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

[Mayerling]

Interesting comments, all. As an academic librarian, I believe in the importance of education. One of my recent tasks is updating the books in our community college library, trying to make sure the science areas are more current than 1999.

I do not disdain religion, nor spirituality, but I don't think the Genesis story can be taken as proof that Darwin was wrong, and vice versa. Why can't science and religion/myth coexist, since both speak to different areas of the human psyche?

Fundamentalism in any religion is dangerous, just as bigotry in any political system is the same. Our hope for the future lies, I think, in educating the young with all viewpoints-- and, of course, the facts.

The writer Edmund Gosse wrote a book about his father and himself, and how the father (although a clergyman) attempted to make a bridge of sorts between "creationism" from the Book of Genesis, and the Darwinian - Wallace theory of Evolution. Rev. Gosse proposed that God purposely, after creating the world in the seven days, made a trail of fossilized evidence to give mankind a background that the evolution theory would fill in as to how life began. The Reverend was confused when nobody appeared willing to accept his proposal, his fellow clergymen pointing out that it was absurd to think God would purposely lie in this manner to satisfy the very attempts at "eating at the tree of knowledge" by mannkind that he initially insisted upon preventing in the story of the Garden of Eden. It was an interesting try though.

[martin wilson]

Richard Dawkins himself has written that he considers Jesus to be an outstanding moral philosopher.
It may be that if we ever progress as a species, our ideal world won't be too dissimilar to the principles of Christianity.
I've also read that of the numerous self help books available, the New Testament is by far the best one to read.
At which point someone usually brings up centuries of religious intolerance, of death and suffering.
I tend not to. I believe in the days of yore, the church represented the same access to power that is so attractive to the sociopathic,
the dictators, politicians, even CEO's of corporations that we see today.

All the best.

[Sam Flynn]

I've also read that of the numerous self help books available, the New Testament is by far the best one to read.

Depends which bits of it you read. The Gospels and Epistles vary widely in terms of their attitude to women, the Jews and indeed the family. As a self-help book it is often contradictory and, if you pardon the expression, something of a Curate's Egg.

[Ginger]

...something of a Curate's Egg.

There's one I've never heard before.

[Sam Flynn]

There's one I've never heard before.

Originating in a Punch cartoon of the 1890s, the expression a "Curate's Egg" refers to something that's good and bad in parts.



Reverend: I'm afraid you've got a bad egg, Mr Jones!
The Curate: Oh no, my Lord! I assure you that parts of it are excellent!

[Svensson]

Music is great for communication. Yodelling has evolved from communicating with other alpine farmers over large distances (I agree, calling it "music" is a moot point though). Still today, humans are gathering at music festivals as it is a characteristic of who we are as a species. It's a communal event. Whales are singing to communicate emotions. So it should not be seen in isolation but as one of many components of social animals such as humans.

As for the Aspirin comment, it may not be obvious what it purpose currently is but there might be one in the future that helps driving evolution forward again. For example, in India and Sri Lanka, Goats are used to keep the tea plantations weed-free. Goats don't like the taste of Tea leaves and will leave them alone but they will pretty much graze on anything else. Who knows, maybe in another 10-20 goat generations, the "tea-goat" (and this would be onehelluva misnomer) will be recognised as its own biologically separate species..?

Cheers.

[Ginger]

Originating in a Punch cartoon of the 1890s, the expression a "Curate's Egg" refers to something that's good and bad in parts.

Thanks!

[martin wilson]

I remember a Star Trek: Voyager episode where the crew encounter aliens who have never heard singing.
That fine actor Robert Picardo shows off his beautiful singing voice and performs some opera, becoming something of a superstar.
Long story short, one of the aliens tries his hand, and equally wows the crowd, except he simply sings random, dissonant notes.
So there's that mystery, how music evolved to be harmonious and pleasing to the ear, and why listening to someone who cannot sing (like me, I'm reliably informed the last expiration of bodily gases from a corpse is more melodious) is such an uncomfortable experience.

All the best.

[Ginger]

So there's that mystery, how music evolved to be harmonious and pleasing to the ear...

And it's not only music. There's an innate sense of order, an appreciation of relationships, of proportion, of pattern, of magnitude, that underlies the human perception of music, mathematics, and geometry. There's some reason to believe that other species experience this as well. And I'm highly skeptical that Darwinian selection accounts for that.

[martin wilson]

It's interesting for sure. I tend to think aesthetic appreciation is based on known parameters of perception.
For example, I'm sure there was an exhibition of abstract art that drew appreciative murmurs from art critics but turned out to be painted by a chimpanzee. I'm not entirely sure what the point was, either a joke about pretentious art critics, or how our perceptions become altered based on what we expect, and how we search for meaning, even in a few random splashes of paint that were done by a monkey.
Take a look at the McGurk effect on YouTube for a fascinating example of how important our visual sense is.
I've forgotten who it was, an engineer i think, who said if he had a particularly difficult problem he would go to bed and as often as not he would have the answer when he woke up.
Take music again. It's well known that Paul McCartney woke up one morning with the tune to Yesterday in his head.
Apparently he played it to everybody in an attempt to find out if he had simply copied a tune from somewhere.
It has been suggested that it shares a similarity to the song Answer Me, written in 1952, and a hit for Frankie Lane.
Less divine inspiration then, but more the subconscious whirring away like a little computing machine, and crucially, based on what went before.
I'm sure like me, others have given up trying to remember a name of somebody, say an actor who appeared in a film. Then a while later it just pops into your head.

All the best.

[Steadmund Brand]

A very late response, for which I apologize.

The idea that the earth is flat is so readily disprovable, by so many avenues of approach, as to be ludicrous. So far as "Intelligent Design", I hold a more open mind on that. Darwin's observation that evolution can, through random mutations, produce an organism more fit to survive those conditions that produced it, should be understandable and obvious to anyone. We have examples of it happening all around us. The Salt and Pepper Moth is the classic case, but one reads constantly in the news these days about bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics. That's Darwinian selection at work, and on a humanly observable time scale, since bacteria reproduce so fast.

Can Darwinian selection account for all the results of evolution, though? I don't think that it can. Were Darwinian selection all that shaped us, then we should be eminently suited to survive, but that's ALL that we should be. Factors that did not affect one's likelihood of survival might arise, and breed true among a certain percentage of the population, just as, for instance, some people find aspirin intolerably bitter, and some cannot taste it. The mutation seems to have no effect on survival, so as one might expect from Darwin, it's just out there, neither favoured nor disfavoured. Some people have it, and some don't.

There are, however, some strong traits of humans that don't seem to really be tied to any kind of Darwinian evolutionary pressure. Music, for instance. Humans pretty much universally have an appreciation for music, to the extent that people who can't enjoy music are pitied as a type of cripple. That seems to be a constant in every human culture, however much they may differ otherwise. If there are cultures to whom music is incomprehensible, I have not heard of them. Moreover, some studies seem to show an awareness of, and appreciation for, music among other species. I have a very hard time believing that Darwinian natural selection can account for that.

Actually...appreciation of music CAN be argued is a form (or result of) of natural selection...those from early species who couldn't understand the beating of a tree or drum was a warning sign that a tiger was about to come into the village were eaten by the tiger (that is a very VERY basic example... would take a term paper to go into great detail and that isn't what this is about), also sounds (or music if you will) was and is a way for some species to attract.. and those that don't understand it tend to die off...so in short.. sound or music is not only something for pleasure, but was (and to some extent still is) a form or communication...totally in line with natural selection

Steadmund Brand

[Sam Flynn]

Agreed, Steadmund

[Steadmund Brand]

Thanks Sam,

I always get upset that people who argue against evolution don't understand the actual concept of natural selection (no Ginger, I don't mean you... you were not against the idea, just had questions.. that is fine!! I mean those that refuse to let it be taught and say things like " if we came from monkeys why aren't monkeys still having human babies"...... I swear I want to scream each and every time they think they "gotcha" with that moronic question....they don't understand natural selection or even the basics of evolution... or the fact that we came from a common ancestor etc.. yet they keep repeating that garbage like.. if it ask it a million times maybe eventually I'll be right...no matter it gets explained and shot down EVERY TIME THEY SAY IT!!!)

ok sorry.. just had to vent

Steadmund Brand

[barnflatwyngarde]

Thanks Sam,

I always get upset that people who argue against evolution don't understand the actual concept of natural selection (no Ginger, I don't mean you... you were not against the idea, just had questions.. that is fine!! I mean those that refuse to let it be taught and say things like " if we came from monkeys why aren't monkeys still having human babies"...... I swear I want to scream each and every time they think they "gotcha" with that moronic question....they don't understand natural selection or even the basics of evolution... or the fact that we came from a common ancestor etc.. yet they keep repeating that garbage like.. if it ask it a million times maybe eventually I'll be right...no matter it gets explained and shot down EVERY TIME THEY SAY IT!!!)

ok sorry.. just had to vent

Steadmund Brand

You're in the groove Jackson!

[c.d.]

Hi Steadmund,

I agree. What annoys the hell out of me is when people (mostly religious types) who probably have a high school science education at best question Ph.D's from leading universities around the world and are condescending as hell towards them. Especially when every question they have can be answered with a quick google search.

c.d.