Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Revisiting why incompetents think they're awesome
17 views
Skip to first unread message
AGWFacts
May 26, 2012, 5:10:03 PM5/26/12
to
Revisiting why incompetents think they're awesome
http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/revisiting-why-incompetents-think-theyre-awesome/
Dunning-Kruger study today: The uninformed aren't as doomed as the
Web suggests.
In 1999 a pair of researchers published a paper called "Unskilled
and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments (PDF)." David
Dunning and Justin Kruger (both at Cornell University's Department
of Psychology at the time) conducted a series of four studies
showing that, in certain cases, people who are very bad at
something think they are actually pretty good. They showed that to
assess your own expertise at something, you need to have a certain
amount of expertise already.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.64.2655&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Remember the 2008 election campaign? The financial markets were
going crazy, and banks that were "too big to fail" were bailed out
by the government. Smug EU officials proclaimed that all was well
within the EU�even while they were bailing out a number of
financial institutions. Fast forward to 2012, and the EU is
looking at hard times. Greece can't pay its debt. Italy can, but
the markets don't trust it to be able to. Spain and Portugal are
teetering around like toddlers just waiting for the market to give
them one good push. Members of the public are behaving like
teenagers, screaming "F**k you," while flipping the bird. The
markets are reacting like drunk parents, and the resulting bruises
are going to take a while to heal.
In all of this, uninformed idiots blame the Greeks for being lazy,
the Germans for being too strict, and everyone but themselves.
Newspapers, blogs, and television are filled with wise commentary
hailing the return of the gold standard, the breakup of the Euro,
or any number of sensible and not-so-sensible ideas. How are we to
parse all this information? Do any of these people know what they
are talking about? And if anyone does, how can we know which ones
to listen to? The research of Dunning and Kruger may well tell us
there is no way to figure out the answers to any of these
questions. That is kind of scary.
It has been more than 10 years since Dunning and Kruger published
their work. I suspect it has become required reading in psychology
courses. It's also a paper that has important implications for
learning and communication, so what has happened since? Have the
results held up? Are they universal? And what can we do to avoid
falling victim to our own inabilities?
This paper has become a cult classic. It is well-written�humor
interspersed with robust data, and conclusions that are discussed
in a thorough and accessible way. I wondered if Dunning knew that
this paper would become such a classic, and when I spoke with him
he responded quite to the contrary. "I frankly thought the paper
would never be published," Dunning said. "It really doesn�t fit
the usual structure of a modern-day research psychology finding. A
wise editor who got it and good reviewers showed me wrong there. I
am struck just with how long and how much this idea has gone viral
in so many areas."
Clearly, the paper struck a chord with many people outside of the
field of psychology. "I presume the paper gave voice to an
observation that people make about their peers but that they don�t
know how to express," Dunning responded. If you have not read the
paper already, I recommend doing so.
Unfortunately, in those places ruled by the smug and complacent, a
classic paper has become a weapon. The findings of Dunning and
Kruger are being reduced to "Stupid people are so stupid that they
don't know they are stupid." Rather bluntly, Dunning himself said,
"The presence of the Dunning-Kruger effect, as it�s been come to
be called, is that one should pause to worry about one�s own
certainty, not the certainty of others." And that humorously
suggests the Dunning-Kruger effect is now a candidate to become a
second Godwin's law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
Like Dunning, I do not take such a dim view of humanity. In fact,
Dunning-Kruger and follow-up papers give us cause for hope. They
show that people are not usually irredeemably stupid. You can
teach people to accurately self-evaluate�though, in their specific
examples, this also involved teaching them the very skill they
were trying to evaluate.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.5
Context is everything
It is important to realize that the Dunning-Kruger paper was not
such a shocking finding. It was, for instance, already known that
seemingly everyone evaluates themselves as above average in
everything. Are you a better driver than average? Certainly am.
How do you rate your ability at math? Oh, a little better than
average. How about mountain climbing? Well, I've climbed the local
hill a couple of times. I bet Kilimanjaro can't be much more
difficult.
A large pile of research on various groups of people, covering
various skill sets, indicates that in the face of all evidence,
humans are irredeemably optimistic about their own abilities. That
is, by itself, not such a bad thing. The ugly side shows up when
we also realize that the norm must be maintained. Studies show
that we do this by considering that everyone else is much worse.
Being clueless about your own abilities is one thing. Misjudging
other's abilities is relatively more serious.
It's not about stupidity, stupid
It's worth spending a moment to illustrate how subtle Dunning and
Kruger's results really are. And what better example to use than
me? I am an immigrant. I grew up speaking English�though, perhaps
not a brand of English you would find recognizable. As an adult, I
moved from New Zealand to Holland and have spent the last five
years struggling to learn a new language. I am, by the very
definition of Dunning and Kruger's paper, incompetent.
An unsophisticated reading of Dunning and Kruger's results would
suggest that I would rate myself highly. In fact, I would show all
the signs of incompetence: I would perform poorly on basic Dutch
grammar and vocabulary tests, and I would fail to correctly
evaluate others in their usage. But if you think that I estimate
my Dutch language skills in anything but the bottom percentile,
you would be sadly mistaken. Clearly I know I am incompetent and
am aware of it.
Dunning and Kruger's results don't apply to my situation, though,
because every day I am made aware of just how bad my Dutch is. I
have to repeat myself, I have to ask others to repeat themselves.
I take inordinate amounts of time digesting the simplest letters
from the Dutch government. Everywhere around me, I find signs that
my Dutch is terrible.
A more correct comparison would be to group me with a bunch of
other expats who are also learning Dutch as a second language.
Some of us will be better than others, and the very worst of us
would have difficultly evaluating where we stand in that group.
Now, I think that my Dutch is OK for a foreigner. But I really
doubt that I could accurately evaluate my position within an expat
group accurately. In that light, I am most certain that I think my
Dutch is better than reality would suggest.
When you consider that I am unlikely to be able to pick
grammatical errors out of a Dutch sentence, it is impossible for
me to evaluate my own, or anyone else's, performance. I simply do
not have the skills to do so. And, since I can't read or hear the
errors of others, I cannot accurately place myself in the
hierarchy of competence. Couple that with the fact that I think I
am not stupid, and I am likely to severely overestimate my
abilities.
At this level, the results seem to imply that if you can't do, you
can't recognize the difference between doing well and doing
poorly. The example in the Dunning-Kruger paper is that of a
basketball coach. Consider the average basketball coach�a
pear-shaped middle-aged gentleman, topping out at about 5-foot-5
and blessed with the countenance of a happy but slightly old and
dried-out apple. Clearly, the coach isn't going to outplay any of
his players. He can't do. Yet, the lack of physical ability
doesn't say anything about his ability to tell if his players are
playing well or playing poorly. It says nothing about his ability
to teach his players new basketball skills. It also doesn't
prevent him from evaluating his own performance as a coach.
There is a subtlety here, though. Coaching skills are not the same
as playing skills. So the Dunning-Kruger paper applies to the
coaches' evaluation of their own ability to coach. Now, coaches
get a huge amount of feedback. Wins and losses are the obvious and
most important, but results would not capture the effectiveness of
a coach working with a squad of inexperienced players. These
indicators might include player motivation, skills development,
and the team environment. Clearly, these are not the same criteria
with which you would evaluate. And we all know of examples of
coaches who fail dismally with one squad of players yet succeed
with another.
The point being that it is not just self-evaluation that is
difficult. Evaluation of a skill set is, quite simply, very
difficult to get right.
What this study outlines most starkly is what happens when someone
is not just bad at something, but they are bad and do not possess
the tools to assess their own performance. These are two different
skills: action and self-assessment. Sometimes the two skill sets
overlap so well that you have to be good at something to
accurately know that you are good at it. In other cases, the two
skill sets don't overlap. In which case, maybe Dunning and Kruger
need not apply.
Well, not so fast
There have been a few studies that have worked on the relationship
between cognition and metacognition (e.g., self-evaluation) since
then. An example of these, by Ames and Kammrath, examined the
relationship between people's estimate of their ability to read
people and their actual ability to read people. In this case, once
again, those who consistently fail to read people actually thought
they were pretty good at it, while those who could accurately read
people underestimated their performance.
http://www.columbia.edu/~lkk7/Papers/AmesKammrath2004.pdf
In searching for the source of the subject's poor estimation, the
researchers zeroed in on narcissism as one of the primary
correlates. The higher people ranked on a narcissism test, the
more likely they were to estimate their abilities to read people
highly. The significance of this is not entirely clear to me.
Although narcissism correlated to self-evaluation, it did not
correlate to actual performance.
In other words, narcissists think they are brilliant. Who knew? In
addition, the researchers found that extroverts were also more
likely to overestimate their abilities, while self-esteem and
gender were not correlated. And, importantly, none of these seemed
to be correlated to actual performance.
But this also throws into confusion my own conclusion (also a
conclusion that Dunning and Kruger hinted at): if the skills
required to self-evaluate and the skill under evaluation do not
overlap, then performance in one should not predict performance in
the other. But I don't believe that the evaluation of your ability
to read people and your actual ability to read people overlap
significantly. So what does that imply?
It seems to suggest that you really do need to have some skill in
the area to evaluate what constitutes good performance. Perhaps
the example of the basketball coach, where the skills are not
cognitive, was a bad example. These are examples of questions that
are, to my limited knowledge, not yet answered.
Culture complicates things
In the US, extroverts are loved. I would say that in Europe,
extroverts are not as highly valued, but you do have to have a
certain degree of self-confidence in your abilities to get by.
This is not universally true. Although we in the West admire
students who exhibit self-confidence, in parts of Asia, humility
and hard work are more highly regarded. It is expected that a
student will be incompetent. But it is also expected that a
student will work hard to become competent.
This is not a comment on which should be regarded as better, but a
comment on the cultural environment in which we operate. A student
who fails in the West�and this is a gross generalization, since
the "West" is not a homogeneous culture�is more likely to move on
to a different topic. We encourage our students to find the thing
that they are naturally good at. In other cultures, failure to
succeed is an invitation to try harder. Even though it might be
acknowledged that you will never be good at something, it is
important to be seen to be trying to master the skill.
The result is that self-evaluations vary widely by culture and
exhibit systematic biases. In other words, no one seems to get it
right. We all fail in different ways.
Education and work
One of the scary things about these findings is that we often use
self-evaluation in education and work. What this tells us is that,
for both the best performers and the worst performers�these are
the people you really want to find out about�you are not going to
get an accurate impression.
In the case of hard-skills, such as logic and reasoning, these can
be evaluated by objective tests. It is easy enough to separate the
brilliant from the abject failures. But what about courses like
English literature, or skills like management? Not only is it hard
to define what makes a good manager a good manager, it is hard to
define a scale on which to evaluate the qualities that make a good
manager.
This is where Ames and Kammrath come back into play. Things like
management involve reading people. But this study shows that you
have to be good at reading people in order to evaluate if you are
good at reading people. What's more, evaluating general
performance is more about reading people and trying to figure out
what they are capable of.
The results of research performed by Dunning, Kruger, Ames, and
Kammrath tell us something that every one of us has expressed at
some time or another. The incompetent are readily able to escape
detection by those who count. At its most cynical�though it is
also a logically inescapable conclusion�this is best expressed by
the Peter Principle: people are inevitably promoted to a position
that is just beyond their level of competence. If we accept the
Peter Principle, then we must also accept the consequences of
that. People who evaluate the performance of their underlings are
likely to be incapable of such an evaluation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle
What about science communication?
Science communication is a hobby of mine, and the Dunning and
Kruger paper has implications for this field. Indeed, the
implications of the findings are far more insidious than the
realization that, yes, we all have weak points. Take for instance
a common line of reasoning used in science communication. When
faced with a topic I don't understand, "I recognize that I am not
an expert, so I rely on the accumulated wisdom of experts."
Furthermore, a common suggestion in critical thinking is that when
you are presented with scientific claims, you examine the evidence
from a range of experts to test the claim. But just think about
that for a moment.
First, you have to pick an expert. OK, how do I, as a
non-scientist, tell the difference between Michael Behe and
Richard Dawkins? How do I tell the difference between a scientific
society, such as NOAA, and something like the Heartland Institute?
In short, to pick a good expert on a given topic, I need some
expertise on the topic. The Internet can help with this, since a
large number of biologists would tell you that Richard Dawkins is
a reliable source of information on evolution, and very few would
point you in the direction of Michael Behe. In other words, in
aggregate, is the Internet always right? Umm, yeah, I think I'll
take a pass on that.
This is a topic that is of interest to Dunning. "Our own recent
work shows that, yes, you need experts to spot experts," he said.
"Everyone can spot the poor performer, but often spotting the best
performers is beyond the competence of the group. That said,
spotting an expert outside of one�s field is a task one can become
better at. And that�s important, given just how much information,
good and bad, is not available to people. For example, is the
expert associated with a university (a good sign) or some 'think
tank' (a bad sign)?" Again, though, this takes experience and
expertise. Groups like think tanks try to give themselves the
trappings of expertise in a move specifically designed to fool us
into trusting their statements.
Furthermore, there seems to be an inherent misunderstanding on the
part of scientists and science communicators, according to
Dunning. "For example, scientists often think that telling the
world a conclusion has scientific consensus settles the issue. To
scientists, this makes sense. To the general public, they 'hear'
that scientists must be colluding on an issue." In other words,
the message poisons itself. This comes back, at least in part, to
education. "They [scientists and science communicators] assume
some basic knowledge (and faith) in science in the general
population that, in truth, is missing," Dunning said.
In spite of this, I remain optimistic. Why? Because the
Dunning-Kruger paper shows that, with training, self-evaluation
accuracy improves. If you teach people logical reasoning, they
become better able to evaluate their own performance in logical
reasoning. The critical message is that the right feedback at the
right time has an impact. Also, this is still new knowledge. I
wonder how simple knowledge of Dunning-Kruger could affect
people's self-assessment. If you are aware that everyone
(including you and me) is likely to overestimate our abilities,
does this have an influence? Dunning believes there are two key
issues: first, critical thinking skills, applied to your own
knowledge, as well as everything else, are vital. But,
importantly, if you don't exercise critical thinking skills, they
will fade, leaving you with a false impression of your own
abilities.
It is also important to confront people with their own failings.
"There is also some thought that perhaps we should give people
experience with their overconfidence," Dunning noted. "That is,
get them to make an overconfident display, and then expose it for
what it is, so that people are more on guard for such an issue.
For example, in some areas, people learning to drive are exposed
to horrible driving conditions, but not taught how to handle them.
Instead, they are given enough frightening experience that they
would never think to drive in icy or snowy conditions. I would not
consider this a negative approach to education. As Anatole France
said, a proper education isn�t what you know, it�s being able to
separate what you know from what you don�t."
An excellent example? Take this article. I am not a psychologist,
nor have I taken any training in that area. I find results like
these fascinating. I wonder, even as I write this, how much I have
gotten wrong, misunderstood, or simply left out. Nevertheless, as
imperfect as this may be, it's still worth putting out there for
discussion. I think.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1999 (PDF)
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.64.2655&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2003, DOI:
10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.5
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.5
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 2004 (PDF)
http://www.columbia.edu/~lkk7/Papers/AmesKammrath2004.pdf
--
"A 'crank' is defined as a man who cannot be turned." --- _Nature_, 8 Nov 1906
http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/revisiting-why-incompetents-think-theyre-awesome/
Dunning-Kruger study today: The uninformed aren't as doomed as the
Web suggests.
In 1999 a pair of researchers published a paper called "Unskilled
and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments (PDF)." David
Dunning and Justin Kruger (both at Cornell University's Department
of Psychology at the time) conducted a series of four studies
showing that, in certain cases, people who are very bad at
something think they are actually pretty good. They showed that to
assess your own expertise at something, you need to have a certain
amount of expertise already.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.64.2655&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Remember the 2008 election campaign? The financial markets were
going crazy, and banks that were "too big to fail" were bailed out
by the government. Smug EU officials proclaimed that all was well
within the EU�even while they were bailing out a number of
financial institutions. Fast forward to 2012, and the EU is
looking at hard times. Greece can't pay its debt. Italy can, but
the markets don't trust it to be able to. Spain and Portugal are
teetering around like toddlers just waiting for the market to give
them one good push. Members of the public are behaving like
teenagers, screaming "F**k you," while flipping the bird. The
markets are reacting like drunk parents, and the resulting bruises
are going to take a while to heal.
In all of this, uninformed idiots blame the Greeks for being lazy,
the Germans for being too strict, and everyone but themselves.
Newspapers, blogs, and television are filled with wise commentary
hailing the return of the gold standard, the breakup of the Euro,
or any number of sensible and not-so-sensible ideas. How are we to
parse all this information? Do any of these people know what they
are talking about? And if anyone does, how can we know which ones
to listen to? The research of Dunning and Kruger may well tell us
there is no way to figure out the answers to any of these
questions. That is kind of scary.
It has been more than 10 years since Dunning and Kruger published
their work. I suspect it has become required reading in psychology
courses. It's also a paper that has important implications for
learning and communication, so what has happened since? Have the
results held up? Are they universal? And what can we do to avoid
falling victim to our own inabilities?
This paper has become a cult classic. It is well-written�humor
interspersed with robust data, and conclusions that are discussed
in a thorough and accessible way. I wondered if Dunning knew that
this paper would become such a classic, and when I spoke with him
he responded quite to the contrary. "I frankly thought the paper
would never be published," Dunning said. "It really doesn�t fit
the usual structure of a modern-day research psychology finding. A
wise editor who got it and good reviewers showed me wrong there. I
am struck just with how long and how much this idea has gone viral
in so many areas."
Clearly, the paper struck a chord with many people outside of the
field of psychology. "I presume the paper gave voice to an
observation that people make about their peers but that they don�t
know how to express," Dunning responded. If you have not read the
paper already, I recommend doing so.
Unfortunately, in those places ruled by the smug and complacent, a
classic paper has become a weapon. The findings of Dunning and
Kruger are being reduced to "Stupid people are so stupid that they
don't know they are stupid." Rather bluntly, Dunning himself said,
"The presence of the Dunning-Kruger effect, as it�s been come to
be called, is that one should pause to worry about one�s own
certainty, not the certainty of others." And that humorously
suggests the Dunning-Kruger effect is now a candidate to become a
second Godwin's law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
Like Dunning, I do not take such a dim view of humanity. In fact,
Dunning-Kruger and follow-up papers give us cause for hope. They
show that people are not usually irredeemably stupid. You can
teach people to accurately self-evaluate�though, in their specific
examples, this also involved teaching them the very skill they
were trying to evaluate.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.5
Context is everything
It is important to realize that the Dunning-Kruger paper was not
such a shocking finding. It was, for instance, already known that
seemingly everyone evaluates themselves as above average in
everything. Are you a better driver than average? Certainly am.
How do you rate your ability at math? Oh, a little better than
average. How about mountain climbing? Well, I've climbed the local
hill a couple of times. I bet Kilimanjaro can't be much more
difficult.
A large pile of research on various groups of people, covering
various skill sets, indicates that in the face of all evidence,
humans are irredeemably optimistic about their own abilities. That
is, by itself, not such a bad thing. The ugly side shows up when
we also realize that the norm must be maintained. Studies show
that we do this by considering that everyone else is much worse.
Being clueless about your own abilities is one thing. Misjudging
other's abilities is relatively more serious.
It's not about stupidity, stupid
It's worth spending a moment to illustrate how subtle Dunning and
Kruger's results really are. And what better example to use than
me? I am an immigrant. I grew up speaking English�though, perhaps
not a brand of English you would find recognizable. As an adult, I
moved from New Zealand to Holland and have spent the last five
years struggling to learn a new language. I am, by the very
definition of Dunning and Kruger's paper, incompetent.
An unsophisticated reading of Dunning and Kruger's results would
suggest that I would rate myself highly. In fact, I would show all
the signs of incompetence: I would perform poorly on basic Dutch
grammar and vocabulary tests, and I would fail to correctly
evaluate others in their usage. But if you think that I estimate
my Dutch language skills in anything but the bottom percentile,
you would be sadly mistaken. Clearly I know I am incompetent and
am aware of it.
Dunning and Kruger's results don't apply to my situation, though,
because every day I am made aware of just how bad my Dutch is. I
have to repeat myself, I have to ask others to repeat themselves.
I take inordinate amounts of time digesting the simplest letters
from the Dutch government. Everywhere around me, I find signs that
my Dutch is terrible.
A more correct comparison would be to group me with a bunch of
other expats who are also learning Dutch as a second language.
Some of us will be better than others, and the very worst of us
would have difficultly evaluating where we stand in that group.
Now, I think that my Dutch is OK for a foreigner. But I really
doubt that I could accurately evaluate my position within an expat
group accurately. In that light, I am most certain that I think my
Dutch is better than reality would suggest.
When you consider that I am unlikely to be able to pick
grammatical errors out of a Dutch sentence, it is impossible for
me to evaluate my own, or anyone else's, performance. I simply do
not have the skills to do so. And, since I can't read or hear the
errors of others, I cannot accurately place myself in the
hierarchy of competence. Couple that with the fact that I think I
am not stupid, and I am likely to severely overestimate my
abilities.
At this level, the results seem to imply that if you can't do, you
can't recognize the difference between doing well and doing
poorly. The example in the Dunning-Kruger paper is that of a
basketball coach. Consider the average basketball coach�a
pear-shaped middle-aged gentleman, topping out at about 5-foot-5
and blessed with the countenance of a happy but slightly old and
dried-out apple. Clearly, the coach isn't going to outplay any of
his players. He can't do. Yet, the lack of physical ability
doesn't say anything about his ability to tell if his players are
playing well or playing poorly. It says nothing about his ability
to teach his players new basketball skills. It also doesn't
prevent him from evaluating his own performance as a coach.
There is a subtlety here, though. Coaching skills are not the same
as playing skills. So the Dunning-Kruger paper applies to the
coaches' evaluation of their own ability to coach. Now, coaches
get a huge amount of feedback. Wins and losses are the obvious and
most important, but results would not capture the effectiveness of
a coach working with a squad of inexperienced players. These
indicators might include player motivation, skills development,
and the team environment. Clearly, these are not the same criteria
with which you would evaluate. And we all know of examples of
coaches who fail dismally with one squad of players yet succeed
with another.
The point being that it is not just self-evaluation that is
difficult. Evaluation of a skill set is, quite simply, very
difficult to get right.
What this study outlines most starkly is what happens when someone
is not just bad at something, but they are bad and do not possess
the tools to assess their own performance. These are two different
skills: action and self-assessment. Sometimes the two skill sets
overlap so well that you have to be good at something to
accurately know that you are good at it. In other cases, the two
skill sets don't overlap. In which case, maybe Dunning and Kruger
need not apply.
Well, not so fast
There have been a few studies that have worked on the relationship
between cognition and metacognition (e.g., self-evaluation) since
then. An example of these, by Ames and Kammrath, examined the
relationship between people's estimate of their ability to read
people and their actual ability to read people. In this case, once
again, those who consistently fail to read people actually thought
they were pretty good at it, while those who could accurately read
people underestimated their performance.
http://www.columbia.edu/~lkk7/Papers/AmesKammrath2004.pdf
In searching for the source of the subject's poor estimation, the
researchers zeroed in on narcissism as one of the primary
correlates. The higher people ranked on a narcissism test, the
more likely they were to estimate their abilities to read people
highly. The significance of this is not entirely clear to me.
Although narcissism correlated to self-evaluation, it did not
correlate to actual performance.
In other words, narcissists think they are brilliant. Who knew? In
addition, the researchers found that extroverts were also more
likely to overestimate their abilities, while self-esteem and
gender were not correlated. And, importantly, none of these seemed
to be correlated to actual performance.
But this also throws into confusion my own conclusion (also a
conclusion that Dunning and Kruger hinted at): if the skills
required to self-evaluate and the skill under evaluation do not
overlap, then performance in one should not predict performance in
the other. But I don't believe that the evaluation of your ability
to read people and your actual ability to read people overlap
significantly. So what does that imply?
It seems to suggest that you really do need to have some skill in
the area to evaluate what constitutes good performance. Perhaps
the example of the basketball coach, where the skills are not
cognitive, was a bad example. These are examples of questions that
are, to my limited knowledge, not yet answered.
Culture complicates things
In the US, extroverts are loved. I would say that in Europe,
extroverts are not as highly valued, but you do have to have a
certain degree of self-confidence in your abilities to get by.
This is not universally true. Although we in the West admire
students who exhibit self-confidence, in parts of Asia, humility
and hard work are more highly regarded. It is expected that a
student will be incompetent. But it is also expected that a
student will work hard to become competent.
This is not a comment on which should be regarded as better, but a
comment on the cultural environment in which we operate. A student
who fails in the West�and this is a gross generalization, since
the "West" is not a homogeneous culture�is more likely to move on
to a different topic. We encourage our students to find the thing
that they are naturally good at. In other cultures, failure to
succeed is an invitation to try harder. Even though it might be
acknowledged that you will never be good at something, it is
important to be seen to be trying to master the skill.
The result is that self-evaluations vary widely by culture and
exhibit systematic biases. In other words, no one seems to get it
right. We all fail in different ways.
Education and work
One of the scary things about these findings is that we often use
self-evaluation in education and work. What this tells us is that,
for both the best performers and the worst performers�these are
the people you really want to find out about�you are not going to
get an accurate impression.
In the case of hard-skills, such as logic and reasoning, these can
be evaluated by objective tests. It is easy enough to separate the
brilliant from the abject failures. But what about courses like
English literature, or skills like management? Not only is it hard
to define what makes a good manager a good manager, it is hard to
define a scale on which to evaluate the qualities that make a good
manager.
This is where Ames and Kammrath come back into play. Things like
management involve reading people. But this study shows that you
have to be good at reading people in order to evaluate if you are
good at reading people. What's more, evaluating general
performance is more about reading people and trying to figure out
what they are capable of.
The results of research performed by Dunning, Kruger, Ames, and
Kammrath tell us something that every one of us has expressed at
some time or another. The incompetent are readily able to escape
detection by those who count. At its most cynical�though it is
also a logically inescapable conclusion�this is best expressed by
the Peter Principle: people are inevitably promoted to a position
that is just beyond their level of competence. If we accept the
Peter Principle, then we must also accept the consequences of
that. People who evaluate the performance of their underlings are
likely to be incapable of such an evaluation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle
What about science communication?
Science communication is a hobby of mine, and the Dunning and
Kruger paper has implications for this field. Indeed, the
implications of the findings are far more insidious than the
realization that, yes, we all have weak points. Take for instance
a common line of reasoning used in science communication. When
faced with a topic I don't understand, "I recognize that I am not
an expert, so I rely on the accumulated wisdom of experts."
Furthermore, a common suggestion in critical thinking is that when
you are presented with scientific claims, you examine the evidence
from a range of experts to test the claim. But just think about
that for a moment.
First, you have to pick an expert. OK, how do I, as a
non-scientist, tell the difference between Michael Behe and
Richard Dawkins? How do I tell the difference between a scientific
society, such as NOAA, and something like the Heartland Institute?
In short, to pick a good expert on a given topic, I need some
expertise on the topic. The Internet can help with this, since a
large number of biologists would tell you that Richard Dawkins is
a reliable source of information on evolution, and very few would
point you in the direction of Michael Behe. In other words, in
aggregate, is the Internet always right? Umm, yeah, I think I'll
take a pass on that.
This is a topic that is of interest to Dunning. "Our own recent
work shows that, yes, you need experts to spot experts," he said.
"Everyone can spot the poor performer, but often spotting the best
performers is beyond the competence of the group. That said,
spotting an expert outside of one�s field is a task one can become
better at. And that�s important, given just how much information,
good and bad, is not available to people. For example, is the
expert associated with a university (a good sign) or some 'think
tank' (a bad sign)?" Again, though, this takes experience and
expertise. Groups like think tanks try to give themselves the
trappings of expertise in a move specifically designed to fool us
into trusting their statements.
Furthermore, there seems to be an inherent misunderstanding on the
part of scientists and science communicators, according to
Dunning. "For example, scientists often think that telling the
world a conclusion has scientific consensus settles the issue. To
scientists, this makes sense. To the general public, they 'hear'
that scientists must be colluding on an issue." In other words,
the message poisons itself. This comes back, at least in part, to
education. "They [scientists and science communicators] assume
some basic knowledge (and faith) in science in the general
population that, in truth, is missing," Dunning said.
In spite of this, I remain optimistic. Why? Because the
Dunning-Kruger paper shows that, with training, self-evaluation
accuracy improves. If you teach people logical reasoning, they
become better able to evaluate their own performance in logical
reasoning. The critical message is that the right feedback at the
right time has an impact. Also, this is still new knowledge. I
wonder how simple knowledge of Dunning-Kruger could affect
people's self-assessment. If you are aware that everyone
(including you and me) is likely to overestimate our abilities,
does this have an influence? Dunning believes there are two key
issues: first, critical thinking skills, applied to your own
knowledge, as well as everything else, are vital. But,
importantly, if you don't exercise critical thinking skills, they
will fade, leaving you with a false impression of your own
abilities.
It is also important to confront people with their own failings.
"There is also some thought that perhaps we should give people
experience with their overconfidence," Dunning noted. "That is,
get them to make an overconfident display, and then expose it for
what it is, so that people are more on guard for such an issue.
For example, in some areas, people learning to drive are exposed
to horrible driving conditions, but not taught how to handle them.
Instead, they are given enough frightening experience that they
would never think to drive in icy or snowy conditions. I would not
consider this a negative approach to education. As Anatole France
said, a proper education isn�t what you know, it�s being able to
separate what you know from what you don�t."
An excellent example? Take this article. I am not a psychologist,
nor have I taken any training in that area. I find results like
these fascinating. I wonder, even as I write this, how much I have
gotten wrong, misunderstood, or simply left out. Nevertheless, as
imperfect as this may be, it's still worth putting out there for
discussion. I think.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1999 (PDF)
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.64.2655&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2003, DOI:
10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.5
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.5
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 2004 (PDF)
http://www.columbia.edu/~lkk7/Papers/AmesKammrath2004.pdf
--
"A 'crank' is defined as a man who cannot be turned." --- _Nature_, 8 Nov 1906
Wally W.
May 26, 2012, 6:18:15 PM5/26/12
to
On Sat, 26 May 2012 15:10:03 -0600, AGWFacts wrote:
>Revisiting why incompetents think they're awesome
Another irony meter broken.
>Revisiting why incompetents think they're awesome
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
May 26, 2012, 7:42:06 PM5/26/12
to
1/3 of land cooling
May 26, 2012, 7:48:49 PM5/26/12
to AGWF...@1800reality.com
On Sunday, May 27, 2012 9:10:03 AM UTC+12, AGWFacts wrote:
> Revisiting why incompetents think they're awesome
>
Is AGWFacts claiming to be awesome?
> Revisiting why incompetents think they're awesome
>
AGWFacts
May 26, 2012, 10:53:48 PM5/26/12
to
On Sat, 26 May 2012 18:18:15 -0400, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com>
wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 15:10:03 -0600, AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
>
> > Revisiting why incompetents think they're awesome
> >
> Another irony meter broken.
That's your first step to recovery. Congratulations.
wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 15:10:03 -0600, AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
>
> > Revisiting why incompetents think they're awesome
> >
That's your first step to recovery. Congratulations.
AGWFacts
May 26, 2012, 10:54:34 PM5/26/12
to
On Sat, 26 May 2012 23:42:06 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 18:18:15 -0400, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 18:18:15 -0400, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 26 May 2012 15:10:03 -0600, AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Revisiting why incompetents think they're awesome
> > >
> > On Sat, 26 May 2012 15:10:03 -0600, AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Revisiting why incompetents think they're awesome
> > >
> > Another irony meter broken.
> Broken, hell, exploded like a super nova.
Did you spot anything in the article that was wrong?
> Broken, hell, exploded like a super nova.
AGWFacts
May 26, 2012, 10:55:13 PM5/26/12
to
On Sat, 26 May 2012 16:48:49 -0700 (PDT), "1/3 of land cooling"
<skept...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 15:10:03 -0600, AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
>
> > Revisiting why incompetents think they're awesome
> >
good for you.
<skept...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 15:10:03 -0600, AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
>
> > Revisiting why incompetents think they're awesome
> >
> Is AGWFacts claiming to be awesome?
Try reading the article. It will make you uncomfortable, but it's
good for you.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
May 26, 2012, 11:11:02 PM5/26/12
to
In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> pasted in from other posts:
396 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.
396 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.
SunDancer
May 27, 2012, 5:32:51 AM5/27/12
to
AGWFacts wrote :
--
The Dawlish : Weather is not climate unless I say it is.
> Did you spot anything in the article that was wrong?
What article?????
--
The Dawlish : Weather is not climate unless I say it is.
SunDancer
May 27, 2012, 5:33:47 AM5/27/12
to
AGWFacts wrote :
> That's your first step to recovery. Congratulations.
Huh? what recovery?
SunDancer
May 27, 2012, 5:34:26 AM5/27/12
to
AGWFacts wrote :
> Try reading the article. It will make you uncomfortable, but it's
> good for you.
What article??? Idiot.
> good for you.
RedAcer
May 27, 2012, 9:32:16 AM5/27/12
to
On 26/05/12 22:10, AGWFacts wrote:
> Revisiting why incompetents think they're awesome
>
> http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/revisiting-why-incompetents-think-theyre-awesome/
>
> Dunning-Kruger study today: The uninformed aren't as doomed as the
> Web suggests.
.................
> Revisiting why incompetents think they're awesome
>
> http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/revisiting-why-incompetents-think-theyre-awesome/
>
> Dunning-Kruger study today: The uninformed aren't as doomed as the
> Web suggests.
>
> Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1999 (PDF)
>
> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.64.2655&rep=rep1&type=pdf
>
> Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2003, DOI:
> 10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.5
>
> http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.5
>
> Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 2004 (PDF)
>
> http://www.columbia.edu/~lkk7/Papers/AmesKammrath2004.pdf
>
>
> --
> "A 'crank' is defined as a man who cannot be turned." --- _Nature_, 8 Nov 1906
A fascinating article which should make any rational, intelligent,
> Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1999 (PDF)
>
> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.64.2655&rep=rep1&type=pdf
>
> Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2003, DOI:
> 10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.5
>
> http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.5
>
> Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 2004 (PDF)
>
> http://www.columbia.edu/~lkk7/Papers/AmesKammrath2004.pdf
>
>
> --
> "A 'crank' is defined as a man who cannot be turned." --- _Nature_, 8 Nov 1906
thoughtful person think about their own beliefs and behaviour.
Unfortunately you are 'throwing pearls before swine' in the denier
community. From the responses, most didn't even bother to read it.
The bit which stuck out, relevant to this group of deniers :-
''Furthermore, there seems to be an inherent misunderstanding on the
part of scientists and science communicators, according to
Dunning. "For example, scientists often think that telling the
world a conclusion has scientific consensus settles the issue. To
scientists, this makes sense. To the general public, they 'hear'
that scientists must be colluding on an issue." In other words,
the message poisons itself. This comes back, at least in part, to
education. "They [scientists and science communicators] assume
some basic knowledge (and faith) in science in the general
population that, in truth, is missing," Dunning said.''
Dunning. "For example, scientists often think that telling the
world a conclusion has scientific consensus settles the issue. To
scientists, this makes sense. To the general public, they 'hear'
that scientists must be colluding on an issue." In other words,
the message poisons itself. This comes back, at least in part, to
education. "They [scientists and science communicators] assume
some basic knowledge (and faith) in science in the general
--
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an
understanding ... Samuel Johnson
James
May 27, 2012, 12:21:16 PM5/27/12
to
"AGWFacts" <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote in message
news:1bh2s7ds34n54q8u6...@4ax.com
> teach people to accurately self-evaluate-though, in their specific
> basketball coach. Consider the average basketball coach-a
> who fails in the West-and this is a gross generalization, since
> the "West" is not a homogeneous culture-is more likely to move on
> the people you really want to find out about-you are not going to
> also a logically inescapable conclusion-this is best expressed by
Incompetents think they're awesome? Every child figures that out before
they even become teenagers.
As to how this fellow has 'programmed' his process of deciding, he
forgets corruption and cannot expect his processes to be of any value.
And corruption is always there for one reason or another.
news:1bh2s7ds34n54q8u6...@4ax.com
> Revisiting why incompetents think they're awesome
>
> http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/revisiting-why-incompetents-think-theyre-awesome/
>
> Dunning-Kruger study today: The uninformed aren't as doomed as the
> Web suggests.
>
> In 1999 a pair of researchers published a paper called "Unskilled
> and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
> Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments (PDF)." David
> Dunning and Justin Kruger (both at Cornell University's Department
> of Psychology at the time) conducted a series of four studies
> showing that, in certain cases, people who are very bad at
> something think they are actually pretty good. They showed that to
> assess your own expertise at something, you need to have a certain
> amount of expertise already.
>
> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.64.2655&rep=rep1&type=pdf
>
> Remember the 2008 election campaign? The financial markets were
> going crazy, and banks that were "too big to fail" were bailed out
> by the government. Smug EU officials proclaimed that all was well
> within the EU-even while they were bailing out a number of
>
> http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/revisiting-why-incompetents-think-theyre-awesome/
>
> Dunning-Kruger study today: The uninformed aren't as doomed as the
> Web suggests.
>
> In 1999 a pair of researchers published a paper called "Unskilled
> and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
> Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments (PDF)." David
> Dunning and Justin Kruger (both at Cornell University's Department
> of Psychology at the time) conducted a series of four studies
> showing that, in certain cases, people who are very bad at
> something think they are actually pretty good. They showed that to
> assess your own expertise at something, you need to have a certain
> amount of expertise already.
>
> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.64.2655&rep=rep1&type=pdf
>
> Remember the 2008 election campaign? The financial markets were
> going crazy, and banks that were "too big to fail" were bailed out
> by the government. Smug EU officials proclaimed that all was well
> financial institutions. Fast forward to 2012, and the EU is
> looking at hard times. Greece can't pay its debt. Italy can, but
> the markets don't trust it to be able to. Spain and Portugal are
> teetering around like toddlers just waiting for the market to give
> them one good push. Members of the public are behaving like
> teenagers, screaming "F**k you," while flipping the bird. The
> markets are reacting like drunk parents, and the resulting bruises
> are going to take a while to heal.
>
> In all of this, uninformed idiots blame the Greeks for being lazy,
> the Germans for being too strict, and everyone but themselves.
> Newspapers, blogs, and television are filled with wise commentary
> hailing the return of the gold standard, the breakup of the Euro,
> or any number of sensible and not-so-sensible ideas. How are we to
> parse all this information? Do any of these people know what they
> are talking about? And if anyone does, how can we know which ones
> to listen to? The research of Dunning and Kruger may well tell us
> there is no way to figure out the answers to any of these
> questions. That is kind of scary.
>
> It has been more than 10 years since Dunning and Kruger published
> their work. I suspect it has become required reading in psychology
> courses. It's also a paper that has important implications for
> learning and communication, so what has happened since? Have the
> results held up? Are they universal? And what can we do to avoid
> falling victim to our own inabilities?
>
> This paper has become a cult classic. It is well-written-humor
> looking at hard times. Greece can't pay its debt. Italy can, but
> the markets don't trust it to be able to. Spain and Portugal are
> teetering around like toddlers just waiting for the market to give
> them one good push. Members of the public are behaving like
> teenagers, screaming "F**k you," while flipping the bird. The
> markets are reacting like drunk parents, and the resulting bruises
> are going to take a while to heal.
>
> In all of this, uninformed idiots blame the Greeks for being lazy,
> the Germans for being too strict, and everyone but themselves.
> Newspapers, blogs, and television are filled with wise commentary
> hailing the return of the gold standard, the breakup of the Euro,
> or any number of sensible and not-so-sensible ideas. How are we to
> parse all this information? Do any of these people know what they
> are talking about? And if anyone does, how can we know which ones
> to listen to? The research of Dunning and Kruger may well tell us
> there is no way to figure out the answers to any of these
> questions. That is kind of scary.
>
> It has been more than 10 years since Dunning and Kruger published
> their work. I suspect it has become required reading in psychology
> courses. It's also a paper that has important implications for
> learning and communication, so what has happened since? Have the
> results held up? Are they universal? And what can we do to avoid
> falling victim to our own inabilities?
>
> examples, this also involved teaching them the very skill they
> were trying to evaluate.
>
> http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.5
>
> Context is everything
>
> It is important to realize that the Dunning-Kruger paper was not
> such a shocking finding. It was, for instance, already known that
> seemingly everyone evaluates themselves as above average in
> everything. Are you a better driver than average? Certainly am.
> How do you rate your ability at math? Oh, a little better than
> average. How about mountain climbing? Well, I've climbed the local
> hill a couple of times. I bet Kilimanjaro can't be much more
> difficult.
>
> A large pile of research on various groups of people, covering
> various skill sets, indicates that in the face of all evidence,
> humans are irredeemably optimistic about their own abilities. That
> is, by itself, not such a bad thing. The ugly side shows up when
> we also realize that the norm must be maintained. Studies show
> that we do this by considering that everyone else is much worse.
> Being clueless about your own abilities is one thing. Misjudging
> other's abilities is relatively more serious.
>
> It's not about stupidity, stupid
>
> It's worth spending a moment to illustrate how subtle Dunning and
> Kruger's results really are. And what better example to use than
> me? I am an immigrant. I grew up speaking English-though, perhaps
> were trying to evaluate.
>
> http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.5
>
> Context is everything
>
> It is important to realize that the Dunning-Kruger paper was not
> such a shocking finding. It was, for instance, already known that
> seemingly everyone evaluates themselves as above average in
> everything. Are you a better driver than average? Certainly am.
> How do you rate your ability at math? Oh, a little better than
> average. How about mountain climbing? Well, I've climbed the local
> hill a couple of times. I bet Kilimanjaro can't be much more
> difficult.
>
> A large pile of research on various groups of people, covering
> various skill sets, indicates that in the face of all evidence,
> humans are irredeemably optimistic about their own abilities. That
> is, by itself, not such a bad thing. The ugly side shows up when
> we also realize that the norm must be maintained. Studies show
> that we do this by considering that everyone else is much worse.
> Being clueless about your own abilities is one thing. Misjudging
> other's abilities is relatively more serious.
>
> It's not about stupidity, stupid
>
> It's worth spending a moment to illustrate how subtle Dunning and
> Kruger's results really are. And what better example to use than
> the "West" is not a homogeneous culture-is more likely to move on
> to a different topic. We encourage our students to find the thing
> that they are naturally good at. In other cultures, failure to
> succeed is an invitation to try harder. Even though it might be
> acknowledged that you will never be good at something, it is
> important to be seen to be trying to master the skill.
>
> The result is that self-evaluations vary widely by culture and
> exhibit systematic biases. In other words, no one seems to get it
> right. We all fail in different ways.
>
> Education and work
>
> One of the scary things about these findings is that we often use
> self-evaluation in education and work. What this tells us is that,
> for both the best performers and the worst performers-these are
> that they are naturally good at. In other cultures, failure to
> succeed is an invitation to try harder. Even though it might be
> acknowledged that you will never be good at something, it is
> important to be seen to be trying to master the skill.
>
> The result is that self-evaluations vary widely by culture and
> exhibit systematic biases. In other words, no one seems to get it
> right. We all fail in different ways.
>
> Education and work
>
> One of the scary things about these findings is that we often use
> self-evaluation in education and work. What this tells us is that,
> the people you really want to find out about-you are not going to
> get an accurate impression.
>
> In the case of hard-skills, such as logic and reasoning, these can
> be evaluated by objective tests. It is easy enough to separate the
> brilliant from the abject failures. But what about courses like
> English literature, or skills like management? Not only is it hard
> to define what makes a good manager a good manager, it is hard to
> define a scale on which to evaluate the qualities that make a good
> manager.
>
> This is where Ames and Kammrath come back into play. Things like
> management involve reading people. But this study shows that you
> have to be good at reading people in order to evaluate if you are
> good at reading people. What's more, evaluating general
> performance is more about reading people and trying to figure out
> what they are capable of.
>
> The results of research performed by Dunning, Kruger, Ames, and
> Kammrath tell us something that every one of us has expressed at
> some time or another. The incompetent are readily able to escape
> detection by those who count. At its most cynical-though it is
>
> In the case of hard-skills, such as logic and reasoning, these can
> be evaluated by objective tests. It is easy enough to separate the
> brilliant from the abject failures. But what about courses like
> English literature, or skills like management? Not only is it hard
> to define what makes a good manager a good manager, it is hard to
> define a scale on which to evaluate the qualities that make a good
> manager.
>
> This is where Ames and Kammrath come back into play. Things like
> management involve reading people. But this study shows that you
> have to be good at reading people in order to evaluate if you are
> good at reading people. What's more, evaluating general
> performance is more about reading people and trying to figure out
> what they are capable of.
>
> The results of research performed by Dunning, Kruger, Ames, and
> Kammrath tell us something that every one of us has expressed at
> some time or another. The incompetent are readily able to escape
> also a logically inescapable conclusion-this is best expressed by
they even become teenagers.
As to how this fellow has 'programmed' his process of deciding, he
forgets corruption and cannot expect his processes to be of any value.
And corruption is always there for one reason or another.
AGWFacts
May 27, 2012, 1:50:21 PM5/27/12
to
On Sun, 27 May 2012 11:33:47 +0200, SunDancer
<nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
<nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> > That's your first step to recovery. Congratulations.
> Huh? what recovery?
Still confused, eh? Well, go back to your Crayons.
> Huh? what recovery?
AGWFacts
May 27, 2012, 1:50:52 PM5/27/12
to
On Sun, 27 May 2012 03:11:02 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:
wrote:
> 396 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.
What, if anything, did you spot in the article that was wrong?
AGWFacts
May 27, 2012, 1:51:28 PM5/27/12
to
On Sun, 27 May 2012 11:32:51 +0200, SunDancer
<nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
<nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> > Did you spot anything in the article that was wrong?
> What article?????
See above!!!!!
> What article?????
AGWFacts
May 27, 2012, 1:52:05 PM5/27/12
to
On Sun, 27 May 2012 11:34:26 +0200, SunDancer
<nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
<nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> > Try reading the article. It will make you uncomfortable, but it's
> > good for you.
> What article??? Idiot.
The article above!!! Idiot.
> > good for you.
> What article??? Idiot.
AGWFacts
May 27, 2012, 2:08:58 PM5/27/12
to
On Sun, 27 May 2012 14:32:16 +0100, RedAcer <red...@tiscali.co.uk>
wrote:
> On 26/05/12 22:10, AGWFacts wrote:
> > Revisiting why incompetents think they're awesome
> >
> > http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/revisiting-why-incompetents-think-theyre-awesome/
> >
> > Dunning-Kruger study today: The uninformed aren't as doomed as the
> > Web suggests.
> .................
> >
> > Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1999 (PDF)
> >
> > http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.64.2655&rep=rep1&type=pdf
> >
> > Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2003, DOI:
> > 10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.5
> >
> > http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.5
> >
> > Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 2004 (PDF)
> >
> > http://www.columbia.edu/~lkk7/Papers/AmesKammrath2004.pdf
is true and what is false might not be correct.
> Unfortunately you are 'throwing pearls before swine' in the denier
> community. From the responses, most didn't even bother to read it.
Indeed, the excellent article on WikiPedia about denialism
explains why denialists will never read this article. It is the
same reason members of the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-
Day Saints" will never read a book about the history of the cult;
it is why Creationists will never read a book on genetics.
> The bit which stuck out, relevant to this group of deniers :-
>
> ''Furthermore, there seems to be an inherent misunderstanding on the
> part of scientists and science communicators, according to
> Dunning. "For example, scientists often think that telling the
> world a conclusion has scientific consensus settles the issue. To
> scientists, this makes sense. To the general public, they 'hear'
> that scientists must be colluding on an issue." In other words,
> the message poisons itself. This comes back, at least in part, to
> education. "They [scientists and science communicators] assume
> some basic knowledge (and faith) in science in the general
> population that, in truth, is missing," Dunning said.''
Yes, but only in the population they studied. It may not be true
for cultures that accept science as definitive in answering
questions.
Many years ago I used to believe the same thing: just produce the
scientific evidence, and that would end the argument. Sadly, human
minds do not work that way.
wrote:
> On 26/05/12 22:10, AGWFacts wrote:
> > Revisiting why incompetents think they're awesome
> >
> > http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/revisiting-why-incompetents-think-theyre-awesome/
> >
> > Dunning-Kruger study today: The uninformed aren't as doomed as the
> > Web suggests.
> .................
> >
> > Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1999 (PDF)
> >
> > http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.64.2655&rep=rep1&type=pdf
> >
> > Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2003, DOI:
> > 10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.5
> >
> > http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.5
> >
> > Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 2004 (PDF)
> >
> > http://www.columbia.edu/~lkk7/Papers/AmesKammrath2004.pdf
> A fascinating article which should make any rational, intelligent,
> thoughtful person think about their own beliefs and behaviour.
Indeed, it reaffirms my anxiety that what I know and what I think
> thoughtful person think about their own beliefs and behaviour.
is true and what is false might not be correct.
> Unfortunately you are 'throwing pearls before swine' in the denier
> community. From the responses, most didn't even bother to read it.
explains why denialists will never read this article. It is the
same reason members of the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-
Day Saints" will never read a book about the history of the cult;
it is why Creationists will never read a book on genetics.
> The bit which stuck out, relevant to this group of deniers :-
>
> ''Furthermore, there seems to be an inherent misunderstanding on the
> part of scientists and science communicators, according to
> Dunning. "For example, scientists often think that telling the
> world a conclusion has scientific consensus settles the issue. To
> scientists, this makes sense. To the general public, they 'hear'
> that scientists must be colluding on an issue." In other words,
> the message poisons itself. This comes back, at least in part, to
> education. "They [scientists and science communicators] assume
> some basic knowledge (and faith) in science in the general
> population that, in truth, is missing," Dunning said.''
for cultures that accept science as definitive in answering
questions.
Many years ago I used to believe the same thing: just produce the
scientific evidence, and that would end the argument. Sadly, human
minds do not work that way.
SunDancer
May 27, 2012, 2:24:55 PM5/27/12
to
AGWFacts wrote :
> See above!!!!!
Above what? Can you see an article?
> See above!!!!!
Above what? Can you see an article?
SunDancer
May 27, 2012, 2:25:59 PM5/27/12
to
AGWFacts wrote :
> Still confused, eh? Well, go back to your Crayons.
I can't see any crayons. Can anyone see the article?
SunDancer
May 27, 2012, 2:27:30 PM5/27/12
to
AGWFacts wrote :
>
>> What article??? Idiot.
>
> The article above!!! Idiot.
There is no article!!
Clueless twit.
>
>> What article??? Idiot.
>
> The article above!!! Idiot.
Clueless twit.
gordo
May 27, 2012, 2:30:17 PM5/27/12
to
On Sat, 26 May 2012 20:55:13 -0600, AGWFacts
to have seen citation as to actual world numbers .
On the second article it is good to learn that we all suffer from
greater confidence in our critical thinking than is justified but that
we can improve. We confront each others failings here every day . See
any improvement in critical thinking :-)
gordo
May 27, 2012, 2:36:18 PM5/27/12
to
Merchants of Doubt play in the understanding of the general public to
the consensus in the science of AGW. This makes it more difficult to
allow the public to allow critical thinking when what they think they
believe is reinforced by deception and lies.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
May 27, 2012, 2:32:06 PM5/27/12
to
410 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.
Claudius Denk
May 27, 2012, 3:11:21 PM5/27/12
to
On May 26, 2:10 pm, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@1800reality.com> wrote:
> Revisiting why incompetents think they're awesome
>
> http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/revisiting-why-incompetents-th...
> Revisiting why incompetents think they're awesome
>
>
> Dunning-Kruger study today: The uninformed aren't as doomed as the
> Web suggests.
>
> In 1999 a pair of researchers published a paper called "Unskilled
> and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
> Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments (PDF)." David
> Dunning and Justin Kruger (both at Cornell University's Department
> of Psychology at the time) conducted a series of four studies
> showing that, in certain cases, people who are very bad at
> something think they are actually pretty good. They showed that to
> assess your own expertise at something, you need to have a certain
> amount of expertise already.
>
> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.64.2655&rep=...
> Dunning-Kruger study today: The uninformed aren't as doomed as the
> Web suggests.
>
> In 1999 a pair of researchers published a paper called "Unskilled
> and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
> Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments (PDF)." David
> Dunning and Justin Kruger (both at Cornell University's Department
> of Psychology at the time) conducted a series of four studies
> showing that, in certain cases, people who are very bad at
> something think they are actually pretty good. They showed that to
> assess your own expertise at something, you need to have a certain
> amount of expertise already.
>
>
> read more »
Well, this article would bring us to believe that one side of the AGW
skeptics versus the AGW believers are delusional. But it doesn't tell
us which side that is.
For that we have to look at other factors, such as willingness to
debate.
Wally W.
May 27, 2012, 4:30:52 PM5/27/12
to
On Sun, 27 May 2012 12:08:58 -0600, AGWFacts wrote:
>On Sun, 27 May 2012 14:32:16 +0100, RedAcer <red...@tiscali.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>> On 26/05/12 22:10, AGWFacts wrote:
>
>> > Revisiting why incompetents think they're awesome
>> >
>> > http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/revisiting-why-incompetents-think-theyre-awesome/
>> >
>> > Dunning-Kruger study today: The uninformed aren't as doomed as the
>> > Web suggests.
>> .................
>> >
>> > Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1999 (PDF)
>> >
>> > http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.64.2655&rep=rep1&type=pdf
>> >
>> > Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2003, DOI:
>> > 10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.5
>> >
>> > http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.5
>> >
>> > Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 2004 (PDF)
>> >
>> > http://www.columbia.edu/~lkk7/Papers/AmesKammrath2004.pdf
>
>> A fascinating article which should make any rational, intelligent,
>> thoughtful person think about their own beliefs and behaviour.
>
>Indeed, it reaffirms my anxiety that what I know and what I think
>is true and what is false might not be correct.
I have not detected such anxiety in your posts.
>On Sun, 27 May 2012 14:32:16 +0100, RedAcer <red...@tiscali.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>> On 26/05/12 22:10, AGWFacts wrote:
>
>> > Revisiting why incompetents think they're awesome
>> >
>> > http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/revisiting-why-incompetents-think-theyre-awesome/
>> >
>> > Dunning-Kruger study today: The uninformed aren't as doomed as the
>> > Web suggests.
>> .................
>> >
>> > Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1999 (PDF)
>> >
>> > http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.64.2655&rep=rep1&type=pdf
>> >
>> > Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2003, DOI:
>> > 10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.5
>> >
>> > http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.5
>> >
>> > Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 2004 (PDF)
>> >
>> > http://www.columbia.edu/~lkk7/Papers/AmesKammrath2004.pdf
>
>> A fascinating article which should make any rational, intelligent,
>> thoughtful person think about their own beliefs and behaviour.
>
>Indeed, it reaffirms my anxiety that what I know and what I think
>is true and what is false might not be correct.
Nor does being at the top of this list seem to indicate much of that
anxiety:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/about
Top posters
This month 708 agwfa...@1800reality.com
>> Unfortunately you are 'throwing pearls before swine' in the denier
>> community. From the responses, most didn't even bother to read it.
>
>Indeed, the excellent article on WikiPedia about denialism
>explains why denialists will never read this article. It is the
>same reason members of the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-
>Day Saints" will never read a book about the history of the cult;
>it is why Creationists will never read a book on genetics.
>
>> The bit which stuck out, relevant to this group of deniers :-
>>
>> ''Furthermore, there seems to be an inherent misunderstanding on the
>> part of scientists and science communicators, according to
>> Dunning. "For example, scientists often think that telling the
>> world a conclusion has scientific consensus settles the issue. To
>> scientists, this makes sense. To the general public, they 'hear'
>> that scientists must be colluding on an issue." In other words,
>> the message poisons itself. This comes back, at least in part, to
>> education. "They [scientists and science communicators] assume
>> some basic knowledge (and faith) in science in the general
>> population that, in truth, is missing," Dunning said.''
>
>Yes, but only in the population they studied. It may not be true
>for cultures that accept science as definitive in answering
>questions.
>
>Many years ago I used to believe the same thing: just produce the
>scientific evidence, and that would end the argument. Sadly, human
>minds do not work that way.
gordo
May 27, 2012, 6:24:01 PM5/27/12
to
the science of AGW and the consensus of those scientist that the
science is settled and deniers who deny observed facts.
>For that we have to look at other factors, such as willingness to
>debate.
believers and AGW deniers when they do not have the skills and
experience of the scientists who do the actual science and produce the
scientific papers. One of the deniers here when confronted with
irrefutable evidence simply says bullshit. Do you think that that
person should be debated ? Do you think that he evaluates his own
abilities properly?
James
May 27, 2012, 9:32:46 PM5/27/12
to
"gordo" <grme...@shaw.ca.remove> wrote in message
news:r895s7p53ahbi49ng...@4ax.com
Maybe if you stopped lying.
--
True so I lied but I considered it more of a prank. - Gordo 5/1/2012
and still does
news:r895s7p53ahbi49ng...@4ax.com
--
True so I lied but I considered it more of a prank. - Gordo 5/1/2012
and still does
gordo
May 27, 2012, 10:56:34 PM5/27/12
to
On Sun, 27 May 2012 21:32:46 -0400, "James" <king...@iglou.com>
wrote:
I think that James is evaluating his own abilities and also observed
facts. I recognize that my evaluation of my own abilities exceeds
reality and from that I do have to bow to the people who do have the
skills,knowledge and education to be world lead scientists in
climatology.
They do not lie as the people who cherry pick data and make shit up
do. Did you hear about the prank that Dr. Gleick did. Too Too funny.
wrote:
facts. I recognize that my evaluation of my own abilities exceeds
reality and from that I do have to bow to the people who do have the
skills,knowledge and education to be world lead scientists in
climatology.
They do not lie as the people who cherry pick data and make shit up
do. Did you hear about the prank that Dr. Gleick did. Too Too funny.
Tom Potter
May 27, 2012, 11:28:35 PM5/27/12
to
news:oeq4s7p2e3291t415...@4ax.com...
The questions are:
=============
1. Why do 'anti-cranks' try to "turn" (convert) "cranks"?
2. Why are 'anti-cranks' motivated to personally attack
or discredit a 'crank'
when a 'crank' is not converted?
3. Why do 'anti-cranks' in dominant religions and governments
use the resources of 'cranks' and 'anti-cranks'
in an effort to discredit cranks?
I have done a "gestalt experiment"
and it is obvious that people confident of their positions
do not become 'anti-cranks',
and that insecure people in religious and government positions,
who feel threatened by a 'crank' POSITION
become 'anti-crank' LEADERS,
and that people who are easily conditioned
become 'anti-crank' FOLLOWERS.
The most rational position to assume is:
Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
If you feel threatened by a position ,
LEAD and attack the position,
If you do not feel threatened by a position ,
get out of the way,
otherwise, become a follower
and ignore or support one of the positions.
Obviously, if there is a valid and persistent threat to one's
physical or economic well being by
followers of 'cranks' or 'anti-cranks',
one should take action against the followers.
Observe that the people on the public dole
who do experiments and write papers about 'cranks'
oppose PEOPLE rather than positions,
and they obviously feel threatened
by any child, animal, and 'inferior, or a 'superior'
who assumes a position and defends that position.
Otherwise,
why would they be all bent out of shape because some 'crank'
believes enough in a position to defend it?
"An 'anti-crank' is a person who aggressively supports
a dominant religion, government, theory, or model."
--- Tom Potter - 5-26-2012
--
Tom Potter
http://tom-potter.tel
https://tdp1001.jux.com/
=============
1. Why do 'anti-cranks' try to "turn" (convert) "cranks"?
2. Why are 'anti-cranks' motivated to personally attack
or discredit a 'crank'
when a 'crank' is not converted?
3. Why do 'anti-cranks' in dominant religions and governments
use the resources of 'cranks' and 'anti-cranks'
in an effort to discredit cranks?
I have done a "gestalt experiment"
and it is obvious that people confident of their positions
do not become 'anti-cranks',
and that insecure people in religious and government positions,
who feel threatened by a 'crank' POSITION
become 'anti-crank' LEADERS,
and that people who are easily conditioned
become 'anti-crank' FOLLOWERS.
The most rational position to assume is:
Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
If you feel threatened by a position ,
LEAD and attack the position,
If you do not feel threatened by a position ,
get out of the way,
otherwise, become a follower
and ignore or support one of the positions.
Obviously, if there is a valid and persistent threat to one's
physical or economic well being by
followers of 'cranks' or 'anti-cranks',
one should take action against the followers.
Observe that the people on the public dole
who do experiments and write papers about 'cranks'
oppose PEOPLE rather than positions,
and they obviously feel threatened
by any child, animal, and 'inferior, or a 'superior'
who assumes a position and defends that position.
Otherwise,
why would they be all bent out of shape because some 'crank'
believes enough in a position to defend it?
"An 'anti-crank' is a person who aggressively supports
a dominant religion, government, theory, or model."
--- Tom Potter - 5-26-2012
--
Tom Potter
http://tom-potter.tel
https://tdp1001.jux.com/
James
May 27, 2012, 11:45:00 PM5/27/12
to
"gordo" <grme...@shaw.ca.remove> wrote in message
news:d8p5s7tkugiuinsss...@4ax.com
bjacoby
May 28, 2012, 1:29:20 AM5/28/12
to
On 5/27/2012 9:32 AM, RedAcer wrote:
> The bit which stuck out, relevant to this group of deniers :-
>
> ''Furthermore, there seems to be an inherent misunderstanding on the
> part of scientists and science communicators, according to
> Dunning. "For example, scientists often think that telling the
> world a conclusion has scientific consensus settles the issue. To
> scientists, this makes sense. To the general public, they 'hear'
> that scientists must be colluding on an issue." In other words,
> the message poisons itself. This comes back, at least in part, to
> education. "They [scientists and science communicators] assume
> some basic knowledge (and faith) in science in the general
> population that, in truth, is missing," Dunning said.''
And it is salient given that it clearly demonstrates that alarmists are
> The bit which stuck out, relevant to this group of deniers :-
>
> ''Furthermore, there seems to be an inherent misunderstanding on the
> part of scientists and science communicators, according to
> Dunning. "For example, scientists often think that telling the
> world a conclusion has scientific consensus settles the issue. To
> scientists, this makes sense. To the general public, they 'hear'
> that scientists must be colluding on an issue." In other words,
> the message poisons itself. This comes back, at least in part, to
> education. "They [scientists and science communicators] assume
> some basic knowledge (and faith) in science in the general
> population that, in truth, is missing," Dunning said.''
NOT scientists. They do argue that some imagined "scientific consensus"
"settles" the issue AS IF they were scientists, but clearly this is NOT
the case as the alarmists quite clearly understand that the general
population has no general knowledge in science (clearly proved by the
ranking of American Science education at present with Latvia heading for
Bangladesh) nor any faith. They know it is missing and therefore use
political tricks to effect popular science opinions which as one would
expect are largely based on lies, trickery, and other psychological
advertising methodology. It would not surprise me in the least to find
major "subs" through the major media pitching AGW.
Greencon
May 28, 2012, 2:34:38 AM5/28/12
to
"bjacoby" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:K2Ewr.41542$9H3....@newsfe06.iad...
> On 5/27/2012 9:32 AM, RedAcer wrote:
>
>> The bit which stuck out, relevant to this group of deniers :-
>>
>> ''Furthermore, there seems to be an inherent misunderstanding on the
>> part of scientists and science communicators, according to
>> Dunning. "For example, scientists often think that telling the
>> world a conclusion has scientific consensus settles the issue.
No scientist worth his salt would utter such anti-science claptrap.
>
>> The bit which stuck out, relevant to this group of deniers :-
>>
>> ''Furthermore, there seems to be an inherent misunderstanding on the
>> part of scientists and science communicators, according to
>> Dunning. "For example, scientists often think that telling the
>> world a conclusion has scientific consensus settles the issue.
But then climate "scientists" are a different story ....
Warmest Regards
B O N Z O
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
"A major problem has been the co-option of climate science by politics,
ambition, greed, and what seems to be a hereditary human need for a
righteous cause."
"What better cause than "saving" the planet, especially if one can get
ample, secure funding at the same time?"
William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Princeton
University.
"The claim is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8ºK in
about 150 years, which, if true, means to me that the temperature has been
amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely
improved in this 'warming' period,".
Nobel Laureate Dr. Ivar Giaever:
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip
now due to mankind. The planet has a natural thermostat"
Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Professor of Meteorology MIT,
Former IPCC Lead Author
"A core problem is that science has given way to ideology. The scientific
method has been dispensed with, or abused, to serve the myth of man-made
global warming."
"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips
"Computer models are built in an almost backwards fashion: The goal is to
show evidence of AGW, and the "scientists" go to work to produce such a
result. When even these models fail to show what advocates want, the data
and interpretations are "fudged" to bring about the desired result"
"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips
"Ocean acidification looks suspiciously like a back-up plan by the
environmental pressure groups in case the climate fails to warm: another try
at condemning fossil fuels!"
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/threat-ocean-acidification-greatly-exaggerated
Before attacking hypothetical problems, let us first solve the real problems
that threaten humanity. One single water pump at an equivalent cost of a
couple of solar panels can indeed spare hundreds of Sahel women the daily
journey to the spring and spare many infections and lives.
Martin De Vlieghere, philosopher
"All it takes to find oneself called a 'denier' is to seek a sense of
proportion about environmental problems"
Mark Lynas, The God Species
RedAcer
May 28, 2012, 6:02:09 AM5/28/12
to
Marvin the Martian
May 28, 2012, 9:16:41 AM5/28/12
to
much less a press release announcing consensus.
If you release anything, it's more like "our theory predicts" or "we have
cold fusion" and not announcing consensus. That science is about
consensus is an alarmist damnable lie and they tell it because they can't
do what real scientists would do: announce that they have a theory that
HAS made useful predictions.
AGWFacts
May 28, 2012, 12:47:12 PM5/28/12
to
On Sun, 27 May 2012 20:25:59 +0200, SunDancer
<nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
<nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> > Still confused, eh? Well, go back to your Crayons.
> I can't see any crayons. Can anyone see the article?
Nut.
> I can't see any crayons. Can anyone see the article?
AGWFacts
May 28, 2012, 12:47:42 PM5/28/12
to
On Sun, 27 May 2012 18:32:06 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:
wrote:
> 410 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.
AGWFacts
May 28, 2012, 12:48:09 PM5/28/12
to
On Sun, 27 May 2012 20:24:55 +0200, SunDancer
<nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
<nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> > See above!!!!!
> Above what? Can you see an article?
Nut.
> Above what? Can you see an article?
AGWFacts
May 28, 2012, 12:48:38 PM5/28/12
to
On Sun, 27 May 2012 20:27:30 +0200, SunDancer
<nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> Clueless twit.
<nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> > > What article??? Idiot.
> >
> > The article above!!! Idiot.
> There is no article!!
Huh?
> >
> > The article above!!! Idiot.
> There is no article!!
> Clueless twit.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
May 28, 2012, 1:13:09 PM5/28/12
to
419 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.
tm
May 28, 2012, 1:32:12 PM5/28/12
to
<ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
news:5aoc99-...@mail.specsol.com...
> In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> pasted in from other
> posts:
>
> 419 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.
>
>
He is the master of crap.
> posts:
>
> 419 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.
>
>
SunDancer
May 28, 2012, 2:01:51 PM5/28/12
to
AGWFacts wrote :
> Nut.
Still no article.
> Nut.
Still no article.
SunDancer
May 28, 2012, 2:02:48 PM5/28/12
to
AGWFacts wrote :
>> I can't see any crayons. Can anyone see the article?
>
> Nut.
No Crayons. No article.
>
> Nut.
SunDancer
May 28, 2012, 2:03:36 PM5/28/12
to
AGWFacts wrote :
> Huh?
Huh?
> Huh?
Huh?
Fredric L. Rice
May 28, 2012, 3:23:29 PM5/28/12
to
AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
>Revisiting why incompetents think they're awesome
>http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/revisiting-why-incompetents-think-theyre-awesome/
>http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.64.2655&rep=rep1&type=pdf
>Revisiting why incompetents think they're awesome
>http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/revisiting-why-incompetents-think-theyre-awesome/
I knbow more about global warming than all the world's climate scientists.
It was cold last night, ergo global warming is a myth. :)
I still have a large number of emails that are endless screeds about how
quantum mechanics is all wrong, how Albert Einstein was wrong about
everything, how cars really can run on water, no end of insane lunacy,
not all of it righty wing corporate cock sucking. Some of the loons
actually believe it all because they're smarter than people who actually
completed High School.
---
http://www.skeptictank.org/
Save us, Obe Won Paul! You're our only hope!
Fredric L. Rice
May 28, 2012, 3:23:54 PM5/28/12
to
Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
Translation: The right wing corporate cock sucker didn't understand a word
of it.
>On Sat, 26 May 2012 15:10:03 -0600, AGWFacts wrote:
>>Revisiting why incompetents think they're awesome
>Another irony meter broken.
>>Revisiting why incompetents think they're awesome
Translation: The right wing corporate cock sucker didn't understand a word
of it.
Fredric L. Rice
May 28, 2012, 3:27:34 PM5/28/12
to
RedAcer <red...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
That's an understatement. :) When science answers questions that cultists
don't want answered, it's always a Satanic / Liberal / Kenyan / Socialist
/ Communist / homosexual c0nsp1rac3. Reality doesn't exist for cultists,
only self-delusion and people colluding to keep rightards from some how
getting the money they feel they are entited to some how.
>On 26/05/12 22:10, AGWFacts wrote:
>> Revisiting why incompetents think they're awesome
>> http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/revisiting-why-incompetents-think-theyre-awesome/
>> Revisiting why incompetents think they're awesome
>> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.64.2655&rep=rep1&type=pdf
>> Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2003, DOI:
>> 10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.5
>''Furthermore, there seems to be an inherent misunderstanding on the
>> Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2003, DOI:
>> 10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.5
>part of scientists and science communicators, according to
>Dunning. "For example, scientists often think that telling the
>world a conclusion has scientific consensus settles the issue. To
>scientists, this makes sense. To the general public, they 'hear'
>that scientists must be colluding on an issue." In other words,
>the message poisons itself. This comes back, at least in part, to
>education. "They [scientists and science communicators] assume
>some basic knowledge (and faith) in science in the general
>population that, in truth, is missing," Dunning said.''
>Dunning. "For example, scientists often think that telling the
>world a conclusion has scientific consensus settles the issue. To
>scientists, this makes sense. To the general public, they 'hear'
>that scientists must be colluding on an issue." In other words,
>the message poisons itself. This comes back, at least in part, to
>education. "They [scientists and science communicators] assume
>some basic knowledge (and faith) in science in the general
That's an understatement. :) When science answers questions that cultists
don't want answered, it's always a Satanic / Liberal / Kenyan / Socialist
/ Communist / homosexual c0nsp1rac3. Reality doesn't exist for cultists,
only self-delusion and people colluding to keep rightards from some how
getting the money they feel they are entited to some how.
AGWFacts
May 28, 2012, 9:59:26 PM5/28/12
to
On Mon, 28 May 2012 20:02:48 +0200, SunDancer
<nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
<nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> > > I can't see any crayons. Can anyone see the article?
> >
> > Nut.
> No Crayons. No article.
--
> >
> > Nut.
> No Crayons. No article.
--
AGWFacts
May 28, 2012, 9:59:49 PM5/28/12
to
On Mon, 28 May 2012 17:13:09 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:
> > > 410 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.
wrote:
> >
> > What, if anything, did you spot in the article that was wrong?
> > What, if anything, did you spot in the article that was wrong?
> 419 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.
AGWFacts
May 28, 2012, 10:00:08 PM5/28/12
to
On Mon, 28 May 2012 20:01:51 +0200, SunDancer
<nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
<nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> > Nut.
> Still no article.
--
> Still no article.
--
AGWFacts
May 28, 2012, 10:00:30 PM5/28/12
to
On Mon, 28 May 2012 20:03:36 +0200, SunDancer
<nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> Huh?
<nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
AGWFacts
May 28, 2012, 10:01:59 PM5/28/12
to
On Mon, 28 May 2012 19:23:29 GMT, fr...@skeptictank.org (Fredric
L. Rice) wrote:
> AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
> >Revisiting why incompetents think they're awesome
> >http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/revisiting-why-incompetents-think-theyre-awesome/
> >http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.64.2655&rep=rep1&type=pdf
> I know more about global warming than all the world's climate scientists.
L. Rice) wrote:
> AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
> >Revisiting why incompetents think they're awesome
> >http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/revisiting-why-incompetents-think-theyre-awesome/
> >http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.64.2655&rep=rep1&type=pdf
> It was cold last night, ergo global warming is a myth. :)
Exactly so. You should see these clowns during the northern
hemisphere winter. Fucking amazing.
> I still have a large number of emails that are endless screeds about how
> quantum mechanics is all wrong, how Albert Einstein was wrong about
> everything, how cars really can run on water, no end of insane lunacy,
> not all of it righty wing corporate cock sucking. Some of the loons
> actually believe it all because they're smarter than people who actually
> completed High School.
bjacoby
May 29, 2012, 12:29:55 AM5/29/12
to
On 5/28/2012 3:23 PM, Fredric L. Rice wrote:
> I knbow more about global warming than all the world's climate scientists.
> It was cold last night, ergo global warming is a myth. :)
on a "skeptic" propaganda blog, all science is done by popular vote!
> I knbow more about global warming than all the world's climate scientists.
> It was cold last night, ergo global warming is a myth. :)
> I still have a large number of emails that are endless screeds about how
> quantum mechanics is all wrong, how Albert Einstein was wrong about
> everything, how cars really can run on water, no end of insane lunacy,
> not all of it righty wing corporate cock sucking. Some of the loons
> actually believe it all because they're smarter than people who actually
> completed High School.
two minor refinements) is a totally correct theory of matter and nature
and will NEVER change or be replaced?
So you are saying that SR and GR are totally correct (Oh, maybe except
for one or two minor refinements) descriptions of reality and will NEVER
change or be replaced?
So you are saying that it is "impossible" for cars to run on only water?
And this you believe with your whole heart and faith?
I admire the strength of your religious faith!
But why don't you just word it this way: I'm a moron.
AGWFacts
May 29, 2012, 2:04:32 PM5/29/12
to
On Tue, 29 May 2012 00:29:55 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:
> On 5/28/2012 3:23 PM, Fredric L. Rice wrote:
> > I knbow more about global warming than all the world's climate scientists.
> > It was cold last night, ergo global warming is a myth. :)
> on a skeptic propaganda blog, all science is done by popular vote!
Okay, I give up. What skeptic propaganda blog?
wrote:
> On 5/28/2012 3:23 PM, Fredric L. Rice wrote:
> > I knbow more about global warming than all the world's climate scientists.
> > It was cold last night, ergo global warming is a myth. :)
> on a skeptic propaganda blog, all science is done by popular vote!
erschro...@gmail.com
May 29, 2012, 4:55:11 PM5/29/12
to
On May 29, 12:29 am, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On 5/28/2012 3:23 PM, Fredric L. Rice wrote:
>
> > I knbow more about global warming than all the world's climate scientists.
> > It was cold last night, ergo global warming is a myth. :)
>
> on a "skeptic" propaganda blog, all science is done by popular vote!
>
> > I still have a large number of emails that are endless screeds about how
> > quantum mechanics is all wrong, how Albert Einstein was wrong about
> > everything, how cars really can run on water, no end of insane lunacy,
> > not all of it righty wing corporate cock sucking. Some of the loons
> > actually believe it all because they're smarter than people who actually
> > completed High School.
>
> So you are saying that Quantum Mechanics (oh, maybe except for one or
> two minor refinements) is a totally correct theory of matter and nature
> and will NEVER change or be replaced?
Well, like AGW, it won't be replaced just because some right-wing
> On 5/28/2012 3:23 PM, Fredric L. Rice wrote:
>
> > I knbow more about global warming than all the world's climate scientists.
> > It was cold last night, ergo global warming is a myth. :)
>
> on a "skeptic" propaganda blog, all science is done by popular vote!
>
> > I still have a large number of emails that are endless screeds about how
> > quantum mechanics is all wrong, how Albert Einstein was wrong about
> > everything, how cars really can run on water, no end of insane lunacy,
> > not all of it righty wing corporate cock sucking. Some of the loons
> > actually believe it all because they're smarter than people who actually
> > completed High School.
>
> So you are saying that Quantum Mechanics (oh, maybe except for one or
> two minor refinements) is a totally correct theory of matter and nature
> and will NEVER change or be replaced?
troglydites think it means government control and so insist it must be
wrong. It'll take mounds of evidence, because that's how science
works. Not that you'd know that.
>
> So you are saying that SR and GR are totally correct (Oh, maybe except
> for one or two minor refinements) descriptions of reality and will NEVER
> change or be replaced?
>
> So you are saying that it is "impossible" for cars to run on only water?
bjacoby
May 29, 2012, 10:01:30 PM5/29/12
to
because in your opinion it will violate the Second Law and that is also
"impossible".
Just word it this way: "I'm a moron."
Or you could just use your God-like superpowers to examine ALL the ways
the Second Law MIGHT be violated and show that none of them can actually
do it. I think the first version is less typing.
Bill Snyder
May 30, 2012, 9:24:03 AM5/30/12
to
On Tue, 29 May 2012 22:01:30 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:
>On 5/29/2012 4:55 PM, erschro...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On May 29, 12:29 am, bjacoby<bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>
>>> So you are saying that SR and GR are totally correct (Oh, maybe except
>>> for one or two minor refinements) descriptions of reality and will NEVER
>>> change or be replaced?
>>>
>>> So you are saying that it is "impossible" for cars to run on only water?
>>
>> Yep, you got that one right. Would violate the Second Law.
>
>So you are saying that it's "impossible" for cars to run only on water
>because in your opinion it will violate the Second Law and that is also
>"impossible".
>
>Just word it this way: "I'm a moron."
Ok. You're a moron. (Not that we hadn't guessed.)
>Or you could just use your God-like superpowers to examine ALL the ways
>the Second Law MIGHT be violated and show that none of them can actually
>do it. I think the first version is less typing.
Good. Use your God-like superpowers to examine all the ways AGW
could happen, and get back to us.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
wrote:
>On 5/29/2012 4:55 PM, erschro...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On May 29, 12:29 am, bjacoby<bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>
>>> So you are saying that SR and GR are totally correct (Oh, maybe except
>>> for one or two minor refinements) descriptions of reality and will NEVER
>>> change or be replaced?
>>>
>>> So you are saying that it is "impossible" for cars to run on only water?
>>
>> Yep, you got that one right. Would violate the Second Law.
>
>So you are saying that it's "impossible" for cars to run only on water
>because in your opinion it will violate the Second Law and that is also
>"impossible".
>
>Just word it this way: "I'm a moron."
>Or you could just use your God-like superpowers to examine ALL the ways
>the Second Law MIGHT be violated and show that none of them can actually
>do it. I think the first version is less typing.
could happen, and get back to us.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
AGWFacts
May 30, 2012, 1:14:23 PM5/30/12
to
> On 5/29/2012 4:55 PM, erschro...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On May 29, 12:29 am, bjacoby<bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>
> >> So you are saying that SR and GR are totally correct (Oh, maybe except
> >> for one or two minor refinements) descriptions of reality and will NEVER
> >> change or be replaced?
> >>
> >> So you are saying that it is impossible for cars to run on only water?
> > Yep, you got that one right. Would violate the Second Law.
That is correct. Water is not a fuel.
> > On May 29, 12:29 am, bjacoby<bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>
> >> So you are saying that SR and GR are totally correct (Oh, maybe except
> >> for one or two minor refinements) descriptions of reality and will NEVER
> >> change or be replaced?
> >>
> >> So you are saying that it is impossible for cars to run on only water?
> > Yep, you got that one right. Would violate the Second Law.
> So you are saying that it's impossible for cars to run only on water
> because in your opinion it will violate the Second Law and that is also
> impossible.
AGWFacts
May 30, 2012, 1:15:38 PM5/30/12
to
On Tue, 29 May 2012 12:04:32 -0600, AGWFacts
<AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2012 00:29:55 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
> wrote:
>
> > On 5/28/2012 3:23 PM, Fredric L. Rice wrote:
>
> > > I knbow more about global warming than all the world's climate scientists.
> > > It was cold last night, ergo global warming is a myth. :)
>
> > on a skeptic propaganda blog, all science is done by popular vote!
>
> Okay, I give up. What skeptic propaganda blog?
Hey, cultist! What skeptic propaganda blog?
<AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2012 00:29:55 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
> wrote:
>
> > On 5/28/2012 3:23 PM, Fredric L. Rice wrote:
>
> > > I knbow more about global warming than all the world's climate scientists.
> > > It was cold last night, ergo global warming is a myth. :)
>
> > on a skeptic propaganda blog, all science is done by popular vote!
>
> Okay, I give up. What skeptic propaganda blog?
bjacoby
May 30, 2012, 2:52:03 PM5/30/12
to
On 5/30/2012 1:15 PM, AGWFacts wrote:
> Hey, cultist! What skeptic propaganda blog?
Hey, brother AGWFarts, just ask your Baghwan, his holyness Wormley. He
> Hey, cultist! What skeptic propaganda blog?
links a million of them!
AGWFacts
May 30, 2012, 10:05:26 PM5/30/12
to
On Wed, 30 May 2012 14:52:03 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2012 11:15:38 -0600, AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 29 May 2012 12:04:32 -0600, AGWFacts
> > <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 29 May 2012 00:29:55 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 5/28/2012 3:23 PM, Fredric L. Rice wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I knbow more about global warming than all the world's climate scientists.
> > > > > It was cold last night, ergo global warming is a myth. :)
> > >
> > > > on a skeptic propaganda blog, all science is done by popular vote!
> > >
> > > Okay, I give up. What skeptic propaganda blog?
wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2012 11:15:38 -0600, AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 29 May 2012 12:04:32 -0600, AGWFacts
> > <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 29 May 2012 00:29:55 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 5/28/2012 3:23 PM, Fredric L. Rice wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I knbow more about global warming than all the world's climate scientists.
> > > > > It was cold last night, ergo global warming is a myth. :)
> > >
> > > > on a skeptic propaganda blog, all science is done by popular vote!
> > >
> >
> > Hey, cultist! What skeptic propaganda blog?
> Hey, brother AGWFarts, just ask your Baghwan, his holyness Wormley. He
> links a million of them!
> > Hey, cultist! What skeptic propaganda blog?
> Hey, brother AGWFarts, just ask your Baghwan, his holyness Wormley. He
> links a million of them!
Fredric L. Rice
May 30, 2012, 10:46:00 PM5/30/12
to
bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>On 5/28/2012 3:23 PM, Fredric L. Rice wrote:
>> I knbow more about global warming than all the world's climate scientists.
>> It was cold last night, ergo global warming is a myth. :)
>on a "skeptic" propaganda blog, all science is done by popular vote!
LOL. Bill O'Reilly.
>On 5/28/2012 3:23 PM, Fredric L. Rice wrote:
>> I knbow more about global warming than all the world's climate scientists.
>> It was cold last night, ergo global warming is a myth. :)
>on a "skeptic" propaganda blog, all science is done by popular vote!
>> I still have a large number of emails that are endless screeds about how
>> quantum mechanics is all wrong, how Albert Einstein was wrong about
>> everything, how cars really can run on water, no end of insane lunacy,
>> not all of it righty wing corporate cock sucking. Some of the loons
>> actually believe it all because they're smarter than people who actually
>> completed High School.
>So you are saying that Quantum Mechanics (oh, maybe except for one or
>two minor refinements) is a totally correct theory of matter and nature
>and will NEVER change or be replaced?
>So you are saying that SR and GR are totally correct (Oh, maybe except
>for one or two minor refinements) descriptions of reality and will NEVER
>change or be replaced?
>So you are saying that it is "impossible" for cars to run on only water?
>And this you believe with your whole heart and faith?
>I admire the strength of your religious faith!
>But why don't you just word it this way: I'm a moron.
0 new messages