Newest Threads

pfranco81 · 06-22-2007, 05:46 AM

yeah, but I actually do know everything.

98EXL · 06-22-2007, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryanh1801

very true.

+2

it's fun but annoying all at the same time. Always opens another can of worms for me

KopyKat · 06-22-2007, 02:10 PM

Quote:

They set out to test these hypotheses on human subjects consisting of Cornell undergraduates who were registered in various psychology courses.

Ah, ha! Did any of you notice the flaw in this study. They assumed that college undergraduates were human and that students who took psycology courses were proper subjects for the study.

I might also point out that the age group of this study would be likely very young and therefore lack the experience to have shed off all of the teenager "know it all" that every parent that has raised children knows a bit about.

Desert_Sky · 06-22-2007, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KopyKat

and therefore lack the experience to have shed off all of the teenager know it all that every parent that has raised children knows a bit about.

well that pretty much sums up EACs right there

Anti_EAC · 06-22-2007, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chimone

well that pretty much sums up EACs right there

damn straight

Flyin' Lion · 06-22-2007, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdwj

I couldn't disagree more. Seems to me that most people around here think they have a TON to learn.

+1. I agree, that sounds like the complete opposite of EAC (as it is understood on these boards).

jpuf · 06-22-2007, 05:40 PM

I dont know Sh_t and I can prove it!

**the_bird** · 06-22-2007, 05:57 PM

I think much more interesting is "The Andy Scale" letter from Cartalk.

http://cartalk.com/content/features/hell/Bestof/Andy/

Quote:

Andy R.
Marlboro, VT 05344

Dear Click and Clack,

I am writing to offer profound thanks to you for resolving an important philosophical question that has been heatedly debated for the last twenty years. The rumination began on a construction site one summer in the early 1970's, as my friend Jamie and I were working our way through college. The question we raised and have agonized over, lo these many years, is one that I've never read about in any philosophical treatise, and yet I have found it has applied to countless situations and conversations overheard in bars, repair shops, sporting events, political debates, etc. etc. etc.

Posit the question: Do two people who don't know what they are talking about know more or less than one person who doesn't know what he's talking about? (Pardon the un-PC masculine pronoun, but I have found this to be, most predominately, a male phenomenon.)

In your recent conversations regarding electric brakes on a cattle carrier, I believe you definitely answered this query and have put our debate to rest. Amazingly enough, you proved that even in a case where one person might know nothing about a subject, it is possible for two people to know even less!

One person will only go so far out on a limb in his construction of deeply hypothetical structures, and will often end with a shrug or a raising of hands to indicate the dismissability of his particular take on a subject. With two people, the intricacies, the gives and takes, the wherefores and why-nots, can become a veritable pas-de-deux of breathtaking speculation, interwoven in such a way that apologies or gestures of doubt are rendered unnecessary.

I had always suspected this was the case, but no argument I could have built from my years of observation would have so satisfyingly closed the door on the subject as your performance on the cattle carrier call. To begin your comments by saying, "We'll answer your question if you tell us how electric brakes work" and "We've never heard of electric brakes" and then indulge in lengthy theoretical hypostulations on the whys and wherefores of the caller's problem allowed me to observe that you were finally putting this gnarly question to rest.

I am forever indebted to you for the great service you have performed! I'm truly impressed that it took so many years of listening to your show to finally have this matter resolved.

Sincerely,
Andy R.

homebrewer_99 · 06-22-2007, 05:59 PM

Hmmm, let's see...

Dunning-Kruger effect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Dunning-Kruger effect is the phenomenon whereby people who have little knowledge systematically think that they know more than others who have much more knowledge.

The phenomenon was demonstrated in a series of experiments performed by Justin Kruger and David Dunning, then both of Cornell University. Their results were published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in December 1999.[1]

incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of skill,
incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others,
incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy,
if they can be trained to substantially improve their own skill level, these individuals can recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill.

See also

EAC

References

homebrewtalk.com

**DeathBrewer** · 06-22-2007, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by david_42

I've seen similar studies showing the average criminal has very high self-esteem and considers himself to be much smarter than most people. Getting caught is always because of bad luck or someone else making a mistake.

that's called inferiority complex. it's all show.