The Dunning-Kruger Effect is not real. It's autocorrelation.

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #441,368 by Another Scott 4/16/22 2:54:35 PM 4/16/22 2:54:35 PM Reply	The Dunning-Kruger Effect is not real. It's autocorrelation. https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2022/04/08/the-dunning-kruger-effect-is-autocorrelation/ One always, always, has to be careful doing statistics and massaging data. (via https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom ) Cheers, Scott.
Post #441,369 by boxley 4/16/22 3:56:48 PM 4/16/22 3:56:48 PM Reply	perhaps it shows that the technician who made up the numbers was not as bright as he thought? "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
Post #441,407 by CRConrad 4/26/22 6:28:00 AM 4/26/22 6:28:00 AM Reply	Naah, seems he got a perfectly valid random-number set. The problem is that this kind of measurement gives something that looks like causality even for those. -- Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Apparently Still Knows Fucking Everything Mail: Same username as at the top left of this post, at iki.fi
Post #441,370 by drook 4/16/22 4:36:21 PM 4/16/22 4:36:21 PM Reply	Oh that's cool ... and sad that it will be so persistent -- Drew

The Dunning-Kruger Effect is not real. It's autocorrelation. - (Another Scott) - (3) - April 16, 2022, 02:54:35 PM EDT

perhaps it shows that the technician who made up the numbers was not as bright as he thought? -NT - (boxley) - (1) - April 16, 2022, 03:56:48 PM EDT

Naah, seems he got a perfectly valid random-number set. - (CRConrad) - April 26, 2022, 06:28:00 AM EDT

Oh that's cool ... and sad that it will be so persistent -NT - (drook) - April 16, 2022, 04:36:21 PM EDT

This space intentionally left blank.
36 ms