Coronavirus COVID-19

[prdctvsm]

[goDel]

I'm fairly sure, looking at these responses, none of you *cough* dcom * cough* actually watched the presentation.

Am I wrong?

Edited May 6, 2020 by goDel

[prdctvsm]

@goDel lined up for tonite's viewing thx ((:: , @ work rn

[dcom]

20 minutes ago, goDel said:

I'm fairly sure, looking at these responses, none of you *cough* dcom * cough* actually watched the presentation.

Am I wrong?

I've watched that before, as well as his father's presentations as well as read the book - it's all about being (information, knowledge, statistically etc.) literate about things in a world where information is massaged to fit some preconceived reality. Could you point to something more specific?

Edited May 6, 2020 by dcom

[goDel]

29 minutes ago, dcom said:

I've watched that before, as well as his father's presentations as well as read the book - it's all about being (information, knowledge, statistically etc.) literate about things. Could you point to something more specific?

If you're wondering why I responded that way, it is because of a number of things. Your comment that it's not information overload firstly seems to imply that it was my only point. It wasn't. Nor was I thinking about overload, btw. Was just saying theres a lot of info. More than at other times in history. Thats not the same as saying were suffering an overload.

Then you try to explain about filters and dunning kruger and all that, and i just have to wonder why. First you put me into the ignorant box. Perhaps to show your knowledge, I dont know. Could have been poor communication from my side as well. Then you try to explain all kinds of things which, imo, are only parts of an explanation. Where the more fundamental thing, id argue, is discussed in that presentation. 

And now that you mention youre already well aware of all that stuff, I'm left wondering, again, why you feel the need to explain the filters and bubbles and dunning krugers, when you would know of this more basic problem. Why focus on all that other stuff?

You should wonder whether your focus on that stuff is part of a bigger irony which is your own bubble. Which is not to say you arent well informed. Im sure youve done your homework. But, as you could have seen in that presentation, being an expert (well-informed) doesnt automatically give better intuitions about the world. It's often the other way around. Again, presentation. 

You dont strike me as a guy with the self criticism I'd expect people to take away from these sources. It's more about finding out whats wrong with the rest of the world, i'm guessing. Amirite?

Edited May 6, 2020 by goDel

[dingformung]

How can I objectively know if I'm victim to the phenomenon that popular science calls Dunning-Kruger effect and that probably also has a scientific term? By never being over confident? The tragic is that confidence is often falsly associated with competence and helps asserting oneself, naturally giving the non-intelligent and unsensitive an advantage in the struggle of ideas (and fists).

[goDel]

If you could measure competence, you should do that. To a certain degree though. Because it's relative to your peers.

Edited May 6, 2020 by goDel

[dcom]

6 minutes ago, dingformung said:

How can I objectively know if I'm victim to the phenomenon that popular science calls Dunning-Kruger effect and that probably also has a scientific term? By never being over confident? The tragic is that confidence is often falsly associated with competence and helps asserting oneself, naturally giving the non-intelligent and unsensitive an advantage in the struggle of ideas (and fists).

That's the irony of it (and it doesn't escape me).

Edited May 6, 2020 by dcom

[dingformung]

22 minutes ago, goDel said:

If you could measure competence, you should do that. To a certain degree though. Because it's relative to your peers.

Is it really relative, though? If I'm able to climb a tree it has nothing to do with others having or not having that competence. Maybe confidence itself is a competence. Maybe this Dunning-Kruger model is only part of the truth because wouldn't it basically mean that people with objectively mediocre competence are never overly confident or lacking in confidence? Which clearly isn't the case, at least in my observations.

[dcom]

The Coronavirus Is Rewriting Our Imaginations (The New Yorker)

[goDel]

Quote

Maybe this Dunning-Kruger model is only part of the truth

That would be a good starting assumption. By definition.

Not only that, but also our understanding of what the model means and implies, btw.

Quote

Maybe confidence itself is a competence.

Yeah. I could get behind that. 

Quote

...because wouldn't it basically mean that people with objectively mediocre competence are never overly confident or lacking in confidence? Which clearly isn't the case, at least in my observations.

You're saying the opposite of what the model stereotypically says, I think. If you're (objectively) mediocre, you tend to overestimate your own competence. Which is another way of saying you're overconfident, right? Seems like you misread the model for a bit, imo.

[dingformung]

10 minutes ago, goDel said:

Quote

.because wouldn't it basically mean that people with objectively mediocre competence are never overly confident or lacking in confidence? Which clearly isn't the case, at least in my observations.

You're saying the opposite of what the model stereotypically says, I think. If you're (objectively) mediocre, you tend to overestimate your own competence. Which is another way of saying you're overconfident, right? Seems like you misread the model for a bit, imo.

Seems you misread me. With "mediocre" I don't mean low in competence, I mean having some but not much competence. Here's the model:

Someone in the "Valley of Despair" (lol) / some1 with mediocre competence should if you believe this model be low in confidence, which is BS, imvho. So let's not use it, it's polemic (even tho admittedly there is some limited truf innit)

Sorry for derailing the thread,

[goDel]

12 minutes ago, dingformung said:

With "mediocre" I don't mean low in competence, I mean having some but not much competence.

hahaha. It's better to post that image. This sentence doesn't explain what you mean at all. The difference between "low in competence" and "some but not much competence" is euh...how shall I put it... a not well communicated difference as it looks completely the same from where I'm reading. Different shades of the same colour, if you will. The graphs shows what you mean though.

To me the valley of dispair thing is similar to conscious incompetence. You probably have heard these terms as well: unconscious incompetence, conscious incompetence, conscious competence and unconscious competence. The learning stages. So to me it does make sense.

One thing though, the right side of that graph...isn't that supposed to go down again? I'm under the assumption the model also predicts that with more competence, after a while confidence starts to decline a bit. Not as much as despair. But significant enough. This doesn't look right to me. But that could be my misunderstanding.

Edited May 6, 2020 by goDel

[dingformung]

I just think that actual psychologists probably chuckle at models like this. But agree, might still be useful to make a point. Apologies for my pointless brain yoga

[goDel]

4 minutes ago, dingformung said:

I just think that actual psychologists probably chuckle at models like this. But agree, might still be useful to make a point. Apologies for my pointless brain yoga

I wonder if those "actual psychologists" are doing "actual science". I mean, this model isn't the kind of science like physics is. But in psychology hardly anything is. The minute it becomes more "hard" science, it becomes either biology, chemistry or computational science. But that's more your field, if my memory is correct. And then, there's also the clinical psychologists. They don't have much reason to chuckle either, imo.

Edited May 6, 2020 by goDel

[drome]

Only trump supporters and right wingers, white supremacists, NRA nuts, rapists, murderers and child molesters think this is blown out of proportion. 

[Amen Warrior]

Sumtimes it rly do be like that

[zkom]

Yes, it might be mostly right-wingers now that are demonstrating the lockdowns but it's a limited amount of time that the general public is willing to stay in a lockdown or isolation against an invisible threat that might not have had any personal direct impact on them or the people they know. Just going by my butt-feeling I'd say come summer people are going to be illegally gathering in droves no matter where the participants are on the political spectrum.

[goDel]

Russian disinfo seems to be more directed towards Russians themselves, imo. If critical clinicians are being thrown out of the window, there seems to be a strong sense of, lets say, criticism not being allowed and inconvenient facts not being welcome. Have to be mindful though that this doesn't necessarily mean those dead clinicians are to directly to be blamed on Putin. The country is so corrupt, it could easily be some middle man making sure he can remain in his position.

Disinfo in the US has been linked to some rich right wingers, I believe. DeVos or something.

Personally, I try not to be triggered by people falling for that crap. The more people get triggered, the more effective it becomes, I think. The goal is to trigger liberals and "loser" conservatives. As it validates them.

Only way to deal with it, is to remain completely stoic, imo. Like dealing with annoying kids.

[milkface]

15 hours ago, drome said:

Authoritarian left wingers are as bad as right wingers. Same use of slogans, the lot

no

[goDel]

yes

[chim]

yesn't

[goDel]

that's what she said...

[xox]

Im here just to ask you.... How do you guyz have the energy for this shit?! Nothing better to do?

Edited May 6, 2020 by xox

[goDel]

lunch break