It tends to explain why entry level programmers act the way they do. Like when I graduated I was definitely on the peak of mount stupid but as I learned more I realized how little I knew. I did not externalize this as I was just trying to make iy through my days, however I have seen some entry levels absolutely fuck things up because they thought they were geniuses. It was exactly like that bell curve where idiots and experts do the same simple thing but mediocre people do the most complicated thing possible with 5 layers of abstraction.
Just because it explains an experience, doesn’t mean it’s statistically true in a deep way. I would tend to agree that the Dunning Kruger effect is a nice logical story, a shorthand if you will. I would really be careful about placing undue confidence in neat little explanations of a stupefyingly complex word, especially when it concerns yet incomprehensible structures like the brain.
Being explained in experience is the worst proof, it’s all bias. I should have been more clear, I want it to be true because it makes sense, but it is incorrect.
It’s more like the Sphere of Knowledge. The more you know about Linux (or pretty much any subject) that more you become aware of subjects you don’t understand. Whereas when you don’t know that much, there are fewer categories for which you are aware of your lack of understanding. Know unknowns vs unknown unknowns.
The Dunning Kruger-effect is a shaky concept. Recent studies seem to have disproved it in some ways.
The people who reference Dunning-Kruger often vastly overestimate how competent they are at statistics.
Plot with green points is Dunning Kruger data. It’s hardly correlated.
It tends to explain why entry level programmers act the way they do. Like when I graduated I was definitely on the peak of mount stupid but as I learned more I realized how little I knew. I did not externalize this as I was just trying to make iy through my days, however I have seen some entry levels absolutely fuck things up because they thought they were geniuses. It was exactly like that bell curve where idiots and experts do the same simple thing but mediocre people do the most complicated thing possible with 5 layers of abstraction.
Just because it explains an experience, doesn’t mean it’s statistically true in a deep way. I would tend to agree that the Dunning Kruger effect is a nice logical story, a shorthand if you will. I would really be careful about placing undue confidence in neat little explanations of a stupefyingly complex word, especially when it concerns yet incomprehensible structures like the brain.
Being explained in experience is the worst proof, it’s all bias. I should have been more clear, I want it to be true because it makes sense, but it is incorrect.
Ahh, that clears it up. I misunderstood you.
It’s more like the Sphere of Knowledge. The more you know about Linux (or pretty much any subject) that more you become aware of subjects you don’t understand. Whereas when you don’t know that much, there are fewer categories for which you are aware of your lack of understanding. Know unknowns vs unknown unknowns.