<p>The <a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=6801D778EA3B1ECCAAE318955F5CAAA4?doi=10.1.1.64.2655&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf" rel="noreferrer">Dunning-Kruger</a> effect states that people unexperienced in a certain field or subject generally perceive themselves as having greater aptitude than in reality they do. Dunning and Kruger were able to quantify this using test-scores in their original paper, but popular expositions typically generalize this in a way consistent with the following plot:</p>

<p><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/aW6bZ.png" alt="[enter image description here"></p>

<p>As a layman, this form is more interesting to me because it is more generally applicable, but it also suffers from some drawbacks:</p>

<ol>
<li><p><strong>How should experience/confidence be gauged or measured? Is there a general way to do this which doesn't rely on test scores?</strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Suppose experience is measured in hours spent on the subject. Is there an approximate number of hours at which the peak is reached? The minimum? If so what are these numbers?</strong></p></li>
</ol>

<p>If an answer to either (but especially 2) is possible or available, it will help conscientious newcomers to any subject estimate the amount of time needed before trusting a self-evaluation of their competency.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-26T13:34:33.133Z
I don't have time to respond properly, however the attached article touches on this. What I will say briefly is your going to have to either test them some how, or record their level of education or years working within a particular subject. You have to operationalise the variables. There is no peak expertise, or number of hours expertise this has been scientifically debunked. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8226/22ed711dfc0f63a232f31ac3163fb3cb8b55.pdf http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614000087
Comte
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-26T16:33:42.393Z
@Comte thanks for the comment. I believe http://www.castonline.ilstu.edu/smith/405/readings_pdf/hambrick_deliberate_practice_2013.pdf Is a similar article by the same author available to the wider public. I understand the comment, but meant "experience in hours" to simply be a heuristic which is easily measurable. I understand the debate on innate vs learned talents is not settled. By the peak I meant the peak of confidence (maximum of the curve). Whether peak confidence without ability occurs under some typical number of hours is the crux of the question.
JMJ
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-27T13:02:58.097Z
Has the graph been edited? Because the left-hand x axis label should surely read 'Know nothing' rather than 'no nothing'
Peter
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-27T16:03:32.160Z
@Peter. Got it from the Internet, but now I see that haha.
JMJ
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-03T14:55:39.303Z
There is a nice TED talk on learning. To become an expert, it is typically said you need 10.000 hours, which could be the right peak. Here is the entire talk, where he argues that any skill can be learned in 20 hours: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MgBikgcWnY
Robin Kramer-ten Have
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-08T06:53:58.150Z
Please note that the "mount stupid" graphic provided is not a representation of the Dunning-Kruger effect (eg, it is about experience or expertise, rather than performance or competence).  For more details see: [What is the primary source of the "mount stupid" graphic?](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/17825/7001)
Arnon Weinberg
<social-psychology><perception><personality><experimental-psychology>
Quantifying the Dunning-Kruger Effect
JMJ
# Quantifying the Dunning-Kruger Effect

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-01-25)

The [Dunning-Kruger](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=6801D778EA3B1ECCAAE318955F5CAAA4?doi=10.1.1.64.2655&rep=rep1&type=pdf) effect states that people unexperienced in a certain field or subject generally perceive themselves as having greater aptitude than in reality they do. Dunning and Kruger were able to quantify this using test-scores in their original paper, but popular expositions typically generalize this in a way consistent with the following plot:

![[enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/aW6bZ.png)

As a layman, this form is more interesting to me because it is more generally applicable, but it also suffers from some drawbacks:

1. **How should experience/confidence be gauged or measured? Is there a general way to do this which doesn't rely on test scores?**
2. **Suppose experience is measured in hours spent on the subject. Is there an approximate number of hours at which the peak is reached? The minimum? If so what are these numbers?**

If an answer to either (but especially 2) is possible or available, it will help conscientious newcomers to any subject estimate the amount of time needed before trusting a self-evaluation of their competency.

**Tags:** social-psychology, perception, personality, experimental-psychology

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I don't have time to respond properly, however the attached article touches on this. What I will say briefly is your going to have to either test them some how, or record their level of education or years working within a particular subject. You have to operationalise the variables. There is no peak expertise, or number of hours expertise this has been scientifically debunked. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8226/22ed711dfc0f63a232f31ac3163fb3cb8b55.pdf http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614000087  
> **username_0**: @username_1 thanks for the comment. I believe http://www.castonline.ilstu.edu/smith/405/readings_pdf/hambrick_deliberate_practice_2013.pdf Is a similar article by the same author available to the wider public. I understand the comment, but meant "experience in hours" to simply be a heuristic which is easily measurable. I understand the debate on innate vs learned talents is not settled. By the peak I meant the peak of confidence (maximum of the curve). Whether peak confidence without ability occurs under some typical number of hours is the crux of the question.  
> **username_2**: Has the graph been edited? Because the left-hand x axis label should surely read 'Know nothing' rather than 'no nothing'  
> **username_0**: @username_2. Got it from the Internet, but now I see that haha.  
> **username_3**: There is a nice TED talk on learning. To become an expert, it is typically said you need 10.000 hours, which could be the right peak. Here is the entire talk, where he argues that any skill can be learned in 20 hours: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MgBikgcWnY  
> **username_4**: Please note that the "mount stupid" graphic provided is not a representation of the Dunning-Kruger effect (eg, it is about experience or expertise, rather than performance or competence).  For more details see: [What is the primary source of the "mount stupid" graphic?](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/17825/7001)  

---

## 0 answers

