Xeroxchasechase@lemmy.world to Showerthoughts@lemmy.world · 1 month agoGenerations of following the advice "Fake it till you make it"message-squaremessage-square7fedilinkarrow-up158arrow-down111file-text
arrow-up147arrow-down1message-squareGenerations of following the advice "Fake it till you make it"Xeroxchasechase@lemmy.world to Showerthoughts@lemmy.world · 1 month agomessage-square7fedilinkfile-text
minus-squareOnomatopoeia@lemmy.cafelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6·1 month agoExcept Dunning-Kruger is invalid. There’s a lot of conflicting data on it.
minus-squareGissaMittJobb@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up3·1 month agoYup - it’s a statistical artifact: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.840180/full
minus-squareDrunkenPirate@feddit.orglinkfedilinkarrow-up4·1 month ago18 citations is not much for a paper, though. Anyway, besides a statistical approach is proved out of logical reasons, that you can’t know what you don’t know. Beginners in a field never have the overview of the entire play ground. So, they can’t know what they don’t know.
Except Dunning-Kruger is invalid. There’s a lot of conflicting data on it.
Yup - it’s a statistical artifact: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.840180/full
18 citations is not much for a paper, though.
Anyway, besides a statistical approach is proved out of logical reasons, that you can’t know what you don’t know. Beginners in a field never have the overview of the entire play ground. So, they can’t know what they don’t know.