May 9, 2023 08:06 PM
Debunking the Dunning-Kruger effect – the least skilled people know how much they don’t know, but everyone thinks they are better than average
https://theconversation.com/debunking-th...age-195527
INTRO: John Cleese, the British comedian, once summed up the idea of the Dunning–Kruger effect as, “If you are really, really stupid, then it’s impossible for you to know you are really, really stupid.” A quick search of the news brings up dozens of headlines connecting the Dunning–Kruger effect to everything from work to empathy and even to why Donald Trump was elected president.
As a math professor who teaches students to use data to make informed decisions, I am familiar with common mistakes people make when dealing with numbers. The Dunning-Kruger effect is the idea that the least skilled people overestimate their abilities more than anyone else. This sounds convincing on the surface and makes for excellent comedy. But in a recent paper, my colleagues and I suggest that the mathematical approach used to show this effect may be incorrect... (MORE - details)
Jesse Singal critiques a new Scientific American article on puberty blockers, calls the piece “potentially harmful” and “negligent science journalism”
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/05/0...ournalism/
INTRO (Jerry Coyne): Jesse Singal critiques a new Scientific American article on puberty blockers, calls the piece “potentially harmful” and “negligent science journalism”
I’ve read a lot of Jesse Singal‘s writings on transgender issues, both before and after he started his Substack column, “Singal Minded.” I like to read him because he specializes in careful analysis of data to analyze (often erroneous) claims about sex and gender issues. That’s the subject of today’s post, in which he shows, as he often does, that a popular article shows little scientific support for the claims made about gender dysphoria and its treatment. You can read his latest column, about a May 1 piece in Scientific American, for free (I’m a subscriber, and recommend that you subscribe, too, if you read Singal often).
A Critique of Scientific American's recent article "What Are Puberty Blockers, and How Do They Work?"
I’m not going to rail about the ideological bent of Scientific American, as I’ve mentioned that many times before, except to say that a once-admired magazine is now scientifically untrustworthy and ideologically motivated (the two are connected). Worse, because it’s a very popular magazine, on the issue of medical treatment for gender dysphoria its ideological bent, according to Singal, is implicitly harmful, for it purveys misleading information about drugs, behavior, and treatment of people that could lead to irreversible medical decisions.
The gist of the article is this, in my words: “The author accepts a number of bogus scientific claims buttressing ‘affirmative care’ that don’t have a good empirical basis. The magazine, its authors, and editors, are thus guilty of not only a failure to fact check, but of disseminating information that could lead people to make bad medical decisions.” (MORE - details)
https://theconversation.com/debunking-th...age-195527
INTRO: John Cleese, the British comedian, once summed up the idea of the Dunning–Kruger effect as, “If you are really, really stupid, then it’s impossible for you to know you are really, really stupid.” A quick search of the news brings up dozens of headlines connecting the Dunning–Kruger effect to everything from work to empathy and even to why Donald Trump was elected president.
As a math professor who teaches students to use data to make informed decisions, I am familiar with common mistakes people make when dealing with numbers. The Dunning-Kruger effect is the idea that the least skilled people overestimate their abilities more than anyone else. This sounds convincing on the surface and makes for excellent comedy. But in a recent paper, my colleagues and I suggest that the mathematical approach used to show this effect may be incorrect... (MORE - details)
Jesse Singal critiques a new Scientific American article on puberty blockers, calls the piece “potentially harmful” and “negligent science journalism”
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/05/0...ournalism/
INTRO (Jerry Coyne): Jesse Singal critiques a new Scientific American article on puberty blockers, calls the piece “potentially harmful” and “negligent science journalism”
I’ve read a lot of Jesse Singal‘s writings on transgender issues, both before and after he started his Substack column, “Singal Minded.” I like to read him because he specializes in careful analysis of data to analyze (often erroneous) claims about sex and gender issues. That’s the subject of today’s post, in which he shows, as he often does, that a popular article shows little scientific support for the claims made about gender dysphoria and its treatment. You can read his latest column, about a May 1 piece in Scientific American, for free (I’m a subscriber, and recommend that you subscribe, too, if you read Singal often).
A Critique of Scientific American's recent article "What Are Puberty Blockers, and How Do They Work?"
I’m not going to rail about the ideological bent of Scientific American, as I’ve mentioned that many times before, except to say that a once-admired magazine is now scientifically untrustworthy and ideologically motivated (the two are connected). Worse, because it’s a very popular magazine, on the issue of medical treatment for gender dysphoria its ideological bent, according to Singal, is implicitly harmful, for it purveys misleading information about drugs, behavior, and treatment of people that could lead to irreversible medical decisions.
The gist of the article is this, in my words: “The author accepts a number of bogus scientific claims buttressing ‘affirmative care’ that don’t have a good empirical basis. The magazine, its authors, and editors, are thus guilty of not only a failure to fact check, but of disseminating information that could lead people to make bad medical decisions.” (MORE - details)