This definition lends itself to a simple explanation of the effect incompetence often includes being unable to tell the difference between competence and incompetence, which is why it is difficult for the incompetent to recognize their incompetence. they lack the metacognitive ability to become aware of their incompetence.
On this view, the Dunning–Kruger effect is the thesis that those who are incompetent in a given area tend to be ignorant of their incompetence, i.e. Some researchers emphasize the metacognitive component in their definition. The systematic error concerns their tendency to greatly overestimate their competence or to see themselves as more skilled than they are. In the case of the Dunning–Kruger effect, this applies mainly to people with low skill in a specific area trying to evaluate their competence within this area. They are tendencies since they concern certain inclinations or dispositions that may be observed in groups of people, but are not manifested in every performance. Biases are systematic in the sense that they occur consistently in different situations. as a systematic tendency to engage in erroneous forms of thinking and judging. This is often understood as a cognitive bias, i.e. The Dunning–Kruger effect is defined as the tendency of people with low ability in a specific area to give overly positive assessments of this ability. In some cases, the associated overconfidence may have positive side effects, like increasing motivation and energy. It may also inhibit the affected from addressing their shortcomings to improve themselves. Inaccurate self-assessment can lead people to make bad decisions, such as choosing a career for which they are unfit or engaging in behavior dangerous for themselves or others due to being unaware of lacking the necessary skills. The Dunning–Kruger effect has been described as relevant for various practical matters, but also disagreements exist about the magnitude of its influence. Another account sees the lack of incentives to give accurate self-assessments as the source of error.
Some theorists hold that the way low and high performers are distributed makes assessing their skill level more difficult for low performers, thereby explaining their erroneous self-assessments independent of their metacognitive abilities. The statistical explanation interprets these findings as statistical artifacts. Many debates surrounding the Dunning–Kruger effect and criticisms of it focus on the metacognitive explanation without denying the empirical findings. Some researchers include the metacognitive component as part of the definition of the Dunning–Kruger effect and not just as an explanation distinct from it. This has also been termed the "dual-burden account", since the lack of skill is paired with the ignorance of this lack. They tend to overrate themselves because they do not see the qualitative difference between their performances and the performances of others. This approach is based on the idea that poor performers have not yet acquired the ability to distinguish between good and bad performances. The Dunning–Kruger effect is usually explained in terms of metacognitive abilities. Since then, various other studies have been conducted across a wide range of tasks, including skills from fields such as business, politics, medicine, driving, aviation, spatial memory, examinations in school, and literacy.
It focused on logical reasoning, grammar, and social skills. The initial study was published by David Dunning and Justin Kruger in 1999. The Dunning–Kruger effect appears in both cases, but is more pronounced in relative terms the bottom quartile of performers tend to see themselves as being part of the top two quartiles. This can happen either in relative or in absolute terms, i.e., in comparison with one's peer group as the percentage of peers outperformed or in comparison with objective standards as the number of questions answered correctly. This subjective assessment is then compared with how well they actually performed. For example, the participants in a study may be asked to complete a quiz and then estimate how well they performed. The Dunning–Kruger effect is usually measured by comparing self-assessment with objective performance. Some researchers also include in their definition the opposite effect for high performers: their tendency to underestimate their skills. The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge.
0 kommentar(er)
