"It is impossible for anyone to learn what they themselves think they already know"
"It is impossible for anyone to learn what they themselves think they already know"
We all like to think that we are good at certain things, above average in certain areas of our lives, and most of us are at certain things. But the truth is you are likely wrong about how good or bad you are at many things. It is likely that you both over and underestimate your actual abilities in numerous areas of life, and the areas and the degree to which you are wrong would probably surprise you.
In a 1999 study by David Dunning and Justin Kruger, both psychologists, they discovered a phenomenon that would be coined the Dunning-Kruger effect. After giving participants various tests that assessed their abilities in humor, logical reasoning, and grammar, the participants were then asked to self-assess their performance in relation to their peers in the study. Dunning and Kruger found that people who performed poorly on the tests tended to believe that they did far better than they actually did, while those who performed well tended to misperceive their performance in relation to the average of their peers. In other words, the study discovered the cognitive bias where people who are less knowledgeable or experienced in an area tend to believe that they actually are, and those who are experienced and knowledgeable in an area tend to underestimate or doubt their abilities. These cognitive biases make up the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Although this phenomenon is debated amongst researchers and, on the surface, the effect may seem paradoxical and bizarre, arguably, the cause is understandable. If someone knows little about a subject or has little experience in a particular area, then they do not have enough experience or knowledge to recognize the degree of their incompetence. In other words, they do not know enough to know what they do not know. "If you are incompetent, you can't know you're incompetent because the skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is," said Dunning.
On the flip side though, people with more knowledge and experience in an area are aware of the complexity, vastness, and difficulty involved in being right or successful, and thus, they are likely to be more doubtful of their abilities. They also tend to think that others are more capable in an area than is actually the case, and so they are also more likely to underestimate themselves when ranked against others. Examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect demonstrated in studies include 93% of drivers believing they are better than average. This phenomenon is also present in their coworkers where as many as 40% of a company's employees believe that they are in the top 5% of performers. Of course, everyone can't be better than most. There must be a most.
Through the processes of learning, strategizing, evaluating, and reflecting, there is another process at play referred to as metacognition. Metacognition is the awareness of one's thought process. It's one's thoughts about thinking, A major part of the learning process and a major factor in being competent in something is the ability, through metacognition, to recognize patterns, errors, and problems in one's thinking and then employ strategies to deal with and overcome them.
According to Danny and Kruger, when one is incompetent in an area, they lack metacognitive abilities in that area. As a result, this lack of awareness in their thought processes and knowledge prevents them from recognizing where and when they may go wrong, and so in their mind, they simply never do. This phenomenon can be fairly unsettling on the individual scale-to know that you don't know what you don't know. Of course, you already knew that, but the degree to which you are unaware and the areas that you might have such oversights, where you might otherwise feel pretty confident, it can all be very disconcerting. And it is even more unsettling when considered on the collective, societal scale. "What is curious is that in many cases, incompetence does not leave people disoriented, perplexed, or cautious. Instead, the incompetent are often blessed with an inappropriate confidence, buoyed by something that feels to them like knowledge," said Danning.
Partly though, as a result of the Dunning-Kruger effect, people who are not qualified to speak on certain subjects are still the most confident, the qualified however, they tend to be less loud, and instead they are more thoughtful and cautious. And for exceptional high-level experts, since they tend to misperceive how big of a gap there is between them and the average person, it can be reasonably assumed that they are likely to insufficiently communicate about the subject they are an expert in with a general audience. And of course, in some cases, complex things simply cannot be fully explained quickly or in comprehensive terms to individuals who are not experts themselves. And so out of the lot here- the incompetent but confident amateur, the competent but cautious intermediate, or the exceptionally competent expert who is confident but struggles to understand and communicate with the laymen- who would be more convincing to a difference between correct and false information?
It is seemingly becoming more and more common to have an opinion about nearly everything, and maybe it's always been this way. Maybe having access to all the world's information but only enough time to read the headlines and a constant incentive to leave a comment has exacerbated this human tendency. Whatever the case though, because of this and in combination with the Dunning-Kruger effect, some of the voices we hear the most are the least qualified, useful, or accurate. They are rather voices of confidence and charisma, not nuance and care. The right voices are often quieter, harder to parse, or sometimes still looking for the right words and means to express themselves.
It is natural to want to have a voice that is heard. It is desirable to be perceived, liked, followed, and impactful, to be a voice of change, but then sometimes the greatest impact is often silence.
In a 1999 study by David Dunning and Justin Kruger, both psychologists, they discovered a phenomenon that would be coined the Dunning-Kruger effect. After giving participants various tests that assessed their abilities in humor, logical reasoning, and grammar, the participants were then asked to self-assess their performance in relation to their peers in the study. Dunning and Kruger found that people who performed poorly on the tests tended to believe that they did far better than they actually did, while those who performed well tended to misperceive their performance in relation to the average of their peers. In other words, the study discovered the cognitive bias where people who are less knowledgeable or experienced in an area tend to believe that they actually are, and those who are experienced and knowledgeable in an area tend to underestimate or doubt their abilities. These cognitive biases make up the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Although this phenomenon is debated amongst researchers and, on the surface, the effect may seem paradoxical and bizarre, arguably, the cause is understandable. If someone knows little about a subject or has little experience in a particular area, then they do not have enough experience or knowledge to recognize the degree of their incompetence. In other words, they do not know enough to know what they do not know. "If you are incompetent, you can't know you're incompetent because the skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is," said Dunning.
On the flip side though, people with more knowledge and experience in an area are aware of the complexity, vastness, and difficulty involved in being right or successful, and thus, they are likely to be more doubtful of their abilities. They also tend to think that others are more capable in an area than is actually the case, and so they are also more likely to underestimate themselves when ranked against others. Examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect demonstrated in studies include 93% of drivers believing they are better than average. This phenomenon is also present in their coworkers where as many as 40% of a company's employees believe that they are in the top 5% of performers. Of course, everyone can't be better than most. There must be a most.
Through the processes of learning, strategizing, evaluating, and reflecting, there is another process at play referred to as metacognition. Metacognition is the awareness of one's thought process. It's one's thoughts about thinking, A major part of the learning process and a major factor in being competent in something is the ability, through metacognition, to recognize patterns, errors, and problems in one's thinking and then employ strategies to deal with and overcome them.
According to Danny and Kruger, when one is incompetent in an area, they lack metacognitive abilities in that area. As a result, this lack of awareness in their thought processes and knowledge prevents them from recognizing where and when they may go wrong, and so in their mind, they simply never do. This phenomenon can be fairly unsettling on the individual scale-to know that you don't know what you don't know. Of course, you already knew that, but the degree to which you are unaware and the areas that you might have such oversights, where you might otherwise feel pretty confident, it can all be very disconcerting. And it is even more unsettling when considered on the collective, societal scale. "What is curious is that in many cases, incompetence does not leave people disoriented, perplexed, or cautious. Instead, the incompetent are often blessed with an inappropriate confidence, buoyed by something that feels to them like knowledge," said Danning.
Partly though, as a result of the Dunning-Kruger effect, people who are not qualified to speak on certain subjects are still the most confident, the qualified however, they tend to be less loud, and instead they are more thoughtful and cautious. And for exceptional high-level experts, since they tend to misperceive how big of a gap there is between them and the average person, it can be reasonably assumed that they are likely to insufficiently communicate about the subject they are an expert in with a general audience. And of course, in some cases, complex things simply cannot be fully explained quickly or in comprehensive terms to individuals who are not experts themselves. And so out of the lot here- the incompetent but confident amateur, the competent but cautious intermediate, or the exceptionally competent expert who is confident but struggles to understand and communicate with the laymen- who would be more convincing to a difference between correct and false information?
It is seemingly becoming more and more common to have an opinion about nearly everything, and maybe it's always been this way. Maybe having access to all the world's information but only enough time to read the headlines and a constant incentive to leave a comment has exacerbated this human tendency. Whatever the case though, because of this and in combination with the Dunning-Kruger effect, some of the voices we hear the most are the least qualified, useful, or accurate. They are rather voices of confidence and charisma, not nuance and care. The right voices are often quieter, harder to parse, or sometimes still looking for the right words and means to express themselves.
It is natural to want to have a voice that is heard. It is desirable to be perceived, liked, followed, and impactful, to be a voice of change, but then sometimes the greatest impact is often silence.
