Perhaps OT: Dunning-Kruger effect

Today I saw a topic on a website (DPReview.com) I frequent related to photography. While the article and linked video deals with why some bad photographers think they know more than they actually do, I thought it might provide insight into the accelerated acquisition of knowledge espoused by recently minted experts. This was brought to my attention recently when I asked a couple of questions that I knew nothing about (and still don't understand anywhere nearly well enough).
https://www.dpreview.com/news/750079130 ... nk-you-are

JimW159 wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 12, 2018 4:34 pm

Today I saw a topic on a website (DPReview.com) I frequent related to photography. While the article and linked video deals with why some bad photographers think they know more than they actually do, I thought it might provide insight into the accelerated acquisition of knowledge espoused by recently minted experts. This was brought to my attention recently when I asked a couple of question that I knew nothing (and still don't understand anywhere nearly well enough).
https://www.dpreview.com/news/750079130 ... nk-you-are

You're continuing your habit of being very perceptive.

I firmly believe that Ron's our new DK poster boy, desperately trying to outdo ajack.

Agreed.
Bad info is worse than none at all.

Forums are designed for the acquisition, exchange, and provision of information. All information touched by humans is flawed to some degree, and those flaws can be magnified by less-than-precise skills, either in the expressions of the speaker or in the comprehensions of the listener.

Dunning and Kruger are both ignorant fools.

But, the thing is, I may not mean by that statement what you may think I mean . . .

. . . because we are all ignorant on some subjects, and we are all fools from time to time.

So, is bad info really worse than no info? I think it depends on HOW bad. Sometimes slightly bad info that is in the ballpark is very useful indeed, as long as it is used wisely in comparison/contrast with other (also flawed) info. That's one of the founding principles of science itself. And it is the key to getting anything useful at all out of modern news sources--the evaluation of source bias in the context of historical reliability.

Wise men learn much from fools. Much more than fools learn from wise men, anyway.

In my opinion. Which is wrong. Always. But only to a degree. Or so I assume.

jnk... wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 13, 2018 12:36 pm

So, is bad info really worse than no info? I think it depends on HOW bad. Sometimes slightly bad info that is in the ballpark is very useful indeed, as long as it is used wisely in comparison/contrast with other (also flawed) info.

That's a fine, and valid point, that unfortunately isn't too applicable in this instance, where bad information is handed out to people that don't have the expertise to discern what's inadvisable about that information, and are easily led astray.

. . . Which could be construed as malevolent, malicious, and really bad news.

chunkyfrog wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 13, 2018 6:25 pm

. . . Which could be construed as malevolent, malicious, and really bad news.

Too true - and more evidence of the validity of an adage from another source related to the concept: "when arguing with a fool, first be certain he isn't doing the same."