Claude knocks one out of the ballpark, yet again...........

[Beat Trash]

I like this article.

Unfortunately I have seen instructors who suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect. Only now I have a name for it.

I've seen it with some LE instructors.

[Chuck Haggard]

I often borrow this version from Gomez's signature line on posts over at TPI. It's my go-to synopsis of Dunning-Kruger, cogent, very concise, gets the point across very effectively;

"People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it."
-- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1999, Vol 77 No.6, 1121-1134, Kruger & Dunning

[PT Doc]

I often borrow this version from Gomez's signature line on posts over at TPI. It's my go-to synopsis of Dunning-Kruger, cogent, very concise, gets the point across very effectively;

I recall that Gomez also said the top three areas that men overestimated their abilities were: driving, shooting and screwing.

[Chuck Haggard]

I recall that Gomez also said the top three areas that men overestimated their abilities were: driving, shooting and screwing.

and leadership, and...........

But yeah, that is a scientific fact.

[Tamara]

After the first real training class I took, the subsequent half dozen or so pistol courses have been more valuable to me to incentivize my interim training to get ready for the next class than the learning in the classes themselves. "I don't want to look like an idiot in front of others" has been a motivator, at least for me. Perhaps this is just my experience or the fact that classes compared to individual training are very brief.

There's a certain subset of people who seem to do their only shooting at classes. That makes it hard to get any better.

[MVS]

The problem with Claude's great article, is that the people who need to read it won't. Those of us who agree with it will read it and say, great article.

[John Hearne]

The problem with Claude's great article, is that the people who need to read it won't. Those of us who agree with it will read it and say, great article.

Sadly yes. I suspect that Claude is largely preaching to the chorus. Just going such a website carries with it the possibility that someone might know more than you. This is enough cognitive dissonance to stop most folks.

[Tamara]

That is the sad truth. Way to bum my high, dude.

[JustOneGun]

It was a good article and I agreed with it. Never-the-less it left me with an uneasy feeling. Certainly it is worth while for all of us to think about training and practice so why did it seem that something was missing?

I thought about it overnight and realized it had nothing to do with Claude's article or the ideas as he explained them. It was how others use two phrases, "Dunning-Kruger Effect" and "You don't know what you don't know". Dunning-Kruger as applied by some (not Claude) comes about when they are intellectually lazy. They believe they are the competent and you are the unskilled. Unfortunately one aspect of Dunning-Kruger is that it's all about a test. As you are exposed to the test you can learn to better place yourself in context of that test. So if you discuss a subject with someone and they can ace the test, you must be suffering from the effect because you disagree with them. Sometimes the error occurs when we have aced the entirely wrong test. I just call it hubris. At one time or another we all suffer from that.

The phrase, "You don't know what you don't know" is neutral and takes us no where without context. As I believe Claude used it, to take training exposes one to ideas outside of their comfort zone and allows us to explore new ideas. Those ideas can round out our skills and make us a better gunfighter. Some use it the same as Dunning-Kruger. They end the argument of ideas with, well you don't know what you don't know or you just haven't seen it done right. All the while never knowing if the other party knows far more than they and just disagrees with them. Ironically it could be said that the person saying that phrase out of context could be suffering from Dunning-Kruger? Again, it is intellectually dishonest. Used out of context or without details of a subject's argument, it amounts to faith. Faith that you are correct has nothing to do with a discussion of facts, but of religion. In my estimation it is the same as saying, "We do it that way because we've always done it that way."

Disclaimer: In case you missed it I am not saying that the Professor was guilty of this. But that others use the arguments incorrectly as an intellectual shortcut.

[Trooper224]

*******************