Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
“People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along?” Rodney King 5/1/92
The arguments and divisions politically here and throughout this country are rampant and destructive. Anger and hatred of others of differing opinions rises at times to fever pitch and I admit that I am part of the problem as much as anyone else is. This is a somewhat different piece in that I am going to present some national problems, as I see them and elicit your comments on them, in an attempt to discover whether there is some common ground agreement, on some things plaguing our society. While I am more interested in whether or not people agree that these are indeed problems for us all to consider and work to solve, it is certainly apropos for people to comment on what they believe the solutions to be.
This is an experiment on the viability of people agreeing on the premise that a problem exists in a given area. We cannot begin to resolve issues, unless we first agree that they are issues to be contemplated by the entire body politic. My hope is to engender real, civil discussion and perhaps at the end reach something like consensus. This is not a plea for Bi-Partisanship because to me that is a fantasy, whoever may utter it. To be “partisan” is to hold strong opinions and srong opinions do not resolve themselves into agreement. The resolution reached by “partisans” is always one of compromise, without either side changing their core beliefs, but agreeing to take part of the loaf. I am “experimenting” to see if many of the diverse viewpoints represented here can at least agree that a specific issue is indeed a problem, or if it is indeed an issue. Beyond writing this, I will not take part in the ensuing discussion, since the formulation itself indicates my views on whether these are indeed problems. I will limit my questions to legal issues, with no particular order of importance intended.
A. Does the fact that we have the highest incarceration rate of any nation in the world indicate a problem?
B. Given the overcrowding and long delays inherent in our legal system, do we need to do something to reform it?
C. Have our Constitutional Rights been diminished?
D. Has the policing authority both State and Locally been extended beyond permissible bounds.
E. Has the War on Drugs been a failure and added to addiction rather than restricting it?
F. From the perspective of criminal/civil procedure, has the Right to Privacy been terminated and/or restrictively diminished?
G. Does State and Federal Government have the right to criminalize non-coercive sexual acts between adults?
H. Should the States and Federal Government admit the “War on Drugs” is a failure and seek new methods to deal with addiction?
As an illustration of what I am looking for I will present this. FFLEO and I both voted for Barack Obama, even though FFLEO and I have very different political and partisan beliefs. Yet we both agree that he has been an awful President. Where we respectfully disagree is that he has stated he will never vote for Obama again and I have stated I might, if there are no alternatives that seem viable. The most important element is that we, though vastly different politically, agree on the nature of the problem. With that agreement, there comes a mutual respect and a future hope of resolution, even though one is not now apparent or even likely. If there is no agreement on whether something is at least a problem, then the legacy of that disagreement is ongoing, unresolved strife.
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
Roco,
You’re entitled to your opinion. Can you point out the assertion I made? Do you understand what it means for my assertion to be true? I truly don’t believe that anon understands Dr. Feynman – are you saying that is a lie?
anon,
You’re very lucky – but that doesn’t mean you understand what you’re talking about. You were implying that OS or myself were using the D-K effect to argue that some comments were inane. In fact, we were pointing out that, in our opinion, some of the inane comments were likely examples of the D-K effect. It had already been established that the comments in question were inane (at least I thought so and I believe that OS did, too…). I doubt Dr. Feynman would have thought much of your straw man argument.
anon:
how does Slarti know about not knowing dick? Is he an expert on not knowing dick? What are his credentials concerning not knowing dick.
I think Slarti is suffering from the Dunning-Krueger effect. I dont think you need to take him seriously about you not knowing dick since he isnt an expert in that subject.
Therefore if Slarti is not an expert then you probably do know something about Feynman since you attended his lectures.
I guess you actually do know Dick contrary to Slarti’s questionable assertion.
@slarti,
“Slartibartfast
1, August 8, 2011 at 3:58 pm
anon,
Reading Feynman’s autobiography was one of my major inspirations in becoming a scientist and, respectfully, I don’t think you know Dick.”
I’m certain I don’t know dick as well as you do, but I attended Feynman’s lectures on many many occasions.
Bob Esq:
you might be interested in the information provided below.
Slartibartfast:
one problem with your contention is experts are limited to their fields of expertise. You and Otteray scribe are “experts” in a very narrow field of knowledge. Your opinions on politics or economics are no more well informed than mine. I would however defer to you in things mathematical and to OS in things psychological, in most cases.
From Michelene Chi, one of the foremost experts on expertise. Expertise is domain limited. So, you and OS, may be experts in your credentialed fields, but that expertise certainly does not extend to politics and economics, where you are uncredentialed novices. So, according to the Dunning-Kruger we are free to ignore your opinion.
http://www.public.asu.edu/~mtchi/papers/Chpt_2_Expertise_pdf.pdf
domain-limited
Expertise is domain-limited. Experts do not excel in recall for domains in which they have no expertise. For example, the chess master’s recall of randomized chess board positions is much less accurate than the recall for actual positions from chess games (Gobet & Simon, 1996), and the engineer’s attempt to recall the state of affairs of thermal-hydraulic processes that are not physically meaningful is much less successful than attempts to recall such states that are meaningfull (Vicente, 1992). There are a number of demonstrations from various other domains that show experts’ superior recall compared to novices for representative situations but not for randomly rearranged versions of the same stimuli (Ericsson & Lehmann, 1996; Vicente & Wang, 1998). Thus, the superiority associated with their expertise is very much limited to a specific domain.
Also, here’s some real science on the over-confidence of experts, from the same book.
overly confident
Experts can also miscalibrate their capabilities by being overly confident. Chi (1978) found that the experts (as compared to both the novices and the intermediates) overestimated the number of chess pieces they could recall from coherent chess positions (see Figure 9, left panel, Chi, 1978). Similarly, physics and music experts overestimated their comprehension of a physics or music text, respectively, whereas novices were far more accurate (Glenberg & Epstein, 1987). It seems that experts can be overly confident in judgments related to their field of expertise (Oskamp, 1965). Of course, there are also domains, such as weather forecasting, for which experts can be cautious and conservative (Hoffman, Trafron, & Roebber
2005).
kderosa,
It’s a matter of filtering – the D-K effect provides a sort of crude pre-filter to information (i.e. the more someone emphasizes their expertise the less substantial it is likely to be). OS raised the question of the efficacy of this method of filtration relating to posts on this site. If his analogy isn’t apt, then surely one of you should have no problem providing a counterexample (or some sort of evidence that he’s wrong). Can you do that?
Thank you for that piece of advice.
I am taking it into consideration.
Roco,
If you want a list of your errors, it is more helpful, pedagogically speaking, to make it yourself. Otherwise you’ll never learn.
Slartibartfast:
what have I been wrong about?
That’s nice, Bob.
Kevin: “If arguing is reason giving, why do you never give any reasons?”
Oh Kevin; was that your attempt at ‘silvery tongued rhetoric?’ Sounds more like the mindless rant of an eight year old. But that’s my bald opinion; not an argument.
Kevin: “I notice that in all of the critiques of Dr. Krueger’s work no one has actually brought up any scientific evidence which falsifies (or even casts doubt on) Dr. Krueger’s work – just a bunch of whining that it is being used somehow unfairly.”
Kevin, can you show me where I critiqued the work of Dr. Kruger? If not, why do you imply that I did? I simply showed how you used the aforesaid doctor’s work to avoid making an argument; which, oddly enough, is what you’re doing again.
Am I the only one who sees the irony in your abject failure to become aware of your mistakes here due to your own arrogance?
Using the Dunning-Krueger study in this way is merely a poor rationalization for making an Appeal to Authority. But it’s still an Appeal to Authority which forms the basis of an ad hominem attack on the source of the argument, i.e., it’s a logical fallacy. The source of the argument is irrelevant. The argument stands or falls on its own merit.
In my opinion, any “scientist” who doesn’t understand this, isn’t much of a scientist, credentials notwithstanding.
anon,
Reading Feynman’s autobiography was one of my major inspirations in becoming a scientist and, respectfully, I don’t think you know Dick.
Roco,
The problem is that when it comes to batting averages, neither yours nor the Enquirer’s is very good…
Slartibarfast:
sometimes you dont need to do an academic study to know something.
Personally “The complete authority of the uninformed” is a statement that has been around for years. It is exactly what Dunning-Krueger is talking about.
To use Dunning-Krueger as a way to stifle debate is wrong. No matter how many ways you analyse it.
I am not refuting the study but I am refuting its application and I am refuting that it is any kind of earth shattering finding. You may as well tell me grass is green and that you have done a comprehensive scientific study to determine it’s green. That is my personal opinion of the findings of Dunning and Krueger.
And it is used by people of bad faith to stifle discussion.
Oh and by the way the National Enquirer does get the scoop on a good many stories.
Hi Bob,
If arguing is reason giving, why do you never give any reasons? I notice that in all of the critiques of Dr. Krueger’s work no one has actually brought up any scientific evidence which falsifies (or even casts doubt on) Dr. Krueger’s work – just a bunch of whining that it is being used somehow unfairly. In science we judge ideas on their merits – there is no rule giving equal time to unscientific arguments (not even arguments – more like pathetic whinging…). This isn’t the first time you’ve tried to play this sort of game and I see absolutely no reason for anyone to give credence to your nonsense.
As for not giving an argument why my opponent’s reasoning is, in fact, inferior – why should I? My argument is that substantive discussion is derailed by people who act in bad faith – my solution is to have those discussions in private. I have no desire to try and unravel your silver-tongued rhetoric – I already know that there is nothing of substance underneath (I’ve got plenty of empirical evidence to support that conclusion…). Anyway, that’s all the time I’m willing to spend on you right now.
Roco,
Judging the relative value of ideas is one of, if not the, most important tasks in the information age. I’m sorry that Dr. Krueger’s work suggests that your ideas are inferior, but that doesn’t change the quality of your reasoning nor does it change my opinion of that quality.
OS,
I don’t currently have access to scientific databases, but I would certainly research the background before I sent anyone a critique of academic research – especially the author. But they aren’t arguing against the merits of the study so it’s pretty much just worthless prattle. I think that equating it to a letter to the editor of a supermarket tabloid is grossly overestimating its worth.
Have our Constitutional Rights been diminished? In some areas, yes (e.g., 4A rights). In other areas, our rights have grown (e.g., right of privacy, which if I am not mistaken, is why the government no longer has the power to criminalize consensual sex acts of adults (i.e., adults have more rights now)).
In my opinion, anyone who accepts a “living” constitution theory should expect that their rights may be diminished by that growth.
Otteray Scribe:
Why dont you tell me what errors of logic I engaged in? You tell very many posters they do this but I have yet to see you name any except straw man and maybe one other.
And yes I did read more than just wikipedia. And yes it was my opinion. But it seems some people seem to agree with it. I will also bet that Dr. Krueger didnt mean for it to be used by people to stifle the free exchange of ideas of people who they disagree with.
It is becoming more and more clear to me that the left is intolerant of opposing ideas and views. You are not liberal at all.
Slartibarfast:
I am sorry you disagree.
By the way, I didnt really expect an answer.
I have a question. Has anyone here actually READ any of the published articles written by Dunning & Kruger? Or is your “knowledge” gained from Wikipedia. Ya know what wiki means? It is the Hawaiian word for “fast” or “quick.” A quick read to get the highlights–and no in-depth analysis of the background studies, control groups, experimental groups or the mathematical analysis and proofs used. Just a ‘fast’ read. I know Slarti knows the background–he is a scientist and has access to the database, but anyone else?
I have access to a vast database of articles because I have a subscription, but anyone else? And no, I am not going to do your research for you. Get your own subscription to the scientific database–they need the money.
It is both laughable and pathetic that someone would write a letter (or claim to) a primary researcher without first doing some in-depth study of the research. I would not reply either, since such a note would carry all the weight of a letter to the editor of the local supermarket tabloid.
Arguing is reason giving.
1. Reasons are justifications or support for claims.
2. Rationality is the ability to engage in reason giving.
3. The alternative to reason giving is to accept or reject claims on whim or command.
Anon is correct.
In lieu of addressing his opponent’s argument, Slarti resorted to an insult unfounded by reasons for said insulting claim.
Slarti: “If it is being used to RIGHTLY dismiss INFERIOR arguments then it is a good thing”
Arguing is reason giving; and Slarti gives no reasons to support his claim that his opponent made an inferior argument.
To talk about effective reasoning is to imply concern for an audience.
1. Arguments are not offered in a vacuum.
2. Success ultimately depends on the assent of an audience.
3. Assent is based on audience acceptance of the reasoning.
4. Hence argumentation is one way in which we attempt to persuade
Ironically, Dunning Kruger proved Slarti to be the incompetent one here.
Double irony considering the title of this thread.