'Do your own research' and the Dunning-Kruger Effect

DONATIONS TO CHARITY MATCHED THIS WEEK!!:

CORRECTIONS:
1) Someone posted: "A 10x increase is actually an increase of 900%, not 1000%. Remember that an increase of 100% is 2x."

At 9:34: 10/10,000 = 1/1000 = 0.001 = 0.1%"

3) A couple of people pointed out that the spike in Google searches for 'flat Earth' following Lamar's announcement does not mean they all started believing in a flat Earth. i should have said they 'became interested' in a flat Earth.

This video has been re-uploaded for several reasons:
1) I got a lot of 'complaints' that the two Dunning-Kruger effect graphs I used are not in the Kruger and Dunning study. I never said they were, of course, and it should be pretty obvious that these are just drawings designed to illustrate what has become known as the Dunning-Kruger effect. This was in the video description, but a lot of people did not read it.
2) There were a couple of occasions when I wrong attributed principles to the Kruger and Dunning paper, rather than the Kruger-Dunning effect. That was a mistake, which I am now happy to correct in the video. If you don't mind me saying so, that is the difference between research and Do-your-own-research. When you research something and discover it's wrong, you correct yourself, and go with what is correct. When you DYOR, you look for what you believe in and refuse to correct it, even when it turns out to be wrong.
3) The Dunning-Kruger Effect was never in Kruger and Dunning paper, which is why I made the distinction. The former is a principle popularised and inspired by the paper. Again, I made that clear in the video description, but this time it has been spelled out in the video itself.
My apologies to those who had already started discussions in the other comments section. Please continue them here.

SOURCES:

The Kruger and Dunning study can be found here:

My two videos responding to Academic Agent and his Maldives claim can be found here:
Also, an interview with Academic Agent, here:

The video showing Jonathan DuHamel's confusion over a scientific paper can be found here:

My debate with Tony Heller can be found here:
Heller: (refused to continue)

The DIY sea level rise measurer lives in NC, where more accurate measurements can be seen heer:

[potholer]

FAQs – I am getting a lot of comments from people who clearly did not listen to the video properly. They seem to imagine I said things I didn’t say. So here are some examples of the most common themes:

@myalterego2878 wrote: _“I'm sorry, i don't think I'll ever get past the 'cant question the science, ever thing“_
Please listen to the video again. Obviously I did _not_ say ‘Don’t question the science, ” because the whole point of science is to question!

@MichaelKrump wrote: _“and now we're gonna follow government "science" instead of actualy science?”_
Please listen to the video. I never suggested you follow ‘government’ science, whatever that is.
What I said that was that DYOR advocates urge people *not* to follow the science, but to _do their own research._ I also said that _I_ follow the science because this is a science channel (it would be a rather odd science channel if I didn’t!) I also said that ‘follow the science’ is what we all do in school, and it’s how the next generation of scientists is trained.

Please listen to the video again. I did _not_ say ‘Don’t think for yourself” – I said the complete opposite! Instead of unquestioningly believing claims you see in blogs and videos, I urged people to *fact-check* the information. i.e. Think for yourself. I’m not sure how some people read that to mean ‘Don’t think for yourself, ’ there’s the irony.

In my opinion, no, because that means ignoring science completely and believing whatever some dumb blogger or YouTuber tells you, without questioning it and without bothering to fact-check it. As I said in the video (please, do listen!) I suggested you should properly _research_ and *fact-check* what you hear from bloggers. In other words, think for yourself,
Again, this is just my opinion, but it was pretty well explained in the video.

@richards6269 wrote: _“the implicit assumption that approximates to only experts should be listened to is something I disagree with.”_
Me too. I 'listen' to lots of people myself. What I am suggesting is that you *fact-check* what they say (again, this was all in the video -- _sigh._ ) When you research and fact-check properly, you can usually drive a dump truck through their claims. And instead of _only_ listening to these wannabe scientists, try reading a bit of real science as well.

Please keep these critical comments coming, though. I don’t think I’ll ever be able to persuade conspiracy theorists to listen and write down what was actually said, they are too far gone into a world where facts (including accurate quotations) are whatever they want them to be. But I am getting a great insight into how the DYOR mind works based on what you _thought_ you heard. There is enough material here for another video!

BTW I notice there were around 100 comments on the previous pinned comment. Sorry I haven’t seen any of them, my daily feed only shows ‘most recent’ comments, not ‘top’ comments. So the pinned comment doesn’t show up. It’s still there if you go back a few days. If there are any messages there for me personally, please just post them in a new thread, and I’ll see them in my daily feed.

[RexImperatorTerra]

University professor here (social sciences, not real science). This guy complaining about lack of public access to academic papers does have a point. I've never understood why our journal articles (which we do *not* get paid a penny to write) are hidden behind extremely expensive paywalls. Academic research shouldn't be imprisoned by greedy publishers who do nothing but take our unpaid work and sell it at outrageous prices.

[potholer]

I have re-uploaded this because of confusion about a graph, and the difference between the Kruger and Dunning paper, and something we now call the Dunning Kruger Effect. This was in the old video description, but is now explained in the body of the video.
I added to the confusion myself, by wrongly attributing a couple of principles to the paper. If this had been a minor mistake that makes no difference, I would have put corrections in the video description. But the mistakes change the premise of the video, so this requires a correction of the video itself. This can’t be done on YouTube without a complete re-upload.
Sorry if you were in the middle of a discussion on the last video. I hope you’ll resume the discussion in the comments section.

[ferchrissakes]

Funny how “do your own surgery” is a lot less popular concept

[wernerviehhauser]

"do your own research" only works if you know what "research" actually is....

[tungstikum]

Those under the spell of Dunning-Kruger will watch your video and instantly become experts on its effects.

[SirArghPirate]

I don't know much about the Dunning-Kruger effect, but I know enough to regard myself to be an expert on the topic.

[sarahjrandomnumbers]

Bill O'Reilly: Tide goes in, tide goes out, you can't explain that.

One of his best quotes.

[clivepierce]

As an atmospheric scientist now retired, I should add that academics are not immune to cognitive biases. This is why we have the checks and balances of the scientific method and publication in peer reviewed journals. If poor science makes it through the peer review process, and it does, it is unlikely to withstand the scrutiny of other experts.

[joeshoe]

When most people in the age of the internet say "I do my own research", they actually mean "I searched the internet till I found a dubious unacredited website that confirmed my previously held opinion"

[BoneySkylord]

I taught anatomy, therapeutics and clinical studies at university for a while. 3rd year students almost all suffered massive crises of confidence when they started getting a realistic perspective on just how much they still didn’t know. Part of the job was supporting them through into the 4th year when they would start to get their confidence back in the run-up to their finals.

[therealjammit]

When ever someone tells me to "do your own research" I ask them to give me a copy of their research notes so I can have something to build on.

[giordanobruno]

There is no measure of logic or reason that can be used to convince someone out of an opinion they didn’t use logic or reason to obtain.

[titaniumteddybear]

An under-discussed problem with news articles is that the article is written by the writer but the headline is written by the editor. A good editor will create an alluring headline that is also informative and accurate. A bad, biased, or overworked editor will look at the title the writer has given them, reword it to make it more "clickable", and then move on to the next task, regardless of whether the new title is factually accurate. Most people still don't know that this is how it works, so they still share things based only on the title, even though that's the least reliable part of the article.

[TheLobsterCopter]

9:40 Er...this is extremely minor and doesn't really matter at all, but for the record, a 10x increase is actually an increase of 900%, not 1000%. Remember that an increase of 100% is 2x.

[parthenocarpySA]

Telling someone to "do their research" is the same as saying "convince yourself im correct"

[jonathenweise]

When I have a burst pipe call me crazy but I solicit the service of a fully bonded, insured and licensed commercial plumber
I'm a radical lib like that

[jesusnthedaisychain]

My favorite thing to ask people who tell me to "Do the research, " is, "Okay, where should I start? Who should I watch or read?" The response is invariably indignation and a snarky, "I'm not going to tell you where to go! Figure it out!" It's almost like they don't want to have their sources challenged.

[hank_says_things]

Terence Howard "does his own research" and "discovered" that 1 x 1 = 2. That should tell you enough.

[Historybluff]

Info from scientist: hmmm I’m skeptical.
Info from internet: see it proves I’m right.