Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect/Archive 2

736:

Wheeler's exploits "have inspired articles in" the New York Times and New York Post? Are we only talk about one academic journal article or multiple papers? Your original claims still seem to be unsupportable and misleading. For the question of notability, it still seems a very clear case of only being notable for one event. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC) "Do you now accept that it was false to say that Wheeler's exploits "have inspired articles in" the New York Times and New York Post?" No, I am not sure why that would be the case. Wheeler inspired Dunning. Dunning and Wheeler are both covered in depth in the Times, Post and elsewhere. Here are quotes from the NY Post story I believe you are referring to: "Charles Darwin observed that “ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.” That was certainly true on the day in 1995 when a man named McArthur Wheeler boldly robbed two banks in Pittsburgh without using a disguise. Security camera footage of him was broadcast on the evening news the same day as the robberies, and he was arrested an hour later. Mr. Wheeler was surprised when the police explained how they had used the surveillance tapes to catch him. “But I wore the juice,” he mumbled incredulously. He seemed to believe that rubbing his face with lemon juice would blur his image and make him impossible to catch." "The story of McArthur Wheeler was told by social psychologists Justin Kruger and David Dunning in a brilliant paper entitled “Unskilled and Unaware of It.”

667:"David Dunning, a Cornell professor of social psychology, was perusing the 1996 World Almanac. In a section called Offbeat News Stories he found a tantalizingly brief account of a series of bank robberies committed in Pittsburgh the previous year. From there, it was an easy matter to track the case to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, specifically to an article by Michael A. Fuoco: "ARREST IN BANK ROBBERY, SUSPECT’S TV PICTURE SPURS TIPS" At 5 feet 6 inches and about 270 pounds, bank robbery suspect McArthur Wheeler isn’t the type of person who fades into the woodwork. As Dunning read through the article, a thought washed over him, an epiphany. If Wheeler was too stupid to be a bank robber, perhaps he was also too stupid to know that he was too stupid to be a bank robber — that is, his stupidity protected him from an awareness of his own stupidity. Dunning wondered whether it was possible to measure one’s self-assessed level of competence against something a little more objective — say, actual competence. Within weeks, he and his graduate student, Justin Kruger, had organized a program of research. Their paper, “Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties of Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-assessments,” was published in 1999." 710:"Do any reliable sources cover the individual themselves as a main or sole focus of coverage, or is the person mentioned only in connection with an event or organization?" Multiple reliable sources deal with substantial coverage of McArthur Wheeler. Coverage deals with Wheeler's planning of the crime, his motivation, his education, his family life, his intelligence and Wheeler's subsequent life in prison. These sources include national and regional newspapers, books, and scientific periodicals. Sometimes, these sources use that coverage as a spring board for a larger discussion of human meta cognition. Similarly, many reliable sources that we use on Seung-Hui Cho use a discussion of his planning, education, family life and intelligence as a spring board for a larger discussion of the social problem of random acts of violence. This is not typically seen as justification for dismissal as a Knowledge source. Wheeler is not mentioned as representative of an organization. Furthermore, Wheeler is mentioned in contexts outside of a single event. Specifically, he is mentioned as representative of people incapable of meta-cognition of competence. 699:. Seung-Hui Cho is notable for multiple events: 1. The shooting and 2. The reaction to it. Similarly, IMO Wheeler is notable for multiple events 1. The robberies and 2. The research of his planning of those robberies. Finally, Wheeler is named specifically in all mentions of the robberies, and is the main focus of all subsequent coverage of those robberies (which is more substantial than is currently included in the article) - since he was the perpetrator and not a spectator of the robberies, he is more notable (right or wrong) than the people in the bank that he robbed. Similarly, VA Tech's coverage in wikipedia does not include an article for every student who attended school the day of the shooting. Contrast Wheeler's coverage in Fuoco or Morris's work, GQ, Telegraph, the BBC, Cognizance, Focus in Germany ("Das Imperium der Doofen", Überall Unfähigkeit und Selbstüberschätzung – US-Psychologen beweisen, dass dahinter ein System steckt!) and a typical Florida bank robbery notification like this one by a Central Florida regional, the Sentinal: 771:-"If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley, Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented." Hinckley is a great example as a one-event person who deserves his own article, and for largely the same reasons as Wheeler. Wheeler's role in the robberies was #1 substantial, as he was the only robber and the inspiration for a high profile and widely-cited research paper and #2 those events were well documented by multiple sources as cited above. 2283:

you mean by "the paragraph that was explaining the diagnosis to the affliction?" As I have tried to illustrate above, the first paragraph was not about diagnosis; it was saying that Dunning and Kruger performed some research, and then went on to describe the conclusions from the research. In your version, you describe the conclusions before even saying that the research took place. We really do have a consensus view here that the previous version was better, so I should have reverted back to it a long time ago. However, since you are relatively new to Knowledge, I'll ask you one more time if you have anything new to add to the discussion. If so, please respond

1720:

755:

and as a result most of the coverage is in newspapers that are not on the internet. That is one of the reasons why further time is needed for this article; I noted problems with notable references at the beginning of this talk page and what I meant was that most of the information is in newspapers and other non-digital sources. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wrote multiple front-page stories either devoted to or prominently featuring Wheeler from 1995 to 1997. Here is one of the few that has been digitized (which is separate from the story I cited in the article):

713:"Is the person notable for any other events in their life?" No. This is most likely where the controversy comes from, and I empathize with your concern. However, dismissal of one term of the test is not commonly seen as a reason for complete removal of the piece. Again, let's use Seung-Hui Cho. Other than the Virginia Tech shooting, was Cho involved with any other notable event? Sadly, no - the violence was the only notable part of his life. Still, we saw fit to include him because of the wider social context his actions had. 768:-"If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." IMO Wheeler *was* a high profile individual. It is my hope that his mentions in the sources above and in the article help establish that. The coverage of Wheeler extended from 1995 and has continued through 2012. 695:"Was the person the main focus of relevant coverage? For instance, it is not necessary to include biographies on every person who was present at the Virginia Tech massacre. The event is notable; individual people are not." The Virgina Tech example is helpful IMO. Virginia Tech was not the only school shooting. Wheeler is not the only bank robber. However, Virgina Tech was used as a spring board for wider discussion of the phenomenon of school shootings; as a result we have a substantial article on 31: 704:"A suspect in Jan. 6 robbery of a bank in Orange County was arrested in Tampa Friday. The Orlando Police Department said David Jefferson Decker, 40, was identified by detectives as the man who entered the TD Bank located at 2859 S. Delaney Avenue in Orlando and gave a note to the teller demanding money. Police said an arrest warrant was obtained and the the US Marshals task force in Tampa arrested him Friday evening.Investigators said Decker will be transported back to Orange County." 746:

are competent at two things – failing to recognize their shortcomings and overestimating their abilities." Here is the Telegraph on Wheeler: "In 1995, McArthur Wheeler walked into two Pittsburgh banks and robbed them in broad daylight, with no visible attempt at disguise. He was arrested later that night after videotapes of him taken from surveillance cameras were broadcast on the 11 o'clock news.

751:

later at night" I can't easily copy+paste these but he is mentioned in the following also: Improving Student Achievement, 2005 Lewis C. Solmon, Kimberly Firetag Agam, Tamara Wingard Schiff Profiling and Serial Crime: Theoretical and Practical Issues, Wayne Petherick Coverage of Wheeler went international and was mentioned in 20 Minutos and in Germany.

741:

Detectives realised that Wheeler believed scrubbing lemon juice on to his face would hide his features on CCTV. When psychologist David Dunning read about Wheeler's story, he was intrigued by one facet: Wheeler was so confident in his abilities, despite his stupidity. Could other people have similar blind spots about their incompetence?"

2718:. The writer (Patricia McCarthy) doesn't have an article here. She doesn't really directly say "Cliff Claven is an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect", and it's a passing reference, not showing that she's really sat down and given a lot of thought over whether Clavin actually is a good example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. 1802:"Sooner or later we all become the poor performers," said Dunning in the interview. "We all have our specific pockets of incompetence. And once we step into our own incompetence, we don't know we've made the step." As Cole observed, "Other people can see when we're doing the Dunning-Kruger dance, be we can't." 2885:

Rather than "first observed," better phrasing would be on the order of that near-final section's "formulated in," though even that doesn't satisfy me. Superlatives such as "first" (or any other claims to primacy or originality) probably ought be avoided. Perhaps D-K give it a sort of independent life

2809:

However, sure as that know-it-all Cliff Clavin bellied up to the bar at “Cheers”, there’s someone right now talking out of his butt about something of which he knows virtually nothing. A Cornell University study along those lines was released in 1999, resulting in “Dunning-Kruger Effect” entering our

2143:

I did not write the previously stable version myself (shown as "Before" in the table above), but the way I read it is as follows: Sentence 2 says that Dunning and Kruger performed some research, then sentences 3 and 4 discuss their conclusions resulting from that research. It looks like everything is

1809:

invited to; all the wonderful social interactions they just don't get to experience. And it's likely that they don't notice the absence of this. So, you don't know you're incompetent, you can't figure it out on your own, and the world is treating you by being silent. Well, how do you improve yourself

1580:

717:

I hope this helps. Finally, I just wanted to say I appreciate your concerns and while I my not agree they are certainly valid and I appreciate your work on the encyclopedia. Should the article indeed need to be merged I will not be any worse for it. Certainly, I do not own this article or any part of

681:

I considered the Pseudo-biography issue prior to creation. As you stated, I believe that the issue of whether this is a Pseudo-biography or not hinges on whether Wheeler served as the inspiration for further study. WP-PSEUDO provides a number of questions for review for purposes of testing an article

2282:

since we have an open discussion here on the article's talk page, I have moved your comment here from my talk page. You still haven't really responded to this discussion. You have simply repeated what you already said in an edit summary, that I already said I didn't understand. Specifically, what do

1719:

971:

The title of this article should be hyphenated (with -), rather than using an n-dash (–). While I appreciate that someone out there knows there's more than one dash-like character, they used the wrong one. This makes the URL really ugly for some people, and is unlikely to be typed correctly by users

935:

Has anyone else noticed that Dunning-Kruger is being used as a pejorative in online discussions? I've noticed it's often just used as a fancy way of calling people stupid. By my understanding it seems to be an incorrect use of the term. I've already seen one notable celebrity link to this page while

868:

and it does a good job of summing up research on human beings evaluating their own knowledge and competence. I will add this reference immediately to the article as further reading, and then you are very welcome to follow the links in the article to build more references into this Knowledge article,

764:

I discussed one-event notability on the other page briefly, however let's review the one event test so I can demonstrate why in my view Wheeler passes. -"If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." Reliable sources, as noted ad nauseum in sources above I have not had

745:

Here is Cognizance Magazine on Wheeler: "The story above is from Unskilled and Unaware of It – the psychological study behind the Dunning-Kruger effect. Even though it sounds like a story from D.A.R.E. class, the authors cited Mr. Wheeler’s sober adventure to communicate that incompetent individuals

489:

You made an entirely valid point here, and in fact it's similar to what is said in the D-K paper and other papers. It's a pity you've been so misunderstood in the subsequent discussion. It's worth distinguishing between the first empirical finding and the subsequent theory: struck by the discrepancy

3180:

reliable source, and are just making an assumption, albeit often a reasonable one. It is best to cite an actual literature review and quote it for any "most" claims about research matters. In the absence of one, it's better encyclopedia writing to simply devote text to the material that represents

2881:

is blatant overreach considering the penultimate section pointing up multiple clear precedents, which cites no less than Russell, Darwin, Shakespeare, and Confucius (d. 479 BC). That such persuasion was the intent (perhaps unconsciously) is to me proven by citing two published papers of Dunning and

2323:

I came to this talk page after reading the first paragraph. I was glad to see not only that it was being discussed, but also that a consensus had been reached - to which I added my support. I note that Wdchk requested further comments from JustHelping614 eight weeks ago, but that none has been made

1790:

The "Dunning-Kruger effect" was explored on a segment of the public radio show "This American Life," with host Ira Glass, which aired on April 22, 2016, titled "In Defense of Ignorance." In the segment, David Dunning was interviewed about his famous experiment by producer Sean Cole. Cole noted that

1760:

754:

I'm trying my best to understand the complaint at this point - I believe you are concerned that Wheeler was non-notable prior to Dunning's work. While prior to Dunning Wheeler was certainly one-issue, I do believe he was noticeable (although of course, less notable). The robberies occurred in 1995,

333:

their relative competence. Roughly, participants who found tasks to be relatively easy erroneously assumed, to some extent, that the tasks must also be easy for others." (emphasis mine) Furthermore the article refers to "unskilled individuals" and "incompetent people" when referring to the effect.

313:

Maybe I am not understanding something, but it seems that regardless of actual ability, people judge themselves to be slightly above average. Wouldn't the easier explanation be that everyone is not a very good assessor of their own ability and those that just happen to be "slightly above average"

122:

It links to the Dunning-Kruger paper, whose abstract opens with this exact quote. We're using a secondary source because the statement we're sourcing is not "Bertrand Russell said this", but "Dunning and Kruger noted the relevance of Bertrand Russell having said this". Per previous threads on this

3152:

With the indulgence of everyone who has participated so far, I'd like to rephrase my question, obviously a rhetorical one inviting Chas. Caltrop to expand on his often laconic edit summaries. While I generally prefer terseness over walls of text, now could be a good time for considered verbosity.

2815:

Dr. David Dunning of Cornell University that seeks to explain how individuals of little knowledge and less understanding can rise to positions of prominence locally and nationally. He explains that by reference to the "Dunning-Kruger Effect," first described in 1999 with his colleague, Dr. Justin

1077:

The modern challenge seems to me to embody within the different fields of human endevour the "follow up study" however in a paradigm of power-with, the sheer understanding of nature-wholeness in whatever context, not the power-over of an objectively considered ranking that is usually-used to make

2516:

At first I was like :D , but then I was like :| . I think Ronz-iz-rite, but I so want Rodolfo's idea to be explored for some form of adjacent/juxtaposed project! P.S. The emdash in the URL is utterly un-pragmatic, and makes the URL 8 characters longer than it needs to be and nearly impossible to

2070:

to start a discussion about their repeated edits to change the order of sentences in the article's first paragraph, but apparently they do not wish to do so. I still don't understand from the edit summaries why the change is an improvement, so I have kicked off the discussion myself, rather than

1507:

750:

Here are studies and books other than the ones cited that mention Wheeler: There Is an I in Team, Mark De Rond "McArthur Wheeler who, in 1995, robbed two Pittsburgh banks in broad daylight. He had made no visible attempt at disguis. Aided in surveillance tapes, the police were able to arrest him

642:

The central problem is that in the article you have "Social psychologists Justin Kruger and David Dunning were inspired to use his case..." followed by a citation of a reference which does not say that at all. If you have other references to back up this point, then please cite those references.

2820:

I agree that an example (or several) for those "Oh, like _____, now I get it!" moments would be a good idea. I'm just not convinced that Cliff Clavin would be a textbook example and if he was that he belonged in the see also section. A section for "fictional characters exhibiting Dunning–Kruger

2150:

saying that the research took place. Also, incidentally, referring to Dunning and Kruger by last names only before introducing them with their first names. It just looks very odd to me, but maybe I'm missing something, so I would be happy if JustHelping614 or anybody else could explain. Thanks.

1587:

351:

Your answer does nothing to contradict my point. A person in the 20th percentile (R=20) would estimate themselves to be in the 54th percentile (J=54) (overestimating their ability). A person in the 90th pecentile (R=90) would underestimate their own ability to be in the 68th percentile (J=68)

740:

Here is GQ Magazine on Wheeler: "In 1995, a criminal called McArthur Wheeler did something stupid: he walked into two banks in Pittsburgh with a gun and demanded money, in full view of the cameras. When police arrested Wheeler that evening, he was incredulous. "But I wore the juice!" he said.

735:

That's a genuine surprise to learn that he was the inspiration- thanks for correcting me. I don't know why you point out that Wheeler is mentioned in the D-K paper since I've already repeatedly said this myself in the text you are responding to. Do you now accept that it was false to say that

510:

My guess would be that this bias not only originates from that metacognitive inability mentioned in the introduction. Given a concrete problem, the cause could be just that people do not know about some more subtle problems that go along. Or am I now falling into that bias myself? Or is this

153:

Darwin was quoted by Kruger and Dunning in the original 1999 "Unskilled and unaware of it" paper, in its third paragraph (p. 1121: "...as Charles Darwin (1871) sagely noted over a century ago, "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" (p. 3)"), so I've reinstated it,

657:

Wheeler is listed in two highly reputable sources as Dunning's inspiration for the study. First, he is described in depth in the study itself by Dunning here: “Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties of Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-assessments,” Journal of

138:

of the Darwin quote - the apparently false statement that "Dunning and Kruger themselves quote Charles Darwin" has been sitting in the article for years, as their paper does not appear to mention Darwin once. (Although their original paper does quote Confucius, so I'll add that instead.)

658:

Personality and Social Psychology, 1999, vol. 77, no. 6, pp. 1121-1134. Second, the New York Times lists him as Dunnings inspiration here: New York Times, The Anosognosic’s Dilemma: Something’s Wrong but You’ll Never Know What It Is (Part 1) By ERROL MORRIS JUNE 20, 2010, 9:00 PM

450:. This provides strong support for the scientific value of the subject. Disagreements about the article are mainly about whether specific parallels and analogies that appear elsewhere are actually related to the subject, not the subject itself. As a scientific contribution to the 913:

Perhaps, someone could write an article, and explain the similarities and differences among the reported effects, in this article "Dunning–Kruger effect", and the articles in the "see also" section? Would it be possible to construct a venn diagram, to clarify the relationships?

398:

You're right, initially I didn't take enough time to look at the equation, sorry. Though, how do we know about those exact numbers within the formula? Wouldn't it be less understandable to an average article reader that way, even if you're dead-on with the equation?

3156:

What, specifically, have been the weasel words in this article, and what, in particular, have been the npov issues with the article? I am interested in Caltrop's views on this. Of course, this being a wiki article talk page, all good-faith input is welcome. Thanks,

2740:

is kind of long and mostly contains material that doesn't bear on the subject (nor is "Dunning–Kruger effect" even mentioned in that article), it kind of maybe leads the reader away from the subject into material about a TV show and who played what character and so

1068:"A follow-up study, reported in the same paper, suggests that grossly incompetent students improved their ability to estimate their rank after minimal tutoring in the skills they had previously lacked, regardless of the negligible improvement in actual skills." 2419:

A number of studies on East Asian subjects suggest that different social forces are at play in different cultures. For example, East Asians tend to underestimate their abilities and see underachievement as a chance to improve themselves and to get along with

276:

It's not a term "from psychology" in that the name "Dunning-Kruger effect" started on this Knowledge article, stuck, and has since been used by independent sources. However, since it has stuck it is now a legitimate term referring to an experimental finding.

1912:

It would be interesting to have a graph here, plotting confidence (perceived ability) against actual skills (scored ability). This could be taken from one of the studies. You should be able to understand if the effect is linear and if it is range-limited.

2747:

Clavin is a fictional character on a TV show which was once very popular, but ended in 1993 (but then was popular for a while in syndication, but even that run basically ended a while back). As time goes on this reference is going to grow more and more

1142:

Why is there no mention of this site in this article? This whole site is the result of the Dunning–Kruger effect!! The encyclopedia that anybody (ie deranged basement dweller with a POV to make) can edit! Can't believe this article does address this

176:. The popular paraphrase is "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts"; I wonder where the variant sourced to the paper (is it really in there?) comes from. -- 718:

Knowledge and have no "ax to grind" re: Wheeler; just an interesting bit of information that readers and students might find helpful in their understanding of the history of Psychology. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do to help.

3124:"Most studies" is not weasel at all if it was in fact "most studies". I also, must be out of Chas. Caltrop's splendid league since I see nothing in his edit that removed weasel. Neither do I understand what he imagines is the big joke is here. -- 1805:"The real sadness, for me," concluded Dunning in the interview, "is that often people are going to suffer for their mistakes, but they're never going to know it. Because if a person is a jerk in the office, what happens is all the parties they 936:

using the term to describe his ideological opponents. It seems to be gaining traction, and it could be that this article is contributing to people's misunderstanding. Should we document cases here and add them to the article at some point?

1214:

Plato's Socrates talks about how the artisans tend to assume that because they're competent at their crafts that they are also competent at other things, self-government and the kinds of dialectic that Plato considered true wisdom.

235:

It is argued that the term "Dunning-Kruger" is a bullshit term that is used for people to feel superior themselves. By using an obscure word that may or may not actually be from psychology, it makes the user sound authoritative.

892:

The first section of this article is confusing, for me, despite studying this and all linked articles. I can't understand the specific scope of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Is it limited to those people of below average ability?

490:

between the real and judged rank of the bottom quarter, D and K proposed a weakness of metacognition in those unskilled people. This weakness, explaining the discrepancy, is what's more properly called the Dunning-Kruger effect.

3181:

the real-world consensus viewpoint, with lots of citation, and then conclude (if pertinent to include it at all) with the contrary view, noted as contrary, and citing the particular source it comes from, without dwelling on it.

3038:, and from what I can see it's you who's out of his league. If you can contribute something constructive here about changes to the article, please do so; if not, then please move on. "Non" the less, thanks for the entertainment. 413:

I just made up the numbers, and I don't think this should be added to the article. I just thought that this "effect" is kind of misleading. It seems that few people can accurately assess their own abilities on many tasks.

2535:

Ironically, the article already has a full section about exactly this ("Historical antecedents"), all sourced to secondary commentators who draw direct comparison to Dunning-Kruger and including one from Bertrand Russell.

314:

end up looking like they can judge their own abilities. I am thinking something like this: for any given task J=50 + 0.2R where J is percentile score of self-judged ability and R is the percentile score real ability.

1195: 1487: 1220: 839: 516: 945: 2876:

Back to topic. While I enjoy reading this article, it does show some self-serving biases, presenting objective information in such a way as to manufacture authority. The "persuasion" statements begin quite early:

2791:

Here's a couple more referenced I found online, at least to confirm its a well-known public association. I've probably seen more memes based on him in the last 10 years than I've watched Cheers in the last 20.

1034: 882: 100:..."and Bertrand Russell ("One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision")" 1936:

The page title has a dash between two names. That's ludicrous. If you need to connect two names, you use a hyphen. Not an n-dash. What on Earth possessed you to do something so mind-bogglingly absurd?

930: 520: 2657:

I do not have any definite opinion myself. There is no lack of references of Trump and Dunning-Kruger. Just google for it. On the other hand, I do not see what this article would gain with a link. --

2579:

If you can source it to a secondary commentator who draws a direct comparison to Dunning-Kruger, sure. If you can't, we shouldn't include it - a "that reminds me of a quote I heard" section would be

2472:. Even those of the intelligent who believe that they have a nostrum are too individualistic to combine with other intelligent men from whom they differ on minor points. This was not always the case. 2329:

It being December 30th, I think the time has come to make the revision in line with the consensus. So that's what I have done; apologies to Wdchk if I have trodden on your toes a little by doing so.

1766:

It being December 30th, I think the time has come to make the revision in line with the consensus. So that's what I have done; apologies to Wdchk if I have trodden on your toes a little by doing so.

937: 2130:

Their research also suggests that conversely, highly skilled individuals may underestimate their relative competence, erroneously assuming that tasks that are easy for them also are easy for others.

2113:

Their research also suggests that conversely, highly skilled individuals may underestimate their relative competence, erroneously assuming that tasks that are easy for them also are easy for others.

1567:

Their research also suggests that conversely, highly skilled individuals may underestimate their relative competence, erroneously assuming that tasks that are easy for them also are easy for others.

1550:

Their research also suggests that conversely, highly skilled individuals may underestimate their relative competence, erroneously assuming that tasks that are easy for them also are easy for others.

896:

Does the Dunning-Kruger Effect include BOTH -1- OVER-estimation of one's skills by those of BELOW average ability, AND -2- UNDER-estimation of one's skills by those of ABOVE-average ability?

1045:

I have removed your addition as it seems to be original research. No reliable source was cited to show that your examples were regarded by anybody else as examples of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

2618:, while those as knows the most admits what a turr'ble big world this is. It's the knowing ones that realize one lifetime ain't long enough to git more'n a few dips of the oars of knowledge." 1491: 925: 887: 596:. There are lots more psychology papers about this topic and it would be better to summarise more of them rather than creating Knowledge content about quite minor detail of this one paper. 1199: 1054: 664:

Here is the NY Times quote, which is much easier to reproduce because it is listed in full online. I will need time to reproduce the relevant content from the study because of its length.

960: 628:

of why you think Wheeler is notable. Sorry to say that after reading it I'm even more convinced that there shouldn't be a Knowledge article on him. I've replied on that page as to why.

2840:

I linked the first occurrences of the authors' names to the appropriate Knowledge articles (currently there is no article for Justin Kruger but I put in the link in case it is added).

1795:

you over-confident." As Cole observed: "When someone asks so how do you think how you did on a test, and you open your mouth to answer, you're drawing on the same skill-set to answer

2383:

is there a reference or source for something called "Dunning-Kruger effect"? Otherwise it looks like OR. ps the first part also seems to describe just about every undergraduate. --

511:

bias-concept meant to be only applied to things such as reading or doing something “nicely”– activities which require a minimum of knowledge but rather talent/practice and the like?

191: 205: 3106:

Returning to the question, which is appropriate, I guess Chas meant "most studies" was a weasel word. But actually "most" is pretty accurate and not as weaselly as "usually". --

2859:

First, I want to say that while I have strong political views, I am grateful for those who held firm against using this article as nothing more than a gussied-up self-righteous

1107:

I recommend adding links between the Knowledge article on the Blub paradox and the article on the Dunning-Kruger effect. The Blub paradox is a good example of Dunning-Kruger.

539: 1132: 2488: 2627: 1191: 2384: 1483: 1216: 512: 990: 185: 3014:

Dear Just Plain Bill, if you have to ask, then you are, indeed, out of your league. The “Harvard” of the Midwest failed you. Non the less, thanks for the entertainment.

2562: 1869:

I just undid two revisions that appear to either be spam links or jokes. A relatively common joke seems to be changing the first sentence to read "The <joke name: -->

1236: 1038: 525: 1850:

I removed this section as grossly undue. If anyone can spot something in it that's unique or deserves extra emphasis, maybe it could be included in the article body. --

1323: 1305: 785:

In short, BLP1E says: "Secondly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals." Wheeler is high-profile, as a result BLP1E does not apply.

271: 2654:

There is an edit war ongoing whether to include a reference to Donald Trump or not. Could people, please, stop reverting each other's edits, and solve the issue here?

1446: 1012: 706:

That was the entire article! IMO, the PSEUDO rule is to prevent articles on people like Decker, not people like Wheeler. Nobody in Germany is calling Decker a Doofen.

111: 3202: 834: 605: 2644: 2433: 2407: 2124:

is a cognitive bias wherein relatively unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate.

2102:

is a cognitive bias wherein relatively unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate.

1878: 1561:

is a cognitive bias wherein relatively unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate.

1539:

is a cognitive bias wherein relatively unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate.

1128: 1120: 1030: 921: 463: 286: 3115: 2596: 2566: 2545: 2127:

Dunning and Kruger attributed the bias to the metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their own ineptitude and evaluate their own ability accurately.

2110:

Dunning and Kruger attributed the bias to the metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their own ineptitude and evaluate their own ability accurately.

2000: 1564:

Dunning and Kruger attributed the bias to the metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their own ineptitude and evaluate their own ability accurately.

1547:

Dunning and Kruger attributed the bias to the metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their own ineptitude and evaluate their own ability accurately.

1466: 1092: 676: 652: 637: 619: 247: 224: 2223: 148: 3133: 2930: 2307: 2269: 1102: 505: 300: 1901: 1660: 530:

I added a bit about McArthur Wheeler with corresponding citation. I've also cross-linked this with Wheeler's BLP, which is new and needs work. Help is welcome!

3074: 2511: 2341: 1744: 1706: 499: 1402: 1341: 1224: 566: 3060: 2277: 2255: 2231: 2181: 2067: 2035: 1778: 1714: 1692: 1685: 1668: 1600: 1504: 1152: 756: 1185: 1171: 2769:

supposed to be "here's some examples". They are supposed to be "read this article, and you'll learn more about the subject" and I'm skeptical that reading

2705:: "This would seem a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect... Kasich is the Cliff Claven of politics, delusional about his own place at the table." 2457: 1618: 808: 794: 780: 727: 163: 765:

time to actually add to the article, cover the person in the context of two events: #1 Wheeler's bank robberies #2 Dunning's research inspired by Wheeler

1859: 2966: 2945:, i.e. intelligence versus stupidity, but the body makes it clear that this is about knowledge, experience, wisdom, education, skill, versus ignorance. 2526: 2392: 437: 423: 408: 393: 379: 291:

If that is the case then this entire stub is just another instance of wikipedia fact laundering and it should be deleted as well as the authors banned.

2672: 2199: 1476:

Your punning mis-spelling is noted and applauded. Given FN's apparent objective being to kick common sense around its legs, it's highly appropriate.

592:

beyond the robberies which are briefly mentioned in the D-K paper. The article you have created gives the impression - intentional or not - of being a

115: 2915: 361: 346: 2905:

Like an auditor spotting a single gross falsehood on a ledger, this sort of wild nonsense makes me want to look MUCH more closely at everything else.

2373: 1636: 813: 3097: 1425: 1282: 818: 966: 2254:

The date of the research was completely out of place directly in the middle of the paragraph that was explaining the diagnosis to the affliction.

1691:

The date of the research was completely out of place directly in the middle of the paragraph that was explaining the diagnosis to the affliction.

2849: 1784: 659: 3166: 3004: 2554:

How about including the socratic paradox? It easily predates the other European versions (but not Confucius) and is to my mind more memorable.

2248: 2163: 1882: 1163: 1023:

I added religious knowledge to the historical section. Sorry about all the intermediate changes. They were for spelling mistakes and typos.

1096: 643:

Otherwise, please delete the statement from the article as speculation, and stop using it as justification for the notability of the subject.

3028: 2636: 1498: 1450: 1435:

PLEASE fix the link. Every time I paste it on social media the other end of the link fails and I get an article about a city named Dunning.

1156: 941: 97:

Why does the quote from Bertrand Russel lead to a secondary source? The linked paper also does not have a reference to the original source.

443: 323: 2786: 2680: 2437: 2332:

I trust that any editor contemplating further edits/reversions of this type to the paragraph will engage discussion here before doing so.

1769:

I trust that any editor contemplating further edits/reversions of this type to the paragraph will engage discussion here before doing so.

251: 2452: 454:, the article is made stronger by limiting the parallels and analogies and focusing on the scientific elements so that these stand out. 2172:

Thank you for bringing this up for discussion. I agree with your position, which seems to be a straightforward issue of clear writing.

2024: 1991:

Furthermore, if we used hyphens, what would we do when one of the codiscoverers themselves has a hyphenated, double-barrelled surname?

1609:

Thank you for bringing this up for discussion. I agree with your position, which seems to be a straightforward issue of clear writing.

1470: 370:

their relative competence" part of the quote. It's about the other class of people putting themselves down the ladder, so to speak. —

2801: 1791:

the Dunning-Kruger research showed that "it's not that you're ignorant, and also happen to be over-confident. You're ignorant, and it

975:

To many users, this appears in the URL as %E2%80%93 instead of –. This just came up in a talk about what not to do on your websites.

2830: 2666: 3065:

Thank you, EEng. Caltrop, that was a juvenile outburst. Is that the way you want to present yourself in a discussion of your edits?

1065:

My writing is unusual, please welcome the TomRiddle in a spirit of good humour, even though the consideration is extremely serious.

123:

talk page, it's important that this kind of thing is sourced as being relevant, rather than just being "this reminds me of a story"

81: 76: 71: 59: 1986: 910:) And, also consider that somehow, some people who lack skills, DO have the ability to recognize that they lack those skills. 196:

No longer have the references, but apparently about 90% of people believe that their ability to drive a car is "above average".

2470:

The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt

1923: 1072: 899:

Or does the Dunning-Kruger include only the former case? Possibly, the latter case is described by "The curse of knowledge"? (

1889: 544: 2816:

Kruger. ... The reason Cliff Clavin (of Cheers fame) was so funny as a character is that he was the embodiment of this effect.

2355: 2079: 1516: 2558: 982: 2807: 2841: 1949: 1831: 1442: 1417: 1394: 1315: 1297: 1274: 107: 2921:

Can you clarify what you are trying to talk about? Or are you offering a contemporary example of manufacturing outrage? --

2351:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2429: 2016: 1874: 1124: 1116: 917: 757:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1129&dat=19960321&id=ZNlRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=DXADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6777,3720310

558: 2936: 1462: 1088: 243: 2977: 3193: 2957: 1982: 625: 428:

Isn't this kind of human behavior misleading in the first place? This article just describes it, nothing more. :) —

2146:

By moving sentence 2 to the end of the paragraph, it now appears that we are discussing the results of the research

1583:

By moving sentence 2 to the end of the paragraph, it now appears that we are discussing the results of the research

3176:

in the air when such constructions are used, because it's not likely that any editor of gaggle of editors reviewed

2854: 742: 2388: 2029: 1148: 819:

http://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2010/07/07/what-the-dunning-kruger-effect-is-and-isnt/comment-page-1/#comment-1555

2462:

Probably it would be illustrative of the fact that the notion precedes the study to add the famous quotation by

2702: 1919: 903:) And if not the "The curse of knowledge", what other descriptive term could be used, for the latter case? 761:

He was also mentioned in the 1996 Almanac where Dunning found him. Jay Dubya (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

92: 47: 17: 849: 660:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/the-anosognosics-dilemma-1/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

878: 459: 2134:

The bias was first experimentally observed by David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University in 1999.

2106:

The bias was first experimentally observed by David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University in 1999.

1571:

The bias was first experimentally observed by David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University in 1999.

1543:

The bias was first experimentally observed by David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University in 1999.

1873:

It's unlikely that valuable edits will be made to this page from anonymous users, so I suggest locking. --

2671:

My opinion is that this article is for the concept rather than any particular examples, however fitting.

1230: 1018: 1799:

question that you used to answer the questions on the test." "This is the double curse," said Dunning.

1461:

It should be noted that almost the entirety of Fox News is a shinning real life example of this effect.

874: 308: 267: 181: 38: 2494:

Search the past discussions to check, but I believe the consensus is that we shouldn't do so to avoid

737: 3172:

It's best to avoid generalization like "most", even if they're supportable. There's always a hint of

3162: 3070: 3000: 2484: 2219: 1656: 1137: 986: 442:

The article is about a set of psychology experiments reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal (

2902:. Still, THAT would have to be a status granted NOT by Dunning or Krueger OR some Knowledge editor. 2845: 2835: 2813: 2623: 2378: 2259: 1953: 1696: 1421: 1398: 1319: 1301: 1278: 455: 3024: 2502:

problems unless we have a reliable source that makes the connection between D-K and the quote. --

2020: 1864: 1060: 1050: 648: 633: 601: 562: 495: 384:

My explanation would also have people with true ability underestimate their relative competence.

282: 220: 2448: 2337: 1996: 1774: 1009: 215:

and is discussed in that article. I'm not aware of D-K type research being applied to driving.

3190: 3111: 2971: 2954: 2911: 2782: 2676: 2367: 1978: 1073:

https://news.vice.com/article/no-volcanoes-are-not-the-primary-cause-for-the-melting-ice-caps

1002: 956: 870: 747: 263: 177: 173: 3158: 3129: 3066: 2996: 2926: 2685: 2649: 2480: 2425: 2215: 2177: 1945: 1652: 1614: 1479: 1438: 1430: 1413: 1144: 1084: 1026: 978: 830: 804: 790: 776: 723: 672: 615: 535: 239: 212: 201: 103: 433: 404: 375: 8: 2619: 1240: 1181: 2587:

quote below, which seems to be describing the opposite of the Dunning-Kruger effect). --

262:

phrase used by people to make their baseless homespun "theories" sound authoritative. --

3090: 3086: 3020: 2592: 2541: 2522: 2358:

is the edit, still unexplained and about a month after the discussion here took place.

1046: 644: 629: 597: 593: 491: 296: 278: 230: 216: 144: 366:

Hello there! In fact it does, please re-read the "people with true ability tended to

2797: 2444: 2413: 2333: 1992: 1897: 1770: 1167: 1006: 451: 159: 134:

just referenced to a primary source, and that seems to be because Dunning and Kruger

1964:: "Use an en dash for the names of two or more entities in an attributive compound: 3184: 3107: 2948: 2907: 2826: 2778: 2773:

is going to teach me much more about the Dunning–Kruger effect. I suppose it might.

2714: 2662: 2640: 2583:, and could easily drift into including unchecked bad examples (like the suggested 2463: 2360: 2211: 1973: 1648: 1456: 952: 585: 554: 550: 419: 389: 357: 319: 259: 1311: 3125: 3054: 2922: 2614:: "Seems to me, Trot, as how the more we know, the more we find we don't know.... 2302: 2265: 2243: 2173: 2158: 2008: 1739: 1702: 1680: 1610: 1595: 998: 826: 800: 786: 772: 719: 668: 611: 589: 579: 531: 197: 2616:

Those as knows the least have a habit of thinkin' they know all there is to know

2499: 1113: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2507: 2403: 2195: 1888:

I've noticed the recent spam/vandalism too. The procedure for this is to go to

1855: 1632: 1337: 1177: 341: 2633: 2632:

Not sure how, but would love to have a way to link this video in the article:

743:

http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/comment/articles/2014-01/10/stupidity-for-dummies

2887: 2588: 2537: 2518: 1914: 1907: 1270: 1209: 1081:"A study showed You can only understand for Yourself if I first explain..." 799:

Done. Feel free to include more material from the Wheeler article in here. --

696: 447: 292: 140: 2736:

maybe be a better link and more directly bearing on the subject? After all,

1110: 3173: 3034:

Well, since we're trotting out pedigrees, Charles, I went to the "Harvard"

2793: 2770: 2737: 2691: 2580: 2495: 1928: 1893: 584:

I really don't think there is a justification for a separate article about

155: 124: 840:

New article by Dunning on his research program with links to other authors

2822: 2733: 2726: 2658: 906:

More confusion is introduced if you consider the "Impostor Syndrome". (

484: 429: 415: 400: 385: 371: 353: 315: 2882:

Kruger rather than some (objective?) other party awarding the accolade.

3049: 2298: 2239: 2154: 1961: 1735: 1676: 1591: 1332:

I think "in which" is an improvement. I'm not sure about the latter. --

172:

For the original wording and source of the Bertrand Russell quote, see

2422:

I suggest whoever wrote this has never worked for a Chinese company.

2324:

during that time despite a continued presence editing elsewhere on WP.

1761:

during that time despite a continued presence editing elsewhere on WP.

3094: 2861: 2777:

Taken altogether, I'm inclined to not include the link, for my part.

2503: 2399: 2191: 1851: 1628: 1333: 337: 329:

No. From the article: "Meanwhile, people with true ability tended to

2821:

effect" with scholarly citations I would not have a problem with. -

2555: 2013: 2899: 738:

http://nypost.com/2010/05/23/why-losers-have-delusions-of-grandeur/

3093:

is a policy on Knowledge, so consider yourself warned. Do better.

951:

Unless they are cases that satisfy the notability guidelines, no.

2891: 1071:

This is where I heard about the study, it was used in a mean way

732:

Copying and pasting relevant concerns from the other page here:

3085:

It was a fair question that did not merit the uncivil response,

2995:

What, specifically, have been the weasel words in this article?

931:

I've started to notice Dunning-Kruger being used as a pejorative

2477: 1114:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Paul_Graham_(computer_programmer)#Blub

1239:

has been reverted (without any explanation), but according to

2895: 888:

Could someone clarify the SCOPE of the Dunning-Kruger Effect?

856:. Miller-McCune Center for Research, Media, and Public Policy 2988:

Collapse opening volley, to facilitate productive discussion

900: 1892:

and make a request, there are instructions on that page. --

1243:

our articles should be clear, which is exactly what I did.

907: 2873:

fallacy". I find such attempts intellectually disgusting.

2038:

chose to reverse the agreed upon version back in January:

1078:

winners and losers, not so much point out the difference.

748:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/4755925/Netlife.html

2517:

memorize. I'm thankful that the dash redirects properly.

1942:

Anyone with the slightest hint of typographical aptitude

1176:

Anybody can revert too! Dunning edits, Kruger reverts. ~

2744:

The "See also" section is kind of long, with 16 entries.

2262:) 18:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)JustHelping614 11/04/2015 1699:) 18:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)JustHelping614 11/04/2015 1346:

Thank you for your support. It was very important to me.

1111:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

610:

I created this article 72 hours ago. This is premature.

192:

Great example - one's skill in driving a motor vehicle.

2980:

and others around that time in the revision history.

844:

I saw a new popular article today by David Dunning,

2758:

And examples can be a good learning tool: "Oh, like

2051:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

258:

It is argued that "it is argued that" is a bullshit

2556:

https://en.wikipedia.org/I_know_that_I_know_nothing

526:

Added reference to the Inspiration for the Research

2443:It totally sounds like Japanese culture, though. 2034:The following has been restored as I noticed that 1190:Hey 2003 called, they're wondering where you are. 1310:Correction: Of course vandalism is deliberate by 2058:Community agreed to restore the "before" version 2398:Ref 5, "The Anosognosic's Dilemma..." does. -- 1103:Recommend a link to article on the Blub paradox 506:Incomplete Introduction? (Causes for this bias) 2879:The phenomenon was first observed ... in 1999 2210:arrangement fits better with my sense of the 2054:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 1647:arrangement fits better with my sense of the 626:Talk:McArthur_Wheeler#Notability_and_Citation 624:Jaydubya, I've just read your explanation at 2755:still pretty well-known, among older people. 2694:should be a link in the "See also" section. 2458:Add famous quotations that support the idea? 444:Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2634:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU 901:http://en.wikipedia.org/Curse_of_knowledge 908:http://en.wikipedia.org/Impostor_syndrome 814:David Dunning Publicly Cites this Article 1005:(with a hyphen) properly links here. — 967:Title should use a hyphen, not an n-dash 869:in collaboration with other editors. -- 2712:just a blog, albeit under the aegis of 2083:, with sentences separated for clarity 1520:, with sentences separated for clarity 1192:2001:44B8:2175:CD00:98C7:97BE:5502:B845 847: 682:for inclusion. Let's address them here. 14: 2941:Lead suggests this is about cognitive 2690:Editors are discussing whether or not 1890:Knowledge:Requests for page protection 1484:2602:304:AE26:7CD9:2104:918F:AB76:6FFB 1217:2601:18A:8100:33E0:6167:5CAA:AE97:7674 513:2A02:8071:30A:4F00:BE5F:F4FF:FEA6:C2A9 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1499:Order of sentences in first paragraph 1350:Look at Google Books search results: 2045:The following discussion is closed. 25: 1031:2601:C2:4001:E302:807F:AD1F:FF3:A2F 938:AzazelswolfsuperPUAwithacherryontop 23: 2236:do you have any comments? Thanks. 1785:'This American Life' radio segment 1673:do you have any comments? Thanks. 848:Dunning, David (27 October 2014). 24: 3214: 2295:raised by other editors. Thanks. 2014:http://danluu.com/dunning-kruger/ 1732:raised by other editors. Thanks. 553:be merged/redirected to here per 2732:But while we're at it, wouldn't 2347:The discussion above is closed. 1162:Got a reliable source for that? 29: 2264:– preceding comment moved from 1701:– preceding comment moved from 1416:for acceptance of my edits :-) 1354:"much higher than it really is" 127:from passing Knowledge editors. 1967:the Seifert–van Kampen theorem 1824: 1361:"much higher than is accurate" 1123:) 18:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC) 809:21:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC) 545:Merge McArthur Wheeler to here 225:13:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC) 206:09:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC) 164:13:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC) 13: 1: 2765:But "See also" links are not 2342:04:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC) 2144:described in the right order. 1779:04:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC) 1581:described in the right order. 1492:03:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC) 1451:23:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC) 1273:inappropriate for Knowledge? 961:08:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC) 850:"We Are All Confident Idiots" 438:04:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC) 424:04:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC) 409:02:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC) 394:02:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC) 380:01:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC) 362:21:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC) 347:16:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC) 324:13:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC) 272:01:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC) 186:01:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC) 2681:08:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC) 2667:07:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC) 2453:03:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC) 2438:23:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC) 2308:16:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC) 2270:16:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC) 2249:00:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC) 2224:21:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC) 2200:20:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC) 2182:20:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC) 2164:19:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC) 1745:16:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC) 1707:16:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC) 1686:00:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC) 1661:21:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC) 1637:20:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC) 1619:20:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC) 1601:19:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC) 1471:14:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC) 1426:09:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC) 1403:00:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC) 1342:00:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC) 1324:09:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC) 1306:00:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC) 1283:23:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC) 1225:12:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC) 1200:07:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC) 946:02:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC) 926:00:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC) 883:21:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC) 521:21:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC) 464:10:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC) 252:19:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC) 7: 2869:and "a special case of the 2645:12:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC) 2408:19:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC) 2393:19:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC) 1186:07:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC) 1172:00:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC) 1157:17:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC) 1133:19:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC) 10: 3219: 2937:Lead and body do not agree 2931:18:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC) 2850:09:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC) 1860:16:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC) 1013:18:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC) 972:looking for this article. 835:21:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC) 795:18:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC) 781:18:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC) 728:17:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC) 677:16:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC) 653:16:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC) 638:16:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC) 620:16:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC) 606:16:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC) 567:08:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC) 540:14:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC) 500:16:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC) 287:15:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC) 154:referenced to the paper. 136:did not note the relevance 18:Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect 3203:20:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC) 3167:11:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC) 3134:10:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC) 3116:09:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC) 3098:06:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC) 3075:01:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC) 3061:01:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC) 3029:01:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC) 2976:See edit summary in this 2967:20:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC) 2916:16:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC) 2831:20:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC) 2802:20:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC) 2787:18:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC) 2374:21:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC) 2076: 2025:14:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC) 2001:03:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC) 1832:"In Defense of Ignorance" 1513: 1380:"cognitive bias in which" 991:23:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC) 149:11:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC) 130:The Charles Darwin quote 3005:19:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC) 2855:flaws remain fundamental 2697:Here are some thoughts: 2628:02:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC) 2610:, one of the sequels to 2597:08:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC) 2567:10:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC) 2546:22:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC) 2527:17:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC) 2512:16:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC) 2489:09:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC) 2349:Please do not modify it. 2048:Please do not modify it. 1987:04:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC) 1387:"cognitive bias wherein" 1296:, though in good faith. 1097:13:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC) 1055:22:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC) 1039:22:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC) 301:15:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC) 116:17:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC) 2476:<From Wikiquote: --> 2071:reverting yet again. 1 2030:restore earlier problem 1924:11:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC) 1902:16:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC) 1883:07:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC) 2867:an appeal to hypocrisy 1969: 1816: 211:This is an example of 93:Bertrand Russell quote 2385:Richardson mcphillips 2122:Dunning–Kruger effect 2100:Dunning–Kruger effect 1965: 1788: 1559:Dunning–Kruger effect 1537:Dunning–Kruger effect 1508:reverting yet again. 1003:Dunning-Kruger effect 446:) with a substantial 42:of past discussions. 2701:There is reference, 1956:) 07:31 26 May 2016‎ 1414:User:Just plain Bill 1145:elephant in the room 213:illusory superiority 2608:The Scarecrow of Oz 1231:Unjustified revert. 1019:Religious Knowledge 456:Richard I. Cook, MD 2291:, and address the 1933:Dear sirs/madams, 1728:, and address the 1292:was just mindless 1290:destructive revert 1227:Michael Christian 309:Easier explanation 3143: 3142: 2810:national lexicon. 2440: 2428:comment added by 2272: 2141: 2140: 1957: 1948:comment added by 1939:Yours sincerely, 1709: 1578: 1577: 1494: 1482:comment added by 1453: 1441:comment added by 1262:much higher than 1255:much higher than 1138:Knowledge itself? 1099: 1087:comment added by 1041: 1029:comment added by 993: 981:comment added by 452:Portal:Psychology 345: 242:comment added by 106:comment added by 87: 86: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3210: 3201: 3057: 3052: 2984: 2983: 2965: 2886:on the order of 2836:Links to Authors 2762:, now I get it!" 2715:American Thinker 2612:The Wizard of Oz 2464:Bertrand Russell 2423: 2379:title of article 2372: 2370: 2365: 2306: 2281: 2263: 2247: 2235: 2212:inverted pyramid 2162: 2135: 2107: 2082: 2074: 2073: 2050: 1976: 1943: 1870:effect is a..." 1843: 1842: 1840: 1838: 1828: 1743: 1718: 1700: 1684: 1672: 1649:inverted pyramid 1599: 1572: 1544: 1519: 1511: 1510: 1477: 1436: 1412:Thanks a lot to 1392: 1366: 1249:" clearer than " 1082: 1024: 976: 871:WeijiBaikeBianji 865: 863: 861: 854:Pacific Standard 586:McArthur Wheeler 583: 551:McArthur Wheeler 488: 344: 335: 264:Florian Blaschke 254: 178:Florian Blaschke 118: 68: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3218: 3217: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3209: 3208: 3207: 3199: 3182: 3159:Just plain Bill 3144: 3067:Just plain Bill 3055: 3050: 2997:Just plain Bill 2989: 2974: 2963: 2946: 2939: 2857: 2838: 2688: 2652: 2559:130.183.100.115 2474: 2460: 2416: 2381: 2368: 2361: 2359: 2353: 2352: 2296: 2293:specific points 2275: 2266:User talk:Wdchk 2237: 2229: 2216:Just plain Bill 2152: 2133: 2105: 2078: 2064: 2046: 2032: 2011: 1971: 1931: 1922: 1910: 1867: 1865:Suggest locking 1848: 1847: 1846: 1836: 1834: 1830: 1829: 1825: 1787: 1733: 1730:specific points 1712: 1703:User talk:Wdchk 1674: 1666: 1653:Just plain Bill 1589: 1570: 1542: 1515: 1501: 1459: 1433: 1390: 1364: 1233: 1212: 1140: 1105: 1063: 1061:congratulations 1021: 983:199.241.200.248 969: 933: 890: 859: 857: 842: 816: 577: 547: 528: 508: 482: 336: 311: 237: 233: 194: 101: 95: 64: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3216: 3206: 3205: 3197: 3179: 3150: 3149: 3145: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3119: 3118: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3045: 3044: 3040: 3039: 3012: 3011: 2991: 2990: 2987: 2982: 2973: 2970: 2961: 2944: 2938: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2906: 2856: 2853: 2842:81.140.181.108 2837: 2834: 2818: 2817: 2811: 2775: 2774: 2763: 2756: 2749: 2745: 2742: 2730: 2719: 2706: 2687: 2684: 2651: 2648: 2620:HandsomeMrToad 2604: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2549: 2548: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2467: 2459: 2456: 2415: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2380: 2377: 2363:Mr.choppers | 2346: 2345: 2344: 2330: 2326: 2325: 2320: 2319: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2278:JustHelping614 2256:JustHelping614 2232:JustHelping614 2227: 2226: 2203: 2202: 2185: 2184: 2145: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2131: 2128: 2125: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2111: 2108: 2103: 2093: 2092: 2089: 2085: 2084: 2068:JustHelping614 2063: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2041: 2040: 2036:JustHelping614 2031: 2028: 2010: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 1950:90.208.136.139 1930: 1927: 1918: 1909: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1866: 1863: 1845: 1844: 1822: 1821: 1817: 1786: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1767: 1763: 1762: 1757: 1756: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1715:JustHelping614 1693:JustHelping614 1669:JustHelping614 1664: 1663: 1640: 1639: 1622: 1621: 1582: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1568: 1565: 1562: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1548: 1545: 1540: 1530: 1529: 1526: 1522: 1521: 1505:JustHelping614 1500: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1458: 1455: 1443:24.160.165.100 1432: 1429: 1418:85.193.232.158 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1395:85.193.232.158 1393: 1384: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1358: 1348: 1347: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1316:85.193.232.158 1298:85.193.232.158 1275:85.193.232.158 1268: 1244: 1232: 1229: 1211: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1139: 1136: 1104: 1101: 1062: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1020: 1017: 1016: 1015: 968: 965: 964: 963: 932: 929: 889: 886: 841: 838: 815: 812: 715: 714: 711: 701: 700: 692: 691: 690: 689: 688: 687: 686: 685: 684: 683: 665: 662: 640: 588:because he is 546: 543: 527: 524: 507: 504: 503: 502: 480: 479: 478: 477: 476: 475: 474: 473: 472: 471: 470: 469: 468: 467: 466: 310: 307: 306: 305: 304: 303: 274: 232: 229: 228: 227: 193: 190: 189: 188: 169: 168: 167: 166: 128: 108:207.229.179.81 94: 91: 89: 85: 84: 79: 74: 69: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3215: 3204: 3195: 3192: 3189: 3187: 3177: 3175: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3168: 3164: 3160: 3154: 3147: 3146: 3135: 3131: 3127: 3123: 3122: 3121: 3120: 3117: 3113: 3109: 3105: 3104: 3099: 3096: 3092: 3088: 3087:Chas. Caltrop 3084: 3083: 3082: 3081: 3076: 3072: 3068: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3059: 3058: 3053: 3047: 3046: 3042: 3041: 3037: 3033: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3026: 3022: 3021:Chas. Caltrop 3018: 3015: 3009: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3002: 2998: 2993: 2992: 2986: 2985: 2981: 2979: 2972:Weasel words? 2969: 2968: 2959: 2956: 2953: 2951: 2942: 2932: 2928: 2924: 2920: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2913: 2909: 2903: 2901: 2897: 2893: 2889: 2883: 2880: 2874: 2872: 2868: 2864: 2863: 2852: 2851: 2847: 2843: 2833: 2832: 2828: 2824: 2814: 2812: 2808: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2799: 2795: 2789: 2788: 2784: 2780: 2772: 2768: 2764: 2761: 2757: 2754: 2750: 2746: 2743: 2739: 2735: 2731: 2728: 2724: 2720: 2717: 2716: 2711: 2707: 2704: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2695: 2693: 2683: 2682: 2678: 2674: 2669: 2668: 2664: 2660: 2655: 2647: 2646: 2642: 2638: 2635: 2630: 2629: 2625: 2621: 2617: 2613: 2609: 2598: 2594: 2590: 2586: 2582: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2575: 2574: 2573: 2568: 2564: 2560: 2557: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2547: 2543: 2539: 2534: 2533: 2528: 2524: 2520: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2509: 2505: 2501: 2497: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2486: 2482: 2478: 2473: 2471: 2466: 2465: 2455: 2454: 2450: 2446: 2441: 2439: 2435: 2431: 2430:113.29.24.164 2427: 2421: 2409: 2405: 2401: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2390: 2386: 2376: 2375: 2371: 2366: 2364: 2357: 2350: 2343: 2339: 2335: 2331: 2328: 2327: 2322: 2321: 2318: 2315: 2314: 2309: 2304: 2300: 2294: 2290: 2286: 2279: 2274: 2273: 2271: 2267: 2261: 2257: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2245: 2241: 2233: 2225: 2221: 2217: 2213: 2209: 2205: 2204: 2201: 2197: 2193: 2190: 2187: 2186: 2183: 2179: 2175: 2171: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2160: 2156: 2149: 2132: 2129: 2126: 2123: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2112: 2109: 2104: 2101: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2090: 2087: 2086: 2081: 2075: 2072: 2069: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2052: 2049: 2043: 2042: 2039: 2037: 2027: 2026: 2022: 2018: 2017:62.64.152.154 2015: 2002: 1998: 1994: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1984: 1980: 1975: 1968: 1963: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1940: 1937: 1934: 1926: 1925: 1921: 1916: 1903: 1899: 1895: 1891: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1880: 1876: 1875:72.208.57.164 1871: 1862: 1861: 1857: 1853: 1833: 1827: 1823: 1820: 1815: 1813: 1808: 1803: 1800: 1798: 1794: 1780: 1776: 1772: 1768: 1765: 1764: 1759: 1758: 1755: 1752: 1751: 1746: 1741: 1737: 1731: 1727: 1723: 1716: 1711: 1710: 1708: 1704: 1698: 1694: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1682: 1678: 1670: 1662: 1658: 1654: 1650: 1646: 1642: 1641: 1638: 1634: 1630: 1627: 1624: 1623: 1620: 1616: 1612: 1608: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1597: 1593: 1586: 1569: 1566: 1563: 1560: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1549: 1546: 1541: 1538: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1527: 1524: 1523: 1518: 1512: 1509: 1506: 1493: 1489: 1485: 1481: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1468: 1464: 1454: 1452: 1448: 1444: 1440: 1428: 1427: 1423: 1419: 1415: 1404: 1400: 1396: 1388: 1385: 1381: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1362: 1359: 1355: 1352: 1351: 1349: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1330: 1325: 1321: 1317: 1313: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1303: 1299: 1295: 1291: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1271:plain English 1266: 1265: 1259: 1258: 1252: 1248: 1242: 1238: 1228: 1226: 1222: 1218: 1201: 1197: 1193: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1183: 1179: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1135: 1134: 1130: 1126: 1125:68.35.173.107 1122: 1118: 1117:68.35.173.107 1115: 1112: 1108: 1100: 1098: 1094: 1090: 1086: 1079: 1075: 1074: 1069: 1066: 1056: 1052: 1048: 1047:William Avery 1044: 1043: 1042: 1040: 1036: 1032: 1028: 1014: 1011: 1008: 1004: 1000: 996: 995: 994: 992: 988: 984: 980: 973: 962: 958: 954: 950: 949: 948: 947: 943: 939: 928: 927: 923: 919: 918:68.35.173.107 915: 911: 909: 904: 902: 897: 894: 885: 884: 880: 876: 872: 866: 855: 851: 845: 837: 836: 832: 828: 824: 821: 820: 811: 810: 806: 802: 797: 796: 792: 788: 783: 782: 778: 774: 769: 766: 762: 759: 758: 752: 749: 744: 739: 733: 730: 729: 725: 721: 712: 709: 708: 707: 705: 698: 697:Seung-Hui Cho 694: 693: 680: 679: 678: 674: 670: 666: 663: 661: 656: 655: 654: 650: 646: 645:MartinPoulter 641: 639: 635: 631: 630:MartinPoulter 627: 623: 622: 621: 617: 613: 609: 608: 607: 603: 599: 598:MartinPoulter 595: 591: 587: 581: 575: 571: 570: 569: 568: 564: 560: 559:183.89.164.87 556: 552: 542: 541: 537: 533: 523: 522: 518: 514: 501: 497: 493: 492:MartinPoulter 486: 481: 465: 461: 457: 453: 449: 448:Impact factor 445: 441: 440: 439: 435: 431: 427: 426: 425: 421: 417: 412: 411: 410: 406: 402: 397: 396: 395: 391: 387: 383: 382: 381: 377: 373: 369: 368:underestimate 365: 364: 363: 359: 355: 350: 349: 348: 343: 339: 332: 331:underestimate 328: 327: 326: 325: 321: 317: 302: 298: 294: 290: 289: 288: 284: 280: 279:MartinPoulter 275: 273: 269: 265: 261: 257: 256: 255: 253: 249: 245: 241: 226: 222: 218: 217:MartinPoulter 214: 210: 209: 208: 207: 203: 199: 187: 183: 179: 175: 171: 170: 165: 161: 157: 152: 151: 150: 146: 142: 137: 133: 129: 126: 121: 120: 119: 117: 113: 109: 105: 98: 90: 83: 80: 78: 75: 73: 70: 67: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3185: 3178:every single 3155: 3151: 3048: 3035: 3019: 3016: 3013: 2994: 2975: 2949: 2940: 2904: 2888:Murphy's Law 2884: 2878: 2875: 2870: 2866: 2860: 2858: 2839: 2819: 2790: 2776: 2771:Cliff Clavin 2766: 2759: 2752: 2738:Cliff Clavin 2722: 2713: 2709: 2696: 2692:Cliff Clavin 2689: 2686:Cliff Clavin 2670: 2656: 2653: 2650:Donald Trump 2631: 2615: 2611: 2607: 2605: 2585:Wizard of Oz 2584: 2475: 2469: 2468: 2461: 2445:Tabbycatlove 2442: 2424:— Preceding 2418: 2417: 2382: 2362: 2354: 2348: 2334:Twistlethrop 2316: 2292: 2288: 2284: 2228: 2207: 2188: 2169: 2147: 2142: 2121: 2099: 2065: 2053: 2047: 2044: 2033: 2012: 1993:Double sharp 1966: 1944:— Preceding 1941: 1938: 1935: 1932: 1911: 1872: 1868: 1849: 1835:. Retrieved 1826: 1818: 1814:conditions?" 1811: 1806: 1804: 1801: 1796: 1792: 1789: 1771:Twistlethrop 1753: 1729: 1725: 1721: 1665: 1644: 1625: 1606: 1584: 1579: 1558: 1536: 1502: 1478:— Preceding 1463:83.41.246.36 1460: 1437:— Preceding 1434: 1431:Pasting link 1411: 1386: 1379: 1360: 1353: 1293: 1289: 1264:it really is 1263: 1261: 1256: 1254: 1250: 1246: 1241:WP:GUIDELINE 1234: 1213: 1141: 1109: 1106: 1089:98.124.17.85 1083:— Preceding 1080: 1076: 1070: 1067: 1064: 1025:— Preceding 1022: 1007:Arthur Rubin 977:— Preceding 974: 970: 934: 916: 912: 905: 898: 895: 891: 867: 858:. Retrieved 853: 846: 843: 825: 823:Good work. 822: 817: 798: 784: 770: 767: 763: 760: 753: 734: 731: 716: 703: 702: 573: 548: 529: 509: 367: 330: 312: 244:64.105.86.26 238:— Preceding 234: 195: 135: 131: 102:— Preceding 99: 96: 88: 65: 43: 37: 3186:SMcCandlish 3108:Hob Gadling 3091:WP:CIVILITY 2950:SMcCandlish 2908:Weeb Dingle 2779:Herostratus 2734:know-it-all 2729:, no doubt. 2727:know-it-all 2721:But Clavin 2673:AHusain3141 2080:these edits 1974:Finnusertop 1517:these edits 1257:is accurate 953:Jason Quinn 594:WP:COATRACK 590:not notable 36:This is an 3126:Epipelagic 3036:of Harvard 2923:Epipelagic 2871:ad hominem 2268:by Wdchk, 2174:Reify-tech 2077:Effect of 1962:MOS:ENDASH 1819:References 1705:by Wdchk, 1611:Reify-tech 1514:Effect of 1312:definition 879:how I edit 860:28 October 801:Harizotoh9 580:Jaydubya93 549:I propose 532:Jaydubya93 231:Real term? 198:Old_Wombat 3017:Regards, 2862:tu quoque 2708:But that 2500:WP:NOT#OR 2414:East Asia 1294:vandalism 1178:juanTamad 1149:5.81.1.23 827:Jay Dubya 787:Jay Dubya 773:Jay Dubya 720:Jay Dubya 669:Jay Dubya 612:Jay Dubya 555:WP:PSEUDO 260:WP:WEASEL 174:Wikiquote 82:Archive 5 77:Archive 4 72:Archive 3 66:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 3043:Regards, 2900:aphorism 2794:Tom Ruen 2748:obscure. 2589:McGeddon 2538:McGeddon 2519:Sadsaque 2426:unsigned 2066:I asked 1983:contribs 1946:unsigned 1837:22 April 1503:I asked 1480:unsigned 1457:Fox News 1439:unsigned 1260:" than " 1253:", or " 1251:in which 1085:unsigned 1027:unsigned 999:WP:NDASH 979:unsigned 293:Bigred58 240:unsigned 141:McGeddon 104:unsigned 3010:A reply 2943:ability 2892:epigram 2767:exactly 2751:But he 2420:others. 2189:Before. 2170:Before. 2009:mention 1894:Krelnik 1626:Before. 1607:Before. 1247:wherein 1164:Banedon 574:support 156:Brunton 39:archive 2823:Scarpy 2760:Clavin 2741:forth. 2659:Mlewan 2637:Oathed 2317:Before 2208:before 2148:before 2091:After 2088:Before 1810:under 1807:aren't 1754:Before 1645:before 1585:before 1528:After 1525:Before 1389:=: --> 1382:=: --> 1363:=: --> 1356:=: --> 1010:(talk) 576:this. 485:Eiad77 430:Dsimic 416:Eiad77 401:Dsimic 386:Eiad77 372:Dsimic 354:Eiad77 316:Eiad77 3174:WP:OR 3148:Reset 2978:diff, 2896:adage 2890:, an 2606:From 2581:WP:OR 2496:WP:OR 2481:Godot 2299:Wdchk 2240:Wdchk 2155:Wdchk 1908:Graph 1812:those 1793:makes 1736:Wdchk 1677:Wdchk 1592:Wdchk 1357:1,130 1288:This 1210:Plato 125:WP:OR 16:< 3163:talk 3130:talk 3112:talk 3095:El_C 3071:talk 3025:talk 3001:talk 2927:talk 2912:talk 2846:talk 2827:talk 2798:talk 2783:talk 2703:Here 2677:talk 2663:talk 2641:talk 2624:talk 2593:talk 2563:talk 2542:talk 2523:talk 2508:talk 2504:Ronz 2485:talk 2449:talk 2434:talk 2404:talk 2400:Ronz 2389:talk 2356:Here 2338:talk 2303:talk 2289:soon 2285:here 2260:talk 2244:talk 2220:talk 2206:The 2196:talk 2192:Glrx 2178:talk 2159:talk 2120:The 2098:The 2021:talk 1997:talk 1979:talk 1954:talk 1929:Dash 1898:talk 1879:talk 1856:talk 1852:Ronz 1839:2016 1797:that 1775:talk 1740:talk 1726:soon 1722:here 1697:talk 1681:talk 1657:talk 1643:The 1633:talk 1629:Glrx 1615:talk 1596:talk 1557:The 1535:The 1488:talk 1467:talk 1447:talk 1422:talk 1399:talk 1383:1870 1338:talk 1334:Ronz 1320:talk 1302:talk 1279:talk 1245:Is " 1237:edit 1221:talk 1196:talk 1182:talk 1168:talk 1153:talk 1129:talk 1121:talk 1093:talk 1051:talk 1035:talk 997:See 987:talk 957:talk 942:talk 922:talk 875:talk 862:2014 831:talk 805:talk 791:talk 777:talk 724:talk 673:talk 649:talk 634:talk 616:talk 602:talk 563:talk 536:talk 517:talk 496:talk 460:talk 434:talk 420:talk 405:talk 390:talk 376:talk 358:talk 342:talk 338:TimL 320:talk 297:talk 283:talk 268:talk 248:talk 221:talk 202:talk 182:talk 160:talk 145:talk 112:talk 3200:ⱷ≼ 3196:≽ⱷ҅ 3056:Eng 2964:ⱷ≼ 2960:≽ⱷ҅ 2894:or 1970:." 1915:Ben 1269:Is 1235:My 1001:. 3183:— 3165:) 3132:) 3114:) 3089:. 3073:) 3027:) 3003:) 2947:— 2929:) 2914:) 2898:or 2865:, 2848:) 2829:) 2800:) 2785:) 2753:is 2725:a 2723:is 2710:is 2679:) 2665:) 2643:) 2626:) 2595:) 2565:) 2544:) 2536:-- 2525:) 2510:) 2487:) 2479:-- 2451:) 2436:) 2406:) 2391:) 2369:✎ 2340:) 2297:– 2287:, 2238:– 2222:) 2214:. 2198:) 2180:) 2153:– 2023:) 1999:) 1985:) 1981:⋅ 1972:– 1900:) 1881:) 1858:) 1777:) 1734:– 1724:, 1675:– 1659:) 1651:. 1635:) 1617:) 1590:– 1490:) 1469:) 1449:) 1424:) 1401:) 1391:87 1365:47 1340:) 1322:) 1314:. 1304:) 1281:) 1267:"? 1223:) 1198:) 1184:) 1170:) 1155:) 1147:. 1131:) 1095:) 1053:) 1037:) 989:) 959:) 944:) 924:) 881:) 877:, 852:. 833:) 807:) 793:) 779:) 726:) 675:) 651:) 636:) 618:) 604:) 572:I 565:) 557:. 538:) 519:) 498:) 462:) 436:) 422:) 407:) 399:— 392:) 378:) 360:) 340:• 322:) 299:) 285:) 270:) 250:) 223:) 204:) 184:) 162:) 147:) 139:-- 132:is 114:) 3198:ᴥ 3194:¢ 3191:☏ 3188:☺ 3161:( 3128:( 3110:( 3069:( 3051:E 3023:( 2999:( 2962:ᴥ 2958:¢ 2955:☏ 2952:☺ 2925:( 2910:( 2844:( 2825:( 2796:( 2781:( 2675:( 2661:( 2639:( 2622:( 2591:( 2561:( 2540:( 2521:( 2506:( 2498:/ 2483:( 2447:( 2432:( 2402:( 2387:( 2336:( 2305:) 2301:( 2280:: 2276:@ 2258:( 2246:) 2242:( 2234:: 2230:@ 2218:( 2194:( 2176:( 2161:) 2157:( 2019:( 1995:( 1977:( 1952:( 1920:C 1917:/ 1896:( 1877:( 1854:( 1841:. 1773:( 1742:) 1738:( 1717:: 1713:@ 1695:( 1683:) 1679:( 1671:: 1667:@ 1655:( 1631:( 1613:( 1598:) 1594:( 1486:( 1465:( 1445:( 1420:( 1397:( 1336:( 1318:( 1300:( 1277:( 1219:( 1194:( 1180:( 1166:( 1151:( 1127:( 1119:( 1091:( 1049:( 1033:( 985:( 955:( 940:( 920:( 873:( 864:. 829:( 803:( 789:( 775:( 722:( 671:( 647:( 632:( 614:( 600:( 582:: 578:@ 561:( 534:( 515:( 494:( 487:: 483:@ 458:( 432:( 418:( 403:( 388:( 374:( 356:( 318:( 295:( 281:( 266:( 246:( 219:( 200:( 180:( 158:( 143:( 110:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index