Some days ago, I had a ‘discussion’ on Twitter. It did not turn out to be that much of a discussion, but it was interesting after all. Long story short: I went over the paper(a host a copy of it) of Justin Kruger and David Dunning (short:Dunning-Kruger) and I notice something, there is quite a low numbers of participants in each of they studies. Furthermore most of the participants where undergraduates of the same university.I feel like that this is also dangerous to make conclusion by this low numbers. This makes it also quite difficult to blindly trust the study, see the Stanford marshmallow experiment for a reference.
Neverthese less, this document is well made. I just feel like that there might be some doubt. A
But as Jeffrey Richman pointed out:
Are you… confidently disputing the veracity of a peer reviewed study about misplaced confidence?
However it is Just a healthy doses of skepticism. All I’m saying is that we should not blindly trust the data their using without considering the numbers and the context. All their subjects where undergraduate and low in count. The expectation is that more older people might respond more differently, this might also apply to different social groups too. Yet I have to see a follow up study confirm it. But this think of myself might be the consequent of the Overconfidence effect. So I do not say that this theory is wrong. It might be even worse, depending on the environment people act on. The environment of people has a major effect on their ability to reflect on and understand their own flaws. A person who needs to change context and act in different topics like a nurse might be more aware than a farmer. But this is just a guess.
In end I just want to rewind this discussion a bit, because I like it. To conclude this discussion here is a a good link I like to share to the New York times.