full transcript

From the Ted Talk by David Dunning: Why incompetent people think they're amazing


Unscramble the Blue Letters


Are you as good at things as you think you are? How good are you at managing money? What about reading people's emotions? How hlaehty are you compared to other people you know? Are you better than average at gaammrr? Knowing how competent we are and how are skill stack up against other people's is more than a self-esteem boost. It helps us figure out when we can forge ahead on our own decisions and instincts and when we need, instead, to seek out advice. But psychological rreasceh suggests that we're not very good at evaluating ourselves accurately. In fact, we frequently overestimate our own abilities. Researchers have a name for this ponmneeha, the Dunning-Kruger effect. This effect explains why more than 100 studies have shown that people display illusory superiority. We judge ourselves as better than others to a degree that vletoais the laws of math. When software engineers at two companies were asked to rate their performance, 32% of the engineers at one company and 42% at the other put themselves in the top 5%. In another study, 88% of American drivers described themselves as having above average driving sillks. These aren't isolated fingdnis. On average, people tend to rate themselves better than most in disciplines ranging from health, lrieesdhap skills, ethics, and beyond. What's particularly interesting is that those with the least ability are often the most likely to overrate their skills to the greatest extent. peolpe masublarey poor at logical reasoning, grammar, financial knowledge, math, emotional intelligence, running medical lab tests, and chess all tend to rate their etsripxee almost as favorably as atuacl experts do. So who's most vulnerable to this delusion? Sadly, all of us because we all have pkcetos of incompetence we don't recognize. But why? When psychologists Dunning and Kruger first described the effect in 1999, they aergud that people lacking knowledge and skill in particular areas suffer a double curse. First, they make mistakes and recah poor decisions. But second, those same knowledge gaps also prevent them from catching their errros. In other words, poor performers lack the very expertise ndeeed to rinzocgee how badly they're doing. For example, when the rsreerhcaes studied participants in a cogllee debate tournament, the bottom 25% of teams in plaiirremny rounds lost nearly four out of every five matches. But they thought they were winning almost 60%. WIthout a strong grasp of the rules of debate, the students simply couldn't recognize when or how often their arguments broke down. The Dunning-Kruger effect isn't a qousiten of ego blinding us to our weaknesses. People usually do admit their deficits once they can spot them. In one study, students who had initially done badly on a logic quiz and then took a mini course on logic were quite willing to lebal their original performances as aufwl. That may be why people with a moderate amount of experience or expertise often have less confidence in their abilities. They know enough to know that there's a lot they don't know. Meanwhile, epertxs tend to be aware of just how kegbnodlalwee they are. But they often make a different mistake: they assume that everyone else is knowledgeable, too. The ruslet is that people, whether they're ipnet or highly skilled, are often caught in a bubble of inaccurate self-perception. When they're unskilled, they can't see their own faults. When they're exceptionally competent, they don't perceive how unusual their abilities are. So if the Dunning-Kruger ecffet is invisible to those experiencing it, what can you do to find out how good you actually are at various things? First, ask for feedback from other people, and consider it, even if it's hard to hear. Second, and more important, keep learning. The more knowledgeable we become, the less likely we are to have isbiivlne holes in our competence. Perhaps it all bilos down to that old proverb: When arguing with a fool, first make sure the other person isn't doing the same thing.

Open Cloze


Are you as good at things as you think you are? How good are you at managing money? What about reading people's emotions? How _______ are you compared to other people you know? Are you better than average at _______? Knowing how competent we are and how are skill stack up against other people's is more than a self-esteem boost. It helps us figure out when we can forge ahead on our own decisions and instincts and when we need, instead, to seek out advice. But psychological ________ suggests that we're not very good at evaluating ourselves accurately. In fact, we frequently overestimate our own abilities. Researchers have a name for this _________, the Dunning-Kruger effect. This effect explains why more than 100 studies have shown that people display illusory superiority. We judge ourselves as better than others to a degree that ________ the laws of math. When software engineers at two companies were asked to rate their performance, 32% of the engineers at one company and 42% at the other put themselves in the top 5%. In another study, 88% of American drivers described themselves as having above average driving ______. These aren't isolated ________. On average, people tend to rate themselves better than most in disciplines ranging from health, __________ skills, ethics, and beyond. What's particularly interesting is that those with the least ability are often the most likely to overrate their skills to the greatest extent. ______ __________ poor at logical reasoning, grammar, financial knowledge, math, emotional intelligence, running medical lab tests, and chess all tend to rate their _________ almost as favorably as ______ experts do. So who's most vulnerable to this delusion? Sadly, all of us because we all have _______ of incompetence we don't recognize. But why? When psychologists Dunning and Kruger first described the effect in 1999, they ______ that people lacking knowledge and skill in particular areas suffer a double curse. First, they make mistakes and _____ poor decisions. But second, those same knowledge gaps also prevent them from catching their ______. In other words, poor performers lack the very expertise ______ to _________ how badly they're doing. For example, when the ___________ studied participants in a _______ debate tournament, the bottom 25% of teams in ___________ rounds lost nearly four out of every five matches. But they thought they were winning almost 60%. WIthout a strong grasp of the rules of debate, the students simply couldn't recognize when or how often their arguments broke down. The Dunning-Kruger effect isn't a ________ of ego blinding us to our weaknesses. People usually do admit their deficits once they can spot them. In one study, students who had initially done badly on a logic quiz and then took a mini course on logic were quite willing to _____ their original performances as _____. That may be why people with a moderate amount of experience or expertise often have less confidence in their abilities. They know enough to know that there's a lot they don't know. Meanwhile, _______ tend to be aware of just how _____________ they are. But they often make a different mistake: they assume that everyone else is knowledgeable, too. The ______ is that people, whether they're _____ or highly skilled, are often caught in a bubble of inaccurate self-perception. When they're unskilled, they can't see their own faults. When they're exceptionally competent, they don't perceive how unusual their abilities are. So if the Dunning-Kruger ______ is invisible to those experiencing it, what can you do to find out how good you actually are at various things? First, ask for feedback from other people, and consider it, even if it's hard to hear. Second, and more important, keep learning. The more knowledgeable we become, the less likely we are to have _________ holes in our competence. Perhaps it all _____ down to that old proverb: When arguing with a fool, first make sure the other person isn't doing the same thing.

Solution


  1. experts
  2. people
  3. argued
  4. boils
  5. needed
  6. recognize
  7. effect
  8. awful
  9. research
  10. actual
  11. healthy
  12. researchers
  13. leadership
  14. college
  15. violates
  16. pockets
  17. result
  18. errors
  19. inept
  20. reach
  21. knowledgeable
  22. preliminary
  23. invisible
  24. question
  25. findings
  26. phenomena
  27. label
  28. skills
  29. grammar
  30. measurably
  31. expertise

Original Text


Are you as good at things as you think you are? How good are you at managing money? What about reading people's emotions? How healthy are you compared to other people you know? Are you better than average at grammar? Knowing how competent we are and how are skill stack up against other people's is more than a self-esteem boost. It helps us figure out when we can forge ahead on our own decisions and instincts and when we need, instead, to seek out advice. But psychological research suggests that we're not very good at evaluating ourselves accurately. In fact, we frequently overestimate our own abilities. Researchers have a name for this phenomena, the Dunning-Kruger effect. This effect explains why more than 100 studies have shown that people display illusory superiority. We judge ourselves as better than others to a degree that violates the laws of math. When software engineers at two companies were asked to rate their performance, 32% of the engineers at one company and 42% at the other put themselves in the top 5%. In another study, 88% of American drivers described themselves as having above average driving skills. These aren't isolated findings. On average, people tend to rate themselves better than most in disciplines ranging from health, leadership skills, ethics, and beyond. What's particularly interesting is that those with the least ability are often the most likely to overrate their skills to the greatest extent. People measurably poor at logical reasoning, grammar, financial knowledge, math, emotional intelligence, running medical lab tests, and chess all tend to rate their expertise almost as favorably as actual experts do. So who's most vulnerable to this delusion? Sadly, all of us because we all have pockets of incompetence we don't recognize. But why? When psychologists Dunning and Kruger first described the effect in 1999, they argued that people lacking knowledge and skill in particular areas suffer a double curse. First, they make mistakes and reach poor decisions. But second, those same knowledge gaps also prevent them from catching their errors. In other words, poor performers lack the very expertise needed to recognize how badly they're doing. For example, when the researchers studied participants in a college debate tournament, the bottom 25% of teams in preliminary rounds lost nearly four out of every five matches. But they thought they were winning almost 60%. WIthout a strong grasp of the rules of debate, the students simply couldn't recognize when or how often their arguments broke down. The Dunning-Kruger effect isn't a question of ego blinding us to our weaknesses. People usually do admit their deficits once they can spot them. In one study, students who had initially done badly on a logic quiz and then took a mini course on logic were quite willing to label their original performances as awful. That may be why people with a moderate amount of experience or expertise often have less confidence in their abilities. They know enough to know that there's a lot they don't know. Meanwhile, experts tend to be aware of just how knowledgeable they are. But they often make a different mistake: they assume that everyone else is knowledgeable, too. The result is that people, whether they're inept or highly skilled, are often caught in a bubble of inaccurate self-perception. When they're unskilled, they can't see their own faults. When they're exceptionally competent, they don't perceive how unusual their abilities are. So if the Dunning-Kruger effect is invisible to those experiencing it, what can you do to find out how good you actually are at various things? First, ask for feedback from other people, and consider it, even if it's hard to hear. Second, and more important, keep learning. The more knowledgeable we become, the less likely we are to have invisible holes in our competence. Perhaps it all boils down to that old proverb: When arguing with a fool, first make sure the other person isn't doing the same thing.

Frequently Occurring Word Combinations





Important Words


  1. abilities
  2. ability
  3. accurately
  4. actual
  5. admit
  6. advice
  7. american
  8. amount
  9. areas
  10. argued
  11. arguing
  12. arguments
  13. asked
  14. assume
  15. average
  16. aware
  17. awful
  18. badly
  19. blinding
  20. boils
  21. boost
  22. bottom
  23. broke
  24. bubble
  25. catching
  26. caught
  27. chess
  28. college
  29. companies
  30. company
  31. compared
  32. competence
  33. competent
  34. confidence
  35. curse
  36. debate
  37. decisions
  38. deficits
  39. degree
  40. delusion
  41. disciplines
  42. display
  43. double
  44. drivers
  45. driving
  46. dunning
  47. effect
  48. ego
  49. emotional
  50. emotions
  51. engineers
  52. errors
  53. ethics
  54. evaluating
  55. exceptionally
  56. experience
  57. experiencing
  58. expertise
  59. experts
  60. explains
  61. extent
  62. fact
  63. faults
  64. favorably
  65. feedback
  66. figure
  67. financial
  68. find
  69. findings
  70. fool
  71. forge
  72. frequently
  73. gaps
  74. good
  75. grammar
  76. grasp
  77. greatest
  78. hard
  79. health
  80. healthy
  81. hear
  82. helps
  83. highly
  84. holes
  85. illusory
  86. important
  87. inaccurate
  88. incompetence
  89. inept
  90. initially
  91. instincts
  92. intelligence
  93. interesting
  94. invisible
  95. isolated
  96. judge
  97. knowing
  98. knowledge
  99. knowledgeable
  100. kruger
  101. lab
  102. label
  103. lack
  104. lacking
  105. laws
  106. leadership
  107. learning
  108. logic
  109. logical
  110. lost
  111. lot
  112. managing
  113. matches
  114. math
  115. measurably
  116. medical
  117. mini
  118. mistakes
  119. moderate
  120. money
  121. needed
  122. original
  123. overestimate
  124. overrate
  125. participants
  126. people
  127. perceive
  128. performance
  129. performances
  130. performers
  131. person
  132. phenomena
  133. pockets
  134. poor
  135. preliminary
  136. prevent
  137. psychological
  138. psychologists
  139. put
  140. question
  141. quiz
  142. ranging
  143. rate
  144. reach
  145. reading
  146. reasoning
  147. recognize
  148. research
  149. researchers
  150. result
  151. rounds
  152. rules
  153. running
  154. sadly
  155. seek
  156. shown
  157. simply
  158. skill
  159. skilled
  160. skills
  161. software
  162. spot
  163. stack
  164. strong
  165. students
  166. studied
  167. studies
  168. study
  169. suffer
  170. suggests
  171. superiority
  172. teams
  173. tend
  174. tests
  175. thought
  176. top
  177. tournament
  178. unskilled
  179. unusual
  180. violates
  181. vulnerable
  182. weaknesses
  183. winning
  184. words