-
It's not uncommon for people to be very capable within their niche and yet total Dunning-Kruger "How hard can it be?" in any other context. The basic DunningKruger problem is a lack of any skill at meta-cognition (or any awareness that it's even a thing), but I think there are probably multiple thresholds there, so somebody might be able to apply some abstract thinking up to a point and then totally fail beyond it and somehow not be able to see there's a problem.
Personality traits can be barriers as well, I think. My wee brother scored well in IQ tests and similar when a kid, but is fundamentally lazy and entitled. In particular, he very early on went beyond intellectual laziness to being stonkingly anti-intellectual. Family get-togethers are embarrassing, because he debates like a mentally subnormal schoolyard bully and has no idea how stupid and crass he appears (there's an empathy fail there, as well). In his niche (RAF pilot), that kind of attitude is the norm, so he's not challenged.
-
• #61403
Jesus Christ. Before you guys start making your very insightful and certainly psychologically robust claims into the superiority complexes which emerge from being "protected and untouchable" and/or the pervasiveness of Dunning-Kruger complexes amongst academics, do a quick google search for the precariousness of academic work, and the prevalence of mental health issues amongst those working higher education, and in particular, imposter syndrome.
Starkey is a racist fuck who doesn't represent academia. He's hardly a typical academic. He represents himself.
-
Funnily enough I had a conversation with a very interesting student of mine this morning during which we tackled the challenge of imposter syndrome. My proposal was that it could be potentially welcomed / utilised as evidence of criticality, responsibility and awareness. It can be a creative burden (I lecture at an art school) but is often evidence of someone wanting to achieve healthy perspective.... the opposite of academic, entitled arrogance illustrated by Starkey.
My personal conclusion... I’d rather spend time talking with someone who doesn’t automatically assume a position of unassailable authority. It gives the conversation ears.
-
I have a friend who is a professor of history at a UK university. I've known him for 20 years.
His single greatest gift is listening to your opinion and explaining why your opinion might be wrong without making you feel under attack or stupid. His people skills are second to none. I assume that is why his students like him so much. Its a very rare skill indeed and not one that many of my academic friends possess.
-
• #61406
^^ That's the ideal situation for someone who is able to respond healthily to the pressure it can create. I worry that the impact is profoundly negative in most cases, however.
My personal conclusion... I’d rather spend time talking with someone who doesn’t automatically assume a position of unassailable authority.
I think everyone would agree (unless you're going to someone for their expertise). Of course, you're just as likely to find people speaking with (misguided or not) authority on here as you are on a university campus.
-
I don't think @Howard was trying to say "This is what academics" are like, I know I wasn't (wee brother isn't remotely an academic). I saw it as more surprise at encountering people with that level of incapacity in an area known (stereotyped, even) for above avergage mental ability. Nor was anybody trying to make it an excuse for Starkey, they/we were just wandering off at a tangent. Well, hello webforum.
-
Alternatively it could just be common-or-garden cluelessness as seen in a small percentage of people across all demographics, which is just thrown into sharp relief by their obvious intelligence in a specific area.
Never thought about that, but it sounds on the money and will be the theory I extol going forward as though I came up with it.
-
Some people only apply their intelligence to the things that most interest them (or are important to them) and nothing else. Can also be an empathy problem there (if it doesn't matter to them, it doesn't matter).
One of the most jaw-dropping examples of "Not interested in anything outside my speciality" I've ever seen was on Antiques Roadshow. Some guy had brought in a pair of silver spoons and the silverware expert was really exited.
"I'm thrilled you brought these in. These spoons were made in the late 19th century for an officer in the United States Merchant Marine..."
long explanation of what marked them out as being U.S. ship's officer's spoons
"And the most delightful thing about them is that the officer has had his name embossed on the handles. There's his name: 'JIM CROW'".
...
Wow. You learned so much about the history of American spoons, but pretty much everything else about that history just wafted past you.
And yes, that kind of selective ignorance is common but we tend to find it more surprising in academics.
-
I guess that's a possibility, but I'd wager a good chance of them being a political/social statement, given the time they were made. You'd hope the silverware expert, somebody who had studied at least a part of U.S. history, would have been alive to that and mentioned it. Not at all surprised that the people around him (owner of the spoons, people stood nearby, programme crew) weren't aware of it; most Brits don't know that much about U.S. history and while they know there was once slavery, they typically know nothing about post-civil-war reconstruction and segregation and haven't heard the term Jim Crow. Recent events might have spread some knowledge just a little bit wider, but it was something like 15 years ago I saw that episode and it was a repeat from I don't know when.
-
I don't get it :
The Jim Crow persona is a theater character by Thomas D. Rice and a racist depiction of African-Americans and their culture. The character was based on a folk trickster named Jim Crow that had long been popular among enslaved Black people.
How would he have been in the Merchant Marine and owned those spoons?
-
As Einstein never said.
Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.
Everyone is also stupid, but if you judge a fish by its ability to breath under water then it will believe it's a genius, briefly, then forget about it, or not.
itsbruce
Wrongcog
Stonehedge
Howard
hugo7
kl
Brun
sohi
snottyotter-
Post a reply
About
In the news
Posted by
@Platini
Failing to pick up basic life skills isn't the preserve of the super-intelligent. There may be a degree of obsessive interest in theoretical matters that limits experience of real-life interactions and tasks (like a football prodigy having no idea how to do anything but play football, because he's always been nurtured to do only that). Alternatively it could just be common-or-garden cluelessness as seen in a small percentage of people across all demographics, which is just thrown into sharp relief by their obvious intelligence in a specific area.