Maybe theyâre reversing cause and effect. Maybe âfixed intelligenceâ is wrong. Therefore only stupid people believe it. Because theyâre stupid, they seek out easy problems to solve. Having solved those, they feel competent, and Dunning and Kruger win again.
Also, Iâm almost sure I remember that Far Side saying âHarvard School for the Gifted.â Was that just a shoop by some yalies?
Or maybe they realise that there are many more qualified people who could fill their position.
So wait, does this mean that if I think that most people are good at SOMETHING that Iâm an idiot?
Do we have effective ways of teaching growth mindset? It seems like that would be quite difficult, requiring the kind of heroic effort that make it unlikely to happen on a large scale. (Maybe it is easier when they are little.)
Coincidentally, last night I listened to David McRaneyâs âYou Are Not So Smartâ podcast about the Dunning-Kruger effect. In it, he interviews Dr. David Dunning. Good stuff!
Wow, is it just me, or do all these stories seem to be about Drumpf in some way?
BTW: I still think Dunning-Kruger Effect would be the ultimate college band name.
Just eyeballing some of the figures in the paper, it doesnât seem like this is the explanation. The âentity theoristsâ overestimated their own ability by over 25 percentages points while the âincremental theoristsâ were only off by five, but it looks like both groups scored right around the 50th percentile at least on that initial trial. But I havenât looked at the later findings about attention-to-difficulty and the tendency to focus on easier problems, maybe something comes out there.
It seems like it would be easiest and most useful to teach to children. Iâve heard advice to not tell your kids that they are âsmartâ and to never tell them that they are âstupidâ. Rather, you should reward them for their efforts and encourage them to keep trying if/when they fail at things. I imagine that fits in with the recommendations here.
It seems like thereâs a lot of early classification of children, either officially or not. This one is smart, that one is stupid, this one is good at math. A kid can get the impression that they simply ARE this way, intrinsically and unchangeably. That is avoidable.
Ya, Iâm calling BS on this⌠Iâm way too smart to overestimate my intelligence.
In fact, I have the best estimates.
You can train your intelligence and improve it over time.
You can also temporarily lose quite some of it; thatâs quite unpleasant.
Two years later and my wife is still using âpregnancy brainâ as an excuse.
Why not just go with the back handed approach?
âThatâs pretty impressive, but you know I was building things like that when I was 2 years younger than you.â
Itâs always been âMidvale.â Iâm a Unitarian Universalist and I remember having a giggle when I saw the original because one of our two seminaries is âMeadville.â Close enough! 
I love it. They could bill themselves as the best band in the world yet sound like hell and theyâd get a pass because of their name.
"Study: people who believe in innate intelligence overestimate their own "
In the USA we see this everyday in our Politics.
I wonder what the impact is of a basic standardized test-taking tactic we all learned in school. You go quickly through the test the first time, doing all the easy questions and skipping the hard ones. Then you go back and do as many hard ones as you can before time runs out. That way, you donât miss easy points you could have gotten just because those questions came towards the end of the test. Does that prime every American schoolkid to think they are smarter than they are?
A corollary: wanting or believing simple answers to insufficiently-understood complex problems.
