"The less they know, the less they know it"

haha.,thanks man.i remember proving both you and sandy wrong in an argument about homos,my finest moment..getting you both to shut up

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

1)most likely yes but not without thinking about it
2)i always assume people can tell the difference between a fact and an opinion.

but maybe im just making excuses.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Are you really that sure of that?

You don't seem to know much about people? How old are you?

And maybe you're the smartest, most wonderful, most beautiful, strongest, most sensitive, most compassionate, funniest, ......, person on Earth.

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

very sure,you both got huffy and wouldnt respond to a direct question.


maybe i should rephrase that,i assume that if people cant tell the difference between an opinion and a fact they arent worth talking to.i refuse to continually say "i think,in my opinion,.....".,im getting old,25.waaaaaaaah.


i wouldnt claim to be any of those things.but i am hot,damn im beautiful.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Is that a postive statement? Are you absolutely sure that's the reason that we didn't respond? Or could it have been a power outage at my house? Or my computer exploded? Or I just didn't want to respond?

See? More of that arrogant positiveness, huh? And yet, with just a couple of sentences, I think I've shown you that you could be very, very wrong. And you were so sure, weren't you?

So now you're actually judging the value of people by their ability to interpret what you type on the screen? Wow!

Baron Max

 

you responded to other posts in the same thread which rules out all but the last reason,and the most likely answer i can think of for you not wanting to reply was because you couldnt think of a response that wouldnt prove your previous arguments redundant.
this is based on your long long history of not letting things go if there is the smallest chance of you getting a point in.


yes i judge people by their ability to interpret information.is there something wrong with that?

 

Iceaura; Why do you believe the following?

I doubt that you know anything about Ayn Rand other than sound bites by those who were against her views.

You apparently know nothing about the how her concepts were viewed by an overwhelming majority of people.

There was a relatively small group who agreed with her views. The majority of the academic establishment disagreed with her & used degrogatory terms in discussing her.

I do not remember any politician or anyone responsible for our foreign policy who agreed with her views. Can you provide a source suggesting otherwise?

I do not know of any successful politician who advocated her economic views. There were few (if any) major economists who agreed with her views. Can you provide a source suggesting otherwise?


Ayn Rand considered the USSR to contain the seeds of its own destruction & destined to collapse due to industrial incompetence & a brain drain due to totalitarian methods.

If the US had followed her foreign policy recommendations, they would not have done anything other than maintain the ability to fight a nuclear war. She was against any direct efforts at containing the USSR.

Ayn Rand was against a strong government at any level. If politicians had followed her economic advice, they would have attempted to dismantle government bureacracy at all levels & cut taxes drastically. She advocated abolition of the income tax.

 

My point was to be critical of his 'giveaway'. His giveaway was that if something is expressed with certainty and without doubt than it is an example of the DK effect. This would mean that his own post and also yours were examples of that. I was pointing out his giveaway is a poor heuristic. The reasons why you and he ended up writing posts with certainty and without doubt do not matter. His giveaway says nothing about why people express themselves this way. I am also critical, therefore, of the ways in which the DK effect can be misused.

They tested people on logic, humor and grammar I believe. We should also remember what subject areas they worked with.

 

Ah, point taken.

 

Any exchange of knowledge or ideas is also a social sphere of influence where people try to use various kinds tools to influence others.

Speaking with complete confidence is one such tool. Good salespeople are expert with it, for example. It is not necessarily about the truth, it is about selling, about having influence.

It is naive to enter any kind of social interaction without keeping this in mind.

 

Certainly. I am also criticial of the study itself. For example, when the participants were asked to grade their expertise in a particular field, what was the participants' criteria for grading themselves, what was the reference group in relation to which they graded themselves, did all the participants have the same criteria? If they did not, the results of the study are inadequate.

Chances are that those who graded their skills as "above average" had some other measurement of "average" than those who graded themselves as "average", and they probably also had very different motivations for answering the way they did.

The areas in which they were tested also suggest particular biases. Who thinks that skills in logic, humor and grammar can be accurately measured statistically, or that mastering these skills is vitally important in order to succeed in life? Probably not everyone. And this probably is reflected in the way the participants graded themselves, and also in how well they did on the tests, how much effort they put in.

 

Presumably the question would have been something along the lines of:
"In comparison to most people you know/ work with/ socialise with [or some variation thereof], how would you rate yourself in terms of..."

 

whats the reason you stopped replying this time baron max?

 

Apparently, I need to clarify. When you have a member who comes into a climate change thread and says something along the lines of "Climate change is nonsense because humans couldn't possibly affect global climate." No hint of doubt, even though such a statement is contradicted by substantial evidence. Or, "9-11 had to be an inside job, the heat from burning jet fuel couldn't possibly have caused those buildings to collapse." People who state such things dogmatically may or may not be suffering from DK, but they certainly make me think of it. And my estimation of the credibility of their opinions plummets precipitously.

 

But is this the group to which the researches compared the participants' results to?
They only compared the results of the participants.

 

What do you know of the motives of the person who said "Climate change is nonsense because humans couldn't possibly affect global climate" etc.?

 

From the Wiki article.

 

Still doesn't resolve the issue whether they were estimating the same thing or not.

The "competent" could be those who valued skills in grammar etc. per se. Which is something that can correlate to expertise, and is sometimes referred to as "professional deformation".

The "incompetent" could be those who valued skills in grammar etc. only indirectly, only as a means to some end; and as it is generally known, even a "substandard" knowledge of grammar, logic or humor does not stand in the way of (social, professional) success. So if they thought themselves sufficiently (socially, professionally) successfull, they evaluated their grammar etc. skills based on that perception of success, not on grammar itself.

To give a blunt example: Someone who works as a shop clerk will have different uses and evaluation of grammar skills than someone who works as a college teacher of language.
Even students at the same college, in the same year, have different backgrounds, different life experience, different values, different goals.

The DK effect could be proven as true if the only difference between the participants would be their level of particular skills, while they would have the same background, the same value system, the same social success, same work goals etc.

 

But if you look at the responses in sciforums where a lay person appears in a forums where experts also participate, I do not think you will find the lay persons are the only ones expressing certainty. At least this is not my experience. It seems to me that ideas outside the norm are dismissed with absolute certainty by the experts. I actually see sciforums as tending to counter the DK effect. Those who know little - me making an intuitive assessment - do indeed often speak with certainty. BUT those who are considered experts also communicate with certainty.

If what you say above is true you should also, therefore, be pressed to be skeptical of mainstream opinions, even those held by experts.

 

This is certainly a good point in relation to the grammar portion of the test. We tend to forget that languages are very diverse and communication is the goal. And by diverse I mean within each language the 'dialects' are very diverse, including 'shop clerk French' over whatever. The person in question - often less likely to have attended a full college degree program - may have a very solid grasp of how to communicate with other people effectively, perhaps even more effectively than someone who clutters their language with too many abstractions and pretentiousness but who can, when asked!, remember the Platonic rules of grammar that are supposed to apply everywhere.

Let alone what was happening on the humor portion of the tests.

I wonder who their experts in humor were: children, stand up comedians.......?

 

In fact, there seems to be the notion that in order to be considered an expert, one has to communicate with certainty.

Using "maybe", "seems", "could", "possibly" and such in one's speech can be perceived as uncertainty - and experts are not supposed to be uncertain, so someone who uses such words may not be considered an expert.