*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote
> There is a controversy in psychology on what the alleged Dunning Kruger
> effect actually is and not only is Arlen avoiding that I doubt the
> originators intended for it to be weaponized as it has been. Sad state
> really.
Hi Hemidactylus,
I study the strange iKooks, who, let's be clear, constantly fabricate
imaginary functionality for iOS that simply does not exist (& never has).
However... perhaps you (and maybe even Chris) do have the functional
capacity to understand whom Apple aims its marketing campaigns at, and,
what those analysis I posted in the original post say about that.
Given I just read a sentient sentence moments ago from you on immunology,
I'm going to speak with you in this post as if you're _not_ an iKook. OK?
My point of contention with you deprecating the D-K effect wasn't that you
deprecated the D-K effect; it was that you deprecated it without
understanding it. That's a _big_ difference.
You know there's a well-known professor, John Mearsheimer, and another
just-as-well-known professor, Steven Kotkin, both of whom speak about the
origins of the current war in Ukraine, where I disagree with Mearsheimer
and I almost completely agree with Kotkin - but - I accept that both of
them are starting from the same data points - in that they understand the
Russian psyche and Russian history and the Russian mentality.
My point is that I can agree or disagree with someone, but I respect their
acumen, as they've shown that they understand the basics of the situation.
When you deprecated D-K and in the next sentences you told me they didn't
test English Grammar results, I instantly knew you lied about having read
the seminal papers (simply because they _did_ test students on that).
I knew you were lying, and yet, you were trying to claim you understood the
D-K effect, where you did not then (and still do not now) show any
comprehension that EVERYONE fits on the Dunning-Kruger scales - which is
why I had mentioned the iKooks are to the left of the first quartile.
Then you ridiculed Mount Stupid, as if I had claimed I came up with it,
when in fact, those graphs are clearly an extrapolation of the D-K data.
In my own posts about Mount Stupid, in fact, I also supplied the D-K
graphs, which (as you noted) look nothing directly like the Mount Stupid
ones - but the difference here is I understood what BOTH were trying to
convey.
You did not, and there is still no indication that you do understand them.
Remember always that the iKooks lie all the time (e.g., Jolly Roger claims
Apple fully patches all releases when Apple simply does not do that), so it
was clear to me you were lying when you claimed to have read the seminal
papers.
Hence, you can't possibly _dispute_ them since you never even read them.
Moving forward, I treat Usenet as water under the bridge. If you earn my
respect by showing you actually _understand_ what the D-K effect tries to
portray, then (and only then) is it possible for you to refute that effect.
--
The iKooks must, by their very nature, hang out with people who are not
well educated because their excuses are so easily destroyed with facts.