The Sigil
Mr. 3000 (Words per post)
Reminds...
I don't take the thread all that seriously... it IS just a game, after all... but I do have a question about the article...

The other worry I have is this...

And if they are incompetent, should the article REALLY be required reading?
--The Sigil
(Trying to add to the general "funniness quotient" of the thread)
Reminds greatly of the Peter Principle.hong said:Required reading for anyone who, for some reason, takes these "stat yourself" threads seriously:
Unskilled and Unaware of It
I don't take the thread all that seriously... it IS just a game, after all... but I do have a question about the article...
My question is, "Why were they asking experts who were mean to rate things that are funny? Isn't that a bad criteria to use? Similarly, why compare a riddle to a Jack Handley Deep Thought? Everyone knows that riddles are much funnier!Expert ratings revealed that jokes ranged from the not so funny (e.g., "Question: What is big as a man, but weighs nothing? Answer: His shadow." Mean expert rating = 1.3) to the very funny (e.g., "If a kid asks where rain comes from, I think a cute thing to tell him is 'God is crying.' And if he asks why God is crying, another cute thing to tell him is 'probably because of something you did.'" Mean expert rating = 9.6).

The other worry I have is this...
Since, on average, those in the bottom quartile estimated that they were in about the 60th-70th percentile and those in the top quartile also estimated that they were in the 60th-70th percentile, if I rate myself in the 60th-70th percentile, how do I know whether I'm really in the top or bottom quartile? I really worry that I'm underestimating my own abilities... perhaps I *DO* have all 18's! Yes!those in the top quartile once again tended to underestimate their ability

Of course, that these people felt competent to make the study shows that they were obviously incompetent. Therefore, they have reached an invalid conclusion without realizing it. Thus, we must conclude the opposite of their conclusion... those with limited knowledge in a domain do not reach mistaken conclusions nor make regrettable errors, and furthermore, their incompetence allows them the ability to realize that they are not making errors. :coolIn sum, we present this article as an exploration into why people tend to hold overly optimistic and miscalibrated views about themselves. We propose that 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 recognize that error is possible but do not recognize it. Again, this classes them as incompetent.Although we feel we have done a competent job in making a strong case for this analysis, studying it empirically, and drawing out relevant implications, our thesis leaves us with one haunting worry that we cannot vanquish. That worry is that this article may contain faulty logic, methodological errors, or poor communication. Let us assure our readers that to the extent this article is imperfect, it is not a sin we have committed knowingly.
And if they are incompetent, should the article REALLY be required reading?

--The Sigil
(Trying to add to the general "funniness quotient" of the thread)
Last edited: