On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 11:14:35 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<
ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote in <
Jc6dnWdguLKG5hz4nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote
Again. You need to read the seminal D-K papers, Hemidactylus.
I have.
With all due respect, you have not.
That is clear from everything you claimed about it.
You don't know the first thing about what the seminal D-K papers said.
Just as...
a. nospam constantly fabricates imaginary functionality b. But when
asked to point out the app he claims exists...
c. He never can do something as simple as *name just one*
All you iKooks are the same, Hemidaqctylus.
As it's obvious you _never_ read the seminal Dunning-Kruger papers.
You iKooks are perfect examples of those to the left of the first
quartile.
"People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities
in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that
this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are
unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these
people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices,
but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to
realize it. Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants,
and thus increasing their metacognitive competence,
helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities."
If you accept, Hemidactylus, that I have higher degrees, you have to
understand how frustrating it is to try to converse with you iKooks.
From Cracker Jack U? You surely know how to pile high and deeper, I’ll
give you that.
There's absolutely nothing even slightly complex you iKooks can
comprehend.
Nothing.
That's frustrating, because EVERYTHING you say, is always dead wrong.
Which, let's face is - is the epitome of the iKook's belief system.
And where do you think I got the quote: "Participants were 65 Cornell
University undergraduates from a variety of courses in psychology who
earned extra credit for their participation" and realized the lemon
juice guy was used merely as an illustrative anecdote.
You are an idiot, Hemidactylus. An utter unfathomably ignorant idiot.
<https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10626367/>
Read the abstract, you idiot.
*Do you see "grammar" in that abstract, you idiot.*
My point isn't to call you an idiot, Hemidactylus; it's to show the
world that EVERYTHING the iKooks say is out of their own sheer & utter
ignorance.
You "think" you can dig up a quote and then that quote you think you
understood well enough to dispute what I said, based on the facts.
This conversation is PERFECT for showing EXACTLY what the iKooks are.
McArthur Wheeler wasn't a part of the study as you claimed since he
wasn't one of the Cornell undergrads. I called you on this ignorant
comment "Dunning & Kruger studied that rather peculiar lemon-juice
covered bank robber" and you lashed out at me.
The seminal papers by Dunning & Kruger were about cognitive bias in
assessing one's own skills, Hemidactylus. You iKooks are in the low
end.
So you will not admit your silly error about whether they actually
studied the lemon juice guy as you asserted. You are covering for your juvenile embarrassment.
The problem is you iKooks are hampered by a. No education whatsoever b.
No ability to comprehend anything c. No desire to understand anything
either
All you iKooks ever do is guess.
a. Alan Browne guessed there's no walled garden
(because _he_ was ignorant that it exists)
b. JollY Roger guessed Apple fully patches older releases
(because _he_ was ignorant that they don't)
c. Alan Baker guessed how to race vehicles
(because _he_ is ignorant of the first things in racing)
etc.
All you iKooks always just guess because you do not own the mental
capacity to comprehend something as simple as the Dunning Kruger
seminal papers.
Unlike you I don’t interpret these papers as Holy Gospel. I am skeptical and in Popperian fashion think sacred cows need to stand up to rigid treatment. So I have gone much further than you in my intellectual development and seen the emperor may not have clothes. The DK effect
appears as an artifact. We are pattern seeking creatures. No doubt you
are gullible enough to see a face on Mars.
I also read this, which you as a propagandist will continue to ignore:
https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/persistent-irony-dunning-kruger-
effect
Look Hemidactylus. I have higher degrees. You do not. Mine are in tough
subjects. You could barely pass high school algebra.
Basket weaving is tough. Especially underwater. Congrats on that.
I understand that science isn't always black and white, Hemidactylus.
You do not.
Hell, you don't even understand your own cite above for God's sake.
That's why it's no longer shocking how incredibly wrong you iKooks are.
Nor is it shocking that you're entire argument starts with Donald
Trump. Mine don't.
Here are mine:
<https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10626367/>
<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8992690/>
Do you even read your cites? This one says:
“Our explanation of the DK effect is based on the fact that the data are bounded. This feature of the data has not received much attention, with
the exception of Burson et al. (2006), who concluded that the boundary restriction “is an important concern that should be addressed in future research;” and Krajc and Ortmann (2008), who noted that students in the bottom quartile can only make optimistic errors placing themselves into
a higher quartile, while students in the top quartile can only make pessimistic errors placing themselves in a lower quartile.
The remark by Krajc and Ortmann provides the essence of our story.
Consider a brilliant student who typically scores 95 or 99 points out of
100.
Because of the bound at 100, there is not much room to predict higher
than her ability but there is plenty of room to predict lower, so she
would typically predict 85 or 90, thus underestimating her score. The
same happens at the bottom end of the scale, where there is a bound of 0
and a student would typically overestimate. This simple observation is
the basis of our model.”
And: “In this article, we have attempted to provide an explanation of
the DK effect which does not require any psychological explanation. By specifying a simple statistical model which explicitly takes the
(random) boundary constraints into account, we achieve a near-perfect
fit, thus demonstrating that the DK effect is a statistical artifact. In other words: there is an effect, but it does not reflect human nature.”
The abstract says: “An explanation of the Dunning–Kruger effect is provided which does not require any psychological explanation, because
it is derived as a statistical artifact. This is achieved by specifying
a simple statistical model which explicitly takes the (random) boundary constraints into account. The model fits the data almost perfectly.”
Again: “does not require any psychological explanation”
If you weren’t so intellectually dishonest you would stop for more than
a brief moment and reflect on this. You can’t because your arrogance prevents it.
Soundly written, Sir. Thank you for your efforts...and I learned more of
why D-K isn't to be taken at face value.
And he will claim that such debunkings are evidence
for his position. I think Arlen needs to consider
embarking on a path clear of logical fallacy.
[snip]
You know how to bullshit yourself though.
And isn't that the very essence of the D-K theory
he espouses? Good thing it's debunked, or he'd
be up a creek without a paddle.
(groups snipped again)
--
-v
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)