I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
ZING!
Bush presidency: FIERY WRECK!
Sounds like my last boss.
Haven't read the link yet, and I'm still late.
Geeze. Glad I never took THAT test!
First thing that struck me
OPERATION ShitWARMedovER
middle
um that doesn't make any sense
I remember this or a similar study several years ago that came to this conclusion. Incompetent people are far more likely to believe they are competent than actual competent people, who are far more likely to question their own conclusions.
That's one of the best studies ever. Ass clowns are wholly incapable of seeing their own assclownishness.
can somebody translate it for me....
How do you you score at the 12th percentile on a "humor" test? Is Larry the Cable Guy involved?
um that doesn't make any sense
Do you understand it now, Moonbootica? It's really simply - just think of Bush. Wholly incompetent, and wholly convinced of his own competence.
Or think of Doug Feith, Rummy, etc.
Tena ah that has cleared it up 
thanks
So many wankers, so little time... which one is Jeff Goldstein again?
Hey Dave, my site's prettier than your site.
red-states/Bush sucks
can somebody translate it for me....
e.g "You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie."
The way it is presented here is confusing, but I remember the study.
It just basically says the more incompetent you are, the more likely you are to be unable to recognize your own incompetence.
The author of a paper in the esteemed journal Nature titled "Scrotal Asymmetry in Man and in Ancient Sculpture."
That reminds me of the scene in the sub when Dr. Evil gets hit in his sack. He takes inventory: "one, two, ...and three. OK. It's OK!"
Ot via CNN: We got him!
BUFFALO, New York (AP) -- Gerry Adams, leader of the IRA-allied Sinn Fein party in Northern Ireland, was detained at a Washington airport after attending a St. Patrick's Day event at the White House, according to a congressman.
Congressman Brian Higgins, a New York Democrat who had invited Adams to speak at the Buffalo Irish Center, told the audience Friday night that Adams did not make it to Buffalo in time because he was detained at Reagan National Airport.
The author of a paper in the esteemed journal Nature titled "Scrotal Asymmetry in Man and in Ancient Sculpture."
Why's he so interested in twisted dicks?
Bush has plenty of sycophants to keep the truth away that he is an unpopular incomptent nincompoop.
he would't know his failings even it they showed up at the bottome of his whiskey bottle.
As I've been saying for years:
This study was conducted by a group of presumably well-educated researchers, who decided that we needed a study to demonstrate that the reason clueless people are clueless is because they have no clue.
It kind of makes you want to cry if you really think about it.
wol on a branch overhead
just sayin'
.
I can think of few things more likely to be humorless than a humor test.
Just sayin'.
Kinda like GREs or SATs written by people who don't understand there are *deeper* answers that are more correct than the supposedly correct ones.
Ah, our trolls in a nutshell...
It just basically says the more incompetent you are, the more likely you are to be unable to recognize your own incompetence.
And the converse, the more you know, the more you know what you don't know.
Lime rickey -- I think the paper refers to the 'one hung low' phenomenon. And whether or not this shows up in paintings and sculpture or not.
Well, this won't advance the discussion much, but it evoked a distant blurry memory from my college reading days, c. 1977.
It was an analysis of the effectiveness of the British in ruling colonial nations-- specifically, India, IIRC. I can't recollect the source.
It was pointed out that "certainty of purpose" and another characteristic which I disremember at the moment-- perhaps "certainty of identity"-- made administration more effective.
In a nutshell, the point was that the most effective Brit military and legal authorities were those who lacked inquiring minds, and accepted as a given that the British ways were superior. They took great trouble to recreate their lifestyles and customs from home rather than even conceive of adapting them to local ways.
Thinky folk capable of self-awareness and doubt did not fare as well, because such meta-levels of introspection complicated and undermined their ability to simply accept rules and orders as givens and administer them without qualms or pangs of conscience.
So it wasn't the sophisticated thinkers self-consciously trying to understand and respect the native culture who succeeded. It was sturdier folk who were too incurious or thick to admit doubts.
Seems obvious, perhaps.
So it wasn't the sophisticated thinkers self-consciously trying to understand and respect the native culture who succeeded. It was sturdier folk who were too incurious or thick to admit doubts.
And there's the Bush administration in a nutshell, too.
It was an analysis of the effectiveness of the British in ruling colonial nations-- specifically, India, IIRC. I can't recollect the source.
It was pointed out that "certainty of purpose" and another characteristic which I disremember at the moment-- perhaps "certainty of identity"-- made administration more effective.
Which ties into Orwell's insight when he had to shoot the elephant.
It becomes an elegant metaphor for the ultimate failure of empire. Either it remains rigidly true to its "heritage," in which case it cannot maintain control over another culture ad infinitum.
Or it becomes too much like the culture, in which case maintaining control over it becomes undesirable.
And, of course, the obvious connection (in the post) is to Bush, who is too incompetent to recognize just how incompetent he is.
Lime rickey -- I think the paper refers to the 'one hung low' phenomenon. And whether or not this shows up in paintings and sculpture or not.
secondharmonic
Ah, so. The Chinese laundryman.
Atrios that explains a lot of people I know. They usually have big mouths too.
Lime Rickey -- good thing I wasn't drinking tea just now.
"Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it."
Homo Freepi. A subspiecies rapidly non-breeding themselves out of existence. Or so we can hope.
"Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it."
Lil' Boots?
On a more mundane level, within the past couple of years Rodney Edwards, M.D., MS, of the University of Florida College of Medicine did a study on the performance of Medical School students and their self-assessment of how they were doing. Students who did badly were by far more optimistic about how they did than the students who actually did well. That in turn reminds me of a finding that scientists show higher rates of defensiveness than their other occupational counterparts. In the same vein, the NORC in the 1980s had a subquestionnaire on self-valuation/self-esteem. White males had a VERY slight -- but highly significant -- NEGATIVE correlation between self-esteem and academic and occupational attainment. White women and nonwhite men and women had positively correlated self-esteem and occupational attainment, but that correlation did not reach statistical significance.
I would also like to direct readers who are curious about the implications of this to the works of sociologist Alvin Gouldner, who coined the term "culture of critical discourse" (CCD). What the far right is fighting against is the rise of reflexivity, the ability to see oneself from the perspectives of others.
"It is no longer enough to follow a rule. One must now be able to say what the rules are and to justify them." -- Alvin Gouldner
That study was done in DC last month, looks like.
that's actually quite an elaborate study that had a number of follow-up components. For example, competetent people, when allowed to participate in the grading of others' tests, revised their own estimate upwards, whereas the incompetent did not change their self assessment after being exposed to the work of the competent.
Sigh.
wow! does that explain a lot about republicans in general and the bushliar-criminal regime in particular.
.
The Kruger and Dunning paper is online at http://www.apa.org/journals/feat.../
psp7761121.pdf
The final paragraph is wonderful:
"In sum, we present this article as an exploration into why people tend to hold overly optimistic and miscalibrated views about themselves. We propose that those with limited knowledge in a domain suffer a dual burden: Not only do they reach mistaken conclusions and make regrettable errors, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it. Although we feel we have done a competent job in making a strong case for this analysis, studying it empirically, and drawing out relevant implications, our thesis leaves us with one haunting worry that we cannot vanquish. That worry is that this article may contain faulty logic, methodological errors, or poor communication. Let us assure our readers that to the extent this article is imperfect, it is not a sin we have committed knowingly."
This same point was made a few years back in a study that covered FOX and Limbaugh addicts. Not only did the FOX and Limbaugh fans know less -- and know it inaccurately -- than did people who watched PBS or even CNN, they thought they knew more.
Ooooooh - where management comes from!
Ooooooh - where management comes from!
With a george bush fuck up,its always a choice between incompetence or mendacity.
I would choose incompetence if it were not for the fact that his fuck ups are always in the direction favoring the extreme right wing assholes.
Remember that all the 2000,2004 electoral mishaps were in his favor.
So stupid people are too stupid to know how stupid they are.
Who knew? Certainly not the stupid among us.
It explains my current boss and all of our trolls.
It's the scientific explanation of my saying "to fucking stupid to live and too dumb to know it."
I was declared a 'good old boy incompetent' after only one term of teaching community college English.
The give-away was that I politely declined the opportunity to pay tuition for the privilege of teaching a second term without pay.
"Man, proud man, clothed with a little brief authority, never so ignorant as of that of which he is most assured, plays such fantastic tricks as make the angels weep."
Shakespeare, Measure For Measure.
So stupid people are too stupid to know how stupid they are.
Who knew? Certainly not the stupid among us.
Actually, the question was a little more subtle. It was how much incompetent people realized they were incompetent. Everyone is familiar with the sterotypical character who didn't get no book learnin' and knows he's not as smart as them university fellers. The question is how does he judge his own competence.
And as it turns out, the really incompetent don't just consider themselvs average, they consider themselves more competent than average.
As to the comment about the followup studies where people realized how competent they were in comparison to others by seeing other results, I've seen the same thing in real life. I'm in a course right now where, to save time, students sometimes grade another's assignment in order to get turnaround on results quicker. If you happen to get an idiot's paper, the people doing well will often shake their heads and not believe that the person has the common sense to remember to breathe. If the idiot is getting the paper of someone doing well, the response, when they get their own results back, is often something like "Hey, I wrote nearly the same thing as she did! Why didn't I get it marked right?"
The original research article linked to above at 12:50 by Harold Brooks is a hilarious read, at least by standards of the professional literature. It is unfortunately a spot-on description of the entire administration and their supporters. They reject objective assessments of failure, and refuse to learn from errors. sigh.
While competence or incompetence implies action of some sort, you see the same thing with knowledge - people who go off on a topic and don't know enough about it to know how little they know . . . y'know?
Creationists often provide such examples, but no doubt every topic/issue has them . . .
I'm amazed these wingnuts don't get it yet. Throwing insults at someone is the highest form of intellect, besides circular thinking of course. Reading comments on HuffPo after a Greg Gutfeld article has shown me that it takes no skill, talent, or intellect to write something original. The real intellectuals simply hurl insults at others, most importantly within the parameters of opinion writing (which we all KNOW is totally objective). Keep on being the magnificent martyr you are OT, your courage is a kick in the wazoo to us all who must live under the KKK/Nazi regime of BushHitler and Co.
Human Ignorance is universal.
Allow me to explain. You sit reading this on a machine whose complexity you are incapable of fathoming, the collective work of thousands of creative individuals whom not only don't know each other, but likely they don't even know of each others existence. You and this machine most likely are in an ordinary room, which, like most ordinary rooms, is the result of the creative labor of hundreds of thousands or millions of individuals, completely unknown to you, each contributing knowledge and creativity mosty unknowable by you—or anyone.
And all this complexity is just that which exists within your glance. Beyond that range lies additional complexity of which you
—or even a multi-tiered nested bureacracy of committees made up of people like you—are capable of knowing next to nothing.
And this profound, bottomless ignorance you share with every human being that lives or has ever lived is completely unknown to you. And do you know what a person like you, completely ignorant of his own ignorance, believes?
He believes that humans in general and politically organized human beings in particular are capable of running the world as they will. He believes that all that need be done to provide universal access to health care is that an organization of "competent" people like him be given control of the unimaginably complex, ever changing market which spontaneously, organically organizes itself to produce that which is coveted.
He also believes this same "competence" is capable of contriving just about any manner of individual social outcome imaginable by his "competent" mind, be it the elimination of gun crime, poverty, want or war. He simultaneously overestimates corporate business' power to harm and the states power to mitigate the unknowable circumstances of individual lives.
A mind which underestimates the limitations of its own knowledge necessarily overestimates the capacity of others' competence as well as their own. A world capable of such "competence" is a world where every outcome is intended. All misteps are the result of idiocy, and every misapprension is a lie.
Sound familiar?
Yours/
Peter.
"Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it."
I first realized this with respect to talent: specifically, bad singers who truly, truly believed they were good. They kept auditioning and performing, always badly, and always believing they were on the verge of stardom. It was astounding and sad to watch untalented people embarrasingly try to sell themselves as more than they were.
Which leads us to Bush and the Bush People. All or most of them are indifferent and/or incompetent through and through. But they have what most bad singers don't have: money and connection. They buy or are introduced into power. They continue to sing badly, never knowing how truly awful they sound. And since they have money and connection, they don't have to worry about being good enough to make a good enough living to put food on the table or pay the electric bill.
The tragic difference between bad singers and the Bush Bunch is that bad singers can be ignored. The Bush Bunch can't. And most importantly, bad singers don't send Americans to war to die for the sake of their egos.
I hate those bastards!
Ahh irony.
Translation:
Right-wing blogger pundits such as Jeff Goldstein, Ann Althouse, the boys at Powerline, et al. are like dogs:
When they are licking their own balls, they are completely unaware how ridiculous it looks.
From the article:
Scientists had already shown that students benefit from highlighting their own reading material. But Gier and a colleague were the first to show that students who read material that has been badly highlighted by someone else (with unimportant words marked and important words not marked) will have dramatically reduced comprehension -- even if they're warned in advance that the highlighting will be terrible. "You cannot ignore it," she says. "Even when you try to ignore it, it's there."
Ample evidence of that effect is provided daily in the MSM, resulting in the comments above.
If ever there was a definition of "echo chamber," this be it...
So, if you lose two elections to an incompetent, then you are what?
a)a genius
b)simply misunderstood
c)even more incompetent
This should prove or disprove the study's finding once and for all.
Jeff's OK. He's usually wrong about US foreign policy, but he's OK.
His articles are a little long and I tend to go to sleep after the first 10 or 15 paragraphs....
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
