Incompetent People Too Ignorant to Know It

HOW is this image NOT in this thread:

I-See-Stupid-People.jpg
 
FTA:
It's not merely optimism, but rather that their total lack of expertise renders them unable to recognize their deficiency.

The Onion just called reality and they have asked for a truce.
 
Has this scientist examined his own adherence to the scientific method to see that he's not as good of a scientist as he thinks he is? I'm just asking for equal application of principle here.
 
Reminds me of a friend of mine who swears up and down he is a home improvement guru because he watches hgtv once in a while.
 
Serpent said:
if you're good at something, you should be able to better determine if other people are good at it as well, therefore have less chance of overestimating people... or so i would think.
Click to expand...

The worse people I've worked with over the years, are the ones who THINK they are experts. Usually they have a decent resume / education background, but they have little real world / hands-on experience. When they start attacking me for pointing out where they are wrong, I usually just back off, and let them fall on thier face. I love it when they have to come crawling back and ask me for help :)
 
BBA said:
Science is not magic, but it is mostly driven by politics.
Click to expand...

This is the real problem. Politics has infected just about everything.

To believe in anthropogenic global warming, you need to believe in 3 things.

1. That the earth is warming. (it was warming, but the warming has pretty much stopped over the last 10+ years, even though the "theory" predicted an excelerated increase in warming)
2. That this warming has never happened before. (it has been much warmer many times before if you go back 100's or 1000's of years, well before any significant man made gasses)
3. That this warming is mainly caused by man. (Look into methane released by termites, and other natural sources of greenhouse gasses. Man is still an insignificant source)

Looks more like 3 strikes to me.

All this is the mainly being used to empower government and raise taxes/fees, which is the main reason I'm skeptical.
 
BBA said:
Science is not magic, but it is mostly driven by politics. What gets funding gets proven, thats easy to see if you look at the big picture.
Click to expand...

And we all know oil/coal/gas companies have no money.
 
Pitabred said:
You'd think so, but you'd be wrong. I've read their research. People at the top end of the curves think they're better, but not THAT much better than other people. They also tend to think that others share at least a base level of skill even if they don't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
Click to expand...

That's interesting, never heard of that before. But while they may think someone is smarter than they are... that doesn't mean they can't properly judge the ability of people of similar levels... or did I miss that?
 
nutzo said:
The worse people I've worked with over the years, are the ones who THINK they are experts. Usually they have a decent resume / education background, but they have little real world / hands-on experience. When they start attacking me for pointing out where they are wrong, I usually just back off, and let them fall on thier face. I love it when they have to come crawling back and ask me for help :)
Click to expand...

Well, I don't mean people are think they're good at something. I mean people who actually are. But pitabred did bring up a nice little study there.
 
why would you admit that you're an idiot? it makes no sense. you want a job so you better say you're competent. you want to date that girl so you better say you're successful. of course at some point people will notice, if not immediately, that you're not as smart or successful as you pretended to be, but the outcome will still be more positive than getting nothing at all by admitting that you're incompetent.

and if you're asked how you fared at some test... again, why would you say you suck? or that you're average. noone likes to be average. and the problem with average is that 50% of people are even worse.
 
Eh... if you know you got it wrong or had a bad feeling you didn't know the answers... it would be reasonable to think you didn't do so good.
 
temujin987 said:
why would you admit that you're an idiot? it makes no sense. you want a job so you better say you're competent. you want to date that girl so you better say you're successful. of course at some point people will notice, if not immediately, that you're not as smart or successful as you pretended to be, but the outcome will still be more positive than getting nothing at all by admitting that you're incompetent.

and if you're asked how you fared at some test... again, why would you say you suck? or that you're average. noone likes to be average. and the problem with average is that 50% of people are even worse.
Click to expand...

I always am much more trusting of people who realise they don't have all the answers. As soon as people start talking like they fully understand something, my first thought is "You have no idea" rather than "Oh wow, you're so smart". At most they'll impress me by how confident they are in their ignorance (even I don't know the subject area I'll just assume they're ignorant :p).

You'll note that most smart people after a test/presentation/exam will say "I did ok", or "I could have done better". Then you find out they got 95% when the average was like 50%. Meanwhile the suckers who got 60% will be praising themselves with "I did awesome!" :p
 
The Fact that the professor was able to convice someone to give him grant money to determine what could be seen by walking down the street proves the professor was right. I have always been amazed how much money is thrown at stupid theories that do not produce any kind of information worth any good thing. Stupid people will still be stupid, smart people will think they are geniuses, and geniuses like myself will have to deal with eveyone else. :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D;););););)
 
Stupid people don't know that they are stupid. That's why politics is so messed up.
 
There are so many things wrong with your post mustang_steve. I have a new found respect for you.
 
So Crazy people don't know they are Crazy and incompotent people don't know they are below average. So does an incompotent crazy person not know that he's below average at being crazy?

In all honesty, this does make some sense. I don't think anyone wants to consider themselves to be 'bad' or worse than their peers. Oddly, I think this study is bogus though. How many people do you know that say 'I'm bad at math' and really are actually pretty terrible at math? It seems that some incompotent people know they are incompotent while some people claiming to be terrible at math are just humble.
 
I don't believe in the man in the clouds but this always made sense to me.

Proverbs 12:15 - The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that listens to counsel is wise.

And this


"A fool who recognizes his own ignorance is thereby in fact a wise man, but a
fool who considers himself wise -- that is what one really calls a fool. - Gautama Buddha"

So in my opinion this study stated what has been known for thousands of years. It only cost how much again?
 
Bottom line: IMO

To accurately gauge competence in skill X one must have skill X.

The more skill one has with X the more one knows what one doesnt know on the topic and what is yet to learn, thus as one gets better skilled one learns how little they have in fact learned compared to what is left to learn.

I read an article on this same topic about 15 years ago. Since then I have had a hard time telling anyone I knew much about anything. Funny my boss at the time got very, very, agitated when I posted the article in my cubical and took it down before anyone could see it. He seemed to take it personally.
 
verteron said:
I've said for years that people need to be aware of there own limitations. When the radio talk show people started fighting over whether or not the general public was stupid I decided that the general public is generally ignorant. There are too many things going on in the world, nobody can follow everything. Just accept that you are not an expert in something and let it go.

It does work both ways though. While more intelligent people tend to be more aware of their limitations, but they can also be transfixed by their own superiority. If they are an expert in one thing, they think they are an expert in EVERYTHING.

Lastly, while you cannot really know what you do not know, just because you have SOME data doesn't mean your position is correct. Spock would cite the odds to Kirk. How often did they beat the odds? Every time. Maybe Spock was missing something from his analysis. Kirk wasn't bound by the rules.

Global warming scientists think they have all the answers, but they do not. They may have more data than the deniers, but that doesn't prove their entire argument. If they can prove it, then it becomes scientific LAW. Otherwise, it is just a theory, and those get thrown out all the time when somebody finds more DATA.
Click to expand...

I read the article and was in agreement until it steered into political aspects of Global Warming. So the study proves that global warming deniers are stupid??
Give me a break!

My job is dealing with "technical" people. That is skilled technicians who suppose to have the training, background, skill set, etc to get technical jobs done.
Amazingly there are many that make huge claims about being the best in the business but are unbelievably incompetent! And when they utterly fail at the job, it is finger pointing time. It was someone else's fault. But it comes down to a few factors. Did they prepare themselves? Did the read the documentation that was provided to them??
Amazingly they don't! How in the world to they expect to preform at a job when they are mostly ignorant of the equipment involved? They actually expect to "figure it out" in some magical way when they are there. This is a recipe for failure. Yet they knowingly set themselves up for it. This is more than just being lazy. They THINK they are smarter than they really are; and just to dumb to know it.
 
We needed a study to prove this because the "self esteem" crowd has blinded people to the realities of being human: you're not good at everything, you are bad at some things, and there isn't always a way to overcome those deficiencies, despite what self-help books and TV personalities say.

I'm terrible at math and science. I don't have much of a sense of humor because I'm a serious, intense person. See! That wasn't so hard.

And yes, the global warming juju has absolutely no place in an article like this.
 
nutzo said:
This is the real problem. Politics has infected just about everything.

To believe in anthropogenic global warming, you need to believe in 3 things.

1. That the earth is warming. (it was warming, but the warming has pretty much stopped over the last 10+ years, even though the "theory" predicted an excelerated increase in warming)
2. That this warming has never happened before. (it has been much warmer many times before if you go back 100's or 1000's of years, well before any significant man made gasses)
3. That this warming is mainly caused by man. (Look into methane released by termites, and other natural sources of greenhouse gasses. Man is still an insignificant source)

Looks more like 3 strikes to me.

All this is the mainly being used to empower government and raise taxes/fees, which is the main reason I'm skeptical.
Click to expand...

Logic fail.

1. This is a necessary condition to the conclusion, but you provide no factual support to an assertion that is not generally agreed upon.

2. No. This is not a necessary condition. One could believe that the earth has warmed for different reasons in the past, but is now warming due to human activity.

3. This is not a premise. This is the conclusion you argue against.

To top it off, you add the irrelevant argument that the conclusion is being used to support other policies you disagree with. Fine, but that is not a logical counter to the conclusion.
 
Shorehn said:
And yes, the global warming juju has absolutely no place in an article like this.
Click to expand...

It's a good representation of what the article is talking about. There isn't a controversy about that particular issue within circles that actually do the research but there are plenty of people willing to latch their belief system onto half-truths, kooky conspiracy theories and political grandstanding because they simply do not have the mental horsepower to navigate through the bullshit. What should be a plain as day observation becomes muddied by weak-minded individuals making baseless claims and misrepresentations not always from an intention to be dishonest about the issue. These folks really just can't quite grasp what it is they're talking about. There are a couple posts in this very thread that illustrate this. People post what they earnestly believe to be well formed, logical arguments but in reality, they're incapable of understanding why their arguments are not as clever as they think . They are ignorant of the relevant science but in their own minds they "know" what they believe is the truth.
 
I find it amusing that people are offended by something they don't understand. Kinda proves the point of the article, I do believe! But they're not seeing it for some reason! Oh, the irony of it all is killing me!!
 
BBA said:
Science is not magic, but it is mostly driven by politics. What gets funding gets proven, thats easy to see if you look at the big picture.

I do not accept the argument about anthropogenic global warming but it is proven specifically to NOT fit all the facts we know about the climate changing. The only 'scientists' who do not understand that are the ones close in contact with or the ones influenced by the 'politically correct' crowd or the ones 'who just want to be part of the movement'

My take on global warming...the earth will do what the earth will do and it's a slave to the Sun's output. Humans are no more significant to factors that impact weather than a fly in a spider web would be. Mind you, if/or when weathermen get sophisticated enough to consistently and accurately predict what the weather is going to be the next day, I might start believing what they have to say about the weather 10 years from tomorow. They are not quite at the point of being accurate.
Click to expand...

I'm just taking a guess here, but I don't think you're a climate scientist. Am I right? Tell me what political sense it makes to say that big oil is causing global warming when there's a lot more money that they'd invest in that study than is being invested in climate change. Seriously... show me one example of a climate change scientist that is living the high life. I'd also like to see an example of a legitimate scientist that's disagreeing with climate change that is not in a conflict of interest situation. I'm not aware of any. I'd love to see a study where it shows that the climate is not anthropogenically altered, but the majority of people who actually study the climate and check each other all agree that humans are the cause this recent warming trend. But guess what... a Koch brother's funded study confirmed the stuff they were hoping it'd disprove: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...declares-global-warming-real-article-1.969870

BTW, have you ever actually seen what a fly can do to a spider's web? It can tear it apart while getting stuck, and spiders routinely have to rebuild after catching dinner. Your example is more apt than you'd think it is.

Also note, weather is not climate, or vice versa.

Seriously... anyone left denying global warming is simply politically motivated or grossly ignorant. Sometimes both.
 
yes I am, I've got work to do. I occasionally make mistakes, so does everybody. The year after Katrina they forecasted more storms than letter in the alphabet, and there were something like 5 name storms.

Whether it is called a Theory, Law, hypothesis, or a load of crap doesn't matter if it turns out that they are wrong. Do they have a guarantee with their prediction? What will they pay me when they are wrong?

I am not a complete idiot, I just do not believe all the koolaid they(GW science) are trying to push. If the Earth is warming, then it likely has happened many times in the past and this time is no different. Sea levels rise, fine, glaciers melt, storms get worse, some places cool, as others warm. Climate change, okay. Got it. I'll buy a parka and a rain coat. I am going back to work now.

That is no excuse for using fear-mongering to manipulate people whose expertise lie elsewhere anyway. I will not be lead down that road. I've already been lead off-topic, and that is enough.
 
If you ask someone knowledgeable or skill what their level of knowledge or skill is they will undersell themselves because they are aware of how they are lacking.

Novices think they know everything because they aren't aware of what they don't know.

You have to be at the very top tier to show the same level of confidence as someone who is a novice.
 
Serpent said:
Eh... if you know you got it wrong or had a bad feeling you didn't know the answers... it would be reasonable to think you didn't do so good.
Click to expand...

Thats not a valid argument. I know for fact when people think they missed some things its only because htey know more than was being asked, and end up doing extremely well on tests. I have taken many physics and nuclear theory tests when I was in nuclear pwoer school and was worried about some of the answers afterward, only to find out I got almost perfect scores. I also had some other test I thought I did very good on when finished, and some of those were the ones I almost failed.

The real irony is the more you know about a subject, the less positive you become about knowing the subject totally. To quote a very smart personm: If you are not yet confused, you do not yet know the full scope of the problem.
 
Pitabred said:
I'm just taking a guess here, but I don't think you're a climate scientist. Am I right?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Tell me what political sense it makes to say that big oil is causing global warming when there's a lot more money that they'd invest in that study than is being invested in climate change.
Click to expand...

Al Gore tried making millions on it (and failed in his little carbon credit venture).

Seriously... show me one example of a climate change scientist that is living the high life.
Click to expand...

I am sure there are some but in most cases, scientists are usually too stupid to profit from science. Thats why they bend over backward for politically motivated federal grants just to keep their jobs.


I'd also like to see an example of a legitimate scientist that's disagreeing with climate change that is not in a conflict of interest situation.
Click to expand...
No one disagrees with climate change. They disagree with what the extent is and what the cause is. But since you asked, just a few:

Nobel prize winner for physics in 1973 Dr. Ivar Giaever

Richard Siegmund Lindzen, 72, an atmospheric physicist at MIT

MIT's Richard Lindzen

There are hundreds more...in fact there are more scientists that scientifically refute it than there are that uphold it. The problem is they do not get published, because that doesn't make it easy for Obama to give money to phoney 'clean energy' croonies with shell companies who support Obama with kickbacks of the funding.

I'd love to see a study where it shows that the climate is not anthropogenically altered
Click to expand...

Read some of the above links, or better yet, google it, you will find thousands of real scientific studies that refute mans effects on climate.

the majority of people who actually study the climate and check each other all agree that humans are the cause this recent warming trend.
Click to expand...

No, they do not actually study climate. They actually mislead the rest of you sheeple on purpose.


BTW, have you ever actually seen what a fly can do to a spider's web? It can tear it apart while getting stuck, and spiders routinely have to rebuild after catching dinner. Your example is more apt than you'd think it is.
Click to expand...

I grew up on dirt road lots in the woods of Palatka, I have seen many a fly in a spider web. So I am trying to understand your logic and it fails me...no matter how torn up that web is, it's NOT going to effect the weather.

Also note, weather is not climate, or vice versa.
Click to expand...
The climate is a macroscopic term that in the global warming case usage, encompasses the changes or weather over time.

Seriously... anyone left denying global warming is simply politically motivated or grossly ignorant. Sometimes both.
Click to expand...

You left out one possibility...that they may actually be right.

Like you, I do not know the full scope of it but unlike you, I am damn sure not going to claim I do know the full scope of it.
 
Oh, sorry, I put in two links to the same person above...I should have been more attentive there.
 
How long before this thread turns into an argument about climate cha...

Oh, damn it.
 
BBA said:
Science is not magic, but it is mostly driven by politics. What gets funding gets proven, thats easy to see if you look at the big picture.

I do not accept the argument about anthropogenic global warming but it is proven specifically to NOT fit all the facts we know about the climate changing. The only 'scientists' who do not understand that are the ones close in contact with or the ones influenced by the 'politically correct' crowd or the ones 'who just want to be part of the movement'

My take on global warming...the earth will do what the earth will do and it's a slave to the Sun's output. Humans are no more significant to factors that impact weather than a fly in a spider web would be. Mind you, if/or when weathermen get sophisticated enough to consistently and accurately predict what the weather is going to be the next day, I might start believing what they have to say about the weather 10 years from tomorow. They are not quite at the point of being accurate.
Click to expand...
Flies sometimes break the spider's web.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top