That's problem that Obama has. He is a dumb ass but is too dumb to know it.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Incompetent People Too Ignorant to Know It
- Thread starter Lornz
- Start date
That's problem that Obama has. He is a dumb ass but is too dumb to know it.
Quote from Lornz:
Is that the reason this sub-forum is so disconnected from reality?
http://www.livescience.com/18678-incompetent-people-ignorant.html
Incompetent People Too Ignorant to Know It
A growing body of psychology research shows that incompetence deprives people of the ability to recognize their own incompetence. To put it bluntly, dumb people are too dumb to know it. Similarly, unfunny people don't have a good enough sense of humor to tell.
This disconnect may be responsible for many of society's problems.
With more than a decade's worth of research, David Dunning, a psychologist at Cornell University, has demonstrated that humans find it "intrinsically difficult to get a sense of what we don't know." Whether an individual lacks competence in logical reasoning, emotional intelligence, humor or even chess abilities, the person still tends to rate his or her skills in that area as being above average.
Dunning and his colleague, Justin Kruger, formerly of Cornell and now at New York University, "have done a number of studies where we will give people a test of some area of knowledge like logical reasoning, knowledge about STDs and how to avoid them, emotional intelligence, etcetera. Then we determine their scores, and basically just ask them how well they think they've done," Dunning said. "We ask, 'what percentile will your performance fall in?'"
The results are uniform across all the knowledge domains: People who actually did well on the test tend to feel more confident about their performance than people who didn't do well, but only slightly. Almost everyone thinks they did better than average. "For people at the bottom who are really doing badly â those in the bottom 10th or 15th percentile â they think their work falls in the 60th or 55th percentile, so, above average," Dunning told Life's Little Mysteries. The same pattern emerges in tests of people's ability to rate the funniness of jokes, the correctness of grammar, or even their own performance in a game of chess. "People at the bottom still think they're outperforming other people." [Graph]
It's not merely optimism, but rather that their total lack of expertise renders them unable to recognize their deficiency. Even when Dunning and his colleagues offer study participants a $100 reward if they can rate themselves accurately, they cannot. "They're really trying to be honest and impartial," he said.
If only we knew ourselves better. Dunning believes people's inability to assess their own knowledge is the cause of many of society's ills, including climate change denialism. "Many people don't have training in science, and so they may very well misunderstand the science. But because they don't have the knowledge to evaluate it, they don't realize how off their evaluations might be," he said.
Moreover, even if a person has come to a very logical conclusion about whether climate change is real or not based on their evaluation of the science, "they're really not in a position to evaluate the science."
Along the same lines, people who aren't talented in a given area tend not to be able to recognize the talents or good ideas of others, from co-workers to politicians. This may impede the democratic process, which relies on citizens having the capacity to identify and support the best candidate or policy.
The ultimate takeaway of the research is the reminder that you really may not be as great as you think you are. And you might not be right about the things you believe you're right about. And if you try to joke about all this, you might not come off as funny as you think.
I'm sorry all I see here is more expert (academic) worship by you guessed it another academic psychologist who somehow thinks you have to be an expert to pass any judgement on any issue.
My question is this , when did mr dunning graduate climatology school?
Why Conservative White Males Are More Likely to Be Climate Skeptics
Sociologists attempt to pin down what causes some to question the science behind global warming
http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...e-white-maes-are-more-likely-climate-skeptics
"Conservative think tanks, conservative media, corporations, and industry associations (especially for the fossil fuels industry) -- domains dominated by conservative white males -- have spearheaded the attacks on climate science and policy from the late 1980s to the present," McCright and Dunlap concluded in their study. "The results presented here show that conservative white males in the general public have become a very receptive audience for these efforts."
and this...
"The result was stunning and alarming. The standard view that knowing more science, or being better at mathematical reasoning, ought to make you more accepting of mainstream climate science simply crashed and burned.
Instead, here was the result. If you were already part of a cultural group predisposed to distrust climate scienceâe.g., a political conservative or âhierarchical-individualistââthen more science knowledge and more skill in mathematical reasoning tended to make you even more dismissive. Precisely the opposite happened with the other groupââegalitarian-communitariansâ or liberalsâwho tended to worry more as they knew more science and math. The result was that, overall, more scientific literacy and mathematical ability led to greater political polarization over climate changeâwhich, of course, is precisely what we see in the polls.
So much for education serving as an antidote to politically biased reasoning.
What accounts for the âsmart idiotâ effect?
For one thing, well-informed or well-educated conservatives probably consume more conservative news and opinion, such as by watching Fox News. Thus, they are more likely to know what theyâre supposed to think about the issuesâwhat people like them thinkâand to be familiar with the arguments or reasons for holding these views. If challenged, they can then recall and reiterate these arguments. Theyâve made them a part of their identities, a part of their brains, and in doing so, theyâve drawn a strong emotional connection between certain âfactsâ or claims, and their deeply held political values. And theyâre ready to argue."
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/17/secret_papers_turn_up_heat_on_global_warming_deniers/
The last sentences hits the nail on the head. Couple that with the known closed-minded nature of conservatives and we have a good explanation why, no matter how much proof is presented, they will never change their minds. I remember arguing with one guy and he actually said he would NEVER believe in AGW.
con·serv·a·tive/kənˈsərvətiv/
Adjective:
Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in politics or religion.
Noun:
A person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in politics.
Sociologists attempt to pin down what causes some to question the science behind global warming
http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...e-white-maes-are-more-likely-climate-skeptics
"Conservative think tanks, conservative media, corporations, and industry associations (especially for the fossil fuels industry) -- domains dominated by conservative white males -- have spearheaded the attacks on climate science and policy from the late 1980s to the present," McCright and Dunlap concluded in their study. "The results presented here show that conservative white males in the general public have become a very receptive audience for these efforts."
and this...
"The result was stunning and alarming. The standard view that knowing more science, or being better at mathematical reasoning, ought to make you more accepting of mainstream climate science simply crashed and burned.
Instead, here was the result. If you were already part of a cultural group predisposed to distrust climate scienceâe.g., a political conservative or âhierarchical-individualistââthen more science knowledge and more skill in mathematical reasoning tended to make you even more dismissive. Precisely the opposite happened with the other groupââegalitarian-communitariansâ or liberalsâwho tended to worry more as they knew more science and math. The result was that, overall, more scientific literacy and mathematical ability led to greater political polarization over climate changeâwhich, of course, is precisely what we see in the polls.
So much for education serving as an antidote to politically biased reasoning.
What accounts for the âsmart idiotâ effect?
For one thing, well-informed or well-educated conservatives probably consume more conservative news and opinion, such as by watching Fox News. Thus, they are more likely to know what theyâre supposed to think about the issuesâwhat people like them thinkâand to be familiar with the arguments or reasons for holding these views. If challenged, they can then recall and reiterate these arguments. Theyâve made them a part of their identities, a part of their brains, and in doing so, theyâve drawn a strong emotional connection between certain âfactsâ or claims, and their deeply held political values. And theyâre ready to argue."
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/17/secret_papers_turn_up_heat_on_global_warming_deniers/
The last sentences hits the nail on the head. Couple that with the known closed-minded nature of conservatives and we have a good explanation why, no matter how much proof is presented, they will never change their minds. I remember arguing with one guy and he actually said he would NEVER believe in AGW.
con·serv·a·tive/kənˈsərvətiv/
Adjective:
Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in politics or religion.
Noun:
A person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in politics.
Or maybe conservatives are better at detecting BS.
Seriously, you have one group, liberals and environmentalists, who have been arguing for decades that the government should limit energy use. Not surprisingly, liberals love the idea of saving the planet and also giving the government vast new powers to decide whogets to use energy and at what price and who doesn't.
Conservatives hear this and see old wine in a shiny new bottle, this time labelled "climate change", a new crisis which has the unique advantage of not being susceptible to scientific proof. It requires instead blind faith in unproven hypotheses that are contradicted by the entire human existence. Being naturally skeptical of the university/government complex, they pose alternate theories, eg sun activity, and are ridiculed for "denying" the "consensus." They recognize that consensu is a political not scientific term, and their skepticism grows when emails are released showing devious scheming by global warming activists posing as objective scientists.
Seriously, you have one group, liberals and environmentalists, who have been arguing for decades that the government should limit energy use. Not surprisingly, liberals love the idea of saving the planet and also giving the government vast new powers to decide whogets to use energy and at what price and who doesn't.
Conservatives hear this and see old wine in a shiny new bottle, this time labelled "climate change", a new crisis which has the unique advantage of not being susceptible to scientific proof. It requires instead blind faith in unproven hypotheses that are contradicted by the entire human existence. Being naturally skeptical of the university/government complex, they pose alternate theories, eg sun activity, and are ridiculed for "denying" the "consensus." They recognize that consensu is a political not scientific term, and their skepticism grows when emails are released showing devious scheming by global warming activists posing as objective scientists.
Did someone mention Trader666, jem et al?Quote from Lornz:
...Dunning believes people's inability to assess their own knowledge is the cause of many of society's ills, including climate change denialism. "Many people don't have training in science, and so they may very well misunderstand the science. But because they don't have the knowledge to evaluate it, they don't realize how off their evaluations might be," he said...
Quote from futurecurrents:
Why Conservative White Males Are More Likely to Be Climate Skeptics
Sociologists attempt to pin down what causes some to question the science behind global warming
http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...e-white-maes-are-more-likely-climate-skeptics
"Conservative think tanks, conservative media, corporations, and industry associations (especially for the fossil fuels industry) -- domains dominated by conservative white males -- have spearheaded the attacks on climate science and policy from the late 1980s to the present," McCright and Dunlap concluded in their study. "The results presented here show that conservative white males in the general public have become a very receptive audience for these efforts."
and this...
"The result was stunning and alarming. The standard view that knowing more science, or being better at mathematical reasoning, ought to make you more accepting of mainstream climate science simply crashed and burned.
Instead, here was the result. If you were already part of a cultural group predisposed to distrust climate scienceâe.g., a political conservative or âhierarchical-individualistââthen more science knowledge and more skill in mathematical reasoning tended to make you even more dismissive. Precisely the opposite happened with the other groupââegalitarian-communitariansâ or liberalsâwho tended to worry more as they knew more science and math. The result was that, overall, more scientific literacy and mathematical ability led to greater political polarization over climate changeâwhich, of course, is precisely what we see in the polls.
So much for education serving as an antidote to politically biased reasoning.
What accounts for the âsmart idiotâ effect?
For one thing, well-informed or well-educated conservatives probably consume more conservative news and opinion, such as by watching Fox News. Thus, they are more likely to know what theyâre supposed to think about the issuesâwhat people like them thinkâand to be familiar with the arguments or reasons for holding these views. If challenged, they can then recall and reiterate these arguments. Theyâve made them a part of their identities, a part of their brains, and in doing so, theyâve drawn a strong emotional connection between certain âfactsâ or claims, and their deeply held political values. And theyâre ready to argue."
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/17/secret_papers_turn_up_heat_on_global_warming_deniers/
The last sentences hits the nail on the head. Couple that with the known closed-minded nature of conservatives and we have a good explanation why, no matter how much proof is presented, they will never change their minds. I remember arguing with one guy and he actually said he would NEVER believe in AGW.
con·serv·a·tive/kənˈsərvətiv/
Adjective:
Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in politics or religion.
Noun:
A person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in politics.
When I was in HS the experts were besides themselves warning us of the new ice age that was imminently upon us.
global warming or cooling may in fact be happening but the left's solution of effectively forcing us to impoverishment or living in caves
is just plain silly.
Quote from Brass:
Did someone mention Trader666, jem et al?
Read the above posts carefully Brass. In them you find the classic anti-intellectualism endemic to the GOP.
It does not find with the view that their parents or some other authority figure gave, so it is wrong. It does not matter if it is you or I, or the commonly recognized smartest physicist on the planet. I have seen folks argue against people like Hawking who could not even read his scientific work due to lack of foundation.
Others on this site criticize Obama, who managed to become President. Some of these folks were never President of the Pep Club at their high school.
Then you have some ET folks who are top dawg economists, but, have never had a single employee or so much as managed a Taco Bell.
You can see the DK effect all day long here. So much so that I began to read the actual academic papers. It is truly an amazing thing to see.
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
Or maybe conservatives are better at detecting BS.
If that is true then I ask you, now, since no one else can step up. Why do liberals run everything?
Especially since you guys claim to have a majority? So far, every time I have asked this question it has been side-stepped.
It's not that LIEbrals run everything they just RUIN everything big difference.Quote from RCG Trader:
If that is true then I ask you, now, since no one else can step up. Why do liberals run everything?
Especially since you guys claim to have a majority? So far, every time I have asked this question it has been side-stepped.