The Dunning-Kruger Effect: Why Stupid People Think They Are Smart

[c.d.]

http://www.psychologon.cz/component/content/article/403-dunning-kruger-effect-why-once-a-fool-always-a-fool

I see this phenomenon more and more lately. Specifically in the comments on YouTube videos. Today I was looking at a video on the Big Bang by Neil DeGrasse Tyson. For my money, Neil is one of the smartest people on the planet and has academic credentials out the wazoo. But among the comments were things like "what an idiot. He has no idea what he is talking about" or "there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support the Big Bang Theory." And "how could anybody be dumb enough to believe nonsense like this?"

The irony is that the comments come from people who probably have a high school education at best and virtually no background whatsoever in science. Still they know best. Truly amazing and becoming more and more common.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Quite often these people have ‘beliefs’ which scientific facts contradict. So the facts can’t be true.....to them.

It’s wish thinking, as you say, coming from complete laymen

[c.d.]

Quite often these people have ‘beliefs’ which scientific facts contradict. So the facts can’t be true.....to them.

It’s wish thinking, as you say, coming from complete laymen

This is true, Herlock. Typical comments like those do often come from people with a religious mindset. Or people who because they lack the capacity to understand something complex like evolution simply dismiss it.

c.d.

[Ginger]

Without taking away from your main point, I think deGrasse-Tyson would have been much happier as a priest than a scientist. He seems to view science more as a body of authoritative answers to be dispensed by the gatekeepers rather than as a method of testing hypotheses that's useable by all. Science in general seems to suffer from that attitude anymore, and I see no signs that it's improving.

[Robert]

Hi Michael

There are no scientific facts. There are only facts.

[caz]

http://www.psychologon.cz/component/...-always-a-fool

I see this phenomenon more and more lately. Specifically in the comments on YouTube videos. Today I was looking at a video on the Big Bang by Neil DeGrasse Tyson. For my money, Neil is one of the smartest people on the planet and has academic credentials out the wazoo. But among the comments were things like "what an idiot. He has no idea what he is talking about" or "there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support the Big Bang Theory." And "how could anybody be dumb enough to believe nonsense like this?"

The irony is that the comments come from people who probably have a high school education at best and virtually no background whatsoever in science. Still they know best. Truly amazing and becoming more and more common.

c.d.

Totally agree, c.d.

I think it's because every a...hole on the planet has a voice in these internet days, and most of them seem determined to use it and prove just how much of an a...hole they can be. The standard of English used is often deplorable and almost incoherent, due to their rush to be heard without spending a few seconds to check what they have actually typed.

In the past, they'd be restricted to airing their uninformed views in their drawing rooms or down the local, boring their friends and family members shitless, or writing to the local council, paper, MP etc using green ink and underlining stuff for emphasis and feeling resentful when not getting any response apart from the generic "Thank you for unloading on us, we appreciate the feedback [and will now consign your letter to the shredder]".

Love,

Caz
X

[martin wilson]

I prefer professor Jim Al Khallili. I actually understood, or thought I understood, something about quantum mechanics after one of his demonstrations.
Going on wiki to learn more is a discouraging process. Terms I don't understand and equations that look like a knitting tangle. I understood that I didn't really. No doubt those who do have a high I.Q, but it also represents a lifetime of study and hard work.
Not all opinions are equal, although all must be heard, and weighed accordingly.
My grind is with those who have no better use for life than to gratify their basic appetites, and think it represents common sense or realistic thinking. Perhaps it's a tendency that all of us are guilty of, that everybody else thinks as we do.
The wearying process of trying to be the sole rational voice on forums that have fallen to the majority of the ignorant is easily solved- leave the forum. It still feels like you should still be posting, trying to change hearts and minds.
Ignorance was once a cause of shame. Now it's celebrated, often as a badge of hyper masculinity I'm ashamed to say.

[Robert]

We live in an age of specialisation, and many people would rather be an 'expert' (in their own opinion) on one topic than have a broader but shallower interest in a range of subjects.

Yes, there's a lot of crap on the internet but such is life. What bothers me is the following :

From time to time, you hear a debate in a pub at a table next to you, and you immediately understand what the real case is with the democracy.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean, but in a democracy most people realise that they are not experts on anything much, but they decide which decisions should be reserved for experts and which decisions they should take for themselves. Or they decide which bunch of politicians they trust to pick the right experts to make the decisions. The point is, once you let the 'experts' decide what you are or are not allowed to decide, and even let the 'experts' decide who counts as an expert, then you are truly, madly, deeply f*cked.

PS Martin, it's the same for me with quantum mechanics. Up to a point it's possible to understand it, but the sad fact is that there's no bypassing the mathematics.

[Steadmund Brand]

Well Robert and Martin.. remember

"Anyone who says that they understand Quantum Mechanics does not understand Quantum Mechanics"-Richard Feynman.

Steadmund Brand

[Steadmund Brand]

Without taking away from your main point, I think deGrasse-Tyson would have been much happier as a priest than a scientist. He seems to view science more as a body of authoritative answers to be dispensed by the gatekeepers rather than as a method of testing hypotheses that's useable by all. Science in general seems to suffer from that attitude anymore, and I see no signs that it's improving.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you on this point.... when De-Grasse-Tyson and MOST other scientist talk in an authoritative way it is because they are discussing issues that have been tested and gone thru peer review and are scientific facts....I know that upsets people who don't like the answers, but that is how it is...people will argue "well that's only a theory" when they don't know what a scientific theory is... it's not a guess....it's a tested and, for all intensive purposes, fact...

However it is a misused word by "non-scientists" for instance....the "theory of intelligent design" and " the flat earth theory" are NOT theories at all... and people who don't know better hear theory and think that "intelligent design, or Flat Earth, or 6000 year old earth theories" are the same meaning of "theory" as " theory of gravity, or relativity, or the Big Bang theory, or the Theory of Evolution" and it's not..... and it's about time scientist started talking bigger and tougher and louder... they have to silence those who will spread BS claiming to be truth... and having it taught as "science" for they are a danger to society.

Steadmund Brand

[Harry D]

Without taking away from your main point, I think deGrasse-Tyson would have been much happier as a priest than a scientist. He seems to view science more as a body of authoritative answers to be dispensed by the gatekeepers rather than as a method of testing hypotheses that's useable by all. Science in general seems to suffer from that attitude anymore, and I see no signs that it's improving.

Heidegger said it best, “Science is the new religion”.

[c.d.]

Yes, people who don't know what a theory means in science drive me crazy. Then you have the ones who say well scientists just pull stuff out of their ass. When it is pointed out to them that you have peer reviewed scientific papers they counter that the papers are only reviewed by other scientists in that particular field who are of course biased just like the original author. So I guess Neil Degrasse Tyson should have his next scientific paper looked over by some guy flipping burgers at McDonald's. Sheesh. Oh and let's not forget the religious types who go nuts when science doesn't have an answer. Therefore the answer has to be God. And last but not least the science detractors who point out that science changes its conclusions about things. See, they say. Science just doesn't know. Truly amazing.

c.d.

P.S. Oh and let's not forget Lawrence Krauss and a universe from nothing. He really should have known better than to give his book that title. And now you get countless idiots who say how can anybody believe something so stupid as the universe being created by nothing. Of course they simply don't understand his use of the term "nothing."

[c.d.]

Oh and a special shout out to the Darwin was a racist crowd which means evolution is not true and should not be taught in schools.

And of course Darwin recanted on his death bed. So even if something is true and you recant your beliefs on your death bed -- Bingo. Out the door they go as they are no longer true.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello Caz,

I have always been amazed myself at the spelling and grammar errors that you see on the internet. You would think if you are going to have your name attached to something that thousands of people are going to see that you would take a few moments to proofread.

By the way, Caz do you remember that thread I started a few years ago gently rebuking bad grammar and spelling that was becoming rampant on Casebook? Man, did that turn into an absolute **** storm. People got seriously riled up.

P.S. I hope I didn't misspell anything in this post.

c.d.

[Robert]

I see no reason why the universe couldn't have arisen 'from nothing.' And nor should religious people - for if they believe that god created the universe, then he created it 'from nothing.'