Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavernio
...speaks to me more of a psychological barrier to perceiving that they can be bad at something...
|
Wikipedia:
"Unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude."
"If you’re incompetent, you can’t know you’re incompetent. […] the skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is." - David Dunning
Not only do I think this is exactly the psychological barrier you're talking about, but everyone keeps telling me that this is not what Dunning-Kruger is, but unless the Wikipedia article is totally wrong, I don't see how I could have misinterpreted this. It's a very straightforward description and makes perfect sense. And even though everyone keeps telling me about how I'm mistaken about what Dunning-Kruger effect is, nobody proceeds to explain what it actually is either.
If you can't tell the difference between good art and bad art, how can you tell how good of an artist you are? If you cannot distinguish good and bad art, but you have your opinions, how can you tell whether your mental distinctions are based upon understanding, skill, and knowledge, or nothing but your own opinion? This seems like a concept that is so painfully obvious that I would go so far as to call it a priori knowledge, as denying this is almost a contradiction. In what sense am I wrong?
EDIT: RationalWiki seems to further substantiate the idea that I have not misinterpreted what this is:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect Are both of these sources incorrect?
"The idea that people who don't know enough also don't know enough to realise that they don't know enough ("Dunning-Kruger effect" is so much simpler to get your tongue around) isn't particularly new."