Interview with Dunning (of Dunning-Kruger) on Coronavirus

[KayF]

https://www.insidehook.com/article/news-opinion/david-dunning-armchair-epidemiologists-coronavirus

IH: I wanted to talk to you not only because you co-authored the paper that described the effect named after you, but also because of your tweet after (The New Yorker’s) Isaac Chotiner interviewed the lawyer Richard Epstein —

DD: [Chuckles]

IH: … which you called the “new nominee for most paradigmatic of Dunning-Kruger cases.” What is your sense in this rise of so-called “COVID Influencers” or armchair epidemiologists?

I have been paying attention, yes. It’s prompted me to think about how and when we see examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect in new situations, which this virus certainly is. Very few of us were alive during the last pandemic that broke out so virulently in 1918. So we’re not aware of what we don’t know. We’re grasping to find some sort of certainty and knowledge from whatever thin reeds might be out there. Obviously a virus that kills people is of particular interest, but what’s also of interest to a social psychologist is watching people’s reactions.

Are you surprised by how many people are falling into the trap of the Dunning-Kruger effect?

No, I’m not surprised. I should point out there are two different things happening here. First, there’s the response of people on average. Right now, it looks like social sheltering is much more successful than the experts thought. The short-term pain is tremendous, but the long-term effects seem to be good. Then there’s the response from people who spend a lot of time on social media and the Internet. There, we tend to see more of the extreme cases, the telling cases, the illustrative cases, like the economist you referred to. Those reactions aren’t a surprise to me.

What is it about certain people who feel that if they have expertise in one area, they can apply it to a different area?

The central lesson of our work is that we are all vulnerable to this effect. Different people are vulnerable in different areas. Some are more flamboyant than others … So when there is a new situation, like this virus, there are many unknowns, and unknown unknowns, we are not aware of. But we’re not very good at doing that. We’re not very good at holding down the idea of an uncertain situation. We should be taking it all in, and act according to uncertainty.

The genius of the human brain — which is usually a good thing — is that we’re very good at coming up with ways of addressing new situations. Of course, you could say that every situation is a new situation. This conversation between you and me is a new situation!

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. I remember this guy Epstein now

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100213201045

He was the one who proclaimed his massive brain to the reporter who dared point out his errors, and shouted them down. It wasn't just that he'd got things wrong, it was that he couldn't acknowledge his own errors, assumptions or omissions when they were pointed out. Shocking that people in government paid attention to him, but they are ideologues who shouldn't be in charge of a whelk stall.

[KayF]

3. embarrassing!

500! Oops I meant 5,000! No wait, oops again, I meant 50,000! How dare you doubt me!!!!

[underpants]

2. 👀

Reading later