[SGVLUG] Some interesting reading...

[Terry Hancock]

On Friday 14 October 2005 03:59 pm, Emerson, Tom wrote:
> At the after-the-meeting meeting, I talked about a couple 
of things that I didn't have time for at the general 
meeting -- one of these is the link below -- for those of 
you who "work for someone obviously not qualified to do 
their job", you may find this enlightening (or you could 
send it to some networked printer and "forget" to pick it 
up and see who notices...)

Or, it may simply mean that your own "metacognitive ability"
is poor, and they are entirely qualified to do their job, 
right? ;-)

> http://www.phule.net/mirrors/unskilled-and-unaware.html

One thing seriously bothers me.  Look at the figures. They
all show the same thing, a very slight correlation between
"objective" and "perceived", centered around "just a bit 
above average".  The paper goes on and on about how 
"accurate" or "inaccurate" people's assessments are, but 
aren't they mostly all coming to the same conclusion, with 
only the slightest recognition of the objective reality?

Just because "slightly above average" confidence people 
happen to be most accurate doesn't necessarily mean they 
are skilled at recognizing this -- they could just be 
lucky. "Even a broken clock is right twice a day" and the 
lines have to cross somewhere!

Seems to me like the real message is that *everybody* is
making a judgement with very little consideration of 
objective data.

--
Terry Hancock ( hancock at anansispaceworks.com )
Anansi Spaceworks  http://www.anansispaceworks.com