 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)belb ...and 300 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2613461 Today 4 Topics 127500 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
90% of people think their intelligence is above average [so i've read in a newspaper years ago]. given that this is true at least 40% of people must be more stupid than they think. does it bother you? does ist make you feel that reality might brutally fall short of your self-image? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i've thought about that quite often, that i might be even more intelligent than i could imagine. its funny you should mention that, im thinking about it again. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hurr durr |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you are what your daddy eats |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think intelligent people are stupid, spending all that time thinking when you could be womanising. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i will be drinking what your dad eats |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I tell them I'm retarded to even out the statistics |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I love the Darwin, Bertie Russell and Yeats quotes in the second paragraph. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I aim to have a realistic self image. I question my beliefs. Are they helpful? Would they be helpful to other people? Do they make me feel better? I try to avoid aggressive, egocentric and dominant behaviour as well as self defeating, overly altruistic and pessimistic behaviour and beliefs. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
kick ass! ive been looking for that! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no. There is a lot of passion and satisfaction in science. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It's all in your crazy brains |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
im standing in water, to my knees. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Indeed, Dunning et al. cite a study saying that 94% of college professors rank their work as "above average" (relative to their peers), to underscore that the highly intelligent and informed are hardly exempt. I'm not sure if there's a problem here. I mean it's hard to quantify the quality of a college professor's work. It's a matter of taste; of course a college professor will have a preference for his way of work and his field of study, or else he wouldn't be doing what he is doing. It would be the same for artists or anyone with a little leeway in their methods or what have you. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
if you know how to do it you do it, if you don't you teach about it |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
In a series of studies, they examined self-assessment of logical reasoning skills, grammatical skills, and humor. I guess it's more about people overestimating how normative they are or something. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Dunning-Kruger also tested the humoristic skills of said individuals. How do you rate or meseaure humor or humoristic competence? Maybe Dunning and Kruger suffer from the Dunning and Kruger effect themselves? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
this is abstract, people care about small things , theres no hope common. its broke the mirror , and thats bad luck. Now more than ever we must be unite. No difference between stupid and intelligence. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I guess you'd have to see what questions they asked. I'm assuming they weren't asking physics profs to evaluate themselves against art history guys. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You weight the audience before and after the humor to see if they have outgassed laugh-particles. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I know but they can still differ by methods, approaches or specific tastes inside the field, and it's hard to determine if one is actually superior to another. But I'd like to see the questions yeah, because the humor thing is weird as hell. I agree with the hypothesis but their tests don't seem all that relevant, why didn't they use more easily quantifiable tasks? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
But the important thing is that they viewed themselves as better irrespective of any questions of establishing "objective" value. They didn't say well, we're all important in the great scheme of things, or that the more they learned the more foolish they felt. They were cocks. Anyhow socio-cultural-psychological stuff like this feels more like literature than science to me anyways, which is not to say that it's less valuable, it just needs to be approached on a less reductionist level of abstraction. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I guess my point is that in this case they're not wrong to think their way is better, because they work on something that to them is more important. You can't exactly infer from the results that they aren't also critical of themselves. It's not really the same thing as , which is awesome. Pronin and her co-authors explained to subjects the better-than-average effect, the halo effect, self-serving bias and many other cognitive biases. According to the better-than-average bias, specifically, people are likely to see themselves as inaccurately "better than average" for possible positive traits and "less than average" for negative traits. When subsequently asked how biased they themselves were, subjects rated themselves as being much less subject to the biases described than the average person. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
but yeah thinking their work is more important is self-serving bias etc but whatevs |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
No. I know that i am more intelligent than certain people, and less intelligent than certain other people. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i could've told you that |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
