Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Silvanus]

Again, that's not what Dunning-Kruger study showed, most people put themselves around 60% for how well they thought they did regardless if they were low or high scoring in actuality.

You weren't asked what the study showed. You were asked what Dunning-Kruger is. Describing what this study showed is a wrong answer to that question.

 

[Ag3ma]

Wearing a mask outside is akin to building a metal structure over your house because you're worried about a plane crashing into your house and guess what, both won't do anything.

"Hey, I can literally spit or blow my nose straight into your mouth and you can't catch anything infectious as long as we're outside!"

 

[Phoenixmgs]

You weren't asked what the study showed. You were asked what Dunning-Kruger is. Describing what this study showed is a wrong answer to that question.

Why would an effect of a study only look at a portion of a study? You have to look at the whole study for anything.

Also like I already posted:
The Dunning-Kruger effect effect occurs when a person's lack of knowledge and skills in a certain area cause them to overestimate their own competence. By contrast, this effect also causes those who excel in a given area to think the task is simple for everyone, and underestimate their relative abilities as well.

You said "someone in the lowest quartile for a given skill/field considering themself to be in the highest quartile is exhibiting Dunning-Kruger". That isn't true. The people in the lowest quartile said they were average, not the highest quartile. People generally think what they do is average. Like I was totally shocked that most people face away from the shower head when showering because you just assume what you do is normal.

"Hey, I can literally spit or blow my nose straight into your mouth and you can't catch anything infectious as long as we're outside!"

"Acting like that is some common occurrence."

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

"Acting like that is some common occurrence."

It was one in a thousand in a country with extensive lockdowns and restrictions on outdoor gatherings. That's pretty medically common

 

[Ag3ma]

"Acting like that is some common occurrence."

 

[Silvanus]

Why would an effect of a study only look at a portion of a study? You have to look at the whole study for anything.

You weren't asked about the study.

You said "someone in the lowest quartile for a given skill/field considering themself to be in the highest quartile is exhibiting Dunning-Kruger". That isn't true. The people in the lowest quartile said they were average, not the highest quartile.

In that study they said that. You weren't asked about that study, and I wasn't talking about that study.

I was talking about Dunning-Kruger. Which is what you were asked about. Not that study.

 

[Trunkage]

You weren't asked about the study.



In that study they said that. You weren't asked about that study, and I wasn't talking about that study.

I was talking about Dunning-Kruger. Which is what you were asked about. Not that study.

Jesus Christ. I've been unable to get onto the forum for a week and Phoenixmgs still cant get that people were talking about an effect, not a study

 

[Eacaraxe]

Jesus Christ. I've been unable to get onto the forum for a week and Phoenixmgs still cant get that people were talking about an effect, not a study

Can't even call it irony because it's exactly the sort of thing we've come to expect.

But anyhow. Back to the point...

It Begins.

Hogwarts Legacy does not deserve to be reviewed on its own merits

Whether or not we want to admit it, it is impossible to talk positively about Hogwarts Legacy without harming a community of human beings.

www.gameshub.com

But remember y'all, cancel culture isn't real, there's no culture war, it's totally okay if you enjoy problematic things, and you should never make third parties like game developers suffer for the misdeeds of an IP's creator.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

It was one in a thousand in a country with extensive lockdowns and restrictions on outdoor gatherings. That's pretty medically common

Why would outdoor gatherings be limited. You know that only causes people to congregate indoors more if they aren't allowed to do stuff outside, right?

View attachment 7859

Yes, because those people totally aren't living together indoors, kissing indoors, and sleeping in the same bed; breathing the same air for hours every day. If only they didn't kiss outside, covid wouldn't have been transmitted if one of them was infectious. Just normal friends that you are going to the beach with that aren't romantic partners are going to "spit or blow my nose straight into your mouth"?

You weren't asked about the study.



In that study they said that. You weren't asked about that study, and I wasn't talking about that study.

I was talking about Dunning-Kruger. Which is what you were asked about. Not that study.

Deriving an effect from a study in a proper and logical way is only looking at a portion of the study? You do realize that's why I say you guys don't understand Dunning-Kruger is because you just use the erroneous "pop-culture" explanation of Dunning-Kruger tat only looks at the portion of the study? Just like if I asked you what ludonarrative dissonance was, you'd give me the wrong answer and use say Uncharted as an example when that's wrong and it's actually Bioshock that is the reason the term was coined.

Jesus Christ. I've been unable to get onto the forum for a week and Phoenixmgs still cant get that people were talking about an effect, not a study

It's an erroneous effect from not understanding the study, just like ludonarrative dissonance.

It Begins.

Hogwarts Legacy does not deserve to be reviewed on its own merits

Whether or not we want to admit it, it is impossible to talk positively about Hogwarts Legacy without harming a community of human beings.

www.gameshub.com

But remember y'all, cancel culture isn't real, there's no culture war, it's totally okay if you enjoy problematic things, and you should never make third parties like game developers suffer for the misdeeds of an IP's creator.

IGN put this in their review, so fucking stupid...

 

[Silvanus]

Deriving an effect from a study in a proper and logical way is only looking at a portion of the study?

You weren't asked about the study.

You do realize that's why I say you guys don't understand Dunning-Kruger is because you just use the erroneous "pop-culture" explanation of Dunning-Kruger tat only looks at the portion of the study?

You weren't asked about the study. Dunning-Kruger is not defined by what that study found.

Just like if I asked you what ludonarrative dissonance was, you'd give me the wrong answer and use say Uncharted as an example when that's wrong and it's actually Bioshock that is the reason the term was coined.

...are you just now having conversations with me in your head? I haven't even played Uncharted. What the fuck are you even talking about?

 

[Asita]

The whole study is the Dunning-Kruger effect... people in general believe themselves to be average. Just about everyone here will give the incorrect definition to ludonarrative dissonance as well.

No it isn't. For starters, the paper was "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments", which lays out its gist pretty succinctly, as does the abstract:

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. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.

The "Dunning-Kruger Effect" is the term used after the fact to describe the key phenomenon observed within that paper, which showed that - compared to their more competent peers - incompetent individuals "will dramatically overestimate their ability and performance relative to objective criteria", will be less able "to recognize competence when they see it" (either in themselves or in others), have difficulties in gaining insight into their actual level of performance, and can improve their ability to recognize their (present) incompetence by becoming more competent and thus gaining the metacognitive skills needed to realize that they have performed poorly.

While the study does show some of the highly-competent understating their abilities (explainable by a separate phenomenon known as imposter syndrome), they were observed to do so both less frequently and to a lesser degree than the incompetent overestimated their own ability. So the two phenomena are not equivalent, nor is the takeaway for the paper "everyone thinks they're average". Moreover, the term "Dunning-Kruger Effect" is not used to encompass the results explainable by imposter syndrome, just to explain why those with low-ability tend to overestimate their performance.

Per Dunning himself: "In short, those who are incompetent, for lack of a better term, should have little insight into their incompetence—an assertion that has come to be known as the Dunning–Kruger effect".

Never mind that this entire side argument is pure deflection consisting of you just trying to split hairs and score petty gotcha points by saying that the people accusing you of exactly that flaw are using the wrong term. Even if we were to take that as a given for the sake of argument, it's irrelevant, because you knew what they meant and the hair-splitting doesn't actually contest the point. It's just a semantic distraction.

And on that note, let's drop the 'for the sake of argument' handicap and actually look at the definition:

Per the Dictionary:

noun Psychology.
the theory that a person who lacks skill or expertise also lacks the insight to accurately evaluate this deficit, resulting in a persistent inflation of estimated competence in self-assessments.

Per Britannica:

Dunning-Kruger effect, in psychology, a cognitive bias whereby people with limited knowledge or competence in a given intellectual or social domain greatly overestimate their own knowledge or competence in that domain relative to objective criteria or to the performance of their peers or of people in general.

According to the researchers for whom it is named, psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger, the effect is explained by the fact that the metacognitive ability to recognize deficiencies in one’s own knowledge or competence requires that one possess at least a minimum level of the same kind of knowledge or competence, which those who exhibit the effect have not attained. Because they are unaware of their deficiencies, such people generally assume that they are not deficient, in keeping with the tendency of most people to “choose what they think is the most reasonable and optimal option.”

Although not scientifically explored until the late 20th century, the phenomenon is familiar from ordinary life, and it has long been attested in common sayings—e.g., “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing”—and in observations by writers and wits through the ages—e.g., “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge” (Charles Darwin).

Per Psychology Today:

The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people wrongly overestimate their knowledge or ability in a specific area. This tends to occur because a lack of self-awareness prevents them from accurately assessing their own skills.

The concept of the Dunning-Kruger effect is based on a 1999 paper by Cornell University psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger. The pair tested participants on their logic, grammar, and sense of humor, and found that those who performed in the bottom quartile rated their skills far above average. For example, those in the 12th percentile self-rated their expertise to be, on average, in the 62nd percentile.

The researchers attributed the trend to a problem of metacognition—the ability to analyze one’s own thoughts or performance. “Those with limited knowledge in a domain suffer a dual burden: Not only do they reach mistaken conclusions and make regrettable errors, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it,” they wrote.

(As an aside, a percentile rank of 60+ is considered comfortably above average)

Per Healthline:

Named after psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger, the Dunning-Kruger effect is a type of cognitive bias that causes people to overestimate their knowledge or ability, particularly in areas with which they have little to no experience.

In psychology, cognitive bias refers to unfounded beliefs we may have, often without realizing it.

Per Advances in Experimental Psychology, Chapter 5 - The Dunning-Kruger Effect: On Being Ignorant of One's Own Ignorance:

In this chapter, I provide argument and evidence that the scope of people's ignorance is often invisible to them. This meta-ignorance (or ignorance of ignorance) arises because lack of expertise and knowledge often hides in the realm of the “unknown unknowns” or is disguised by erroneous beliefs and background knowledge that only appear to be sufficient to conclude a right answer.

As empirical evidence of meta-ignorance, I describe the Dunning–Kruger effect, in which poor performers in many social and intellectual domains seem largely unaware of just how deficient their expertise is. Their deficits leave them with a double burden—not only does their incomplete and misguided knowledge lead them to make mistakes but those exact same deficits also prevent them from recognizing when they are making mistakes and other people choosing more wisely. I discuss theoretical controversies over the interpretation of this effect and describe how the self-evaluation errors of poor and top performers differ. I also address a vexing question: If self-perceptions of competence so often vary from the truth, what cues are people using to determine whether their conclusions are sound or faulty?

And it's perhaps worth noting that the last one is again from Dunning himself.

So no. The Dunning-Kruger effect is not that "people in general believe themselves to be average". It is instead the phenomena in which a poor understanding of a topic leads a poor performer to grossly overestimate their abilities, frequently thinking themselves above average, when in fact they were appreciably below average.

Let me be frank here. Not only are you wrong, but your misrepresentation of it ends up demonstrating the underlying point being made against you: Your actual level of understanding is appreciably lower than you perceive it to be, and your presumption to the contrary is sabotaging and preventing you from rectifying that problem.

And that is a recurring issue with you that we're seeing in several topics. Your belief that you simply know better is making you double down on dumb mistakes that you could have entirely avoided if you had just taken the time to do a little honest research and checked your assumptions first. But because of that presumption that you know better, you don't even know what to look for and instead end up simply shopping around to find sources that you think agree with your beliefs, then claiming that source vindicates you and that therefore any good source must agree with you them. Even then, you've demonstrated a tendency to do little more than skim, cherry pick, and otherwise bastardize them to claim they fit your preconceptions, to the point of even turning on your own sources once it was shown that they didn't actually say what you initially claimed.

By all appearances, this isn't a deliberate deception, but rather a product of you presuming that you have a reasonably high understanding of a topic that you in fact have very little understanding of. That is to say: you're exhibiting the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Why would outdoor gatherings be limited. You know that only causes people to congregate indoors more if they aren't allowed to do stuff outside, right?

Fucking I dunno man, that was your article on Ireland.

IGN put this in their review, so fucking stupid...

The IGN article complained about damn near everything that makes a game a game and they still gave it 9/10 because Harry Potter.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

You weren't asked about the study.



You weren't asked about the study. Dunning-Kruger is not defined by what that study found.



...are you just now having conversations with me in your head? I haven't even played Uncharted. What the fuck are you even talking about?

If you are only gonna use an effect from part of a study, then you can say covid vaccines are harmful because they are to a select group. You have to look at the whole thing.

The Dunning-Kruger effect effect occurs when a person's lack of knowledge and skills in a certain area cause them to overestimate their own competence. By contrast, this effect also causes those who excel in a given area to think the task is simple for everyone, and underestimate their relative abilities as well.

Most people list games like Uncharted as having ludonarrative dissonance when they don't. It's such a common criticism that Uncharted 4 has a trophy called ludonarrative dissonance.

No it isn't. For starters, the paper was "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments", which lays out its gist pretty succinctly, as does the abstract:



The "Dunning-Kruger Effect" is the term used after the fact to describe the key phenomenon observed within that paper, which showed that - compared to their more competent peers - incompetent individuals "will dramatically overestimate their ability and performance relative to objective criteria", will be less able "to recognize competence when they see it" (either in themselves or in others), have difficulties in gaining insight into their actual level of performance, and can improve their ability to recognize their (present) incompetence by becoming more competent and thus gaining the metacognitive skills needed to realize that they have performed poorly.

While the study does show some of the highly-competent understating their abilities (explainable by a separate phenomenon known as imposter syndrome), they were observed to do so both less frequently and to a lesser degree than the incompetent overestimated their own ability. So the two phenomena are not equivalent, nor is the takeaway for the paper "everyone thinks they're average". Moreover, the term "Dunning-Kruger Effect" is not used to encompass the results explainable by imposter syndrome, just to explain why those with low-ability tend to overestimate their performance.

Per Dunning himself: "In short, those who are incompetent, for lack of a better term, should have little insight into their incompetence—an assertion that has come to be known as the Dunning–Kruger effect".

Never mind that this entire side argument is pure deflection consisting of you just trying to split hairs and score petty gotcha points by saying that the people accusing you of exactly that flaw are using the wrong term. Even if we were to take that as a given for the sake of argument, it's irrelevant, because you knew what they meant and the hair-splitting doesn't actually contest the point. It's just a semantic distraction.

And on that note, let's drop the 'for the sake of argument' handicap and actually look at the definition:

Per the Dictionary:





Per Britannica:



Per Psychology Today:



(As an aside, a percentile rank of 60+ is considered comfortably above average)

Per Healthline:



Per Advances in Experimental Psychology, Chapter 5 - The Dunning-Kruger Effect: On Being Ignorant of One's Own Ignorance:



And it's perhaps worth noting that the last one is again from Dunning himself.

So no. The Dunning-Kruger effect is not that "people in general believe themselves to be average". It is instead the phenomena in which a poor understanding of a topic leads a poor performer to grossly overestimate their abilities, frequently thinking themselves above average, when in fact they were appreciably below average.

Let me be frank here. Not only are you wrong, but your misrepresentation of it ends up demonstrating the underlying point being made against you: Your actual level of understanding is appreciably lower than you perceive it to be, and your presumption to the contrary is sabotaging and preventing you from rectifying that problem.

And that is a recurring issue with you that we're seeing in several topics. Your belief that you simply know better is making you double down on dumb mistakes that you could have entirely avoided if you had just taken the time to do a little honest research and checked your assumptions first. But because of that presumption that you know better, you don't even know what to look for and instead end up simply shopping around to find sources that you think agree with your beliefs, then claiming that source vindicates you and that therefore any good source must agree with you them. Even then, you've demonstrated a tendency to do little more than skim, cherry pick, and otherwise bastardize them to claim they fit your preconceptions, to the point of even turning on your own sources once it was shown that they didn't actually say what you initially claimed.

By all appearances, this isn't a deliberate deception, but rather a product of you presuming that you have a reasonably high understanding of a topic that you in fact have very little understanding of. That is to say: you're exhibiting the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Again, if you are gonna decide effects by looking at a portion of a study, that's really bad science. In fact, Dunning-Kruger doesn't even exist because it exists with just random numbers. If there's a human bias, then you can't randomly generate numbers to find the same bias because that means there isn't a bias.

Also...
The Dunning-Kruger effect effect occurs when a person's lack of knowledge and skills in a certain area cause them to overestimate their own competence. By contrast, this effect also causes those who excel in a given area to think the task is simple for everyone, and underestimate their relative abilities as well.

Fucking I dunno man, that was your article on Ireland.

The IGN article complained about damn near everything that makes a game a game and they still gave it 9/10 because Harry Potter.

And, the Chinese study tracing back infections only found a single possible transmission outside out of thousands. And this was before they were doing any lockdowns. The data for outdoor transmission is it's so insignificant, it's not a thing to worry about.

And...? That doesn't make the content warning any less stupid. It hilarious that people concern themselves with buying something that might give JK money, yet I'm sure they've spent money on something that went to some corporation that is using that money to makes people's lives objectively worse. I'm sure EA does worse things to people than JK, and it's OK to buy the fun Harry Potter game from them (if there was no JK "issues")?

 

[Buyetyen]

Again, if you are gonna decide effects by looking at a portion of a study, that's really bad science. In fact, Dunning-Kruger doesn't even exist because it exists with just random numbers. If there's a human bias, then you can't randomly generate numbers to find the same bias because that means there isn't a bias.

 

[Asita]

Again, if you are gonna decide effects by looking at a portion of a study, that's really bad science. In fact, Dunning-Kruger doesn't even exist because it exists with just random numbers. If there's a human bias, then you can't randomly generate numbers to find the same bias because that means there isn't a bias.

Also...
The Dunning-Kruger effect effect occurs when a person's lack of knowledge and skills in a certain area cause them to overestimate their own competence. By contrast, this effect also causes those who excel in a given area to think the task is simple for everyone, and underestimate their relative abilities as well.

Quod erat demonstrandum. I quote the definition several times over, from multiple sources - two from Dunning himself - give you a brief overview of the findings and what in particular the paper was explaining, I quote the abstract itself, and briefly explain how the paper's results are not as you claimed...and you're still trying to argue that that doesn't count because you're convinced you simply know better and that therefore a good definition must align with your preconceptions.

 

[Silvanus]

If you are only gonna use an effect from part of a study [...]

No, stop there, because you weren't asked about the study.

The Dunning-Kruger effect effect occurs when a person's lack of knowledge and skills in a certain area cause them to overestimate their own competence. By contrast, this effect also causes those who excel in a given area to think the task is simple for everyone, and underestimate their relative abilities as well.

As has already been explained, this doesn't mean that people think they're "average". Someone in the bottom quartile believing themself in the top quartile is exhibiting Dunning-Kruger, but not believing themself average.

Most people list games like Uncharted as having ludonarrative dissonance when they don't. It's such a common criticism that Uncharted 4 has a trophy called ludonarrative dissonance.

What the hell does this have to do with me? I don't even know why you're talking about ludonarrative dissonance. As far as I can tell its just a pure deflection. I never said anything about it in this thread, and I've not even played more than about 20 minutes of Uncharted.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Quod erat demonstrandum. I quote the definition several times over, from multiple sources - two from Dunning himself - give you a brief overview of the findings and what in particular the paper was explaining, I quote the abstract itself, and briefly explain how the paper's results are not as you claimed...and you're still trying to argue that that doesn't count because you're convinced you simply know better and that therefore a good definition must align with your preconceptions.

I mean let's face it: what other response could there be?

 

[Eacaraxe]

The IGN article complained about damn near everything that makes a game a game and they still gave it 9/10 because Harry Potter.

Honestly, at this point I find it more amusing than anything, that after a decade of the "games/pop culture is inherently political". "it's okay to enjoy problematic things", and "cancel culture isn't real"...these people are just sticking their whole, bare asses right out there once again and expecting their doublespeak to be taken seriously by anyone but their own echo chambers. As if no one on planet Earth has ever heard of a hypothetical syllogism before, and has the capacity to understand subtext.

"It doesn't matter whether or not she had any creative input on the game, nor the developers' or publishers' opinions on the matter. Buying the game gives Rowling royalties and expands her brand's awareness, giving her more money and influence. The personal is the political, and your choice to participate in the boycott (or not) reflects your political and moral values comparative to Rowling's, and comfort with enabling her transphobia. We're not saying you're transphobic if you buy the game, but there are only two sides of this issue from which to choose."

If you're calling people who agree with Rowling transphobic, and saying buying the game is tacit agreement with Rowling's stance on transgendered people, then yeah, you absolutely are calling people who buy the game transphobic.

But just don't look too closely at Neil Druckmann's gross-ass opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or the multiple controversies surrounding TLOU2, and apply the same reasoning to TLOU2 fans.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

But just don't look too closely at Neil Druckmann's gross-ass opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or the multiple controversies surrounding TLOU2, and apply the same reasoning to TLOU2 fans.

Hey, you want to make this as an argument for not buying TLOU2, I respect it much more than the endless whining about how woke it is

 

[Eacaraxe]

Hey, you want to make this as an argument for not buying TLOU2, I respect it much more than the endless whining about how woke it is

I didn't buy it because, to be honest, I wasn't a fan of the first. Druckmann's incessant fart-huffing, and the way ND treated Amy Hennig, certainly lost the goodwill it would have taken to give the franchise a second chance.

I personally don't give a shit if a game is "woke". About what I do give a shit, is when a game's developers try to be "woke", catastrophically pooch it, and (along with the gaming press, and fans) double down on the game's "message" by slandering rightful criticism as bigotry. TLOU2 being a key example of this.

The inverse scenario applies as well, like for example when a game is deeply political, "woke" even, but the themes and message are so subtextual or encoded they fly miles over the heads of "pop culture critics", and the rabble decide instead to wrongfully criticize it for simply not spoon-feeding their confirmation bias. Far Cry 5 being a key example of this.