> when we learn an overview about our new topic our confidence (in understanding) greatly exceeds our competence, then we learn how much we don't know and our confidence crashes below our actual competence, and then eventually, when we reach mastery, they become balanced.
As a description of what Dunning and Kruger's actual research showed on the relationship between confidence and competence (which, as I've pointed out in another post in this thread, was not based on studying people over time, but on studying people with differing levels of competence at the same time), this is wrong for two out of the three skill levels. What D-K found was that people with low competence overestimate their skill, people with high competence underestimate their skill, and people with middle competence estimate their skill more or less accurately.
As a description of what actually learning a new subject is like, I also don't think you're correct--certainly what you describe does not at all match my experience, either when personally learning new subjects or when watching others do so. My experience regarding actually learning a new subject is that people with low competence (just starting out) generally don't think they have much skill (because they know they're just starting out), while people with middling competence might overestimate their skill (because they think they've learned enough, but they actually haven't).
Out of curiosity, if you google "Dunning Kruger Effect" and then look at the images, and see all those charts of confidence vs competence, do you disagree with them?
And as I responded to your other comment, just because the study took measurements of many people at one point in time didn't mean they weren't studying an over-time phenomenon. No one starts out as an expert.
> if you google "Dunning Kruger Effect" and then look at the images
Then I would be doing a very poor job of actually researching the topic.
If you are aware of any actual research papers that describe actually studying how the same people's competence vs. confidence evolves over time, by all means point me to them.
> just because the study took measurements of many people at one point in time didn't mean they weren't studying an over-time phenomenon.
Um, yes, it does. It's possible that the things the study saw were effects of an over-time phenomenon, but the study did not study that, and its results are not evidence either for or against any such hypothesis.
> Then I would be doing a very poor job of actually researching the topic.
I made the request to try and tease apart where we disagree exactly. Your interpretation and response to my request/offer comes off as unnecessarily disrespectful. (unkind, elitist and tramples curiosity)
It seems increasingly likely that I was mistaken in thinking we could explore this subject together. It seems you are intent on attacking my position and discrediting my points and not interested in building a shared understanding.
> I made the request to try and tease apart where we disagree exactly.
I thought that was obvious: you're making a claim about how individual people's confidence vs. competence evolves over time, that as far as I know is not supported by any research--certainly it's not supported by Dunning and Kruger's research. That's why I asked you if you know of any research that does support it. "Images found in a Google search" does not qualify.
> It seems increasingly likely that I was mistaken in thinking we could explore this subject together.
That's the way I see it too, though evidently not for the same reason you do.
> It seems you are intent on attacking my position and discrediting my points
I'm interested in finding out what basis you have, if any, for the claim you made that I described above. "It's self-evident" is not what I was looking for. Nor is "do a Google search and look at the images".
> and not interested in building a shared understanding.
If you can point me at research I wasn't previously aware of that supports your claims, that would be helpful. If you want to try to get to "a shared understanding" based on claims about what you think is self-evident or by looking at images from a Google search, then no, I don't think we're going to get anywhere.
I don't have a background in psychology or sociology (academically) but they are subjects that interest me.
I was introduced to DK by pop psychology, especially in business management contexts.
The reason I wanted you to comment on the viral graphs was because I was trying to triangulate our disagreement.
Turns out that there is a ton of misinformation about DK. Kind of ironic given the topic of this thread, but especially because it long predates LLMs. If anything it hints why LLMs are confidently incorrect, since the internet is full of it.
The reason why what I was saying is not self evident is because I was making a logic error, specifically ecological fallacy.
Also sort of ironic, I managed to get to the root of this using an LLM.
Part of me suspects psychology is your domain, and you may be an academic or at least have some graduate experience. The way you engaged with me is maybe the way you've been conditioned to act in these situations.
There's good reasons for why you responded the way you did. Part of me wants you to know that I would have really appreciated it if you had said something like "while I dont take issue with the claim that competence increases with time, it doesn't mean the DK relationship is time based, as there could other conflating factors." Also "I looked at those graphs and they don't match what the DK paper claims, that looks like pop psychogy and I can't confirm it has a scientific basis".
Or course you have no obligation or responsibility to help me improve my understanding, but the fact you responded to a bunch of my comments shows you care. So if you care about changing minds, especially the mind of someone who is curious and ignorant, than engaging this way would have made my interaction with you more pleasant.
And it's in the spirit of the community guidelines.
> Part of me suspects psychology is your domain, and you may be an academic
Neither of these are true.
> or at least have some graduate experience.
I do, but not in psychology. My degrees are in engineering.
> I would have really appreciated it if you had said something like "while I dont take issue with the claim that competence increases with time
But I do take issue with that claim, at least if it's made in the broad way you are making it here. I responded to that in another subthread with you.
> "I looked at those graphs and they don't match what the DK paper claims
The DK paper was already linked to by someone (I don't think it was you) elsewhere in this thread, and in any case it's easy to find online. I was taking for granted that you would be able to look for yourself to see what is in the paper, graphs or otherwise.
As a description of what Dunning and Kruger's actual research showed on the relationship between confidence and competence (which, as I've pointed out in another post in this thread, was not based on studying people over time, but on studying people with differing levels of competence at the same time), this is wrong for two out of the three skill levels. What D-K found was that people with low competence overestimate their skill, people with high competence underestimate their skill, and people with middle competence estimate their skill more or less accurately.
As a description of what actually learning a new subject is like, I also don't think you're correct--certainly what you describe does not at all match my experience, either when personally learning new subjects or when watching others do so. My experience regarding actually learning a new subject is that people with low competence (just starting out) generally don't think they have much skill (because they know they're just starting out), while people with middling competence might overestimate their skill (because they think they've learned enough, but they actually haven't).