In my continual quest for cognitive stimulation, I ran across a blurb-link to an interesting article on the "science" underpinning the oft-here-referred-to Dunning Kruger Effect. There are multiple threads on D-K in relation to diving and references embedded in others. But, what if D-K is wrong:
Quick executive summary (but read the cites below for yourself):
[Hoping this is a good place for a fundamental discussion tangential to, but impinging on SCUBA training and diving - Mods, please forgive/move if you feel improperly categorized]
Quick executive summary (but read the cites below for yourself):
- Essentially: D-K is probably wrong.
- The analytical technique that produced the model (underpinning the conclusion that lower-skill individuals over-estimate their level of competence compared to higher-skill individuals who tend to under-estimate self-competence) causes the same result for uniform random data - i.e. the process produces the result, not the data.
- Instead, less skilled (or at least less-experienced) individuals tend to over AND under-estimate their competence level by a wider range than more experienced individuals, but most folks generally have a "good" or "adequate"(their terminology - see #3) self estimation with outliers (basically a Gaussian distribution).
- The Dunning-Kruger Effect is Autocorrelation – Economics from the Top Down
- The Dunning-Kruger Effect Is Probably Not Real
- Host page: How Random Noise and a Graphical Convention Subverted Behavioral Scientists' Explanations of Self-Assessment Data: Numeracy Underlies Better Alternatives Direct .pdf: https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1215&context=numeracy
- I think we need to remember that "science" is a process. not an absolute (and behavioral science probably more subject than most to "common sense" bias.) It is conducted by fallible humans, who are fundamentally explorers, not omniscient gods, and make mistakes. It is the best process we have for knowing about the world - but Uncle Ronnie's quote seems appropriate - "trust, but verify" [Aside: ironic in that it is evidently a Russian proverb that he was using to reference trusting/verifying Russian actions.]
- Dunning-Kruger's conclusion, irrespective of the validity of the numerical model used to justify it, seems like it should be correct (newbies over-estimating competency), but it appears to be biased and literally half of the full story if cite #3 above is correct. So is this (D-K) common sense an artifact of our observational tendencies? Do we just see the newbies that over-estimate competence and get into trouble and the humble old-hats that turn in consistent solid performance with occasional save-the-day moments, while ignoring the quiet, over-achieving novice and chalking up the occasional failures of the "experts" as just bad luck?
- What are the implications of this new take for SCUBA - specifically training and dive-operators?
- Is it unfair to treat newbies with a lowest-common denominator mindset to be safe and "productive" or is a more discriminating analysis really in order - pushing the naturals/fast-learners and forcing the over-confident into remediation or at least better awareness?
- How should we as divers be better assessing our own competency and those of our buddies/teammates? Should we be expecting better self assessment by newer divers and being more evaluative of the "masters"?
[Hoping this is a good place for a fundamental discussion tangential to, but impinging on SCUBA training and diving - Mods, please forgive/move if you feel improperly categorized]