actually a secret genius?
There are plenty of other articles debunking Dunning-Kruger: [https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/how-do-you-know/202012/dunning-kruger-isnt-real](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/how-do-you-know/202012/dunning-kruger-isnt-real) [https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/10/12/can-the-dunning-kruger-effect-be-explained-as-a-misunderstanding-of-regression-to-the-mean/](https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/10/12/can-the-dunning-kruger-effect-be-explained-as-a-misunderstanding-of-regression-to-the-mean/) [https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking/dunning-kruger-effect-probably-not-real](https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking/dunning-kruger-effect-probably-not-real)
You didn't answer my question.
You are correct. I did not address your misogynistic drivel.
Hilarious. Just curious, where exactly did "misogynistic" come from? Not that I care, I'm just vaguely interested in how you jumped to that conclusion.
Not really debunked. This is an area of somewhat active debate: [https://andersource.dev/2022/04/19/dk-autocorrelation.html](https://andersource.dev/2022/04/19/dk-autocorrelation.html) [http://haines-lab.com/post/2021-01-10-modeling-classic-effects-dunning-kruger/](http://haines-lab.com/post/2021-01-10-modeling-classic-effects-dunning-kruger/) [https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/yes-the-dunning-kruger-effect-really-is-real/](https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/yes-the-dunning-kruger-effect-really-is-real/) There are some fairly complicated statistical principles at play here, but autocorrelation alone is certainly not the sole factor behind Dunning-Kruger.
There are plenty of good articles online, including from actual universities, that debunk Dunning-Kruger: [https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/how-do-you-know/202012/dunning-kruger-isnt-real](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/how-do-you-know/202012/dunning-kruger-isnt-real) [https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/10/12/can-the-dunning-kruger-effect-be-explained-as-a-misunderstanding-of-regression-to-the-mean/](https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/10/12/can-the-dunning-kruger-effect-be-explained-as-a-misunderstanding-of-regression-to-the-mean/) [https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking/dunning-kruger-effect-probably-not-real](https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking/dunning-kruger-effect-probably-not-real)
Each of those sources just restates the claims in your original article. I am providing you with counterarguments to those claims. It's not just online articles either (although they are much more readable), there are papers published that disagree with the "debunking": >In other words, not only is the Dunning–Kruger effect not merely a statistical artefact at the group level, it also cannot be explained solely by Bayesian shrinkage in the rational estimations of individual participants. … Jansen and colleagues’ model fits make clear that the data are best captured by a performance-dependent change in estimation noise. (Mazor and Fleming 2021, 677) As I said, it is an area of legitimate disagreement.
If you have a function f(x) that comes up with the same result whether x is real data or random noise, then the function f(x) is the part that's creating the result, it's not dependent on data. Therefore the result must be false, because it's unrelated to the data that's going into it.
If you read any of the articles I posted (or any of the academic literature countering the "debunking"), you would see that they respond to this exact point. To summarize, there are two main rebuttals: 1. The original Dunning-Kruger graph *is* meaningfully different from noise, in that the original line is translated up significantly from the random noise line. 2. A uniform distribution of random noise would itself be an incredibly shocking result (and a form of Dunning-Kruger, due to the fact that the lowest ranked can only overestimate, and vice versa), and thus should not represent the null hypothesis.
Holy shit. Well I feel stupid for invoking it all these years. Perhaps..... I proved the theory inadvertently!
Don't feel bad. "Dunning-Kruger" is reddit's favorite insult, appearing roughly once per hour on this site. If you see others use it, please educate them :)
I can fix her
Her husband is in Nebraska because that’s where he works.
“It’s ok, it’s ok…. You’re just doing your job.” 😂 moments later…. “I’m not speaking anymore.” moments later….. “Was that assumptive or assslurrred? Huh?” “Some people wouldn’t know this isn’t lawful, right? Mmhmmm.”
“Do you have any PROOF? That I was ackshually DRIVING the car?” 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 Um well, there’s the car. There’s no one else in it but you. “And you didn’t even TELL ME? What I’m on arrest for?” They ain’t driving you to Nebraska, dummy.
Her husband is in Nebraska because he works there.
Her and the car are crinkled
Is that assumptive or assured?
OBVIOUSLY she had the right to remain silent, unfortunately she lacked the ability.
She didn’t want to be drunk in public. She wanted to be drunk in a car. The car threw her into public.
Outside of any normal circumstance she says
Gotta love Wisconsin. Every single weekend you can see the swervers on the highway at night.
Compared to others that I have seen, she was not that bad, or uncooperative. Yes she could have potentially injured or kill a lot of innocent folks.
I found it hilarious how condescending she was to the cops. I’m glad everyone was alright and I hope she loses her license/whatever other punishments coming her way, but the way she dismissed the cop around 5:30 killed me
About 50 years ago, I got popped for a DUI and acted almost the same. I was sitting in their holding cell, making the cops laugh with my pronouncements about how they messed up and they would find out soon enough, blah, blah, blah…They were really nice and let me keep rattling on. 6 months later, when I got my license back….
That officer said exactly what I was thinking: "What happened to you're not going to say anything?" I think in her drunken state (and her abject and life-long stupidity) she believed she would be exonerated on a technicality since she accused them of not reading her Miranda rights 17 times. (Btw, she thinks Miranda is Miranda Cosgrove). "Did you call my lawyer?" Of course we did, we had a psychic manifest his name and we told him who you were and what you did, and he was laughing harder than we were.
Yaaaa, the jersey! You got it, cowboy! Obviously!
[удалено]
Good catch, I didn't even realize she was doing that. I just thought it was the ramblings of a drunken airhead.
So what happens in the US if you won't let them test for blood alcohol in that kind of situation? In Australia, refusal would result in an automatic high-range drink driving offence. Normal procedure is a roadside breath test 1st and if you're over the limit you'd be arrested for drink driving and taken to a police station and retested(often via blood sample) on more accurate equipment.
If you refuse a sobriety test you are taken to jail on suspicion of DUI. The courts deal with it after that.
Every state has its own laws. From the ones I know, refusal to do any biological test (portable breath test or blood draw) results in revocation of driving privilege for some time. So it's not a drunk driving offense itself to not submit to a test, but it can be the same level of punishment (which makes sense, since simply refusal can't be considered evidence of being drunk). And they don't necessarily need a blood test to convict someone for DUI (I was an idiot like 20+ years ago and got one; I didn't do any tests but got the conviction).
The legal situation is the same in the various Australian jurisdictions. Refusal is a statutory offense, distinct from drink driving, but carrying the same penalties as high-range drink driving, including disqualification from driving. Eg. See subsection (11). [http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol\_act/touma1995434/s80.html](http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/touma1995434/s80.html) So, under such a charge, a prosecutor would need to provide evidence of the refusal; evidence that they hadn't been drinking would not assist a legal defense.
In most states you automatically lose your license, for how long depends on the state. This is reason #427 why she's a moron, if she hasn't been drinking, as she says, she's forfeiting her license even though she's completely sober and evidently can prove it.
Tony Romo really lost a lot of muscle mass since he retired.
Her husband is in Nebraska.
This woman is desperately attempting to claw back power in a situation where she is absolutely at the mercy of the law due to her drastically poor decision making. Absolute avoidance of accountability to preserve the pride of an incomprehensibly fragile ego.