Dunning-Kruger effekti
Qonunlar +2 06.08.2023 247

Dunning-Kruger effekti Wikipedia

Agar siz qobiliyatsiz bo'lsangiz, qobiliyatsiz ekanligingizni bilolmaysiz ... To'g'ri javob berish uchun sizga kerak bo'lgan ko'nikmalar to'g'ri javob nima ekanligini tushunishingiz kerak bo'lgan ko'nikmalardir.

(David Dunning)

Dunning-Kruger effekti 1999 yilda Devid Dunning va Jastin Kruger tomonidan psixologik tadqiqot va maqolada tasvirlangan nazariy kognitiv tarafkashlikdir. Tadqiqot shuni ko'rsatadiki, vazifani bajarish qobiliyati past bo'lgan odamlar o'zlarining vazifani bajarish qobiliyatini ortiqcha baholashlari mumkin. Bunday noto'g'ri fikrlashning tavsiya etilgan sababi shundaki, odam o'zining ushbu sohada ishlash qobiliyati to'g'risida xabardor fikr bildira olishi uchun muammo yoki domenning murakkabligi haqida etarli darajada xabardor bo'lishi kerak.

Dunning-Kruger effekti ba'zan o'zaro bog'liq, ammo nazarda tutilmagan ta'sirni tasvirlash uchun ishlatilgan, uni quyidagicha ta'riflash mumkin: "Inson biror domenni qanchalik kam tushunsa, ular ushbu sohadagi muammolarni osongina hal qilishiga ishonishlari mumkin, chunki ular domenni oddiy deb bilish ehtimoli ko'proq". Ushbu umumiy ta'sir texnologiyada juda dolzarbdir. Bu shuni ko'rsatadiki, domen bilan kamroq tanish bo'lgan odamlar, masalan, texnik bo'lmagan jamoa a'zolari yoki kamroq tajribali jamoa a'zolari, bu sohadagi muammoni hal qilish uchun zarur bo'lgan sa'y-harakatlarni kam baholaydilar.

Biror kishining domendagi tushunchasi va tajribasi oshgani sayin, ular boshqa ta'sirga duch kelishi mumkin, ya'ni ular domenda juda tajribali bo'lganligi sababli, boshqalarning qobiliyatini ortiqcha baholaydilar yoki o'zlarining qobiliyatini kam baholaydilar. Barcha holatlarda bu ta'sirlar kognitiv tarafkashlikdir. Har qanday noto'g'ri nuqtai nazarda bo'lgani kabi, uning mavjudligini tushunish ko'pincha qiyinchiliklardan qochish uchun etarli bo'ladi - chunki noto'g'ri tushunchalar mavjud bo'lganda, ushbu noto'g'rilikni bartaraf etishga harakat qilish uchun ko'proq kirish va fikrlarni kiritish mumkin. Bir-biriga chambarchas bog'liq bo'lgan tarafkashlik - bu illyuziy ustunlik.

Haqiqiy dunyo misollari:

  • Apple va FQB: Nima uchun bu antiterror qirg'inchi tomonlarini almashtirdi - 2016-yilda senator Lindsi Grem Apple qurilmalarini shifrlashda “orqa eshik” yaratishga nisbatan o‘z nuqtai nazarini o‘zgartirdi. Dastlab Grexem Apple’ning “orqa eshik” yaratish so‘roviga e’tiroz bildirganini tanqid qilgan edi, bu esa ehtimoliy terrorchilik rejalarini tekshirish uchun zarur deb hisobladi. Biroq, Gremning o'zi tan olganidek, u domenning texnik murakkabligi haqida ko'proq ma'lumotga ega bo'lgach, u buni o'zi tushunganidan ancha sodda deb hisoblaganini va bunday orqa eshik jiddiy salbiy oqibatlarga olib kelishi mumkinligini tushundi. Buni Dunning-Kruger effektining misoli sifatida ko'rish mumkin - kiberxavfsizlik bo'yicha mutaxassis bunday orqa eshikdan qanday foydalanish mumkinligini darhol anglaydi, chunki ular domen haqida chuqur tushunchaga ega, oddiy odam telefon xavfsizligini o'xshash deb taxmin qilishi mumkin. huquqni muhofaza qilish organlari uchun "bosh kalit"ga ega bo'lish amaliyoti mumkin bo'lgan jismoniy xavfsizlikka, lekin bu o'xshashlik kiberxavfsizlikda zamonaviy shifrlashni tasvirlash uchun etarli darajada qo'llanilmaydi.
The Dunning-Kruger Effect
Qonunlar +2 06.08.2023 247

The Dunning-Kruger Effect on Wikipedia

If you're incompetent, you can't know you're incompetent... The skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is.

(David Dunning)

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a theoretical cognitive bias which was described by David Dunning and Justin Kruger in a 1999 psychological study and paper. The study suggests that people with a low level of ability at a task are likely to overestimate their ability of the task. The proposed reason for this bias is that a sufficient awareness of the complexity of a problem or domain is required for a person to be able to make an informed opinion of their capability to work in that domain.

The Dunning-Kruger effect has sometimes been used to describe a related, but not necessarily implied effect which could be described as "The less a person understands a domain, the more they are likely to believe they can easily solve problems in that domain, as they are more likely to see the domain as simple". This more general effect is highly relevant in technology. It would suggest that people who are less familiar with a domain, such as non-technical team members or less experienced team members, are more likely to underestimate the effort required to solve a problem in this space.

As a person's understanding and experience in a domain grows, they may well encounter another effect, which is that they tend to overestimate the ability of others or underestimate their own ability, as they are have become so experienced in the domain. In all cases these effects are cognitive biases. As with any bias, an understanding that it may be present will often be sufficient to help avoid the challenges — as when there is awareness of a bias, more inputs and opinions can be included to attempt to eliminate these biases. A closely related bias is that of Illusory superiority.

Real-world examples:

  • Apple vs. FBI: Why This Anti-Terror Hawk Switched Sides - In 2016 Senator Lindsey Graham changed his stance on Apple creating a 'backdoor' in their encryption of devices. Initially Graham had been critical of Apple challenging a request to create a 'backdoor', which he saw as necessary to investigate potential terrorist plots. However, by Graham's own admission, as he learned more about the technical complexity of the domain, he realised that he had assumed it to be far more simple than he had realised, and that such a backdoor could have serious negative consequences. This could potentially be considered an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect - a cyber-security expert would likely understand immediately how such a backdoor could be exploited, as they have deep understanding of the domain, a layperson might assume that phone security is more similar to physical security where the practice of having a 'master key' for law enforcement is possible, but this analogy does not apply sufficiently well to describe modern encryption in cyber-security.