

Dumb people don't know they are dumb. Is there a simple explanation for this? - yummyfajitas
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/11/all-are-unaware.html

======
ErrantX
Always run your web app past the dumbest person you can find (or a few).

As DA once said:

"never understimate the ingenuity of complete fools"

They will find errors, bugs and dead-ends that would never have occured to you
(or your semi-savvy testers) in a month of Sundays :)

~~~
Hexstream
I'm a crass elitist and I'm not sure you want to accomodote complete fools in
all situations.

~~~
ErrantX
Of course you do - maybe not as end users... but it a fool (sic) can use your
app then anyone can.

Rule 1 :)

------
whacked_new
Dunning-Krueger's findings are, unfortunately, overly generalized (perhaps
because people overestimate their abilities to accurately draw inferences). In
fact, the bias exists for very smart people as well: Dunning found that 94% of
professors consider themselves above-average.

Re breily: compared to other professors. (thanks!)

~~~
breily
Above-average compared to other professors or compared to the general
population? I haven't read anything about their findings but I'd imagine 94%
being above average compared to the general population would be on the low
side.

~~~
ryanmahoski
Compared to other profs. From his homepage:

"First I am interested in why people tend to have overly favorable and
objectively indefensible views of their own abilities, talents, and moral
character. For example, a full 94% of college professors state that they do
"above average" work, although it is statistically impossible for virtually
everybody to be above average."

<http://www.psych.cornell.edu/people/Faculty/dad6>

~~~
anamax
-1000, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100

average of entries 0, 10 of 11 entries above average

I'll bet that the typical college prof believes that a small fraction of her
"peers" rate -1000 or worse.

~~~
gwc
"above average" in this context usually means median, not mean - i.e. "in the
top 50%"

------
swombat
Way to misinterpret the article...

~~~
yummyfajitas
I didn't misinterpret.

"Dumb people don't know they are dumb" is an idea I think most of us hold (or
held before reading this). [insert reference to pg essay/xkcd here]. This
article discusses that idea.

The second sentence of the title suggests there is more (or less) to it than
we previously thought.

A more accurate title ("All are skill unaware") would be harder to mentally
classify. I thought the idea in the blog post was important enough that a
small amount of inaccuracy was justified.

~~~
thomasmallen
Next time, please don't inject bias in the headline. The title should have
been "Overcoming Bias: All Are Skill Unaware." Luckily, on this site we have
comment sections for each article where we can...comment.

~~~
llimllib
I would argue that the (overcomingbias.com) after the link is fine to convey
what blog the article is on, and the title should just be "All Are Skill
Unaware".

But that's just a nit, and I do generally prefer a poster-bias-free headline.

~~~
thomasmallen
Oops, the extra title bit must be my SEO talking :^)

------
dhoe
This post proves the article's point, unfortunately.

------
bd
I skimmed over the original article (Burson et al '06) to decode "noise and
bias model":

The authors found out that on easy tasks less skilled people overestimated
their performance while more skilled people estimated correctly that they did
ok.

On hard tasks more skilled people underestimated their performance, while bad
performers correctly estimated that they performed poorly.

In other words, on easy tasks everybody thought they were doing ok, on hard
tasks everybody thought they were doing badly.

Thus it seems nobody did any metacognition; people of all skill levels just
assessed task difficulty. On easy tasks "smart" people happened to be correct,
on difficult tasks it was "dumb" people turn.

------
mattmaroon
I've thought about this a lot. I really don't think it's possible for someone
to comprehend what it is like to be someone of substantially greater or lesser
intelligence. Most smart people think that dumb people are just like them but
maybe not quite as good as math, or maybe just mentally lazy. Most dumb people
think Barack Obama is just like them but a more polished speaker.

The exception being noted geniuses like Einstein, who most people view as
demigods that are so rare as to be nearly fictional.

------
ChaitanyaSai
I imagine that the optimal level of confidence would require us to over-
estimate. What possible advantage could one gain by being very realistic about
one's own skills? In a zero-sum game of two equally capable players, will
over-estimation of skills enable a beneficially higher appetite for risk and
exploration?

Of two independently tested players with one's "IQ" higher than the other,
will the "dumb" one calibrate his skill level improperly after the same amount
of exposure in a game where a player is pitted against AI with different skill
levels?

It seems to me that people who spend more time validating their smarts or
questioning it more would naturally arrive at more fine grained understanding
of their ability.

Also, what does the inter-country variation suggest?
[http://www.google.com/trends?q=am+i+smart%2C+am+i+dumb&c...](http://www.google.com/trends?q=am+i+smart%2C+am+i+dumb&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0)

That may mean nothing, but google trend speculation is fun :)

~~~
skmurphy
Realism about your own skills, if coupled with realism about others' skills,
might encourage you to build a stronger team earlier. The point of the article
is that "you should listen to those you disagree with instead of writing them
off as idiots." Overestimating your own abilities makes it less likely you
will listen.

~~~
ChaitanyaSai
True, but you could also talk about aggregate skill estimation of a team as a
whole, and what they should do when another team (or the stock market)
disagrees with them. Realism would be nice to arrive at, but say I hope to
build a better mousetrap. How do I realistically estimate my chances in this
endeavor?

~~~
skmurphy
Another team is different from the stock market. In an economic competition
you have a number of opportunities to gather data from customers, prospects,
non-customers, and competitors customers. The key step is to assume that you
have something to learn from your competition. In the case of the better
mousetrap you would be looking for folks with a mouse problem who are
unsatisfied by current solutions, these are "non-customers."

------
spitwits
I see the point. It's a loaded statement though.

I can agree that those who believe they are above everyone else are more than
likely to be bigger fools than those around them. But I find it hard to
believe that essentially giving everyone the benefit of the doubt is the most
"intelligent" thing to do.

Not trusting every one to have competency doesn't equate to being "dumb," in
my opinion. If so, then why do companies give competency tests? Why don't they
just assume anyone applying for a job "gets it."

Maybe I'm missing something here. I sure hope not, for the sake of being
pegged the fool.

------
swdesignguy
Surrounding yourself with people who are smarter than you is easier if the
person doing the hiring is dumb.

------
jtj
because they are dumb.

------
fbbwsa
i like french fries.

~~~
thomasmallen
Dammit. Upvoted because it's near the lunch hour...

~~~
ErrantX
nearer dinner time here :)

