I avoid the effect entirely by having incredibly low self-esteem. The possibility that I am engaging in false optimizing has never crossed my mind, thank you very much.

This is a fascinating question. I encounter this effect daily, at work, where on a daily basis I have to explain very basic things to people who should not only know those basics, but know a lot more besides.

It is very true. I discovered recently that I am in fact 32 with a Masters degree in Art; being paid to talk to 18-19 year olds about Art, while operating under the assumption everyone knew just as much as me.

Surely they should know at least somewhat less than you - otherwise what can you teach them?

Equal but different knowledge bases, perhaps. Of course, it's generally reasonable to assume teacher and student do *not* have equal knowledge bases.

1) I imagine that Socrates' examination of the people of Athens regarding their own ignorance is relevant here. Didn't Socrates argue that he was wise because... he knew that he did not know much? Human nature doesn't change.

2) That said, I suggest if this study had been done 200 years ago, or 100 years ago even, the results might have been less dramatic than the 1999 study. In my opinion, societal norms within the last 30-40 years have pushed us away from the capacity for honest assessment of our inabilities. Quotes from historians/philosophers/religious texts which make the same point as the study aside, it seems to me that the push towards "self esteem" has actively exacerbated the problem of illusory misconfidence in one's abilities.Older cultures with a different set of moral virtues (i.e., not "self esteem" but "humility") certainly experienced the same effect of the ignorant, but these cultures at least had built in moral mechanisms to handle the misconceptions. (As a shameless plug for the Christian worldview, Christianity as a philosophical outlook has built in restraints on what we'd call "pride" or "ignorant overestimation of the self" (sin), and built in means of handling failure and the anxieties relating thereto (forgiveness). Yes, yes, I know plenty of Christians who are regrettably arrogant and unforgiving... but I'm speaking of the worldview, not the people.)

3) In my experience, this effect seems to correlate with one's moral outlook. (not "moral" as in "good or bad," but "moral" as in "one's philosophical and ethical outlook"). Experience tends to inform the ignorant that they are ignorant, sometimes unpleasantly so. Legislating a world without consequences actively prevents the ignorant from gaining needed maturity and perspective ("it's okay if you phoned in this school assignment, you get an A for participation anyway!"). As one who has been magnificently ignorant in the past, I am thankful for those who provided feedback about my own inabilities, and guided me into humble knowledge of my own inabilities. That humility is the starting point for maturity of character and the ability to honestly assess one's abilities in relationship to others. My guess is that the capable/knowledgeable/experienced/mature of the world lowball their assessment of themselves precisely BECAUSE they are humble.



TL;DR: Good point, glad for the research, but the classical Christian worldview had this one figured out already when it talks about "humility" as a virtue.

^ Worth noting that East Asian cultures don't exhibit the classic Dunning-Kruger effect, and researchers do speculate about whether self-esteem culture is implicated.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/overestimate.aspx

^ interesting. Depending on where in East Asia we're talking about, we might run into a moral climate with strong emphasis on honor and shame... which could function similarly to the notion of humility. I don't know much about it though, so I look forward to doing some reading. Thank you!