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

Absolutely. Some studies that suggest that employers prefer someone who is optimistic and with good people skills, even if their work skills are not so stellar, as opposed to someone who is an expert in the work field, but isn't considered a particularly nice or social person.

At the end of the day, it is things like this that matter, having a job, having a circle of people whom one likes to associate with, not one's grammar or logic skills.
And those who are considered the best comedians are often nervous wrecks ...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Since they're estimating their own competence by their own criteria I don't quite see the problem.

But at the same time an incompetent shop clerk will assess his vocabulary as better than it actually is: by his own standards.

I disagree. It works on the level of "I'm fabulous at DIY, but don't look at that particular job, I was having an off day. Oh and that one was because I was given faulty materials..." etc. "But I really am good at DIY".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not sure why you shifted to vocabulary since the DKeffect was tested on grammar. And the grammar was no doubt tested against textbook grammar rules.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But the researchers didn't. The researchers set the criteria for evaluating the test scores.

The question is: What is a "good vocabulary"?

I think this has nothing to do with the DK effect.

The scenario you describe above is actually true sometimes - because sometimes, there really are off days, bad materials and such.

What you seem to be getting at is the problem of the locus of control, to what people ascribe their success and failure.

 

If I remember right you are an engineer. The DK effect was arrived at by studying grammar, humor and logical skills. I would be rather surprised if people would fall out along the test lines on engineering skills. That engineers would have all this doubt about their skills when they take a test whose questions lay people can have some small hope of answering. And that a test on engineering skills would elicit very positive lay self-evaluations.

Grammar and humor are, in my opinion, very odd choices for their study. Both of these 'skills' are very localized and even subjective. Sure, we have people who standardize grammar rules. But the fact is people out there use language very effectively using non-standardized grammar rules. These grammars are as much grammar and as effective as the official ones. Humor is very subjective. Logical reasoning is the only one that even hints to me at objective criteria, but even there people were probably trusting authority figure versions of logic - the logic of marketing campaigns, priests, teachers, mom and dad - and not so much their own skills.

 

So: A meta level question:

if we look at, for example, Signal vs. Dywyydyr. If the DK effect is a real phenomenon, which of them is the expert and which is the lay person overestimating their abilities?

(not expecting answers, just wanted to ask the pointed question)

 

There is one very general point related to the DK effect that I agree with:

"Newcomers in a professional area have lesser skills which they try to either compensate for with displays of confidence, or they use confidence, a positive outlook and openness in an attempt to fit in the professional area."

Which is kind of self-explanatory.

 

The reason: easy. I was sloppy and conflated grammar with vocabulary.
And the test...

From Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments (copy on my hard drive: for some reason all the ones on the net are now pay to view...)

 

There's a difference between setting the overall scores and assessing your own competence against perceived competence of others.
The overall scores rated how well they claimed they'd do (and believed they'd done after taking it) on a test, compared to the actual results.

I disagree again. (See below).

As far as I've seen it happens throughout all human endeavours.
I've known truly incompetent engineers who thought (and insisted) they were the dog's b*llocks (to use an engineering phrase). And couldn't understand why no-one gave them them the credit they (thought they) deserved.

 

But still, I stand by my large quibble. Their sense of their ability in grammar, for those less trained, say at college level, in grammar, will come from their sense of success in day to day communication. Their day to day communication uses a grammar that is just as valid as our official one. Yes, they may not realize it is not the official one and the person who has studied grammar more and more consciously will realize the differences. So those who overestimated do lack this cross cultural knowledge. What they may not lack is a knowledge of their own effective grammar.

 

But wait. I am assuming that by incompetent engineers you are still talking about experts. People with degrees and training.

 

What is "engineering", for example?
What makes for an "expert" engineer?


Another example: At college, I had several computer science teachers.
One was an awful bigmouth, not so good with explaining things in class, but he managed to promote the computer department excellently, had many VIP connections, got the money flowing in.
Another teacher was in my opinion very good at teaching computer science, but otherwise, he had next to no influence in the department.

Who was the "expert"?

 

It's not about their day to day grammar:

It's a question of how well do you claim to know the rules (whether you use them or not), how well do you think you can apply them (in this circumstance) and how well DID you apply them (in this circumstance).

Self-proclaimed experts, yes.
Degree? Not required in the UK as much as it seems to be in the US.

 

Easy: the latter.
The first was a failure.
Since he was employed as a teacher, and not the PR dept then he wasn't much good at his job.

 

And my point is that there are different ways to, different motivations for saying "Yes, I know and apply the rules above-average well."

Some of these ways or motivations have nothing to do with actual knowledge of those rules or lack thereof.

For example, some people are so intent on projecting a positive self-image that every assessment they make of themselves is bound by this.

 

Granted: but do those rules still apply when someone has actually taken a test and is then asked to assess how well they did?
At what point does "projecting a positive self-image" become outright delusion or denial of reality?

 

Is there a point where projecting a positive self-image could be redundant?

 

I'd say so.
You no longer need to project a positive self-image when you achieve the competence you claim/ desire.
Isn't ignoring the reality in favour of a positive self-image an example (at certain levels) of the DK effect? In actuality if not "reality".
I.e. regardless of the results I'm going to plough ahead as if everything's fine and I really am that good.

 

So when you achieve that competence, it's okay to project oneself as a loser?

Your criticism applies in the case of someone whose motivation to be good at something is simply to be good at something.

I think most people do not have the luxury to pursue activities just for the sake of pursuing them and being good at them (even though they sometimes state this as the reason for pursuing them).
I think most people pursue whatever activities they pursue for the sake of some benefit they hope to get from them, and often, this is money.

 

When you achieve competence you don't need to project at all. You just get on with it.

In my opinion that's worse: putting on a false "positive self image" will give the wrong impression to others. If it's an employer (or prospective employer) then it could be construed as fraud to make out that you're better at something than you really are.