pull down to refresh

Before I realized it was already a well known thing, something like Dunning-Kruger occurred to me.
I thought of it as being iterative, though. As we learn new things, we overestimate ourselves for a bit until we realize that we’re still dumb. Then we learn something else and repeat the cycle.
66 sats \ 5 replies \ @optimism 23h
I thought of it as being iterative, though
The temporal factor is a thing, I like this.
we overestimate ourselves for a bit until we realize that we’re still dumb. Then we learn something else and repeat the cycle.
And we never get to the point of not being dumb?
reply
No, we’re always dumb. We just aren’t always aware of it.
reply
142 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 22h
I would say we will always be dumb in way more ways than we're smart
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 22h
I'd add: on any topic and that even if we're the ultimate source of knowledge today, if not tomorrow we're outdated, it will be the day after tomorrow, because the collective evolves faster than we can grasp it.
reply
28 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 23h
Yes, that's what I think too.
reply
52 sats \ 1 reply \ @freetx 23h
There is a corollary to DK Effect that sorta works in reverse:
  • Newb thinks the topic is simple
  • Mid-level knowledge thinks same topic is super complicated with tons of variables
  • Expert level thinks the topic is simple
That is, when we are at "mid-level" knowledge we are aware of all these conditional variables but we haven't totally integrated them yet....eventually we integrate these into our mental model and sort of flatten it down to a simplistic model again.
reply
That’s almost exactly the framework I had in mind, but as we collapse one topic back to “simple” we become aware of new tangential topics and go through the cycle again.
reply