Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect

  1. Home
  2. Wiki


Good articleDunning–Kruger effect has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 23, 2023Good article nomineeNot listed
June 27, 2023Peer reviewReviewed
August 23, 2023Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 4, 2023.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that "the first rule of the Dunning–Kruger club is you don't know you're a member of the Dunning–Kruger club"?
Current status: Good article

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DYK toolbox

(
)

References

  1. ^ Howard 2018, p. 354.
  2. ^ Dunning 2011, pp. 260–261.
  3. ^ Duignan 2023.

Sources

  • Duignan, Brian (2023). "Dunning–Kruger effect". www.britannica.com. Archived from the original on 30 November 2021. Retrieved 7 December 2021.
  • Dunning, David (1 January 2011). "Chapter Five – The Dunning–Kruger Effect: On Being Ignorant of One's Own Ignorance". Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 44. Academic Press. pp. 247–296. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-385522-0.00005-6. ISBN 9780123855220. Retrieved 20 December 2021.
  • Howard, Jonathan (28 November 2018). Cognitive Errors and Diagnostic Mistakes: A Case-Based Guide to Critical Thinking in Medicine. Springer. p. 354. ISBN 978-3-319-93224-8.

Improved to Good Article status by Phlsph7 (talk). Self-nominated at 14:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Dunning–Kruger effect; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Epicgenius (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: There is currently a discussion on the talkpage about whether the line from ALT0 should be included in the article. If it is removed then we would not able to use ALT0 and we would need to default to ALT1. I suggest that we put the nomination on hold until this issue is resolved. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was a clever hook (ALT0) but it is not apparent in the article so I will promote ALT1. But ALT1 checks out and is interesting and verifiable. I see Earwig alerts to a direct copy of our article. Lightburst (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disproven

[edit]

"To establish the Dunning-Kruger effect is an artifact of research design, not human thinking, my colleagues and I showed it can be produced using randomly generated data." https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-dunning-kruger-effect-isnt-what-you-think-it-is/

it can. Should be pointed out that there is no such effect.

DK is an artifact of study design and can be reproduced applying the same analisis to random noise.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-dunning-kruger-effect-isnt-what-you-think-it-is/ 216.99.19.19 (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reliable source. Constant314 (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article presents the statistical explanation combined with the better-than-average effect. It is one among several competing explanations and is already discussed in our article in the subsection "Statistical and better-than-average effect". Phlsph7 (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you do the obvious or something different? Dagelf (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dunning–Kruger Curve

[edit]

Does anyone know if the Curve you can see if you use Google Images is something that is related to this effect?

You can find it in Commons:

or is it just something commonly attributed to Dunning–Kruger, but in fact is something totally unrelated. jcubic (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Often attributed to DK but in fact completely unrelated. There is a good discussion of that image in the archives. Constant314 (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Constant314 What archives? Can you provide a link? jcubic (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are in that yellow box on the right side of the page opposite of the table of contents. Maybe @Phlsph7: can help you find the discussion. Constant314 (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Found it: there was a lengthy discussion about this and similar misleading diagrams three years ago, see Talk:Dunning–Kruger_effect/Archive_5#Illustration. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1Jm4J1tjoz73ttUkRQjjrnsQbjgva3dS-#scrollTo=0duv-vQ39mMD Dagelf (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No point in posting this twice. Keep the discussion on Disproven thread. Constant314 (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The law of restricted choice

[edit]

Relation between average self-perceived performance and average actual performance on a college exam.

Back when I could get 100% on most math tests, I found that predicting my score posed few challenges. Depending on the scale of assessment used, high performers actually have less to predict for purely structural reasons. Does this article address this factor at any level? It ought to, if you ask me. — MaxEnt 21:57, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article only contains material derived from reliable sources. Constant314 (talk) 00:06, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]