Unz评论•另类媒体选择$
美国主流媒体大都排除了有趣,重要和有争议的观点
 博客浏览詹姆斯·汤普森档案馆
邓宁克鲁格效应完成。
通过电子邮件将此页面发送给其他人

 记住我的信息



=>

书签 全部切换总目录添加到图书馆从图书馆中删除 • B
显示评论下一个新评论下一个新回复了解更多
回复同意/不同意/等等 更多... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
同意不同意谢谢LOL轮唱
这些按钮可将您的公开协议,异议,感谢,LOL或巨魔与所选注释一起注册。 仅对最近使用“记住我的信息”复选框保存姓名和电子邮件的频繁评论者可用,并且在任何八个小时的时间内也只能使用三次。
忽略评论者 关注评论者
搜寻文字 区分大小写  确切的词  包括评论
列表 书签

邓宁克鲁格效应完成。

邓宁克鲁格效应是一个可爱的发现,它似乎表明认知能力低下的人太无能了,以至于无法意识到自己的无能。 他们高估了自己的能力。 越聪明的人越能意识到自己的缺点,并低估自己的能力。

邓宁克鲁格效应一经宣布,生活中的许多混乱就变得有意义了。 迟钝的人充满激情,而最好的人则缺乏信念。

然而,几年来,很明显这个发现有点太可爱了。 大多数明显的效果是回归均值。 此外,大部分样本都来自大学生,他们被认为是聪明的,或者至少是能力向上的样本,但范围的限制使人们质疑这一发现的普遍性。 即使在更好的非大学样本中,让人们根据平均水平来判断自己仍然存在其他统计问题。 例如,年长且经验丰富的司机优于经验不足的年轻司机,因此年长司机自然会认为他们高于平均水平,保险公司也同意他们的看法。 当应用于非正态分布时,这是关于均值和中位数的老问题。

为了给他们应有的回报,在他们最初的文章中,邓宁和克鲁格机智地承认他们可能在发现这种效应时犯了错误,并且太迟钝而没有注意到它。

现在,一项新的研究深入挖掘了更广泛的数据集,得出的结论是,一旦你对均值回归进行了修正,就会有一些东西存在,但这些东西并不多。 影响太小,无法解释任何事情。

重新评估邓宁-克鲁格效应:对 Gignac 和 Zajenkowski (2020) 的回应和复制
柯蒂斯·邓克尔、约瑟夫·内德莱克、迪米特里·范·德·林登
情报第 96 卷,2023 年 101717 月至 XNUMX 月,XNUMX

当一个有用的解释性发现因为数据不支持而不得不放弃时,总会有一种失落感。 当然,我们应该超越这种多愁善感,但经验主义是一种残酷的召唤。 你必须拆除你已经开始依赖的解释性脚手架,并在无知中出击,直到其他理论找到支持它的证据。

所以,看来我们必须放弃这个想法,继续前进。

 
• 类别: 科学 •标签: 邓肯-克鲁格效应 
隐藏52条评论发表评论
忽略评论者...跟随Endorsed Only
修剪评论?
    []
  1. Notsofast 说:

    the timing of the reevaluation seems suspicious, just when the tptb would most want it to disappear, it is memory holed. seems to me that instead of shit canning the concept they should use updated woke guinea pigs and run the numbers again.

    • 回复: @Realist
  2. ruralguy 说:

    四十多年来,我与数以千计的工程师和科学家在开发工作、再开发工作、研究和提案团队中合作过,我发现到目前为止,最有能力的是那些积极进取且有点不正常。

    在研究工作中,我看到这些工程师/科学家以更快的速度完成大型“普通”工程师/科学家团队的工作,并取得了更好的结果。 在开发工作中,我使用不同的指标衡量了“普通”工程师的生产力,发现他们通常只有 5% 左右的效率。 他们遵守社会规则并合作,但他们的重点通常是社会或财务目标。 相比之下,“异常”工程师效率极高(子集太小,无法用指标衡量),因为他们常常沉迷于自己的工作,经常在工作之余反复思考。

    尤其令人惊讶的是,我见过许多人力资源部门和/或管理层解雇那些不正常的工程师/科学家的例子,因为他们的行为在社会上是不可接受的。 当那个超级明星表演者被一大群“普通”工程师所取代时,该团队会努力满足进度、成本和技术要求,但往往没有成功。 但是,适当的社交行为通常优先于结果。

    心理学家确实将他们的理论建立在适当抽样的人群和他们领域的科学基础上,这与我的理论不同,我的理论是基于个人经验而不了解心理科学。 但是,他们缺乏的是沉浸在问题中,就像我一样,已经 40 多年了。

    • 同意: Philip Owen
    • 谢谢: Realist
  3. It is not done away with; Dunning Kruger Effect itself is subject to D-K Effect: once we discover it, it is the ‘aha’ moment; we feel we can explain everything about learning. After learning that it is not such a magical tool after all, now we are in the valley of despair, . This article says there is something indeed, but not much. Slowly we will climb the slope of enlightenment…

    So the D-K Effect is true indeed!

  4. The Dunning-Kruger effect wasn’t discovered, but invented to provide whatever dominating party with a pseudo-scientific but ‘sciency’-sounding explanation (read here: ad hoc argument) for as to why ‘science-deniers’ deny the things that are undoubtedly true even if these things were never actually proven in the first place.

    According to the Dunning-Kruger effect then, science-deniers simply deny the established science because they are too stupid to realize that they are stupid. Because they’re stupid, whatever objections they may come up with can be safely discarded and ignored. Your refutal of the concept will surely not herald the end of what has become a politically useful tool to bash and censor people.

    • 回复: @mulga mumblebrain
  5. dearieme 说:

    But what of the Kunning Druger Effect? Surely it’s undeniable?

  6. Reg Cæsar 说:

    There is also the “midwit” meme. Those who believe history is full of nuances and both– or multiple– sides have to be examined and assessed are the truly ignorant ones.

    不,超级聪明的人知道,愚蠢的简单化观点其实是正确的!

    这种态度是极权主义的。 并且彻底自上而下。

    • 回复: @Sollipsist
  7. A123 说: • 您的网站

    DK may work with individuals, but it does not apply to groups.

    In politics is there a larger set of DK cycles that moves the Overton Window, instead of reaching a plateau?

    Look at the absurd myth of man made climate impact.

    DK # 1 — Global Cooling
    DK # 2 — Global Warming
    DK # 3 — Climate Variability

    Each time that peak crazy is reached, there is a fall. However, it starts a new cycle that will result in an even crazier peak.

     

     

    Saint Greta had been risen up to frown us unto the next extreme of climate mythology.
    ___

    Leftoids and Sheeple are incapable of learning. Errors do not result in course correction.

    DK does not apply to brain dead hordes.

    和平😇

  8. FKA Max 说: • 您的网站
    @ruralguy

    当那个超级明星表演者被一大群“普通”工程师所取代时,该团队会努力满足进度、成本和技术要求,但往往没有成功。 但是,适当的社交行为通常优先于结果。

    The opposite effect has been observed with star scientists, but they were not replaced by “normal” scientists or collaborators of the star scientist, but by “outsider” scientists: https://www.unz.com/article/no-david-cole-race-realism-research-continues-despite-the-new-dark-age/?showcomments#comment-5683789

    图片来源: https://www.nber.org/digest/mar16/does-science-advance-one-funeral-time or https://archive.ph/Y0l6j

    • 谢谢: ruralguy
  9. FKA Max 说: • 您的网站

    That would be a pity, not being able to cite the DK effect anymore.

    However, I had a look at the paper https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2023-dunkel.pdf and it had quite some significant limitations, this one stood out to me:

    The conclusions of the current study should be tempered by at least
    two limitations. First, while the objective measure of intelligence employed in the Add Health is a well-validated measure it is focused on verbal cognitive abilities and exhibits a restricted range of scores.

    I’m not quite sure what this implies exactly, but it could be that the DK effect does not apply for (il)literacy anymore, but still for (in)numeracy?

    So, maybe there is still hope for us DK-effect-citing enthusiasts…

    • 回复: @FKA Max
    , @James Thompson
  10. The Dunning-Kruger effect graphic has not spelt the word “experience” correctly.

  11. Legba 说:
    @ruralguy

    我很熟悉这种应对自己缺点的“人人都比我笨”的方法。

  12. @A123

    But you are ‘living’ proof of the existence of rabid, racist, Rightwing Dunning-Krugerism, which you illustrate here yet again. Using covers of Time magazine as ‘evidence’ nails it, but you are TOO stupid to realise so. And I thought that Jews were the, self-declared, greatest intellects on Earth.

  13. @ruralguy

    非常有趣的观察,我倾向于同意。 与团队合作时,我总是指出,如果一个人能够解决问题,就不需要团队。
    It has also happened in medical research. Some rebels solve problems, and then the normal medics don’t pay attention, because the solution comes from an unsociable rebel.

    • 同意: ruralguy
  14. 现象

    The original 1999 paper by Krüger and Dunning
    不熟练和不了解它:认识到自己无能的困难如何导致自我评估过高,
    defines a phenomenon, which is readily observed, immediately applicable, and easily verified (just try correcting someone who is unskilled and unaware that he is unskilled, or stupid and unaware that he is stupid). Rather than a study and proof, it is a formalisation of a phenomenon that was known intuitively but not properly identified. That is the reason for its fame, and even more for the fame of the concept, the memes.

    Of course, the anti-scientific Jews wrote a few papers than introduced doubt without attacking it squarely (typical Taldmudic strategy), so Ehrlinger; Johnson; Banner; Dunning; and Kruger wrote a second paper in 2008
    Why the unskilled are unaware: Further explorations of (absent) self-insight among the incompetent
    Which destroyed the attacks, reinforced the original paper, and added more insights as to causes.

    So for the intellectual, for those 不能 looking for click-bait answers to serious questions, the original paper, is recommended.

    回覆:

    现在,一项新的研究深入挖掘了更广泛的数据集,得出的结论是,一旦你对均值回归进行了修正,就会有一些东西存在,但这些东西并不多。 影响太小,无法解释任何事情。

    Fiddlesticks. First, there is ongoing research in that field, and such papers do not deny or counter the original, they merely add to the body of knowledge.

    Second, one paper does not destroy another paper, especially not one that is so well-received. So you are pushing the usual tribal agenda, the result is telling: to elevate the stupid and stupidly confident, holding up one single paper divorced from its context.

    这个概念

    新的 邓宁克鲁格效应 概念, it has become famous in the form of many memes.  It is a horribly simplified understanding of the problem, but it is beloved of the click-bait generation.  The graphic being an example, including the spelling error.

    Second, the graphic (almost all memes of the concept), is false: the only thing that is even slightly correct is the axes, the graph is made-up nonsense.  The X-axis is Knowledge, and can be a percentage, the same as the Y-axis.

    The famous concept has another, perhaps greater, error. It attempts to describe the progress out of the initial 不熟练和不了解 state, into awareness and experience (not knowledge). As if that adorable sequence can be shown of a graph that is strictly science. Which demeans the science, but gives the stupid the notion that there is a way out of stupid, by just doing the same thing over and over again. This is consistent with the Jew propaganda, that anyone can do anything, no education necessary, based on the hysterical anti=science of Evolutionism, that if gazillion molecules collided for a quintillion years thos dead molecules will somehow create life.

    It also has a faint reference to Mastery, the four levels of competence.  So again, it attempts to marry two things that have a connection intuitively, but not formally, they are best understood separately.

    The stupid usually have just one tool in their toolkit, and every problem looks like a nail (Abraham Maslow, the 文书法则).

    So the concept, the 邓宁克鲁格效应, as made famous by the numerous memes with pretty graphics; false graphs; and a variety of sequences out of the hole, has very little to do with the original and second papers.  It has everything to do with the prosecution of the Jewish Agenda, the destruction of the intellect and the elevation of the stupid.

    And the science, the original papers remain, and continue to be the basis of ongoing study and research, such as the subject paper, which actually adds to the body of knowledge, rather than negating it ir subtracting from it.

    You merely prove you are an anti-scientist, a pseudo-scientist, a Shabbos goyim.

    • 谢谢: Polphil
    • 回复: @Anonymous
  15. @ruralguy

    Nothing against your comment itself, but …

    它与原始的 Krüger & Dunning 论文毫无关系 不熟练和不了解 1999 & 2008,这是关于相当真实的 现象, 以及它的原因。 #15 中的详细信息。

    新的 邓宁克鲁格效应 is 概念,简单化和混蛋,加上一个关于如何摆脱它的附加序列,愚蠢地相信愚蠢可以不是愚蠢的东西。 它背后没有任何科学依据。 部落以各种模因的形式大量销售,文章中的图片就是其中之一。

    当然,作为一个简单、愚蠢的漫画,而不是一个精确的科学定义,不同的人对它的理解是不同的,就像你的那样,这与原来的相差了两度。

    它基本上证明了所提出的概念是愚蠢且毫无用处的,但它的名气和普遍用法却贬低了原始论文。

    原始论文不受影响,对该主题的研究仍在继续。

    另外,写这篇文章的白痴,对原始论文和概念(模因)之间的区别一无所知,认为这样的一篇论文破坏了原始论文,而不是意识到它是正在进行的研究的一部分,增加了正文知识。

  16. Sollipsist 说:
    @Reg Cæsar

    介于太愚蠢而不会打扰琐碎的细节和太聪明而不会打扰琐碎的细节之间😀

  17. @A123

    Great post on magazine covers on “climate”.

    The elites only get to lie to me once.

    After the second time they are stupid.

    After the third time they are insane.

    After the fourth time they have proven themselves to be a danger to themselves and others.

    • 回复: @mulga mumblebrain
  18. I have been saying for years that it is simply a troll on people who would want to use a term with a name like “Dunning-Kruger Effect” to sound intelligent. It’s kind of genius in that sense.

  19. res 说:

    Initial quick response. I had not realized idiot memers had so misconstrued the Dunning Kruger results to produce graphs like the joke at the top. Here is a relevant graph from the paper.

    更多这里。
    https://graphpaperdiaries.com/2017/08/20/the-real-dunning-kruger-graph/

    The first logic and reasoning graph does look a bit like the meme though.

    Some things which seem clear.
    – Restriction of range is key to evaluating this correctly.
    – Properly defining comparison groups is also key.
    – Domain being evaluated matters and performance across domains will vary.
    – Restriction of range is especially interesting in terms of how people frame their competence judgement in terms of environment. For example, are the Cornell undergrads being asked to compare with their Cornell peers or the broader population? And do people apply those corrections effectively? This ties in with my frequent gripe about people who are fairly bright but have seldom or never been around the super bright (too often the smartest person in the room) being overly confident of their ability.
    – I haven’t (re)visited the relevant papers yet (hence the “quick comment” statement), but if regression to the mean refers to people’s judgment shading towards average (rather than future performance doing so) then I don’t think that is cause to dismiss the observation. I’ve always assumed that accompanied by a bit of overoptimism across the board (more at the bottom) were the bulk of the Dunning Kruger effect.
    – Nonlinearity of performance matters (as noted in some comments). Percentiles can obscure important variation. Especially in the tails (cf. IQ).

    Interesting topic. Thanks, Dr. Thompson.

    • 回复: @James Thompson
  20. FKA Max 说: • 您的网站
    @FKA Max

    One line of inquiry that could validate the invalidity of the DK effect, in particular the part that high performers underestimate their skill level, is Cipolla’s research in the field of human stupidity and the conclusions he has drawn from it, namely that stupidity is 分散式:

    Always and inevitably, everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation. The probability that a certain person (will) be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_M._Cipolla#%22The_Basic_Laws_of_Human_Stupidity%22_(1976)

    This, counterintuitively, includes a much higher number of stupid/dysfunctional individuals among high IQ persons, who 估计过高 not underestimate their abilities, capabilities and skill level. 食堂 想到: Bad News for the Highly IntelligentMore than a quarter (26.7 percent) formally diagnosed with a mood disorder [...] far higher than the national averages of around 10 percent= https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bad-news-for-the-highly-intelligent/ or https://archive.ph/5v2rP

    I believe the DK effect is still a useful (rhetorical) tool/device and I personally still consider it mostly valid, but it should be supplemented with The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity https://www.unz.com/aanglin/after-weeks-of-nonsense-elon-finally-restores-donald-trumps-twitter-account/?showcomments#comment-5670365 in order to avoid/prevent the trap/mistake of putting high IQ and/or high status individuals (who can be extraordinarily stupid/dysfunctional and unfriendly) on a pedestal.

    Whenever I analyzed the blue-collar workers I found that the fraction σ of them were stupid. As σ’s value was higher than I expected (First Law), paying my tribute to fashion I thought at first that segregation, poverty, lack of education were to be blamed. But moving up the social ladder I found that the same ratio was prevalent among the white-collar employees and among the students. More impressive still were the results among the professors. Whether I considered a large university or a small college, a famous institution or an obscure one, I found that the same fraction σ of the professors are stupid. So bewildered was I by the results, that I made a special point to extend my research to a specially selected group, to a real elite, the Nobel laureates. The result confirmed Nature’s supreme powers: σ fraction of the Nobel laureates are stupid.

    https://archive.ph/x9H05#selection-345.0-345.859 or http://harmful.cat-v.org/people/basic-laws-of-human-stupidity/

    Additional recommended viewing:

    Survival of the friendliest: How dogs evolved to be man’s best friend | 60 Minutes

    The rare disorder that could hold the secret of what makes us who we are | 60 Minutes Australia

    They’re the happiest, friendliest, most loveable people you’re ever likely to meet. Just being around them is a joy, an absolute delight – but something’s wrong here. They suffer from a rare and baffling genetic disorder called Williams Syndrome, what the scientists call ‘a beautiful mystery’. The ‘Willies’, as they’re affectionately known, also have low IQs but the amazing thing is, they can teach the rest of us a thing or two. They could just hold the key to that age old argument of nature versus nurture – the secret of what makes us the way we are.

  21. Palmm 说:
    @ruralguy

    Yes, AFAIK, IQ is one of the most scientifically rigorous psychiatry theories out there. IQ really is about speed and efficiency. On a pop science view, yes, those people are viewed as “weirdos” many times, and most people don’t know how to handle them.

    I remember once, Dr. Jordan Peterson, mentioned that because of the rigor of IQ and racial differences, many psychologists “hate it” because one of the few truly scientific products of psychiatry happens to be “racist.”

  22. @Justvisiting

    Only a TRULY malicious cretin would reject nearly 200 years of science and increasingly calamitous observations, preferring a couple of TIME magazine covers. Were your parents imbeciles, too?

  23. @That one comment

    The Dunning-Kruger Effect does not pertain to those who question the consensus with rational arguments. It describes those who are taken in by lies and imbecilities peddled by professional disinformationists because they are too stupid and ignorant, or lazy, and stupidly arrogant to boot, massively overestimating their own intelligence., to better inform themselves. When a cretin prefers a couple of TIME magazine covers to nearly 200 years of science and observations from reality, you have a Dunning-Krugerite-or worse.

  24. jb 说:
    @A123

    You idiot! You are fooling yourself! The 1973 and 1977 Time Magazine “Big Freeze” cover stories you’re making such a big deal over are both available online (此处此处), and neither has anything to do with long term climate change. The first is about energy shortages due to the 1973 Arab oil embargo, while the second is simply about the unusually cold winter America was having that year. Whether or not the Dunning Kruger effect actually exists, the fact that so many self-anointed experts like you are pontificating about climate change while pulling bonehead moves like this certainly helps explain why so many people 认为 是的。

    It’s true that there actually was some concern back in the 60s and 70s over the possibility that we could be about to enter another ice age. (Not entirely unreasonable, as ice ages do come and go, and we are due for another one sometime in the next few thousand years. In fact we may have put it off by pumping so much CO2 into the atmosphere!). But I’m old enough to remember this, and believe me, it was a minor story, one of many that came and went in the popular press, and in no way comparable to the broad level of concern over climate change today. I do have a certain level of climate change skepticism myself, but for the most part it isn’t based on arguments put forward by the denier community; arguments which, like the “big freeze” thing, generally strike me as being even more ideologically motivated than those of climate change activists, and very often just kind of dumb.

    • 同意: mulga mumblebrain
    • 回复: @mulga mumblebrain
  25. @ruralguy

    阿斯伯格氏症最初在英国被称为工程师病,因为研究它的剑桥团队发现有不成比例的工程师和数学家是这类孩子的父母。 高输出(在狭窄的领域)的社交尴尬与自闭症倾向一致。 我的两个活着的家庭进行了正式的自闭症谱系诊断。 我不想要一个。 我看不到好处。 这些工程师可能会交付输出,但可能没有达到目标。

    • 回复: @dearieme
  26. Cook-ie 说:

    I see the U.K has done away with the effect that this article highlights.

    They have announced a new coal mine…there goes the green revolution of wind and sun power.

    Now that the reality of the energy war with Russia has bitten the public…its back to good old fossil fuels.

    Its amazing what a bit of shivering and hunger can do for ones belief systems.

    • 回复: @dearieme
  27. @FKA Max

    Thanks for your comment. Good to hear from you. It is a short vocabulary test, so it will not give fine detail, but it comes from a very good sample, so on balance acceptable, particularly because Vocabulary is a good test of general intelligence.

  28. @res

    Thanks for your comment. Good to hear from you again. Comparison groups are certainly an issue. Since people preferentially associate with similar people, either through family networks or their occupational equals, there is often a limited understanding of how greatly intelligence varies. To complicate matters, comparisons depend on benchmarks, and unless those are carefully specified the answers will vary noisily.

    I think I should have used the graphs from actual research papers to make clear what the actual claimed phenomenon is, rather than the silly ones popularly available.

  29. dearieme 说:
    @Philip Owen

    告诉我,剑桥团队是否在本地进行研究? 剑桥到处都是数学家、工程师和物理学家。

    If I were looking for a field of strangely incomplete males I’d look at computer programmers. Maybe there weren’t many around when the Cambridge investigation was pursued?

    • 回复: @Philip Owen
    , @dux.ie
  30. dearieme 说:
    @Cook-ie

    True but it’s coking coal that they’ll be mining not steam coal.

    (And that’s assuming that a ton ever does get mined.)

  31. @dearieme

    剑桥大学的研究人员西蒙·拜伦-科恩似乎在互联网出现之前就创造了这个词组。 这是最早的论文,1997 年,我可以找到指向那个方向的论文。 他于 1980 年代开始工作。 它是付费的,但摘要为您提供了要点。

    https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1362361397011010

    • 回复: @dearieme
  32. dearieme 说:
    @Philip Owen

    谢谢你。 正如您暗示的那样,摘要包含答案:

    “A different prediction might have been that parents would be over-represented in occupations involving mathematics and/or computing since these do not necessarily require a talent for folk psychology, but do require a talent for folk mathematics or folk physics. However, mathematics is a low-frequency occupation, whilst these days computing is part of almost every occupation. Hence our prediction regarding engineering.”

    I still don’t know why he didn’t look at physicists: scared of upsetting The Cavendish perhaps.

  33. dux.ie 说:
    @dearieme

    Baron-Cohen recruited 1000 subjects through the UK National Austic Society. There was no breakdown of all the subjects occupations, only those that have austic children.

    They based their assertion only on the raw percentages. That will give a biased view as the more populous occupations will skewed the results. The RiskRatio=%NAS/%Male gives a better metric not influenced by the popularity of the occupation. In fact wrt the %Male of the occupations, Engineers come out fourth in RiskRatio ranking. They did include Computing and Science.

    Suprising the Protective Forces come up top as the %Male is very small. My expected Accounting come up second, as accounting requires intense attention to routine detail, great memory and great focus usually found in high functioning austistics HFA. The employment of HFA in software quality assurance is a later discovery. https://qualitestgroup.com/insights/blog/the-autism-spectrum-and-software-testing/

    • 回复: @dux.ie
    , @Anonymous
  34. dearieme 说:

    The first thing that strikes me is how broad the categories are. “Scientist” includes many tribes of rather distinctive intellectual bents (I’d say), “Teachers” even more so.

    no breakdown of all the subjects occupations, only those that have autistic children.

    Or, strictly only those who have autistic children joined the NAS. There could be a sizeable selection effect there.

    Hm. Could that have been an apprentice effort from Baron-Cohen?

  35. dux.ie 说:
    @dux.ie

    It is not a fluke that the rank 1 riskratio is protective forces (police, military). It is common enough that UK has the National Police Autism Association https://www.joiningthepolice.co.uk/supporting-diversity/support-organisations/national-police-autism-association

    Google cannot find any Engineer Autism Association or Accountant Autism Association. Though there is film “Accountant” on high functioning austistic accountant with military skills. I could have got the idea from there.

  36. Anonymous[260]• 免责声明 说:
    @dux.ie

    Baron-Cohen recruited 1000 subjects through the UK National Austic Society.

    Baron-Cohen is also a jew, who, at one point, stated that he was very much interested in getting more and more people diagnosed with autism so his institution could cash in on government grants. Mind you, after working on autism for 40 years, he still hasn’t come up with any biological evidence nor proper definition of what it is.

  37. Antiwar7 说:
    @ruralguy

    是你吗,埃隆·马斯克?

    • 回复: @Sean
  38. dearieme 说:
    @Sean

    When did shagging step-daughters become a thing? Are there any mentions in the classical writers or the old testament? Did Confucius have anything to say? Are the Laws of Hammurabi silent on the matter?

  39. Modern scientific papers do not warrant anything like that level of trust. Thinking for yourself has no shortcut.

  40. @jb

    My only quibble is your definition of a desire to prevent near term human extinction caused by anthropogenic climate destabilisation as ‘ideological’. It seems eminently humane and practical to me, but perhaps you define such concerns as ‘ideological’.

    • 回复: @jb
  41. jb 说:
    @mulga mumblebrain

    Nobody worth listening to believes that climate change is going to cause human extinction — that’s just dumb. But there are a lot of serious people who think the consequences could be quite bad, so the issue needs serious consideration. My point about ideology is that both sides seem to be motivated to some degree by non-scientific ideological concerns, and to the extent they are it undermines their credibility. However I do think the deniers are worse in this regard, and have less credibility.

    My own opinion is that climate change is probably real, but probably won’t be as bad as the hysterics are saying. However there is a non-trivial chance the hysterics could be right, which makes it a real conundrum. How much are you willing to spend to ward off a disaster that probably isn’t ever going to happen, but would be really bad if it did? People face this question all the time when deciding how much to pay for insurance on their homes or businesses, but we are talking here about insuring the whole world, and nobody has any experience with that.

    • 回复: @mulga mumblebrain
  42. Santocool 说:

    ”The Dunning Kruger effect is a lovely finding, which seems to suggest that the cognitively incompetent are too incompetent to realise that they are incompetent. They over-estimate their abilities. Brighter people are more aware of their short-comings, and under-estimate their abilities.”

    theoretically and simplistically.

  43. Anymike 说:

    邓宁-克鲁格效应只是更肮脏的流行心理学——与肯尼斯·克拉克玩偶研究、金赛报告和谢尔·海特不相上下。

    像大多数这样的事情一样,有一定的适用性,但在邓宁-克鲁格的案例中,它告诉我们更多的是专业精英和中上层阶级对自己的看法,而不是对其他任何人的看法。

  44. Factorize 说:

    Dr. Thompson, I am very interested on your take on the latest news in Alzheimer’s; several clinical trials have read out with moderately strong results. The UK has played a leading research role in advancing Alzheimer science and these efforts now appear to be bearing fruit. It is no great gamble to expect that the FDA will approve Lecanemab given the recent presentation of its phase 3 trial. I have been following the Alzheimer story carefully for some time and it appears that we are now at the beginning of the endgame to the cure. The social implications for solving the dementia crisis will be far reaching and would be well worth a blog post to discuss further.

    Best Wishes for the Christmas season and the New Year!

    • 回复: @mulga mumblebrain
  45. @Factorize

    Got shares in Biogen and Eisai, have you? Don’t mind a little brain bleeding or swelling, then?

    • 回复: @Factorize
  46. @jb

    ‘Non-trivial’ alright, but let’s take the gamble. In FACT, it is already too late, because, even if we stopped producing greenhouse gases overnight the irreversible positive feedbacks from nature have already commenced.
    These include, but are not limited to, greenhouse gases caused by decomposing organic material released from permafrost, greenhouse gases trapped in frozen submarine clathrates, CO2 released from warming oceans and from dying tropical forests, the albedo flip in the Arctic as highly reflective summer sea ice is replaced by dark, heat-absorbing sea, and the rapid weakening of the AMOC of the north Atlantic.
    These are occurring at rates FAR above previous, natural, climate disturbances, save for comet or meteor impacts, or supervolcano eruptions, but those effects are shorter lived. So you are ill-informed, but cannot recognise it, ie Dunning-Kruger has come to visit. And, unsurprised, I see that you see human existence as a crude calculation of dollars and cents.

  47. Factorize 说:
    @mulga mumblebrain

    Thank you for your reply mulga mumblebrain.

    This blog is devoted to cognitive science. The emerging cure for Alzheimer’s is the cognitive science and medical breakthrough of the century. Discussing how society will adjust to our now rapidly approaching dementia free society would seem highly appropriate for this blog as preserving the cognitive health of our thought leaders for possibly additional multiple decades has profound implications for the functioning of society. The actual specific details of the particular products need not be the focus of the conversation.

    • 回复: @mulga mumblebrain
  48. Anonymous[259]• 免责声明 说:
    @Incisive One

    You merely prove you are an anti-scientist, a pseudo-scientist, a Shabbos goyim.

    “goyim” is plural. There is no such thing as “a” Shabbos goyim. You merely prove that you’re a stupid fucking idiot.
    ___________________
    The Dunning-Kruger effect is nothing more than a tool for douches to criticize other people. It’s what douches do after someone hips them to the fact that comparing someone else to Hitler is not a winning strategy. The douche toolbox is a limited one.

    There’s also Dunning-Kruger Auto-blindness Syndrome, which is almost universal. In this syndrome someone diagnosing others with Dunning-Krueger fails to see his own incompetence. Until I pass away it will remain 几乎 普遍。

    It’s douches all the way down.

    Try the Douche Home Self-test:

    If you think “How do I tell if I’m a douche?” or “I’m not a douche” then you are most certainly a douche.

  49. @Factorize

    Dementia is best prevented. ‘Cures’ are generally publicised to pump up the stock price, and the later ‘disappointments’ are, so far, inevitable. Prevention id not profitable, so it’s off the table.

当前评论者
说:

发表评论 -


 记得 我的信息为什么?
 电子邮件回复我的评论
$
提交的评论已被许可给 Unz评论 并可以由后者自行决定在其他地方重新发布
在翻译模式下禁用评论
通过RSS订阅此评论主题 通过RSS订阅所有James Thompson的评论