Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote
>
>>> Again. You need to read the seminal D-K papers, Hemidactylus.
>>>
>> I have.
>
> With all due respect, you have not.
> That is clear from everything you claimed about it.
>
> You don't know the first thing about what the seminal D-K papers said.
>
> Just as...
> a. nospam constantly fabricates imaginary functionality
> b. But when asked to point out the app he claims exists...
> c. He never can do something as simple as *name just one*
>
> All you iKooks are the same, Hemidaqctylus.
> As it's obvious you _never_ read the seminal Dunning-Kruger papers.
>
> You iKooks are perfect examples of those to the left of the first quartile.
>
> "People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities
> in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest
> that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who
> are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only
> do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate
> choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive
> ability to realize it. Paradoxically, improving the skills of
> participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence,
> helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities."
>
> If you accept, Hemidactylus, that I have higher degrees, you have to
> understand how frustrating it is to try to converse with you iKooks.
>
From Cracker Jack U? You surely know how to pile high and deeper, I’ll give
you that.
>
> There's absolutely nothing even slightly complex you iKooks can comprehend.
> Nothing.
>
> That's frustrating, because EVERYTHING you say, is always dead wrong.
> Which, let's face is - is the epitome of the iKook's belief system.
>
>> And where do you think I got the quote: "Participants were 65
>> Cornell University undergraduates from a variety of courses in psychology
>> who earned extra credit for their participation" and realized the lemon
>> juice guy was used merely as an illustrative anecdote.
>
> You are an idiot, Hemidactylus. An utter unfathomably ignorant idiot.
> <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10626367/>
>
> Read the abstract, you idiot.
> *Do you see "grammar" in that abstract, you idiot.*
>
> My point isn't to call you an idiot, Hemidactylus; it's to show the world
> that EVERYTHING the iKooks say is out of their own sheer & utter ignorance.
>
> You "think" you can dig up a quote and then that quote you think you
> understood well enough to dispute what I said, based on the facts.
>
> This conversation is PERFECT for showing EXACTLY what the iKooks are.
>
>> McArthur Wheeler
>> wasn't a part of the study as you claimed since he wasn't one of the
>> Cornell undergrads. I called you on this ignorant comment "Dunning & Kruger
>> studied that rather peculiar lemon-juice covered bank robber" and you
>> lashed out at me.
>
> The seminal papers by Dunning & Kruger were about cognitive bias in
> assessing one's own skills, Hemidactylus. You iKooks are in the low end.
>
So you will not admit your silly error about whether they actually studied
the lemon juice guy as you asserted. You are covering for your juvenile
embarrassment.
>
> The problem is you iKooks are hampered by
> a. No education whatsoever
> b. No ability to comprehend anything
> c. No desire to understand anything either
>
> All you iKooks ever do is guess.
>
> a. Alan Browne guessed there's no walled garden
> (because _he_ was ignorant that it exists)
> b. JollY Roger guessed Apple fully patches older releases
> (because _he_ was ignorant that they don't)
> c. Alan Baker guessed how to race vehicles
> (because _he_ is ignorant of the first things in racing)
> etc.
>
> All you iKooks always just guess because you do not own the mental capacity
> to comprehend something as simple as the Dunning Kruger seminal papers.
>
Unlike you I don’t interpret these papers as Holy Gospel. I am skeptical
and in Popperian fashion think sacred cows need to stand up to rigid
treatment. So I have gone much further than you in my intellectual
development and seen the emperor may not have clothes. The DK effect
appears as an artifact. We are pattern seeking creatures. No doubt you are
gullible enough to see a face on Mars.
>
>> I also read this, which you as a propagandist will continue to ignore:
>> https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/persistent-irony-dunning-kruger-effect
>
> Look Hemidactylus. I have higher degrees. You do not. Mine are in tough
> subjects. You could barely pass high school algebra.
>
Basket weaving is tough. Especially underwater. Congrats on that.
>
> I understand that science isn't always black and white, Hemidactylus.
> You do not.
>
> Hell, you don't even understand your own cite above for God's sake.
> That's why it's no longer shocking how incredibly wrong you iKooks are.
>
> Nor is it shocking that you're entire argument starts with Donald Trump.
> Mine don't.
>
> Here are mine:
> <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10626367/>
> <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8992690/>

Do you even read your cites? This one says:
“Our explanation of the DK effect is based on the fact that the data are
bounded. This feature of the data has not received much attention, with the
exception of Burson et al. (2006), who concluded that the boundary
restriction “is an important concern that should be addressed in future
research;” and Krajc and Ortmann (2008), who noted that students in the
bottom quartile can only make optimistic errors placing themselves into a
higher quartile, while students in the top quartile can only make
pessimistic errors placing themselves in a lower quartile.

The remark by Krajc and Ortmann provides the essence of our story. Consider
a brilliant student who typically scores 95 or 99 points out of 100.
Because of the bound at 100, there is not much room to predict higher than
her ability but there is plenty of room to predict lower, so she would
typically predict 85 or 90, thus underestimating her score. The same
happens at the bottom end of the scale, where there is a bound of 0 and a
student would typically overestimate. This simple observation is the basis
of our model.”

And: “In this article, we have attempted to provide an explanation of the
DK effect which does not require any psychological explanation. By
specifying a simple statistical model which explicitly takes the (random)
boundary constraints into account, we achieve a near-perfect fit, thus
demonstrating that the DK effect is a statistical artifact. In other words:
there is an effect, but it does not reflect human nature.”

The abstract says: “An explanation of the Dunning–Kruger effect is provided
which does not require any psychological explanation, because it is derived
as a statistical artifact. This is achieved by specifying a simple
statistical model which explicitly takes the (random) boundary constraints
into account. The model fits the data almost perfectly.”

Again: “does not require any psychological explanation”

If you weren’t so intellectually dishonest you would stop for more than a
brief moment and reflect on this. You can’t because your arrogance prevents
it.

> <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01101-z>
> etc.
>
> None of my cites start with Donald Trump.
> Yours do.
>
>> Let that sink in.
>
> You are an ignorant iKook, Hemidactylus, which is why it's so frustrating
> dealing with people like you who can't comprehend even their own cites.
>
> Your own cite says this, you iKook:
> "For all four studies in the paper, and for many studies since,
> the same general pattern emerged. Poor performers overestimated
> themselves much more than did those who were truly competent.
> This is the signature pattern of the DKE."
>
There is the apparent pattern, but there is also its explanation. I doubt
you have the intellectual capacity to distinguish the two. The debunkers of
DKE go with artefact over psychological explanation. That interpretation
pulls the rug from under you and turns your favored weapon into a wet
noodle. You are unskilled and unaware because your polemics cloud your
judgement.

> Let _that_ sink in, given iKooks are to the left of the 1st quartile mark.
> a. Alan Baker is and was a "poor performer" his entire life
> b. Alan Browne is and was a "poor performer" his entire life
> c. Lewis is and was a "poor performer" his entire life
> d. Jolly Roger is and was a "poor performer" his entire life
> e. Chris is and was a "poor performer" his entire life
> f. Snit is and was a "poor performer" his entire life
> g. Rod Speed is and was a "poor performer" his entire life
> etc.
>
> I know this because you iKooks can't fathom the simplest of things.
> a. No iKook has an IQ that even approaches normal
> b. As a direct result, no iKook owns something as common as a degree
> c. Nor does any iKooks know the first thing about what he speaks of
>
> You're all unfathomably ignorant of EVERYTHING you speak of, Hemidactylus.
> Even when you try to lie and claim you've read the seminal D-K papers.
>
>> You are a poster boy for namechecking and
>> weaponizing the DKE. You only illustrate your own ignorance of which you
>> are ironically very unaware. Why did you not now the DKE had been found
>> wanting by so many independent researchers? Because you are an empty
>> propagandist.
>
> You believe that and yet you don't even know what D-K effects are.
> Do you realize I said EVERYONE fits on the D-K graphs, Hemidactylus?
>
> You. Me. My mother. Your favorite college professor.
> Hell, even a race-car driver fits on the D-K scale, you iKook.
>
> What you do NOT realize is EVERYTHING you think is completely wrong.
> Because you don't own a mental capacity to understand the simplest things.
>
> It's the basic hallmark of all you low-IQ uneducated ignorant iKooks.
>
>>> HINT: Every single person with any skill is on those Dunning-Kruger graphs.
>
> That. That is what you do not understand.
>
>
>>> What kind of strange person does that, Hemidactylus?
>> Examples:
>>
>> https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1215&context=numeracy
>> https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1188&context=numeracy
>> https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.840180/full
>> https://gwern.net/doc/iq/2020-gignac.pdf
>> And yet you shoot the messenger.
>
> You are an idiot. Or more precisely, you're a classic iKook.
> a. You know nothing
> b. Yet you don't realize that
> c. So you guess
> d. And when caught guessing, you lie
>
> What you need to do _before_ you go about 'dissing the seminal D-K results
> is you have to first _understand_ them. After that, you're welcome to come
> back and discuss why you disagree with the results, Hemidactylus.
>
> All you're doing above is desperately googling for a cite (any cite, it
> doesn't matter to you) that says something about D-K and that's it.
>
> It's what you iKooks do.
>
> The fact is:
> a. You have absolutely no idea what the D-K papers actually say.
> b. Worse, you lied that you read them
> c. Or, if you ever did, as with Alan Browne who says there's
> no walled garden, you didn't understand a thing about them.
>
> This conversation is classic for what it's like to deal with you iKooks.
> Like Alan Baker claiming to teach racing, he's a liar because _everything_
> he says shows he doesn't know the simplest thing about what he claims.

I doubt you know a thing about immunology. You have not demonstrated that.
You know how to bullshit yourself though.