Just because it explains an experience, doesn’t mean it’s statistically true in a deep way. I would tend to agree that the Dunning Kruger effect is a nice logical story, a shorthand if you will. I would really be careful about placing undue confidence in neat little explanations of a stupefyingly complex word, especially when it concerns yet incomprehensible structures like the brain.
Being explained in experience is the worst proof, it’s all bias. I should have been more clear, I want it to be true because it makes sense, but it is incorrect.
Just because it explains an experience, doesn’t mean it’s statistically true in a deep way. I would tend to agree that the Dunning Kruger effect is a nice logical story, a shorthand if you will. I would really be careful about placing undue confidence in neat little explanations of a stupefyingly complex word, especially when it concerns yet incomprehensible structures like the brain.
Being explained in experience is the worst proof, it’s all bias. I should have been more clear, I want it to be true because it makes sense, but it is incorrect.