EPTAbove Average? - Page 3
| Blogs > thedeadhaji |
|
Mementoss
Canada2595 Posts
| ||
|
deathly rat
United Kingdom911 Posts
So although if we are honest we might admit that we aren't as clever or as good looking as we like to think we are, I'm sure in every one of us there is something we can point to and say "I'm really good at this particular thing", and that would be true. | ||
Recognizable
Netherlands1552 Posts
| ||
|
-_-Quails
Australia796 Posts
On April 20 2012 06:37 Drowsy wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect Paradoxically its probable that most people who have any awareness of this are more likely to be in the minority who are underrating themselves. Also accoridng to the wikipedia entry the opposite of the Dunning-Kruger effect is observed in East Asian countries. I don't think its human nature, there's something culturally at work in the west and America specifically. I usually assume that I am average or a little below average at most things, because I am my frame of reference. It's easier to notice the things others can do that you can't than to establish that someone else actually can't do something you do rather than choosing not to. The weird thing is that this self-assessment remains even in the face of evidence otherwise. | ||
|
SolaR-
United States2685 Posts
| ||
|
MassHysteria
United States3678 Posts
| ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
i.e., I judge a "primitive civilization based on their ability to use a can opener; they judge me on how well I can smash open a coconut and extract the fruit." Our priorities are different, and it so happens my priorities place my skills above others. Also notice I only call something a skill when I am measurably good at it. In reality, everything is a skill. You just might be horrible at it. | ||
|
Mordanis
United States893 Posts
I'd say that the effect of a natural shift up in qualitative esteem due to basic human perception combines with the hard truth of the quantitative to effect a slight upward trend in peoples' subjective value of themselves. Thus people tend to say "I am a little above average", and not "I am the best human being on the planet." Anyways, that was a highly thought provoking read, and I just wanted to give a raw response, so I apologize if someone else has already said roughly the same thing. | ||
|
aebriol
Norway2066 Posts
Most of us will naturally surround ourselves with people that value us higher than the average person. - Our parents like us more than other parents like us. - Grandparents the same. - Friends the same. - Wife husband the same. - Teammates the same. - You were most likely hired because they felt you would fit in, and another company didn't, because they didn't value you that highly ... So - by default - most of the time, we are among people that value us higher than the average person in the world. Why wouldn't we get a skewed result that way? ... of course, in addition, there's that thing called politeness where people don't consistently give honest feedback. (all of the above isn't true for all the people in all arenas of life ... but it's mostly true for most people). | ||
|
Knap4life
Slovenia333 Posts
So you could say that i was way above average to the asian population but below average on RussianCupid. It is interesting how attraction differs from one continent to another. | ||
|
Fallen903
30 Posts
| ||
|
Eatme
Switzerland3919 Posts
People are really worthless in grading things. | ||
|
Maxtor
United Kingdom273 Posts
On April 22 2012 07:53 Eatme wrote: Well grading things is somehow really hard for people. Ask someone about how they would grade the movie you just watched. They are really likely to say 7/10 even if it was just average. Same goes for grading someones looks, you almost never hear someone say he/she is a 4/10 but more often 7/10. Dont really know why this is but I come across this alot. In the late 90's I read a letter to the editor for a gaming magazine. The writer had calculeted the reviews over an unknown time (I dont remember) and the average score was ~70% or 7/10 ect. People are really worthless in grading things. I quite agree, for many people when they wish to say average they somehow come out with a score better than average. The 1-10 scale is really poor when used by people to measure things, generally 1-4 means worlds worst, 5-6 is bad 7 is average 8 being good, best physically possible is 9, while perfections is 10, being unachievable. Its different for many but that's what i've observed. I personally rank myself as being average/terrible at things until I have proof otherwise, such as Grades or Ladder position, I thought it would be contradictory to see myself as being better than average without knowing the abilities of the rest, and everyone being above average would be contradictory to it being average. Although i know of people that even when presented with this information believe themselves to be better/worse than that, such as a bronze player believing he's average or a diamond player believing the exact same thing. When i heard of the Denning-Kruger effect i fell in love with it, as it explained this phenomenon so well. | ||
|
Drowsy
United States4876 Posts
On April 20 2012 20:09 Umpteen wrote: Perfectly possible, if the males on the site were an unrepresentative sample of all males. Given that this is a dating site, do you think the average attractiveness of members is likely to be higher or lower than the average in the general population?  EDIT: In fact, we don't even need to resort to that explanation. When a girl rates a guy's attractiveness, she isn't factoring in all the other guys she's ever seen. I mean, if you showed her 50 complete munters in a row, she wouldn't progressively lower her estimation of what 'averagely attractive' was, would she? No: what she does probably weighted strongly towards using the extremes of attractiveness to which she has previously been exposed to define a midpoint. And because everyone has seen at least a couple of highly attractive models and movie stars, that drags the calculated midpoint a long way from true average. When you watch a lot of telly, everyone around you looks less attractive than you would otherwise find them. Bear in mind this site has millions of members and is slanted toward 18-30 where attractiveness peaks, so its highly unlikely the sample is so far removed from the general population that 80% of males on the site really are below average looking. The study also fails to specify if the population is just ok cupid members. And how do you counterbalance that with men's almost perfect distribution when rating female attractiveness? That would mean that the females who sign up for the site are a representative sample but the men are not, which just makes no sense intuitively. Study: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/ Counterpoint/more cynical interpretation: http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/why-men-dont-need-to-worry-so-much-about-their-looks/ I'll let you draw your own conclusion. On April 21 2012 22:02 aebriol wrote: There's a very simple reason for this: Most of us will naturally surround ourselves with people that value us higher than the average person. - Our parents like us more than other parents like us. - Grandparents the same. - Friends the same. - Wife husband the same. - Teammates the same. - You were most likely hired because they felt you would fit in, and another company didn't, because they didn't value you that highly ... So - by default - most of the time, we are among people that value us higher than the average person in the world. Why wouldn't we get a skewed result that way? ... of course, in addition, there's that thing called politeness where people don't consistently give honest feedback. (all of the above isn't true for all the people in all arenas of life ... but it's mostly true for most people). How would you explain the reverse dunning-kruger effect appearing in east-asian countries then? I think the pop psychology surrounding the supposed benefits of high self-esteem have just grown out of control in a lot of western countries. | ||
|
Najda
United States3765 Posts
On April 20 2012 02:34 Rimstalker wrote: Dunning Kruger Effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect In any case, my looks are average, but my brain is awesome, in a work-environment with somewhat comparable tasks, I have yet to find anyone who can keep up with me. I also kick ass at strategy games, card games, quizzes and I am quite sporty. So yes, I am above average - ha! If you ever need to see an example of the Dunning Kruger Effect, try playing a game of any MobA :D It's amazing how prevalent this phenomenon is in that game, and in most team games in general. On April 20 2012 06:37 Drowsy wrote: But I remember an OKCupid study that revealed that the females on the site rated 80% of males as below average looking which is obviously impossible. The males rated females in an almost perfect normal distribution. It's perfectly possible for that 80% to be accurate. There are a lot of factors that can play into lowering a guys looks on OKCupid. It's a dating site, so it's perfectly reasonable to assume the average member is going to be below average in looks. On top of that, most guys seem to be clueless when it comes to taking a good picture of themself, so they aren't even representing themselves well. The guys on the site are probably being compared to the men the girls see in real life or more likely, on tv and in magazines, which would set the bar higher. Couple all these together and it's not too surprising to see a number like 80%. | ||
|
Kenpachi
United States9908 Posts
| ||
|
dongmydrum
United States139 Posts
On April 22 2012 08:48 Drowsy wrote: Bear in mind this site has millions of members and is slanted toward 18-30 where attractiveness peaks, so its highly unlikely the sample is so far removed from the general population that 80% of males on the site really are below average looking. The study also fails to specify if the population is just ok cupid members. And how do you counterbalance that with men's almost perfect distribution when rating female attractiveness? That would mean that the females who sign up for the site are a representative sample but the men are not, which just makes no sense intuitively. Study: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/ Counterpoint/more cynical interpretation: http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/why-men-dont-need-to-worry-so-much-about-their-looks/ I'll let you draw your own conclusion. How would you explain the reverse dunning-kruger effect appearing in east-asian countries then? I think the pop psychology surrounding the supposed benefits of high self-esteem have just grown out of control in a lot of western countries. the dunning-kruger effect is prevalent in east-asian countries too. being humble or showing false humility /= reverse dunning-kruger effect. its human nature to think of ourselves as smarter and emotionally more complex than other people since we think of ourselves as the hero or heroine of the world we live in, even though from a macro perspective we are smaller than bits of dust. | ||
| ||
