Jump to content


The Dunning-Krueger "effect" and WoT - Does it apply the way people think?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
27 replies to this topic

Element6_TheSprout #1 Posted 22 December 2013 - 03:11 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 28962 battles
  • 10,251
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

 

I have seen this article mentioned in a few whining threads, often in short posts containing mostly "Dunning-Krueger effect...", without any explanation. So I did some reading in that article. The first thing that strikes me is that situations in which the effect is used are where people have no data with which to judge and compare themselves to others, that is, they "guesstimate". In WoT all players have detailed stats, a history of their acheivements if you will, so people do not guesstimate nearly as much. 

 

WoT - Datasets to compare with others and to judge own skill

"How proficient do you think you are at driving a car compared to the average?" - No dataset, pure guesstimation.

 

Then there is a sentence in the linked article above that seems to elude anyone who use it as an explanation;

"Meanwhile, people with true ability tended to underestimate their relative competence. Roughly, participants who found tasks to be relatively easy erroneously assumed, to some extent, that the tasks must also be easy for others"

 

This suggests that many of those who refer to the Dunning-Krueger effect are about as delusional as the tomato in that they overestimate how easy they think it will be for others to acheive what they have acheived themselves. AKA L2P.

 

Thoughts?



maroar #2 Posted 22 December 2013 - 03:25 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 29488 battles
  • 2,462
  • [G__G] G__G
  • Member since:
    10-02-2012

View PostElement6, on 22 December 2013 - 03:11 PM, said:

Then there is a sentence in the linked article above that seems to elude anyone who use it as an explanation;

"Meanwhile, people with true ability tended to underestimate their relative competence. Roughly, participants who found tasks to be relatively easy erroneously assumed, to some extent, that the tasks must also be easy for others"

 

This suggests that many of those who refer to the Dunning-Krueger effect are about as delusional as the tomato in that they overestimate how easy they think it will be for others to acheive what they have acheived themselves. AKA L2P.

 

Thoughts?

 

Why stop with that sentence?

 

Next line is:

"A follow-up study, reported in the same paper, suggests that grossly incompetent students improved their ability to estimate their rank after minimal tutoring in the skills they had previously lacked, regardless of the negligible improvement in actual skills."

 

Your thoughts on that?


Edited by maroar, 22 December 2013 - 03:27 PM.


Yag0 #3 Posted 22 December 2013 - 03:30 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 3168 battles
  • 3,420
  • Member since:
    04-24-2012

View PostElement6, on 22 December 2013 - 02:11 PM, said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

 

I have seen this article mentioned in a few whining threads, often in short posts containing mostly "Dunning-Krueger effect...", without any explanation. So I did some reading in that article. The first thing that strikes me is that situations in which the effect is used are where people have no data with which to judge and compare themselves to others, that is, they "guesstimate". In WoT all players have detailed stats, a history of their acheivements if you will, so people do not guesstimate nearly as much. 

 

WoT - Datasets to compare with others and to judge own skill

"How proficient do you think you are at driving a car compared to the average?" - No dataset, pure guesstimation.

 

Then there is a sentence in the linked article above that seems to elude anyone who use it as an explanation;

"Meanwhile, people with true ability tended to underestimate their relative competence. Roughly, participants who found tasks to be relatively easy erroneously assumed, to some extent, that the tasks must also be easy for others"

 

This suggests that many of those who refer to the Dunning-Krueger effect are about as delusional as the tomato in that they overestimate how easy they think it will be for others to acheive what they have acheived themselves. AKA L2P.

 

Thoughts?

 

To put it crudely within the vernacular:

Tomatoes overestimate their ability/intellect.

Unis underestimate theirs, and not in a Socratic sense  .

 

 



Slow_roller #4 Posted 22 December 2013 - 03:32 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 33611 battles
  • 112
  • [THSS] THSS
  • Member since:
    09-16-2012

Yes, yes, yes.

 

Let us also consider the definition of 'Micromanagement', on wikipedia.

 

There we might realise the implications of considering yourself so strategically endowed as compared to others that you could, through game-chat, instruct a wildebeest on successfully overpowering three lions.

 

 



Element6_TheSprout #5 Posted 22 December 2013 - 03:35 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 28962 battles
  • 10,251
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View Postmaroar, on 22 December 2013 - 02:25 PM, said:

 

Why stop with that sentence?

 

Next line is:

"A follow-up study, reported in the same paper, suggests that grossly incompetent students improved their ability to estimate their rank after minimal tutoring in the skills they had previously lacked, regardless of the negligible improvement in actual skills."

 

Your thoughts on that?

This suggests that with a minimum of tutoring they will be better at estimating their relative performance, not that they increase their playing skill, if applied to WoT. Since we have stats(dataset) in WoT, people should need little to no tutoring to gain the ability to compare themselves to others. 

 

What your quote says is that if you first ask people how good they think they are at driving a car, and then give them a quick tutoring of driving a car, they will afterwards be better at comparing themselves to others, though with a negligible improvement in actually driving the car. Datasets do that job for us in WoT.



Yag0 #6 Posted 22 December 2013 - 03:39 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 3168 battles
  • 3,420
  • Member since:
    04-24-2012

View PostElement6, on 22 December 2013 - 02:35 PM, said:

This suggests that with a minimum of tutoring they will be better at estimating their relative performance, not that they increase their playing skill, if applied to WoT. Since we have stats(dataset) in WoT, people should need little to no tutoring to gain the ability to compare themselves to others. 

 

What your quote says is that if you first ask people how good they think they are at driving a car, and then give them a quick tutoring of driving a car, they will afterwards be better at comparing themselves to others, though with a negligible improvement in actually driving the car. Datasets do that job for us in WoT.


Perhaps it means that: "it can be pointed the subject is crap at this individual circumstance" .

IE, does it mean retraining this subject to recognise their crapness in each situation/circumstance ?



thepuma2012 #7 Posted 22 December 2013 - 03:42 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 27821 battles
  • 1,131
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

no he says that players that consider themselves good players (and therefore call other tomato  and noob), call other people tomato and noob because they think that a good level is reached easy (but for al lot of people is not) and therefore annoyed that they did not get that good level and doesn t play good enough.

 

And that causes a bad game for the `good ` player.


Edited by thepuma2012, 22 December 2013 - 03:43 PM.


MadFelineHoarder #8 Posted 22 December 2013 - 04:23 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 1476 battles
  • 354
  • Member since:
    06-21-2013

View PostElement6, on 22 December 2013 - 03:11 PM, said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

 

[...]

 

Then there is a sentence in the linked article above that seems to elude anyone who use it as an explanation;

"Meanwhile, people with true ability tended to underestimate their relative competence. Roughly, participants who found tasks to be relatively easy erroneously assumed, to some extent, that the tasks must also be easy for others"

 

This suggests that many of those who refer to the Dunning-Krueger effect are about as delusional as the tomato in that they overestimate how easy they think it will be for others to acheive what they have acheived themselves. AKA L2P.

 

Thoughts?

 

I do feel that the part I have put in bold text, is very true. When very good players say that this game is a piece of cake and that anyone with a bit of brains could become good at it, I, as a struggling tomato who is actively trying to improve, feel even more like garbage. Not only do I not perform to my own satisfaction in a very funny game, but I perform badly in something that's considered to be easy by some. If you have an "ability" for something, I think it might be hard to realize that not everybody does; what's easy-peasy for you, might be very difficult to achieve for someone else. I'm not dismissing the notion of experience here, people, I just think that some players, myself included, will never reach the glorious heights of greatness in this game, because we don't have the right abilities do to so - time and experience will take you a long way, but more is needed to make a great player.

 

I really look up to the good players in this game (because I have no life :wink: ), since I want to become good myself, but it hurts when hearing things like "everybody can do it" (yeah, I know, I care too much). I mean, what if I NEVER become good at this game that's so easy according to some? Is it time to commit sudoku then? Or maybe I should just try to get as good as I personally can, and be satisfied with that. :smile:

 

Do I make any sense at all?

 

BTW: I've promised myself to quit playing WoT if I'm still a member of Team Ketchup when I reach 6k battles, so no worries ;) 

 



MadFelineHoarder #9 Posted 22 December 2013 - 04:26 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 1476 battles
  • 354
  • Member since:
    06-21-2013
What on earth has happened to the forum?! I couldn't edit my previous post, instead a double post happened? This will take some time getting used to. Sorry for off topic.

 


Edited by MadFelineHoarder, 22 December 2013 - 04:28 PM.


Element6_TheSprout #10 Posted 22 December 2013 - 07:37 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 28962 battles
  • 10,251
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View PostSlow_roller, on 22 December 2013 - 02:32 PM, said:

Yes, yes, yes.

 

Let us also consider the definition of 'Micromanagement', on wikipedia.

 

There we might realise the implications of considering yourself so strategically endowed as compared to others that you could, through game-chat, instruct a wildebeest on successfully overpowering three lions.

 

 

Yes yes yes indeed, let us all drift off topic and go retard. Could you actually provide some arguements that are the product of your own thought proccess that would give us a hint at your opinions on the matter?

 

There seems to be a consensus on the forums that people have great difficulties understanding the simplest things, yet replies like this that are about as cryptic as they come are expected to be comprehended immediately...



Element6_TheSprout #11 Posted 22 December 2013 - 07:48 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 28962 battles
  • 10,251
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View PostYag0, on 22 December 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:


Perhaps it means that: "it can be pointed the subject is crap at this individual circumstance" .

IE, does it mean retraining this subject to recognise their crapness in each situation/circumstance ?

My thought is that if there were no stats in the game, people would have nothing to judge their own performance by, and nothing to compare themselves to others. That is the same situation as the example with driving a car I made further up, there are no stats for your own driving abilities, so you judge your own competence more or less by guessing, as you do when you try to compare yourself to average joe the driver. In WoT both parties have stats, competence is easily comparable, and as such people should not have to guess at their own or other's skill, they can use data.

 

When you use data to compare, the psychological mechanisms at work in Dunning-Krueger theory do not apply in my opinion, since it is the guessing that makes people overrate/underrate their own performance, not misinterpretation of stats.

 

I'm not arguing that delusion/illusion does not exists in WoT, it does, I'm just questioning if Dunning-Krueger is the correct explanation for it.



CannibalOxx #12 Posted 23 December 2013 - 03:48 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 16210 battles
  • 54
  • Member since:
    08-02-2012
So in theory everyone in WoT is incompetent? Since there is always somebody blaming the team, failing to recognise genuine skill in others and then your average player making a bad move because he/she overestimated their ability. There's no question there's a cognitive bias in WoT; having better stats than someone else gives security to that person with that bias -- it is inevitable with stats or not we would have this bias, since there'll always be players looking to pit themselves as more superior than others.

Edited by vibezzz, 23 December 2013 - 03:48 AM.


Element6_TheSprout #13 Posted 23 December 2013 - 05:16 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 28962 battles
  • 10,251
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View Postvibezzz, on 23 December 2013 - 02:48 AM, said:

So in theory everyone in WoT is incompetent? Since there is always somebody blaming the team, failing to recognise genuine skill in others and then your average player making a bad move because he/she overestimated their ability. There's no question there's a cognitive bias in WoT; having better stats than someone else gives security to that person with that bias -- it is inevitable with stats or not we would have this bias, since there'll always be players looking to pit themselves as more superior than others.

Yes, you could say that we all are incompetent at guessing our own "rank" compared to others, since that is the backbone of the research done. That does not in any way reflect on tanking skill though.

 

The reason I wrote this post is that some people have used the Dunning-Krueger conclusions to explain why a newbie/tomato come to the forum and whine about losing streaks, idiot tankers and many other things. It is as if the person making the Dunning-Krueger reference is certain that the tomato thinks of himself as better than he is, and when he does not perform to that level he blames other players or the entire team. This would be perfectly in line with the research if there were no stats in WoT. It doesn't matter how good you think you are if the stats that you can get to in a few clicks of the mouse will tell you that you suck. If you know the stats and still blame others or the team, you are in denial, but you do not overestimate yourself.

 

I think that the main problem with newbies that rage on the forums, and have bad stats, is that they are quite oblivious to the ramifications of clicking that Battle! button;

 

- Many seem to be totally unaware of simple statistical principles, like that the size of the playerbase is irrelevant, no matter how large it is 50% will always be above or below the other 50%. You WILL encounter many from the lower 50%, on average 15 of them per battle.

- Many even seem perplexed that there can be "so many idiots out there", in a playerbase of several hundred thousand players... 

- Many have no idea how the MM works, at lot seem to think that it is balanced when it's not, and complain that it is broken.

- Many are unaware that "average" is, in a game like WoT, a calculated number based on very varied results. A 50% WR doesn't in any way mean you will win one, lose one. You can have a winning streak of 20, then some defeats, some wins, then a losing streak of 11 and then a winning streak of 8. Your WR is an average of those, and will be more and more accurate the more games you play. 100 battles in one tank, 64% WR, for a player with an average WR of 46% is not unlikely, but it doesn't neccessarily reflect much on reality.

- A hoarde of players seem to think that, at least during the 30 second countdown towards battle, all the 15 players on their team is equally set on doing proper teamwork

- A lot of people, again new people that come to the forums with complaints, seem to be of the opinion that the XVM win chance prediction is more or less fact. A team with a win chance of 35% roflstomps the other team, and vice versa, on a regular basis.

- As far as we know +/- 2 tiers evens out for each player and is not deliberately adjusted for by the MM, and they will behave a little like WR, sometimes a lot of games in a row at -2 tiers, sometimes top tier but usually a mix.

 

And the list could go on...

 

So, new players whining on the forums seem to expect a lot of stuff from random battles that simply isn't so, so they make a thread and get flamed, and hit with the Dunning-Krueger research in some cases. I think the reason they are whining is mostly because they do not understand the mechanincs of what they are getting themselves into, like with the plethora of "invisible tanks killing me" threads, they are not under the impression that they are better than others, tehy just do not understand what is going on. They look at their stats, see a nice red 46% WR, compares to StatPadder or someone else and sees them with 60%+ WR, so they have data and do not guess their competence level, they know it, they just do not know the game.

 

Dunning-Krueger is more like this;

Take 100 tankers that have never played WoT before, give them a special account without stats and a server of their own and have them rate themselves prior to battle, let them guess how competent they are beofre any battles. After 1000 battles each you gather results and compare them to the rating they gave themselves. In most cases you will find the following;

 

More than 50% of the 100 players would rate themselves as "better than average", which is mathemathically impossible.

The better players out of the 100 would likely underrate their own performance compared to what they actually acheived

 

This is not like in WoT, and why I think that Dunning-Krueger is used as a suppression technique instead of actually having any relevance, by some of the better players out there. (And that is also extensively researched....luckily). I can certainly understand it, it is much easier to give reference to a psychological study than to explain all the workings of WoT, as an explanation for why someone would whine. Doesn't mean it's true though, and if it is not it is a bad practice doung nothing but harm.

 

A grain in the WoT cogs if you like.  



BattleMetalChris #14 Posted 24 December 2013 - 01:49 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 9222 battles
  • 7,685
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-18-2011

View PostElement6, on 22 December 2013 - 02:11 PM, said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

 

I have seen this article mentioned in a few whining threads, often in short posts containing mostly "Dunning-Krueger effect...", without any explanation. So I did some reading in that article. The first thing that strikes me is that situations in which the effect is used are where people have no data with which to judge and compare themselves to others, that is, they "guesstimate". In WoT all players have detailed stats, a history of their acheivements if you will, so people do not guesstimate nearly as much.

 

In WOT though, any tomato who is the victim of D-K looks at their bad stats, the D-K effect kicks in and they immediately decide that the stats must be wrong, that the game must be rigged against them and they discard them as evidence.


Edited by BattleMetalChris, 24 December 2013 - 01:50 AM.


Element6_TheSprout #15 Posted 24 December 2013 - 03:15 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 28962 battles
  • 10,251
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View PostBattleMetalChris, on 24 December 2013 - 12:49 AM, said:

 

In WOT though, any tomato who is the victim of D-K looks at their bad stats, the D-K effect kicks in and they immediately decide that the stats must be wrong, that the game must be rigged against them and they discard them as evidence.

If you have data that proves you are worse than you think, and are of the opinion that systems around you are deliberately trying to troll you, I think you suffer more from denial and paranoia than the D&K effect...



SGTMawerick #16 Posted 24 December 2013 - 04:06 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 38173 battles
  • 135
  • Member since:
    01-24-2012

another topic wich says stats are useless dmg are dont matter..Can I ask why some1 have better stats than others?Why allways bad pülayers play for fun and die in first min?Why never unicum players talk about stats useless thing?When dmg dont matter the enemy will die in aids or wtf?Srsly ppl stats coming from what you do or not.. 

 

PS:My english is bad:)


Edited by SGTMawerick, 24 December 2013 - 04:07 AM.


Element6_TheSprout #17 Posted 24 December 2013 - 04:17 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 28962 battles
  • 10,251
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View PostSGTMawerick, on 24 December 2013 - 03:06 AM, said:

another topic wich says stats are useless dmg are dont matter..Can I ask why some1 have better stats than others?Why allways bad pülayers play for fun and die in first min?Why never unicum players talk about stats useless thing?When dmg dont matter the enemy will die in aids or wtf?Srsly ppl stats coming from what you do or not.. 

 

PS:My english is bad:)

Hi, not sure what you are trying to say here, but I can tell you this is not a discussion about stats.



Fantabulousness #18 Posted 24 December 2013 - 04:37 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 50 battles
  • 476
  • Member since:
    11-11-2013
Yes, in contrast to the D-K study we have stats as evidence in WOT, but whether you call it D-K or paranoia and denial does not matter, because the result is the same: the subject is nothing but a guesstimating fool overestimating his own performance. What's the point of this thread again?

Element6_TheSprout #19 Posted 24 December 2013 - 05:03 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 28962 battles
  • 10,251
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View PostFantabulousness, on 24 December 2013 - 03:37 AM, said:

Yes, in contrast to the D-K study we have stats as evidence in WOT, but whether you call it D-K or paranoia and denial does not matter, because the result is the same: the subject is nothing but a guesstimating fool overestimating his own performance. What's the point of this thread again?

The point?

 

Well....instead of helping these people they are told they suffer from a psychological effect that does not apply here, and that is not a very nice thing to do. That is my point, I take it you missed it completely.

 

And how can you even say that D&K paranoia and denial are irrelevant and that your "diagnosis" up there is fact? That is evidence of the same foolish overesti-guesstimation you just described. Not able to identify the same mechanisms in yourself that you seem to spot from miles away in any whiner?



Fantabulousness #20 Posted 24 December 2013 - 05:09 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 50 battles
  • 476
  • Member since:
    11-11-2013

Denying stats in order to validate one's own twisted perception of reality is a protective psychological phenomenon of the same kind as the D-K effect.

 

"And how can you even say that D&K paranoia and denial are irrelevant and that your "diagnosis" up there is fact?"

I did not say they're irrelevant, I said the difference you are trying to make is irrelevant. And I did not make a "diagnosis".

 


Edited by Fantabulousness, 24 December 2013 - 05:14 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users