Editing Talk:1954: Impostor Syndrome
|
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ |
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
I think the current text misunderstands the role of general intelligence and domain-specific skills in the D-K effect. Nothing I've read suggests that intellectual capacity has much to do with one's ability to accurately estimate performance levels; instead, it seems to be largely based on unfamiliarity with what good and bad performance looks like in whatever domain is being measured. In other words, it's not stupid people who think they're better drivers than they actually are; it's people who are actually bad drivers. The D-K effect is EXACTLY that non-experts will claim high-level expertise, while genuine experts will disclaim it. (See figures 1-4 of the original paper: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.363.1120&rep=rep1&type=pdf) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.131|162.158.79.131]] 20:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC) | I think the current text misunderstands the role of general intelligence and domain-specific skills in the D-K effect. Nothing I've read suggests that intellectual capacity has much to do with one's ability to accurately estimate performance levels; instead, it seems to be largely based on unfamiliarity with what good and bad performance looks like in whatever domain is being measured. In other words, it's not stupid people who think they're better drivers than they actually are; it's people who are actually bad drivers. The D-K effect is EXACTLY that non-experts will claim high-level expertise, while genuine experts will disclaim it. (See figures 1-4 of the original paper: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.363.1120&rep=rep1&type=pdf) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.131|162.158.79.131]] 20:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC) | ||
| β | :That sounds correct to me. I'm no expert, but aren't psychologists generally very careful to speak only in terms of domain-specific "specialized" intelligence? The current explanation of the Title-Text sounds wrong. I think the key phrase above, which should probably be used in the explanation is "unfamiliarity with what good & bad performance looks like in whatever domain is being measured". Overall lack of meta-cognitive ability is | + | :That sounds correct to me. I'm no expert, but aren't psychologists generally very careful to speak only in terms of domain-specific "specialized" intelligence? The current explanation of the Title-Text sounds wrong. I think the key phrase above, which should probably be used in the explanation is "unfamiliarity with what good & bad performance looks like in whatever domain is being measured". Overall lack of meta-cognitive ability is doing ''not'' a prerequisite for overestimating your ability in a specialized field; More often, quite intelligent people may appear to overestimate their understanding of a related, but comparatively unfamiliar field. And as the old adage goes (something like) "the wise man knows he is a fool". [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 21:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC) |
So who is the world expert of Imposter Syndrome? Pauline R. Clance or Suzanne A. Imes? [[User:Capncanuck|Capncanuck]] ([[User talk:Capncanuck|talk]]) 01:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC) | So who is the world expert of Imposter Syndrome? Pauline R. Clance or Suzanne A. Imes? [[User:Capncanuck|Capncanuck]] ([[User talk:Capncanuck|talk]]) 01:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC) | ||
