Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect

DK Effect is Simply Autocorrelation

The article otherwise largely fails to communicate the degree to which the DK effect is pseudoscience. The statement "the statistical explanation interprets these findings as statistical artifacts" needs to be expanded and made much more prominent to explain why the effect is simply autocorrelation and should not be basis for any cognitive or metacognitive claims despite its appeal. The autocorrelation claim is easy to understand and should be a convincing argument for changing the first paragraph to make clear that while the concept is appealing, it is not based on a valid statistically methodology and should not be taken too seriously.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a claimed cognitive bias[2] whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge. Some researchers also include in their definition the opposite effect for high performers: their tendency to underestimate their skills. Despite its intuitive appeal the effect can be statistically explained as autocorrelation[1] and should not be used to formally explain cognitive biases or metacognitive phenomena regarding self-evaluation of ability, knowledge or experience.

Simply put for any sample of test scores on a 0-10 scale, the likelihood that someone who scores 0 will overestimate the performance is necessarily higher than someone who scores 10. The reverse is also true: anyone who scores 10 will necessarily underestimate their performance more that someone who scores 0.

The ironies are replete, as pointed out in the article: "there is a delightful irony to the circumstances of their [Dunning and Kruger's] blunder. Here are two Ivy League professors arguing that unskilled people have a ‘dual burden’: not only are unskilled people ‘incompetent’ ... they are unaware of their own incompetence. [...] In their seminal paper, Dunning and Kruger are the ones broadcasting their (statistical) incompetence by conflating autocorrelation for a psychological effect."

The popularity of the DK effect may be an interesting study in how bad science can take hold in the popular mind given how many people seem to take it seriously without considering the fatal flaws in the methodology used to identify the alleged phenomenon. DK also serves as an example of how bad science can get through the scientific peer review process, especially if it comes from a highly reputable institution. --Chassin (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

This has already been discussed several times. See, for example, Talk:Dunning–Kruger_effect/Archive_5#Neutral_Point_of_View and Talk:Dunning–Kruger_effect/Archive_5#Is_this_true?. For details on the criticisms of the Dunning–Kruger effect, see the section Dunning–Kruger_effect#Criticism_and_alternatives in our article. And your source, https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/, is not reliable. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Other sources may indeed be preferred, such as Nuhfer et al (2006). The outcome of previous discussions notwithstanding, the fact remains that the opening paragraphs of the introduction still fail to offer caveats regarding flaws in empirical methods used to support the claims, and instead tend to give credence to it based on its broad application and intuitive appeal. If anything, the only effect Dunning claims to have identified is the tendency for everyone to overestimate their ability, not just people with low ability, and certainly not for those with high ability to underestimate theirs. The first paragraph is misleading in multiple respects and should be revised to address these shortcomings.

The first mention of criticism is in paragraph 4 and characterizes it as "debate" and dismisses it as "not denying the empirical findings", when that is precisely what the statistical criticism does unequivocally. If we compare how criticism of this topic is addressed to the pseudoscience of physiognomy, we can clearly see in the opening of the second paragraph that it is "regarded among academic circles because of its unsupported claims; popular belief in the practice of physiognomy is nonetheless still widespread". The same can be said of the DK effect insofar as the shapes of peoples heads differ and people self-evaluate inaccurately, but the differences in head shapes and self-evaluation errors do not provide the necessary support for their respective theories regarding ability, expertise, or experience. On the contrary, the empirical data when analyzed correctly falsifies them both equally, which in the final analysis is only method we have at our disposal. --Chassin (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

the empirical data when analyzed correctly falsifies them both equally Which reliable source says so? Paradoctor (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

See https://fortune.com/2023/05/08/what-is-dunning-kruger-effect-smart-intelligence-competence-john-cleese/ 77.204.39.138 (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I looked into this, the archived discussion doesn't seem to be particularly convincing on why not to mention dissent here. The scientific articles quoted by Fix seem rather convincing (if not damning) on the maths. But I get that they haven't been cited as often as the Dunning Kruger article they're pointing at. I'm pretty sure I can't get away with AFDing the article or something crazy like that. But... I do think that NPOV allows me to put the counterveiling point of view that Dunning-Kruger's paper is bad because (given sources claim) they messed up their maths. --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC) (Even if they didn't mess up their maths, they definitely did maths in a way that has been confusing to skilled scientists. They may have ended up confusing themselves, this seems plausible based on the cited sources. Either way, not Wikipedia's battle: But for sure we can write that not everyone thinks the effect is real!)

So I might be a little rusty. What's the exact policy reasons for removal of each of the sources? The published papers demonstrate that you can get the Dunning-Kruger graph from random noise (oops). The web source confirm-ably summarizes the papers, thus can usefully be seen as a secondary source. Usually when people actually dig in and read sources, they do also take 1 minute extra time to post their findings on the talk page (or link to where it was previously discussed) But I'll go read them again just to be sure, did I miss anything? --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Annnd... just came back from reading papers, especially Nuefer 2017 concludes with: "Because of insufficient attention to Numeracy, Current prevalent explanations of the nature of human self-assessment seem to rest on a tenuous foundation.".

Due to the replication crisis in (among others) psychology, we're likely to see many papers like these going forward. Maybe I'm late to this party: is there standing Wikipedia policy when it comes to bad replications or methodological flaws? Else I'd just apply NPOV, and at least report that there have been reported issues with a particular study. (whether the report is correct or not is a different story, but it got published, so we can say it has and by whom.) --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello Kim Bruning and thanks for your attempts to improve this article. I agree that it can be challenging to get arrive at a balanced overview of the academic literature on the Dunning-Kruger effect.

The lead section is supposed to summarize the body of the article. If you want to add new content to the article, it's usually best to add them first to the body of the article. If they are accepted, a later step might be to consider whether the new content is important enough to get a short mention in the lead section, see WP:LEAD

If you want to add some content to the body of the article, you should make sure that it is based on reliable sources, see WP:RS. For example "economicsfromthetopdown.com" is not a reliable source for the Dunning-Kruger effect. The body of the article already discusses the statistical explanation. So it might be best to read through it first and familiarize yourself with the sources cited there before adding new text to it. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah, our posts crossed, yup I was doing that.

On third rereading of article alongside sources , we actually have a section Statistical. The actual papers say it's a statistical artifact alright. In regular English they're saying "there's actually no effect".

I sort of get why Gignac 2020 gets cited throughout: because it has a very thorough review. The thing is, Gignac et al do this thorough review so that they can then set up a very thorough attack. They follow it by their own empirical study with a very large sample size. In this empirical study -with corrected methods- they fail to replicate Dunning-Krueger. The conclusion (very carefully and politely worded, as is proper) states that they expect that pretty much every Dunning-Krueger study will fall if subjected to more detailed scrutiny with the improved statistical methods we have available today.

A lot of people read citations as being supportive of a claim or view. Rather -here- citation of Gignac is often merely supportive of the fact that a particular view has been published. If that was all, I think at least something in the intro that says that more recent sources have replication issues would be fine.

But we actually do have a section that says "it's a statistical artifact". Somehow I feel this section is not quite clear in pointing out that those papers are saying "Dunning-Krueger effect is not a thing". Possibly because the underlying papers use somewhat couched wording?

I fully understand that patrollers can't always go and read sources in-depth. I'd appreciate any tips (or links to tips) on how to make their life easier here. --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC) It'd be funny if wikipedia had an 'externally disputed' banner, for effects that -at times- have failed to replicate. While a fun idea, it's sadly probably above wikipedia's pay grade.

I removed the added passage for now. If you have suggestions on how to improve the section on the statistical effect then they are welcome. But it might be helpful to give the reliable sources cited there a close reading before. For example, Gignac 2020 do not deny the existence of the Dunning-Kruger effect in general. They primarily state that its magnitude is smaller than initially thought because part of it can be explained through statistics. You also have to be careful whether the studies in question assess the Dunning-Kruger effect measured in relative terms or in absolute terms, as explained in the section "Measurement, analysis, and investigated tasks". Many only target the Dunning-Kruger effect measured in relative terms. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

To avoid further edit warring, I suggest that you create a draft first and propose it at the talk page rather adding and re-adding your content directly to the article, see WP:EDITWAR. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Right, so procedurally speaking, so far I've adhered to WP:1RR, which falls rather short of WP:EDITWAR, I should think. I do agree that there are only very few exceptions to the rule that one should not revert a revert, but in this case "other party did not engage on talk page" is actually one of them. The reason is that since they don't reply on talk, there's simply no (D)iscussion on talk, and thus we can technically go back to (B)OLD and try again. It's not pretty but (sometimes) it works; and isn't that just WP:BRD in a nutshell to begin with. :-/ --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

No problem so far, but for one reason or another, this article attracts edit wars. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Three refereed papers on this topic have convenient Wikidata entries:

• <ref name="Nuhfer2016">{{cite Q|Q56566524|url-status=live}}</ref> or repeat ref <ref name="Nuhfer2016" />
• <ref name="Nuhfer2017">{{cite Q|Q56566525|url-status=live}}</ref>
• <ref name="Gignac2020">{{cite Q|Q108932700|url-status=live}}</ref>

Boud (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC) (PS: I see that the sfn structure for citation is used... Boud (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC))

I started a small section in the content, currently called Validity dispute, but there's probably a better section title to consense on. I think it's clear that the existence of the effect is disputed. Gignac & Zajenkowski 2020 don't just say that the effect "is" small, what they say in their abstract is On the basis of a sample ... contrary to the Dunning-Kruger hypothesis. Additionally, the association ... contrary to the Dunning-Kruger hypothesis. It is concluded that, although the phenomenon described by the Dunning-Kruger hypothesis may be to some degree plausible for some skills, the magnitude of the effect may be much smaller than reported previously. In other words, they found evidence contrary to the Dunning-Kruger hypothesis while accepting that a small effect for some skills might exist (since they didn't do tests for all well-known skills).

Something should go up to the lead, but in proportion to the length of this section in the body, so currently it would have to be a very brief sentence. Waiting to see how this section develops would make sense: there is no deadline. Boud (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello Boud and thanks for taking the time to write this section. I slightly modified the text and merged it into the subsection "Statistical", which already discusses this interpretation. It would be great if you could add the precise page numbers since the claim seems to be quite strong. Phlsph7 (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure where this is going. How do you go from "there is a statistical explanation for DK effect" to "there is no DK effect"? I get the debate over whether DKE is a cognitive bias or just a statistical artifact, but gee, an effect is an effect no matter how it is explained. Constant314 (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Scientists often word things very carefully. When scientists describe something as a "statistical artifact," they are often implying a significant doubt about the validity of the observed phenomenon as a true effect.

In the case of the papers we looked at today, one of the papers demonstrates that you can outright feed random data into a Dunning-Kruger-style statistical analysis and still get a very convincing looking outcome if you're not very very careful.

Their subsequent paper argues that people were indeed not careful enough.

Note that does find other self-assessment effects, just not the Dunning-Kruger effect.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Please quote (with pg #s) the relevant passages from the papers you cite. EEng 08:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Constant314: I don't think anyone disputes the effect shown in the diagram: if you ask people about how skilled they think they are and compare it with how skilled they actually are, you get the diagrams shown in the article. In this sense, there is an undisputed effect there. The disagreements are only about how to explain these diagrams.

Trying to find claims in scientific articles that the researchers do not explicitly make can very easily lead to original research. If a paper does not directly support a claim then we should be very careful about making this claim in our articles. I found a page number for the bottom and ceiling effect. But this seems to be included in the regression toward the mean that is already explained earlier so I'm not sure that we need it. And the more widesweeping claim still needs page numbers.

Even if we could find direct support for these radical claims in sources, we still have to be careful about undue weight. For example, from Mazor & Fleming 2021: In one of the most highly replicable findings in social psychology, Kruger and Dunning1 showed that participants who performed worse in tests of humour, reasoning, and grammar were also more likely to overestimate their performance. This is a high-quality source (Nature Human Behaviour) that is more recent. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Phlsph7: If you're happy with my edits to the paragraph, then please remove the page needed tag. I agree that "most of" was unjustified - without a full review of the post KD1999 literature, that claim cannot be made. Nuhfer do make a claim something along the lines of "most", but without trying to prove it, and their aim is not do a literature survey.

I'm not sure if people here have already mentioned the March 2022 reply by Dunning, but as a comment in a professional journal by a known expert (the D of DK), it should be usable, especially for some of its sources. Boud (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Discussion after GAN review

@TompaDompa: I'm sorry about the outcome but thanks for your detailed feedback. I've tried to implement many of your suggestions but there is still some work to be done. I've responded to some of your points below. Your feedback here may be helpful to further improve the article.

• Concerning the images: these graphs are not copied from the sources. Instead, their data is reproduced in new graphs. I don't think that the data itself is copyrighted so this shouldn't be a problem.
• Concerning the graph with mount stupid and other popular misconceptions: I would be happy to include a discussion of them if you know of a reliable source on that issue. But there is not much we can do without a reliable source. There are various talk page discussions with the same conclusion, for example, Talk:Dunning–Kruger_effect#Adding_a_note_about_the_common_misrepresentation_in_media.
• Concerning the terms "account" and "approach": The term "account" is used in the reliable sources itself, for example, as the "dual-burdon account". To me, the term "approach" sounds fine but I'm not sure whether it is commonly used in the reliable sources so I changed it.
• Concerning NPOV: This seems to apply mainly to the section "Explanation". In order to rewrite it, it would be helpful to get a better understanding of what exactly you mean here. I'm sure there are a few expressions that might be improved but I see no serious overall bias.
• Concerning the section title "Popular recognition": I didn't get your point here. What title would you suggest?

If some of the changes I made so far are not what you had in mind then please let me know. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not a copyright expert, but that seems dubious to me. The images are virtually identical to the ones in the sources, and I'll note that Dunning (2011) felt the need to say "Adapted with permission." Let's ask someone who is more knowledgable when it comes to copyright matters than I am. Ping Diannaa: if I remember correctly (and going by your userpage, it would appear so), this is one of your areas of expertise.
The sourcing requirements for saying that people incorrectly believe that the Dunning–Kruger effect means XYZ are fairly low, much lower than the requirements for saying things about the actual Dunning–Kruger effect. This is not a particularly high-quality source, but it is probably reliable enough about what laypeople mistakenly think the Dunning–Kruger effect is.
On wording, I'll just say that Wikipedia is tailored to a much broader audience than our sources, and we should avoid being too technical or "jargon-y" in our phrasings when it is not necessary to use such language for precision (sometimes the distinction between velocity and speed matters, for instance).
The NPOV issues in the "Explanations" section are somewhat better now, but there is still stuff like But even proponents of this explanation agree that this does not explain the empirical findings in full. which is pretty clearly taking a side. Restructuring the section to discuss the different explanations separately in the manner I suggested above would probably go a long way towards achieving neutrality.
As for "Popular recognition", it could perhaps be renamed simply "Recognition" or the Ig Nobel Prize mentioned elsewhere in the article (there is no "History" section at present, but if there were it could be mentioned there). The point is that we don't want people to add "In episode X of television series Y, character Z refers to the Dunning–Kruger effect when [...]". TompaDompa (talk) 10:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

The images look okay to keep in my opinion. Simple numerical data can't be copyrighted, and the graphs were created by Wikipedians. We do have a specific noticeboard for media questions, at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, so if you would like to get another opinion, that would be a good place to go. — Diannaa (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thanks for clarifying the issue. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Good to know, thank you very much. I have been looking for somewhere to bring up issues like this more generally, I just never found that one. Is there an equivalent for text—possible WP:Close paraphrasing and whatnot? WP:Copyright problems doesn't really seem like the right place for questions/discussion. TompaDompa (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

You could try Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems but occasionally I've seen questions go unanswered there for a long time. General rules are as follows: Under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all text you find online or in print sources is copyright. Exceptions include works of the US Government and material specifically released under license. Even then, proper attribution is required. — Diannaa (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

One more piece of general feedback that I forgot to clarify explicitly in my review: take care not to go beyond what the sources say or engage in any WP:ANALYSIS thereof. It's easy to do accidentally when one is familiar with/knowledgable about the topic, but it constitutes WP:Original research. TompaDompa (talk) 11:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I've added a short discussion of the popular misconception. Thanks for looking up this source. It's not the best one but I hope it is sufficient for the job. You suggested getting a handful of review articles. Do you know of any that provide a detailed discussion of the different explanations? I'll keep the term "dual-burden" account since this is the specific term. But I'll see what I can do about the other mentions of "account". Did any other unnecessarily difficult terms catch your eye? I moved the sentence on the ig nobel price to the section "Practical significance" and renamed it to "Significance". This is not the perfect solution but I don't think the sentence fits well in any of the other sections. I'll keep your advice on WP:OR in mind. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 23:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

I'll start by digesting the earlier review, at Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect/GA1. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello BennyOnTheLoose and thanks for reviewing this article. The last review did not go very well. I hope the main problems were addressed in the subsequent changes and the following peer review. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll obviously look through the PR as well. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe that the concerns raised in the last GA review and discussed in the PR have been addressed where possible, but I'll bear the original criticisms in mind as I go through. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Copyvio check

• I reviewed the top matches found using Earwig's Copyvio Detector.

• Large match with almbok.com has all the hallmarks of a backwards-copy.
• McIntosh et al: "stupid people are too stupid to know they are stupid" is cited, but as it is a direct quote, I think it should be attributed in the text. Other matches here are titles, and short phrases acceptable per WP:LIMITED.

  Done.

• forums.playcontestofchampions.com - very much looks like a copy and paste from Wikipedia.
• Krajc & Ortmann - just the title

• Ackerman, Beier & Bowen - just the title
• Britannica - titles, and short phrases acceptable per WP:LIMITED.
• LinkedIn - either a backwards-copy, or a coincidence.

Images

• The images are useful - is there a reason why the explanations are not cited to the articles that the data come from?

• Only for the first one since the idea of highlighting the area in red came from the talk page. I adjusted the references for the other images accordingly. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Definition

• Spot check on In the case of the Dunning–Kruger effect, this applies mainly to people with low skill in a specific area trying to evaluate their competence within this area. The systematic error concerns their tendency to greatly overestimate their competence, i.e. to see themselves as more skilled than they are. - OK
• According to psychologist Robert D. McIntosh et al., - feels slightly awkward in the text, but perhaps less awkward than listing all the authors.

  Maybe just using "McIntosh et al." instead of "psychologist Robert D. McIntosh et al." would be better. But I think there is a guideline that names should be spelled out for the first mention. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Optionally, maybe replace "et al" with the equivalent of something like "and fellow researchers"? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  I used the expression "and his colleagues". Phlsph7 (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Measurement, analysis, and investigated tasks

• Spot check on The Dunning–Kruger effect is present in both cases, but tends to be significantly more pronounced when done in relative terms. This means that people are usually more accurate when predicting their raw score than when assessing how well they did relative to their peer group. - no issues.
• Spot check on The strongest effect is seen for the participants in the bottom quartile, who tend to see themselves as being part of the top two quartiles when measured in relative terms - no issues
• Spot check on objective performances are often divided into four groups. They start from the bottom quartile of low performers and proceed to the top quartile of high performers - no issues
• Spot check on In some cases, these studies gather and compare data from many countries Is this supported by the text? It has the example of a survey across 34 countries of the math skills of 15-year-olds but I didn;t immediately see another one that was across many countries.

  You are right, it just mentions one. I added another source. I could do some digging if more are needed. Some sources focus explicitly on cross-cultural comparisons.

• What's the support for Most of the studies are conducted in laboratories, from the cited sources?

  From Dunning 2011, p. 264: We have observed this pattern of dramatic overestimation by bottom performers across a wide range of tasks in the lab—from tests of logical reasoning and grammar skills (Kruger & Dunning, 1999) to more social abilities like emotional intelligence (Sheldon, Ames, & Dunning, 2010) and discerning which jokes are funny (Kruger & Dunning, 1999). We and others have also observed similar overestimation in real world settings as people tackle everyday tasks, such as hunters taking a quiz on firearm use and safety, based on one created by the National Rifle Association, at a Trap and Skeet competition (Ehrlinger, Johnson, Banner, Dunning, & Kruger, 2008), and laboratory technicians taking an exam about medical lab procedures and knowledge (Haun, Zerinque, Leach, & Foley, 2000). In all cases, top to bottom performers provide self-evaluations along percentile scales that largely replicate (Fig. 5.2).. The term "most" is implied but not explicitly spelled out. I reformulated it to be on the safe side. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• If done afterward, the participants receive no independent clues during the performance as to how well they did - I haven't read this source; is this stated as absolutely in the source? I'd imagine, for example, that if it was face to face, there could be some unconscious clues.

  from Mazor & Fleming 2021, pp. 677–678: ...no feedback is delivered during the quiz itself..... You are probably right that an interviewer may inadvertently give away clues. But if that had a significant impact then it would spoil the measurement. If the formulation is a problem, we could change it to "should receive no independent clues". Phlsph7 (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  It's faithful to the source as is, so fine. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Explanations

• Spot check on The metacognitive lack may hinder some people from becoming better by hiding their flaws from them. - no issues.
• You may recall that I'm not a fan of groups of citations after several sentences, e.g. [2][7][28], but this isn't a blocker to GA status.

Practical significance

• Ehrlinger et al. 2008, pp. 98–121. - is it possible to be more specific about the relevant part of the source?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Spot check on In 2000, Kruger and Dunning were awarded the satirical Ig Nobel Prize - no issues.

Lead

• Looks good.

Sources

• Frontiers in Psychology was on Beall's List but seems to be OK.
• Dunning, David (1 January 2011) - archive link is not useful (it's just a search page, which doesn't produce results)

  I removed the archive link.

• Lots of reliance in Dunning (2011) but I don't find this problematic given what it's supporting in the article.

General comments

• I think the "listen to this article link" should be removed; it has quite an old version of the article, and I believe that most people who want a spoken version of the article would have the means to have it read.

  Done.

• I really don't have much to comment on here. The criticisms from the first GA review have been addressed constructively with the help of a peer reviewer. From what I've seen in sources, the article covers the main points and has a suitably balanced structure. I found it generally easy to read; as I've argued before, assuming no prior knowledge of basics and trying to explain everything in detail would make the article lose focus. There are wikilinks to help the reader. Perhaps I've over-estimated my competence as a reviewer! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for all the helpful comments. I hope I've addressed all the main concerns. I've suggested a few alternative formulations in case the current ones don't fully solve the issues. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'm satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria, so I'm passing it. Thanks for taking the earlier review and peer review comments on board as well as responding to my points here. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that "the first rule of the Dunning–Kruger club is you don't know you're in the Dunning-Kruger club"? Source:
  • ALT1: ... that the metacognitive explanation of the Dunning–Kruger effect states that low performers overestimate their skills because they are unable to recognize their incompetence? Source:
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/1948 Cotton Bowl Classic
  • Comment: ALT0 would a candidate for the quirky hook. If it does not work, ALT1 is the regular alternative.

References

Sources

• Duignan, Brian (2023). "Dunning–Kruger effect". www.britannica.com. Archived from the original on 30 November 2021. Retrieved 7 December 2021.
• Dunning, David (1 January 2011). "Chapter Five – The Dunning–Kruger Effect: On Being Ignorant of One's Own Ignorance". Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 44. Academic Press. pp. 247–296. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-385522-0.00005-6. ISBN 9780123855220. Retrieved 20 December 2021.
• Howard, Jonathan (28 November 2018). Cognitive Errors and Diagnostic Mistakes: A Case-Based Guide to Critical Thinking in Medicine. Springer. p. 354. ISBN 978-3-319-93224-8.

Improved to Good Article status by Phlsph7 (talk). Self-nominated at 14:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Dunning–Kruger effect; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - Yes, only significant matches are from Wikipedia mirrors and quotes.

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Epicgenius (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: There is currently a discussion on the talkpage about whether the line from ALT0 should be included in the article. If it is removed then we would not able to use ALT0 and we would need to default to ALT1. I suggest that we put the nomination on hold until this issue is resolved. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

It was a clever hook (ALT0) but it is not apparent in the article so I will promote ALT1. But ALT1 checks out and is interesting and verifiable. I see Earwig alerts to a direct copy of our article. Lightburst (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

To quip or not to quip

@Constant314 and Fabrickator: Thanks for the feedback on the quip. The question is whether the following sentence should be included in the section "Definition": Dunning expressed this lack of awareness in his quip, "the first rule of the Dunning-Kruger club is you don't know you're in the Dunning-Kruger club".. I don't think it is required to understand the text. But I see it as a nice and interesting addition. Many sources quote this quip.

As a side note: I picked this line as a hook for the current DYK nomation. I put the nomination on hold since hooks can only be used if their claims are actually found in the article. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to put your nomination on hold. The article is shaping up well. My reaction to the quip is WTF does that mean? What does being in the DK club mean? Does it mean that you are a condescending prick that is sure that they are smarter than everybody else? Does it mean Dunning is admitting that he not a comedy writer? Is Dunning being self-depreciating or is he saying, (wink), (wink), I'm smarter that you? No matter what you think it means, do you have a RS that says what Dunning means? It is not obvious at all how this quip should be interpreted. I consider myself somewhat informed on this subject, I cannot tell what the quip means. What do you think the uniformed reader will conclude? I think that Dunning was just being cute instead of profound. I think that the quip serves no purpose to enlighten the reader about the subject of the article and should thus be dropped. Constant314 (talk) 11:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The apparent meaning is "If you are unskilled and unaware of it, you don't know that you are unskilled and unaware of it." Which is a bit tautological, granted. TompaDompa (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

In the context of particular skills, the source says: ... the Dunning-Kruger effect tells us ... that ignorant people .... are too ignorant to appreciate their own ignorance. As has been said "The first rule of the Dunning-Kruger club is you don't know you're in the Dunning-Kruger club". To me, it sounded straightforward. But we don't need to use it if it is likely to confuse or offend readers. The DYK nomination is not an issue, we can just use another hook. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

It is a nice hook, but it is kind of snarky. To me it is a quip that could mean almost anything, but in context, you could infer the meaning. A GA article should not require an inference by the reader to make sense of the article. Constant314 (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I can't say I agree with your objection. I don't think it's cryptic at all as long as it's presented in context, which it was. It was even glossed. TompaDompa (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

We could add an explanatory footnote, something like: In this context, to be a member of the Dunning-Kruger club means to belong to the group of low performers that overestimate their ability. This way, if the quip is not clear to some readers, they have additional context to rely on. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure it doesn't mean that you are in a group of high performers that underestimate their performance? I mean that in all seriousness. Constant314 (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes. That's a nonsensical reading in the context the cited source presents it. TompaDompa (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for the respectful discussion. I have had my say and I won't revert the material anymore. However, I would close with saying that I don't think the quip is encyclopedic. I don't think that it belongs in this GA (might be fine in an article about Dunning). If, however, it is to be included, then the explanation should also be included (again, why would we have a statement in a GA that requires a side explanation), and the explanation should be attributed to and paraphrased from a WP:RS. Constant314 (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it needs an explanation if it is to be included (though I think simply placing it in the proper context can be explanation enough). This is the kind of thing I might put in a {{quote box}} with explanatory text along the lines of "[person who said it], commenting on [the necessary context]" (see e.g. Neptune in fiction#Later depictions and George Griffith#Place in science fiction history). I noticed however that while the article attributed this to David Dunning, the cited source doesn't. @Phlsph7: could you perhaps clarify this discrepancy? TompaDompa (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the statement from @Constant314: about it being un-encyclopedic. It may be fun but we should not go out of our way to fit it a quip into a GA. Bruxton (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Notes

References

• @EEng: The "we cannot include any humor in Wikipedia even if relevant and properly attributed" killjoys are at it again here. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  Don't worry, my spy network has alerted me and I'm already on the case. Stand by. EEng 01:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  This is a bit depressing. It is not a particularly complex quip, it's pretty funny, but thinking it necessary to explain and diagram it destroys it entirely. Unless, of course, this entire discussion is some kind of four-dimensional chess game and I am too dull-witted to grasp the refinement of the running joke.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  I found Dunning himself saying it, right after he give the equivalent idea more prosaically. Perfect for a boxed quote [2], and a great example of how a bit of drollery helps the reader grasp and retain a key idea.

  No note or explanation re Fight Club is needed, because the meaning is reasonably apparent to those unaware of the F.C. reference, even if it strikes them as a somewhat odd formulation. Those aware of F.C. will, of course, get a smile for free in the bargain. EEng 06:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  @EEng: Thanks for looking up the interview. The quotebox is an elegant solution. The sentences before the quip are sufficient to setup the context so no additional explanation should be needed. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. It now makes sense without requiring guessing by the reader. My primary complaint has been addressed satisfactorily. Glad you could keep the hook. Constant314 (talk) 07:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  You'll get my bill. EEng 07:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  You can deduct it from next year's dues. Constant314 (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)