1261:, we can clearly see in the opening of the second paragraph that it is "regarded among academic circles because of its unsupported claims; popular belief in the practice of physiognomy is nonetheless still widespread". The same can be said of the DK effect insofar as the shapes of peoples heads differ and people self-evaluate inaccurately, but the differences in head shapes and self-evaluation errors do not provide the necessary support for their respective theories regarding ability, expertise, or experience. On the contrary, the empirical data when analyzed correctly falsifies them both equally, which in the final analysis is only method we have at our disposal. --
585:
564:
883:
1078:
479:
1808:
Zajenkowski since their position in relation to statistical artifacts and alternative explanations is already discussed in detail earlier. Given the page number, I don't think that a lengthy quote is required but feel free to restore it if you disagree. I also added page number for Nuhfer et al. 2016 but I not sure how relevant it is for that particular conclusion. My main remaining doubt would be that it's not clear that this specific individual study merits to be mentioned.
690:
904:
799:
669:
778:
264:
448:
2628:
1476:
effect in general. They primarily state that its magnitude is smaller than initially thought because part of it can be explained through statistics. You also have to be careful whether the studies in question assess the
Dunning-Kruger effect measured in relative terms or in absolute terms, as explained in the section "Measurement, analysis, and investigated tasks". Many only target the Dunning-Kruger effect measured in relative terms.
385:
312:
234:
988:
595:
2600:
2592:
2546:
2535:
2513:
2502:
1520:, I should think. I do agree that there are only very few exceptions to the rule that one should not revert a revert, but in this case "other party did not engage on talk page" is actually one of them. The reason is that since they don't reply on talk, there's simply no (D)iscussion on talk, and thus we can technically go back to (B)OLD and try again. It's not pretty but (sometimes) it works; and isn't that just
700:
1195:: "there is a delightful irony to the circumstances of their blunder. Here are two Ivy League professors arguing that unskilled people have a ‘dual burden’: not only are unskilled people ‘incompetent’ ... they are unaware of their own incompetence. In their seminal paper, Dunning and Kruger are the ones broadcasting their (statistical) incompetence by conflating autocorrelation for a psychological effect."
1248:. The outcome of previous discussions notwithstanding, the fact remains that the opening paragraphs of the introduction still fail to offer caveats regarding flaws in empirical methods used to support the claims, and instead tend to give credence to it based on its broad application and intuitive appeal. If anything, the only effect Dunning claims to have identified is the tendency for
809:
2566:
1747:: I don't think anyone disputes the effect shown in the diagram: if you ask people about how skilled they think they are and compare it with how skilled they actually are, you get the diagrams shown in the article. In this sense, there is an undisputed effect there. The disagreements are only about how to explain these diagrams.
1347:(Even if they didn't mess up their maths, they definitely did maths in a way that has been confusing to skilled scientists. They may have ended up confusing themselves, this seems plausible based on the cited sources. Either way, not Knowledge's battle: But for sure we can write that not everyone thinks the effect is real!)
1441:
corrected methods- they fail to replicate
Dunning-Krueger. The conclusion (very carefully and politely worded, as is proper) states that they expect that pretty much every Dunning-Krueger study will fall if subjected to more detailed scrutiny with the improved statistical methods we have available today.
1855:. This is true even if that overestimation is caused by regression to the mean: very incompetent people cannot underestimate their competence because their competence is already at the bottom, so they can only judge it correctly or overestimate it, which, on average, means that they overestimate it. --
1807:
Thanks for adding the page numbers, this helps. However, the quotes don't mention any specific statistically flawed studies so maybe we should not either. I reformulated the passage to be closer to the conclusion of the study and I removed the page needed tag. I also removed the mention of Gignac and
1475:
I removed the added passage for now. If you have suggestions on how to improve the section on the statistical effect then they are welcome. But it might be helpful to give the reliable sources cited there a close reading before. For example, Gignac 2020 do not deny the existence of the
Dunning-Kruger
1382:
in (among others) psychology, we're likely to see many papers like these going forward. Maybe I'm late to this party: is there standing
Knowledge policy when it comes to bad replications or methodological flaws? Else I'd just apply NPOV, and at least report that there have been reported issues with a
2771:
There are different ways to explain this but there are very few reliable sources that claim that there is nothing there. Even statistical explanations usually acknowledge this. For example, Gignac & Zajenkowski 2020 hold that statistics only explain some part of the effect and Nuhfer et al. 2017
1639:
On the basis of a sample ... contrary to the
Dunning-Kruger hypothesis. Additionally, the association ... contrary to the Dunning-Kruger hypothesis. It is concluded that, although the phenomenon described by the Dunning-Kruger hypothesis may be to some degree plausible for some skills, the magnitude
1440:
I sort of get why Gignac 2020 gets cited throughout: because it has a very thorough review. The thing is, Gignac et al do this thorough review so that they can then set up a very thorough attack. They follow it by their own empirical study with a very large sample size. In this empirical study -with
1405:
The lead section is supposed to summarize the body of the article. If you want to add new content to the article, it's usually best to add them first to the body of the article. If they are accepted, a later step might be to consider whether the new content is important enough to get a short mention
1332:
I looked into this, the archived discussion doesn't seem to be particularly convincing on why not to mention dissent here. The scientific articles quoted by Fix seem rather convincing (if not damning) on the maths. But I get that they haven't been cited as often as the
Dunning Kruger article they're
1187:
Simply put for any sample of test scores on a 0-10 scale, the likelihood that someone who scores 0 will overestimate the performance is necessarily higher than someone who scores 10. The reverse is also true: anyone who scores 10 will necessarily underestimate their performance more that someone who
1416:. For example "economicsfromthetopdown.com" is not a reliable source for the Dunning-Kruger effect. The body of the article already discusses the statistical explanation. So it might be best to read through it first and familiarize yourself with the sources cited there before adding new text to it.
1352:
So I might be a little rusty. What's the exact policy reasons for removal of each of the sources? The published papers demonstrate that you can get the
Dunning-Kruger graph from random noise (oops). The web source confirm-ably summarizes the papers, thus can usefully be seen as a secondary source.
2765:
Thanks for the efforts to improve the article. One difficulty with this topic is that there is a lot of misleading information about it on the internet. This is why it's dangerous to rely on low-quality sources like blogs. For example, from the high-quality source Mazor & Fleming 2021 (Nature
1750:
Trying to find claims in scientific articles that the researchers do not explicitly make can very easily lead to original research. If a paper does not directly support a claim then we should be very careful about making this claim in our articles. I found a page number for the bottom and ceiling
2709:
Does it predict it? Below average people think they're average, but the average is higher, and above average people think they're average, so they low-ball it... but it doesn't seem to hold for everyone and in every topic, as the disagreement in studies show. That's the first problem. The second
1642:
In other words, they found evidence contrary to the
Dunning-Kruger hypothesis while accepting that a small effect for some skills might exist (since they didn't do tests for all well-known skills).Something should go up to the lead, but in proportion to the length of this section in the body, so
1198:
The popularity of the DK effect may be an interesting study in how bad science can take hold in the popular mind given how many people seem to take it seriously without considering the fatal flaws in the methodology used to identify the alleged phenomenon. DK also serves as an example of how bad
1174:
and should not be basis for any cognitive or metacognitive claims despite its appeal. The autocorrelation claim is easy to understand and should be a convincing argument for changing the first paragraph to make clear that while the concept is appealing, it is not based on a valid statistically
1788:
tag. I agree that "most of" was unjustified - without a full review of the post KD1999 literature, that claim cannot be made. Nuhfer do make a claim something along the lines of "most", but without trying to prove it, and their aim is not do a literature survey.I'm not sure if people here have
1179:
The
Dunning–Kruger effect is a claimed cognitive bias whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge. Some researchers also include in their definition the opposite effect for high
1256:
The first mention of criticism is in paragraph 4 and characterizes it as "debate" and dismisses it as "not denying the empirical findings", when that is precisely what the statistical criticism does unequivocally. If we compare how criticism of this topic is addressed to the pseudoscience of
1680:
I am not sure where this is going. How do you go from "there is a statistical explanation for DK effect" to "there is no DK effect"? I get the debate over whether DKE is a cognitive bias or just a statistical artifact, but gee, an effect is an effect no matter how it is explained.
1912:
Well, that was fun. I actually double-checked the citations, but none of the provided citations actually mentioned autocorrelation themselves. I've trimmed the remaining wording down to the minimum that the citations do support. And that's why one does double-check I guess. :-/
1665:
and thanks for taking the time to write this section. I slightly modified the text and merged it into the subsection "Statistical", which already discusses this interpretation. It would be great if you could add the precise page numbers since the claim seems to be quite strong.
1333:
pointing at. I'm pretty sure I can't get away with AFDing the article or something crazy like that. But... I do think that NPOV allows me to put the counterveiling point of view that
Dunning-Kruger's paper is bad because (given sources claim) they messed up their maths. --
1452:
But we actually do have a section that says "it's a statistical artifact". Somehow I feel this section is not quite clear in pointing out that those papers are saying "Dunning-Krueger effect is not a thing". Possibly because the underlying papers use somewhat couched
1169:
The article otherwise largely fails to communicate the degree to which the DK effect is pseudoscience. The statement "the statistical explanation interprets these findings as statistical artifacts" needs to be expanded and made much more prominent to explain why the
1448:
of a claim or view. Rather -here- citation of Gignac is often merely supportive of the fact that a particular view has been published. If that was all, I think at least something in the intro that says that more recent sources have replication issues would be
1896:
btw.. In general, I think it's appropriate to post a reasoning on the talk page if you're editing/reverting good-faith edits, where the reasoning might not be immediately obvious. Reverting with "This should be discussed" is slightly ironic. ;-)
2472:
1353:
Usually when people actually dig in and read sources, they do also take 1 minute extra time to post their findings on the talk page (or link to where it was previously discussed) But I'll go read them again just to be sure, did I miss anything? --
1703:
In the case of the papers we looked at today, one of the papers demonstrates that you can outright feed random data into a Dunning-Kruger-style statistical analysis and still get a very convincing looking outcome if you're not very very
1637:, but there's probably a better section title to consense on. I think it's clear that the existence of the effect is disputed. Gignac & Zajenkowski 2020 don't just say that the effect "is" small, what they say in their abstract is
2656:
about whether the line from ALT0 should be included in the article. If it is removed then we would not able to use ALT0 and we would need to default to ALT1. I suggest that we put the nomination on hold until this issue is resolved.
511:, a collaborative effort to improve Knowledge's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
1252:
to overestimate their ability, not just people with low ability, and certainly not for those with high ability to underestimate theirs. The first paragraph is misleading in multiple respects and should be revised to address these
164:
1760:
In one of the most highly replicable findings in social psychology, Kruger and Dunning1 showed that participants who performed worse in tests of humour, reasoning, and grammar were also more likely to overestimate their
2768:
In one of the most highly replicable findings in social psychology, Kruger and Dunning showed that participants who performed worse in tests of humour, reasoning, and grammar were also more likely to overestimate their
2724:
Duh. It's a statistical effect, of course it does not. What sort of reasoning is that? And "the original study was flawed" has no connection to "There is also disagreement about whether the effect is real at all".
2689:
1699:
Scientists often word things very carefully. When scientists describe something as a "statistical artifact," they are often implying a significant doubt about the validity of the observed phenomenon as a true
2819:
500:
2933:
a Darwin quote with comment 'not the right place for quotes'. I feel the quote is relevant, since it shares key concepts with the article. Is there a better place within the article for its inclusion?
2671:
It was a clever hook (ALT0) but it is not apparent in the article so I will promote ALT1. But ALT1 checks out and is interesting and verifiable. I see Earwig alerts to a direct copy of our article.
2694:
There is disagreement about whether incompetent people really overestimate their competence? From people who know what regression to the mean is? But regression to the mean predicts the effect. --
1751:
effect. But this seems to be included in the regression toward the mean that is already explained earlier so I'm not sure that we need it. And the more widesweeping claim still needs page numbers.
2847:
2703:
1470:
It'd be funny if wikipedia had an 'externally disputed' banner, for effects that -at times- have failed to replicate. While a fun idea, it's sadly probably above wikipedia's pay grade.
158:
1402:
and thanks for your attempts to improve this article. I agree that it can be challenging to get arrive at a balanced overview of the academic literature on the Dunning-Kruger effect.
3002:
2950:
and thanks for your suggestion. I agree that the quote has some relevance. Maybe it could fit into the section "Practical significance" because it applies the topic to science.
1057:
1033:
2813:
Meanwhile, somewhere along the way we lost the recent comments by Gaze (one of the 'et al' in Nuhfer et al. ). I'll leave it here as a note in case we need it again later.
1494:
To avoid further edit warring, I suggest that you create a draft first and propose it at the talk page rather adding and re-adding your content directly to the article, see
1847:
When scientists describe something as a "statistical artifact," they are often implying a significant doubt about the validity of the observed phenomenon as a true effect.
225:
2231:
389:
546:
2277:
1302:
351:
2098:
2044:
1456:
I fully understand that patrollers can't always go and read sources in-depth. I'd appreciate any tips (or links to tips) on how to make their life easier here. --
1321:
Perhaps the article itself, as well as the studies, are proof enough, not because of, perhaps in spite of what they thought they studied. User:Dagelf|Dagelf]] (
3027:
641:
1373:"Because of insufficient attention to Numeracy, Current prevalent explanations of the nature of human self-assessment seem to rest on a tenuous foundation."
2065:"How Random Noise and a Graphical Convention Subverted Behavioral Scientists' Explanations of Self-Assessment Data: Numeracy Underlies Better Alternatives"
966:
865:
3012:
1976:
1266:
1215:
1204:
536:
275:
760:
2992:
651:
406:
1557:
1183:
and should not be used to formally explain cognitive biases or metacognitive phenomena regarding self-evaluation of ability, knowledge or experience.
55:
3082:
1180:
performers: their tendency to underestimate their skills. Despite its intuitive appeal the effect can be statistically explained as autocorrelation
3022:
3017:
1219:
2820:"Debunking the Dunning-Kruger effect – the least skilled people know how much they don't know, but everyone thinks they are better than average"
2227:
1906:
1392:
1362:
1342:
179:
3007:
2114:"The Dunning-Kruger effect is (mostly) a statistical artefact: Valid approaches to testing the hypothesis with individual differences data"
512:
1828:
show what they mean, to anyone who don't understand the explanations elsewhere... I don't think stating the obvious is a "radical claim"?
1383:
particular study. (whether the report is correct or not is a different story, but it got published, so we can say it has and by whom.) --
1295:
146:
3072:
3057:
3042:
1853:
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities
1208:
956:
855:
750:
1793:, but as a comment in a professional journal by a known expert (the D of DK), it should be usable, especially for some of its sources.
90:
17:
2375:
1968:
I took Nuefer’s 2017 discussion of correlations to be the basis for the use of the term “autocorrelation” in the title of the article
1621:
1556:... but the common use of the word is in stark contrast with William James and Freud's definition. But it speaks to peoples' sense of
1306:
2912:
2890:
2760:
2734:
1922:
1864:
1722:
1560:, which appears to be one of the few self evident things in life. Perhaps we should create the latter page and redirect it here...?
3077:
3062:
1121:
1116:
1111:
1104:
1099:
1094:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
201:
1891:
I'm not married to the wording there, except that the word 'autocorrelation' should probably in the article *somewhere* at least.
1825:
3047:
2011:"Random Number Simulations Reveal How Random Noise Affects the Measurements and Graphical Portrayals of Self-Assessed Competency"
507:
484:
2795:
2781:
2639:
1980:
1878:
1694:
1547:
1533:
1507:
1485:
1465:
1425:
1223:
3032:
2858:
2680:
2666:
1969:
1961:
1940:
1289:
1192:
1171:
1164:
140:
1181:
3067:
3052:
2997:
2464:
2444:
2355:
2336:
2317:
2215:
1738:
932:
831:
96:
2970:
2959:
1971:
that started all this. It seemed correct to me and was the reason I thought it right to raise the issue in the first place.
1437:. The actual papers say it's a statistical artifact alright. In regular English they're saying "there's actually no effect".
1270:
1239:
3037:
1837:
1569:
1412:
If you want to add some content to the body of the article, you should make sure that it is based on reliable sources, see
1326:
726:
233:
2930:
1949:
1199:
science can get through the scientific peer review process, especially if it comes from a highly reputable institution. --
1050:
136:
1885:, looks like some additional sources from The Usual Suspects. I think the consensus so far seems to be to put this under
1817:
1802:
1772:
1675:
1298:
617:
293:
2399:
Dunning, David (1 January 2011). "Chapter Five – The Dunning–Kruger Effect: On Being Ignorant of One's Own Ignorance".
2064:
2010:
1368:
1245:
370:
336:
41:
2152:
1656:
2886:
2417:
186:
2987:
931:
related articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
911:
888:
822:
783:
2940:
1434:
713:
674:
281:
110:
1790:
1643:
currently it would have to be a very brief sentence. Waiting to see how this section develops would make sense:
2552:
608:
569:
115:
31:
2267:
states that low performers overestimate their skills because they are unable to recognize their incompetence?
1879:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect&diff=1212672204&oldid=1212638810
85:
1754:
Even if we could find direct support for these radical claims in sources, we still have to be careful about
363:
2560:
2507:
616:
articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
459:
152:
2586:
2236:
1004:
2190:
1154:
725:
topics on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
76:
2167:
1296:
https://fortune.com/2023/05/08/what-is-dunning-kruger-effect-smart-intelligence-competence-john-cleese/
196:
2263:
2248:
995:
417:
35:
2529:
2496:
1893:
This group of statisticians did write a number of peer-reviewed articles on the topic, after all.
830:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
2400:
120:
2121:
1553:
2435:
2311:
2908:
2882:
2843:
2791:
2756:
2730:
2699:
2437:
Cognitive Errors and Diagnostic Mistakes: A Case-Based Guide to Critical Thinking in Medicine
1957:
1918:
1902:
1860:
1718:
1690:
1529:
1461:
1388:
1358:
1338:
465:
399:
2676:
2635:
2556:
2383:
1644:
1285:
263:
2063:
Edward Nuhfer; Steven Fleischer; Christopher Cogan; Karl Wirth; Eric Gaze (January 2017).
2009:
Edward Nuhfer; Christopher Cogan; Steven Fleischer; Eric Gaze; Karl Wirth (January 2016).
8:
66:
2062:
2747:
for details on why they picked *those* sources in particular), but meanwhile see also:
2410:
2008:
1710:
Note that does find other self-assessment effects, just not the Dunning-Kruger effect.
1379:
722:
384:
311:
81:
2468:
2955:
2777:
2662:
2460:
2441:
2414:
2211:
2138:
2084:
2030:
1813:
1768:
1671:
1543:
1517:
1503:
1495:
1481:
1421:
1235:
814:
285:
62:
2175:
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below.
2900:
2878:
2839:
2787:
2752:
2726:
2715:
2695:
2406:
2286:
2145:
2130:
2091:
2076:
2037:
2022:
1953:
1936:
1928:
1914:
1898:
1856:
1833:
1744:
1714:
1682:
1565:
1538:
No problem so far, but for one reason or another, this article attracts edit wars.
1525:
1457:
1399:
1384:
1354:
1334:
1322:
987:
705:
172:
2920:
2672:
2647:
2631:
2134:
1755:
1733:
1280:
1137:
600:
584:
563:
248:
2113:
2540:
2476:
2181:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
1798:
1652:
1617:
1603:
1407:
2479:
this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
1763:. This is a high-quality source (Nature Human Behaviour) that is more recent.
1222:. For details on the criticisms of the Dunning–Kruger effect, see the section
1133:
244:
2981:
2141:
2087:
2080:
2033:
1931:
Oh boy. There was one I citation I misplaced, but found again. Will link it.
1521:
1513:
1433:
On third rereading of article alongside sources , we actually have a section
1077:
924:
920:
903:
882:
2148:
2026:
2965:
2951:
2947:
2935:
2926:
2896:
2807:
2773:
2658:
2456:
2207:
1972:
1809:
1779:
1764:
1667:
1539:
1499:
1477:
1417:
1413:
1318:
1262:
1231:
1200:
2094:
2040:
1727:
Please quote (with pg #s) the relevant passages from the papers you cite.
1707:
Their subsequent paper argues that people were indeed not careful enough.
2744:
2711:
1932:
1882:
1829:
1561:
1258:
499:
478:
1139:
249:
1784:
If you're happy with my edits to the paragraph, then please remove the
1728:
1227:
928:
827:
2569:- Yes, only significant matches are from Knowledge mirrors and quotes.
1581:
Three refereed papers on this topic have convenient Wikidata entries:
1276:
the empirical data when analyzed correctly falsifies them both equally
2193:), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page.
1794:
1662:
1648:
1613:
1599:
718:
393:
2690:"There is also disagreement about whether the effect is real at all"
798:
777:
689:
668:
2627:
1135:
613:
246:
2111:
1952:
that badly? Take it easy, the wiki will still be here tomorrow! --
1214:
This has already been discussed several times. See, for example,
916:
1889:
for now, at least until/unless more scientists start to agree.
1020:
699:
594:
1140:
421:
is you don't know you're a member of the Dunning–Kruger club"?
250:
2473:
Template talk:Did you know nominations/Dunning–Kruger effect
1044:
1003:
All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in
2278:
Template:Did you know nominations/1948 Cotton Bowl Classic
1640:
of the effect may be much smaller than reported previously.
1216:
Talk:Dunning–Kruger_effect/Archive_5#Neutral_Point_of_View
2324:
2748:
1512:
Right, so procedurally speaking, so far I've adhered to
1367:
Annnd... just came back from reading papers, especially
1026:
2289:. If it does not work, ALT1 is the regular alternative.
3003:
Knowledge Did you know articles that are good articles
2252:
is you don't know you're in the Dunning-Kruger club"?
2069:
Numeracy: Advancing Education in Quantitative Literacy
2015:
Numeracy: Advancing Education in Quantitative Literacy
171:
1175:methodology and should not be taken too seriously.
1071:
999:
has been linked from multiple high-traffic websites.
915:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
826:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
804:
717:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
695:
612:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
590:
26:
2579:Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
2343:
1595:{{cite Q|Q108932700|url-status=live}}</ref: -->
1220:Talk:Dunning–Kruger_effect/Archive_5#Is_this_true?
2301:
2112:Gilles E. Gignac; Marcin Zajenkowski (May 2020).
1591:{{cite Q|Q56566525|url-status=live}}</ref: -->
1586:{{cite Q|Q56566524|url-status=live}}</ref: -->
2979:
2261:: ... that the metacognitive explanation of the
1224:Dunning–Kruger_effect#Criticism_and_alternatives
44:for general discussion of the article's subject.
1244:Other sources may indeed be preferred, such as
2859:"The Dunning-Kruger Effect is Autocorrelation"
1758:. For example, from Mazor & Fleming 2021:
1587:or repeat ref <ref name="Nuhfer2016" /: -->
291:If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
2710:problem is that the original study was flawed
1950:does NPOV really want to be anthropomorphized
1148:This page has archives. Sections older than
415:Did you know ... that "the first rule of the
185:
3028:Mid-importance WikiProject Business articles
2195:No further edits should be made to this page
2058:
2056:
2054:
2004:
2002:
2000:
1945:I shall await your refs wrt autocorrelation.
1430:Ah, our posts crossed, yup I was doing that.
2786:Mazor & Fleming 2021 is interesting! --
2772:only deny that the effect is "pronounced".
2653:
2467:. Post-promotion hook changes for this nom
1191:The ironies are replete, as pointed out in
3013:High-importance Alternative Views articles
2743:Not a full answer (You'll need to look at
2402:Advances in Experimental Social Psychology
2354:sfn error: no target: CITEREFDuignan2023 (
2335:sfn error: no target: CITEREFDunning2011 (
2993:Social sciences and society good articles
2316:sfn error: no target: CITEREFHoward2018 (
2105:
2051:
1997:
1633:section in the content, currently called
276:Social sciences and society good articles
2722:but it doesn't seem to hold for everyone
2405:. Vol. 44. Academic Press. pp. 247–296.
1444:A lot of people read citations as being
3083:Articles linked from high traffic sites
2398:
2373:
2349:
2330:
521:Knowledge:WikiProject Alternative Views
14:
3023:GA-Class WikiProject Business articles
3018:WikiProject Alternative Views articles
2980:
2489:Article is new enough and long enough
2433:
2307:
2101:from the original on 26 November 2023.
2047:from the original on 26 November 2023.
1158:when more than 4 sections are present.
524:Template:WikiProject Alternative Views
2434:Howard, Jonathan (28 November 2018).
2853:Another write-up worth considering:
2817:
2749:#DK_Effect_is_Simply_Autocorrelation
1524:in a nutshell to begin with. :-/ --
1228:https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/
982:
909:This article is within the scope of
820:This article is within the scope of
711:This article is within the scope of
606:This article is within the scope of
505:This article is within the scope of
447:
445:
441:
3008:GA-Class Alternative Views articles
2856:
2455:Improved to Good Article status by
1165:DK Effect is Simply Autocorrelation
464:It is of interest to the following
34:for discussing improvements to the
24:
3073:Mid-importance Skepticism articles
3058:Mid-importance psychology articles
3043:High-importance education articles
2411:10.1016/B978-0-12-385522-0.00005-6
2158:from the original on 8 March 2023.
1612:structure for citation is used...
25:
3094:
2285:: ALT0 would a candidate for the
1552:A more ignorant me would've said
1226:in our article. And your source,
1152:may be automatically archived by
284:. If you can improve it further,
2626:
2598:
2590:
2564:
2544:
2533:
2511:
2500:
2246:... that "the first rule of the
1606:) 21:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
1172:effect is simply autocorrelation
1076:
986:
941:Knowledge:WikiProject Skepticism
902:
881:
840:Knowledge:WikiProject Psychology
807:
797:
776:
698:
688:
667:
593:
583:
562:
498:
477:
446:
383:
310:
262:
232:
56:Click here to start a new topic.
3078:WikiProject Skepticism articles
3063:WikiProject Psychology articles
2178:Please do not modify this page.
1278:Which reliable source says so?
961:This article has been rated as
944:Template:WikiProject Skepticism
860:This article has been rated as
843:Template:WikiProject Psychology
755:This article has been rated as
735:Knowledge:WikiProject Education
646:This article has been rated as
541:This article has been rated as
3048:WikiProject Education articles
1594:<ref name="Gignac2020": -->
1590:<ref name="Nuhfer2017": -->
1585:<ref name="Nuhfer2016": -->
1516:, which falls rather short of
738:Template:WikiProject Education
626:Knowledge:WikiProject Business
272:has been listed as one of the
13:
1:
3033:WikiProject Business articles
2806:I really appreciate the time
1865:11:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
1818:08:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
1803:18:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
1773:08:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
1739:08:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
1723:04:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
1695:00:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
1676:23:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
1657:22:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
1622:21:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
1548:13:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
1534:13:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
1508:13:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
1486:13:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
1466:13:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
1426:12:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
1393:11:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
1363:11:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
1343:00:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
935:and see a list of open tasks.
834:and see a list of open tasks.
729:and see a list of open tasks.
632:WikiProject Business articles
629:Template:WikiProject Business
620:and see a list of open tasks.
508:WikiProject Alternative views
53:Put new text under old text.
3068:GA-Class Skepticism articles
3053:GA-Class psychology articles
2998:Old requests for peer review
2818:Gaze, Eric C. (8 May 2023).
2810:put in to improve the page!
2135:10.1016/J.INTELL.2020.101449
1881:So I picked up this edit by
7:
3038:GA-Class education articles
2863:Economics from the Top Down
2857:Fix, Blair (8 April 2022).
2681:15:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
2667:08:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
2640:14:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
2609:
2572:
2482:
2465:14:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
2216:15:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
2191:Knowledge talk:Did you know
2183:this nomination's talk page
1791:March 2022 reply by Dunning
1290:20:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
1271:19:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
1240:16:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
1209:16:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
413:The text of the entry was:
61:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
10:
3099:
2971:12:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
2960:12:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
2941:11:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
2913:22:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
2891:21:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
2848:14:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
2796:14:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
2782:08:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
2735:13:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
2654:discussion on the talkpage
1838:00:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
967:project's importance scale
866:project's importance scale
761:project's importance scale
652:project's importance scale
547:project's importance scale
527:Alternative Views articles
18:Talk:Dunning-Kruger effect
2761:15:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
2704:11:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
1981:19:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
1962:10:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
1941:07:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
1923:02:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
1907:01:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
1570:08:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
1406:in the lead section, see
1327:07:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
960:
897:
859:
792:
754:
683:
645:
578:
540:
493:
472:
428:
380:
308:
304:
91:Be welcoming to newcomers
2081:10.5038/1936-4660.10.1.4
1307:17:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
392:appeared on Knowledge's
2988:Knowledge good articles
2376:"Dunning–Kruger effect"
2374:Duignan, Brian (2023).
2187:the article's talk page
2168:Did you know nomination
2027:10.5038/1936-4660.9.1.4
1789:already mentioned the
1155:Lowercase sigmabot III
912:WikiProject Skepticism
823:WikiProject Psychology
454:This article is rated
390:fact from this article
86:avoid personal attacks
2652:There is currently a
2463:). Self-nominated at
2264:Dunning–Kruger effect
996:Dunning–Kruger effect
714:WikiProject Education
282:good article criteria
270:Dunning–Kruger effect
226:Auto-archiving period
111:Neutral point of view
36:Dunning–Kruger effect
2553:copyright violations
2440:. Springer. p. 354.
1645:there is no deadline
1608:(PS: I see that the
1005:its revision history
609:WikiProject Business
371:Good article nominee
337:Good article nominee
116:No original research
2386:on 30 November 2021
2249:Dunning–Kruger club
1246:Nuhfer et al (2006)
1230:, is not reliable.
1013:
947:Skepticism articles
846:psychology articles
418:Dunning–Kruger club
2766:Human Behaviour):
2561:close paraphrasing
2524:Policy compliance:
2380:www.britannica.com
1851:The article says,
1380:replication crisis
1011:
741:education articles
460:content assessment
316:Article milestones
97:dispute resolution
58:
2620:
2619:
2608:
2607:
2530:Adequate sourcing
2521:
2520:
2480:
2446:978-3-319-93224-8
2270:
2255:
1472:
1349:
1162:
1161:
1127:
1126:
1068:
1067:
1064:
1063:
1053:
1029:
1008:
981:
980:
977:
976:
973:
972:
876:
875:
872:
871:
815:Psychology portal
771:
770:
767:
766:
723:education-related
662:
661:
658:
657:
557:
556:
553:
552:
518:Alternative Views
485:Alternative Views
440:
439:
436:
435:
407:September 4, 2023
332:February 23, 2023
300:
257:
256:
77:Assume good faith
54:
16:(Redirected from
3090:
2968:
2938:
2873:
2871:
2869:
2834:
2832:
2830:
2824:The Conversation
2651:
2630:
2610:
2602:
2601:
2594:
2593:
2573:
2568:
2567:
2548:
2547:
2537:
2536:
2515:
2514:
2504:
2503:
2483:
2454:
2450:
2430:
2428:
2426:
2395:
2393:
2391:
2382:. Archived from
2360:
2359:
2347:
2341:
2340:
2328:
2322:
2321:
2305:
2268:
2253:
2202:The result was:
2180:
2160:
2159:
2157:
2118:
2109:
2103:
2102:
2060:
2049:
2048:
2006:
1783:
1635:Validity dispute
1468:
1371:concludes with:
1345:
1283:
1157:
1141:
1091:
1090:
1080:
1072:
1060:
1049:
1036:
1025:
1014:
1010:
1002:
990:
983:
949:
948:
945:
942:
939:
906:
899:
898:
893:
885:
878:
877:
848:
847:
844:
841:
838:
817:
812:
811:
810:
801:
794:
793:
788:
780:
773:
772:
743:
742:
739:
736:
733:
708:
706:Education portal
703:
702:
692:
685:
684:
679:
671:
664:
663:
634:
633:
630:
627:
624:
603:
598:
597:
587:
580:
579:
574:
566:
559:
558:
529:
528:
525:
522:
519:
502:
495:
494:
489:
481:
474:
473:
457:
451:
450:
449:
442:
429:Current status:
387:
366:
315:
314:
306:
305:
289:
266:
259:
258:
251:
237:
236:
227:
190:
189:
175:
106:Article policies
27:
21:
3098:
3097:
3093:
3092:
3091:
3089:
3088:
3087:
2978:
2977:
2966:
2964:Done. Thanks.
2936:
2923:
2867:
2865:
2828:
2826:
2692:
2687:
2645:
2599:
2591:
2565:
2545:
2534:
2512:
2501:
2447:
2424:
2422:
2420:
2389:
2387:
2365:
2364:
2363:
2353:
2348:
2344:
2334:
2329:
2325:
2315:
2306:
2302:
2243:
2241:
2237:Article history
2176:
2170:
2165:
2164:
2163:
2155:
2116:
2110:
2106:
2061:
2052:
2007:
1998:
1777:
1558:self importance
1279:
1167:
1153:
1142:
1136:
1085:
1056:
1032:
946:
943:
940:
937:
936:
891:
845:
842:
839:
836:
835:
813:
808:
806:
786:
757:High-importance
740:
737:
734:
731:
730:
704:
697:
678:High‑importance
677:
631:
628:
625:
622:
621:
601:Business portal
599:
592:
572:
543:High-importance
526:
523:
520:
517:
516:
488:High‑importance
487:
458:on Knowledge's
455:
424:
423:
411:
364:August 23, 2023
362:
309:
253:
252:
247:
224:
132:
127:
126:
125:
102:
72:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
3096:
3086:
3085:
3080:
3075:
3070:
3065:
3060:
3055:
3050:
3045:
3040:
3035:
3030:
3025:
3020:
3015:
3010:
3005:
3000:
2995:
2990:
2976:
2975:
2974:
2973:
2922:
2919:
2918:
2917:
2916:
2915:
2876:
2875:
2874:
2836:
2835:
2805:
2803:
2802:
2801:
2800:
2799:
2798:
2740:
2739:
2738:
2737:
2691:
2688:
2686:
2685:
2684:
2683:
2618:
2617:
2606:
2605:
2604:
2603:
2595:
2581:
2580:
2571:
2570:
2549:
2538:
2519:
2518:
2517:
2516:
2505:
2491:
2490:
2469:will be logged
2452:
2451:
2445:
2431:
2418:
2396:
2362:
2361:
2342:
2333:, pp. 260–261.
2323:
2299:
2298:
2294:
2293:
2292:
2291:
2290:
2280:
2271:
2240:
2239:
2234:
2224:
2222:
2218:
2200:
2199:
2171:
2169:
2166:
2162:
2161:
2104:
2050:
1995:
1994:
1990:
1988:
1986:
1985:
1984:
1983:
1966:
1965:
1964:
1946:
1876:
1875:
1874:
1873:
1872:
1871:
1870:
1869:
1868:
1867:
1849:
1844:
1843:
1842:
1841:
1840:
1822:
1821:
1820:
1752:
1748:
1711:
1708:
1705:
1701:
1597:
1596:
1592:
1588:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1454:
1450:
1442:
1438:
1431:
1410:
1403:
1330:
1329:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1254:
1185:
1184:
1166:
1163:
1160:
1159:
1147:
1144:
1143:
1138:
1134:
1132:
1129:
1128:
1125:
1124:
1119:
1114:
1108:
1107:
1102:
1097:
1087:
1086:
1081:
1075:
1066:
1065:
1062:
1061:
1054:
1047:
1042:
1038:
1037:
1030:
1023:
1018:
991:
979:
978:
975:
974:
971:
970:
963:Mid-importance
959:
953:
952:
950:
933:the discussion
907:
895:
894:
892:Mid‑importance
886:
874:
873:
870:
869:
862:Mid-importance
858:
852:
851:
849:
832:the discussion
819:
818:
802:
790:
789:
787:Mid‑importance
781:
769:
768:
765:
764:
753:
747:
746:
744:
727:the discussion
710:
709:
693:
681:
680:
672:
660:
659:
656:
655:
648:Mid-importance
644:
638:
637:
635:
618:the discussion
605:
604:
588:
576:
575:
573:Mid‑importance
567:
555:
554:
551:
550:
539:
533:
532:
530:
503:
491:
490:
482:
470:
469:
463:
452:
438:
437:
434:
433:
426:
425:
412:
382:
381:
378:
377:
374:
367:
359:
358:
355:
348:
344:
343:
340:
333:
329:
328:
325:
322:
318:
317:
302:
301:
267:
255:
254:
245:
243:
242:
239:
238:
192:
191:
129:
128:
124:
123:
118:
113:
104:
103:
101:
100:
93:
88:
79:
73:
71:
70:
59:
50:
49:
46:
45:
39:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3095:
3084:
3081:
3079:
3076:
3074:
3071:
3069:
3066:
3064:
3061:
3059:
3056:
3054:
3051:
3049:
3046:
3044:
3041:
3039:
3036:
3034:
3031:
3029:
3026:
3024:
3021:
3019:
3016:
3014:
3011:
3009:
3006:
3004:
3001:
2999:
2996:
2994:
2991:
2989:
2986:
2985:
2983:
2972:
2969:
2963:
2962:
2961:
2957:
2953:
2949:
2945:
2944:
2943:
2942:
2939:
2932:
2928:
2914:
2910:
2906:
2905:
2904:
2898:
2894:
2893:
2892:
2888:
2884:
2880:
2877:
2864:
2860:
2855:
2854:
2852:
2851:
2850:
2849:
2845:
2841:
2825:
2821:
2816:
2815:
2814:
2811:
2809:
2797:
2793:
2789:
2785:
2784:
2783:
2779:
2775:
2770:
2764:
2763:
2762:
2758:
2754:
2750:
2746:
2742:
2741:
2736:
2732:
2728:
2723:
2720:
2719:
2717:
2713:
2708:
2707:
2706:
2705:
2701:
2697:
2682:
2678:
2674:
2670:
2669:
2668:
2664:
2660:
2655:
2649:
2644:
2643:
2642:
2641:
2637:
2633:
2629:
2624:
2615:
2612:
2611:
2597:Interesting:
2596:
2588:
2585:
2584:
2583:
2582:
2578:
2575:
2574:
2562:
2558:
2554:
2550:
2542:
2539:
2531:
2528:
2527:
2526:
2525:
2509:
2506:
2498:
2495:
2494:
2493:
2492:
2488:
2485:
2484:
2481:
2478:
2474:
2470:
2466:
2462:
2458:
2448:
2443:
2439:
2438:
2432:
2421:
2419:9780123855220
2416:
2412:
2408:
2404:
2403:
2397:
2385:
2381:
2377:
2372:
2371:
2370:
2369:
2357:
2351:
2346:
2338:
2332:
2327:
2319:
2313:
2309:
2304:
2300:
2297:
2288:
2284:
2281:
2279:
2275:
2272:
2266:
2265:
2260:
2257:
2256:
2251:
2250:
2245:
2244:
2238:
2235:
2233:
2229:
2226:
2225:
2221:
2219:
2217:
2213:
2209:
2205:
2198:
2196:
2192:
2188:
2184:
2179:
2173:
2172:
2154:
2150:
2147:
2143:
2140:
2136:
2132:
2128:
2124:
2123:
2115:
2108:
2100:
2096:
2093:
2089:
2086:
2082:
2078:
2074:
2070:
2066:
2059:
2057:
2055:
2046:
2042:
2039:
2035:
2032:
2028:
2024:
2020:
2016:
2012:
2005:
2003:
2001:
1996:
1993:
1989:
1982:
1978:
1974:
1970:
1967:
1963:
1959:
1955:
1951:
1947:
1944:
1943:
1942:
1938:
1934:
1930:
1926:
1925:
1924:
1920:
1916:
1911:
1910:
1909:
1908:
1904:
1900:
1894:
1892:
1888:
1884:
1880:
1866:
1862:
1858:
1854:
1850:
1848:
1845:
1839:
1835:
1831:
1827:
1823:
1819:
1815:
1811:
1806:
1805:
1804:
1800:
1796:
1792:
1787:
1781:
1776:
1775:
1774:
1770:
1766:
1762:
1757:
1753:
1749:
1746:
1743:I agree with
1742:
1741:
1740:
1737:
1736:
1732:
1731:
1726:
1725:
1724:
1720:
1716:
1712:
1709:
1706:
1702:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1692:
1688:
1687:
1686:
1679:
1678:
1677:
1673:
1669:
1664:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1654:
1650:
1646:
1641:
1636:
1632:
1628:
1627:
1626:
1625:
1623:
1619:
1615:
1609:
1605:
1601:
1593:
1589:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1571:
1567:
1563:
1559:
1555:
1551:
1550:
1549:
1545:
1541:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1531:
1527:
1523:
1519:
1515:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1493:
1487:
1483:
1479:
1474:
1473:
1471:
1467:
1463:
1459:
1455:
1451:
1447:
1443:
1439:
1436:
1432:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1423:
1419:
1415:
1411:
1409:
1404:
1401:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1381:
1376:
1374:
1370:
1365:
1364:
1360:
1356:
1350:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1336:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1316:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1299:77.204.39.138
1297:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1287:
1282:
1277:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1255:
1253:shortcomings.
1251:
1247:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1196:
1194:
1189:
1182:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1173:
1156:
1151:
1146:
1145:
1131:
1130:
1123:
1120:
1118:
1115:
1113:
1110:
1109:
1106:
1103:
1101:
1098:
1096:
1093:
1092:
1089:
1088:
1084:
1079:
1074:
1073:
1070:
1059:
1055:
1052:
1048:
1046:
1043:
1041:23 June 2007
1040:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1028:
1024:
1022:
1019:
1017:22 June 2007
1016:
1015:
1009:
1006:
1000:
998:
997:
992:
989:
985:
984:
968:
964:
958:
955:
954:
951:
934:
930:
926:
925:pseudohistory
922:
921:pseudoscience
918:
914:
913:
908:
905:
901:
900:
896:
890:
887:
884:
880:
879:
867:
863:
857:
854:
853:
850:
833:
829:
825:
824:
816:
805:
803:
800:
796:
795:
791:
785:
782:
779:
775:
774:
762:
758:
752:
749:
748:
745:
728:
724:
720:
716:
715:
707:
701:
696:
694:
691:
687:
686:
682:
676:
673:
670:
666:
665:
653:
649:
643:
640:
639:
636:
619:
615:
611:
610:
602:
596:
591:
589:
586:
582:
581:
577:
571:
568:
565:
561:
560:
548:
544:
538:
535:
534:
531:
514:
510:
509:
504:
501:
497:
496:
492:
486:
483:
480:
476:
475:
471:
467:
461:
453:
444:
443:
432:
427:
422:
420:
419:
409:
408:
403:
401:
400:Did you know?
395:
391:
386:
379:
375:
373:
372:
368:
365:
361:
360:
356:
354:
353:
349:
347:June 27, 2023
346:
345:
341:
339:
338:
334:
331:
330:
326:
323:
320:
319:
313:
307:
303:
298:
296:
295:
287:
283:
279:
278:
277:
271:
268:
265:
261:
260:
241:
240:
235:
231:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
200:
198:
194:
193:
188:
184:
181:
178:
174:
170:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
138:
135:
134:Find sources:
131:
130:
122:
121:Verifiability
119:
117:
114:
112:
109:
108:
107:
98:
94:
92:
89:
87:
83:
80:
78:
75:
74:
68:
64:
63:Learn to edit
60:
57:
52:
51:
48:
47:
43:
37:
33:
29:
28:
19:
2929:, I see you
2924:
2921:Darwin quote
2902:
2901:
2866:. Retrieved
2862:
2837:
2827:. Retrieved
2823:
2812:
2804:
2769:performance.
2767:
2721:
2693:
2622:
2621:
2613:
2576:
2523:
2522:
2486:
2453:
2436:
2423:. Retrieved
2401:
2388:. Retrieved
2384:the original
2379:
2367:
2366:
2350:Duignan 2023
2345:
2331:Dunning 2011
2326:
2303:
2295:
2282:
2273:
2262:
2258:
2247:
2220:
2203:
2201:
2194:
2186:
2182:
2177:
2174:
2126:
2122:Intelligence
2120:
2107:
2072:
2068:
2018:
2014:
1991:
1987:
1948:By the way,
1895:
1890:
1886:
1877:
1852:
1846:
1826:these graphs
1785:
1759:
1756:undue weight
1734:
1729:
1684:
1683:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1629:I started a
1611:
1607:
1598:
1580:
1469:
1445:
1377:
1372:
1366:
1351:
1346:
1331:
1275:
1249:
1197:
1190:
1186:
1168:
1149:
1082:
1069:
1001:
994:
993:
962:
910:
861:
821:
756:
712:
647:
607:
542:
506:
466:WikiProjects
431:Good article
430:
416:
414:
405:
397:
369:
350:
335:
292:
290:
286:please do so
274:
273:
269:
229:
195:
182:
176:
168:
161:
155:
149:
143:
133:
105:
30:This is the
2903:Constant314
2879:Cooljeanius
2840:Kim Bruning
2788:Kim Bruning
2753:Kim Bruning
2727:Hob Gadling
2696:Hob Gadling
2508:Long enough
2475:; consider
2425:20 December
2308:Howard 2018
2287:quirky hook
1954:Kim Bruning
1929:Kim Bruning
1915:Kim Bruning
1899:Kim Bruning
1883:User:Dagelf
1857:Hob Gadling
1786:page needed
1761:performance
1745:Constant314
1715:Kim Bruning
1685:Constant314
1526:Kim Bruning
1458:Kim Bruning
1435:Statistical
1400:Kim Bruning
1385:Kim Bruning
1378:Due to the
1369:Nuefer 2017
1355:Kim Bruning
1335:Kim Bruning
1259:physiognomy
1193:the article
352:Peer review
159:free images
42:not a forum
2982:Categories
2673:Lightburst
2648:Epicgenius
2632:Epicgenius
2557:plagiarism
2497:New enough
2390:7 December
2296:References
2149:Q108932700
2129:: 101449.
1992:References
1887:statistics
1518:WP:EDITWAR
1496:WP:EDITWAR
1446:supportive
1281:Paradoctor
1188:scores 0.
938:Skepticism
929:skepticism
889:Skepticism
837:Psychology
828:Psychology
784:Psychology
513:discussion
404:column on
342:Not listed
280:under the
2142:0160-2896
2095:Q56566525
2088:1936-4660
2041:Q56566524
2034:1936-4660
1122:Archive 6
1117:Archive 5
1112:Archive 4
1105:Archive 3
1100:Archive 2
1095:Archive 1
732:Education
719:education
675:Education
394:Main Page
99:if needed
82:Be polite
32:talk page
2887:contribs
2868:11 April
2616:: Done.
2551:Free of
2487:General:
2477:watching
2274:Reviewed
2269:Source:
2254:Source:
2204:promoted
2153:Archived
2146:Wikidata
2099:Archived
2092:Wikidata
2045:Archived
2038:Wikidata
1824:Perhaps
1704:careful.
1453:wording?
1250:everyone
1083:Archives
623:Business
614:business
570:Business
456:GA-class
357:Reviewed
294:reassess
197:Archives
67:get help
40:This is
38:article.
2967:Chumpih
2952:Phlsph7
2948:Chumpih
2937:Chumpih
2931:removed
2927:Phlsph7
2829:9 March
2808:Phlsph7
2774:Phlsph7
2659:Phlsph7
2623:Overall
2541:Neutral
2457:Phlsph7
2368:Sources
2283:Comment
2228:Comment
2208:Bruxton
1973:Chassin
1810:Phlsph7
1780:Phlsph7
1765:Phlsph7
1700:effect.
1668:Phlsph7
1540:Phlsph7
1500:Phlsph7
1478:Phlsph7
1418:Phlsph7
1408:WP:LEAD
1319:Chassin
1263:Chassin
1232:Phlsph7
1201:Chassin
1150:90 days
1058:Traffic
1034:Traffic
965:on the
917:science
864:on the
759:on the
650:on the
545:on the
396:in the
324:Process
230:90 days
165:WP refs
153:scholar
2946:Hello
2895:Not a
2745:Dagelf
2712:Dagelf
2559:, and
1933:Dagelf
1830:Dagelf
1661:Hello
1562:Dagelf
1522:WP:BRD
1514:WP:1RR
1398:Hello
1021:Reddit
1012:Table
462:scale.
376:Listed
327:Result
137:Google
2897:WP:RS
2587:Cited
2577:Hook:
2310:, p.
2156:(PDF)
2117:(PDF)
2075:(1).
2021:(1).
1631:small
1449:fine.
1414:WP:RS
180:JSTOR
141:books
95:Seek
2956:talk
2909:talk
2883:talk
2870:2024
2844:talk
2831:2024
2792:talk
2778:talk
2757:talk
2751:. --
2731:talk
2716:talk
2700:talk
2677:talk
2663:talk
2636:talk
2461:talk
2442:ISBN
2427:2021
2415:ISBN
2392:2021
2356:help
2337:help
2318:help
2259:ALT1
2232:view
2212:talk
2139:ISSN
2085:ISSN
2031:ISSN
1977:talk
1958:talk
1937:talk
1919:talk
1903:talk
1861:talk
1834:talk
1814:talk
1799:talk
1795:Boud
1769:talk
1719:talk
1691:talk
1672:talk
1663:Boud
1653:talk
1649:Boud
1618:talk
1614:Boud
1604:talk
1600:Boud
1566:talk
1544:talk
1530:talk
1504:talk
1482:talk
1462:talk
1422:talk
1389:talk
1359:talk
1339:talk
1323:talk
1303:talk
1294:See
1286:talk
1267:talk
1236:talk
1218:and
1205:talk
1051:link
1045:Digg
1027:link
927:and
751:High
721:and
537:High
321:Date
173:FENS
147:news
84:and
2885:) (
2614:QPQ
2471:at
2407:doi
2312:354
2230:or
2206:by
2189:or
2131:doi
2077:doi
2023:doi
1735:Eng
1610:sfn
1554:Ego
1375:.
957:Mid
856:Mid
642:Mid
187:TWL
2984::
2958:)
2911:)
2899:.
2889:)
2861:.
2846:)
2838:--
2822:.
2794:)
2780:)
2759:)
2733:)
2725:--
2718:)
2702:)
2679:)
2665:)
2638:)
2625::
2589::
2563::
2555:,
2543::
2532::
2510::
2499::
2413:.
2378:.
2276::
2223:(
2214:)
2185:,
2151:.
2144:.
2137:.
2127:80
2125:.
2119:.
2097:.
2090:.
2083:.
2073:10
2071:.
2067:.
2053:^
2043:.
2036:.
2029:.
2017:.
2013:.
1999:^
1979:)
1960:)
1939:)
1921:)
1913:--
1905:)
1897:--
1863:)
1836:)
1816:)
1801:)
1771:)
1721:)
1713:--
1693:)
1674:)
1655:)
1647:.
1620:)
1568:)
1546:)
1532:)
1506:)
1498:.
1484:)
1464:)
1424:)
1391:)
1361:)
1341:)
1325:)
1305:)
1288:)
1269:)
1238:)
1207:)
923:,
919:,
388:A
297:it
288:.
228::
220:,
216:,
212:,
208:,
204:,
167:)
65:;
2954:(
2925:@
2907:(
2881:(
2872:.
2842:(
2833:.
2790:(
2776:(
2755:(
2729:(
2714:(
2698:(
2675:(
2661:(
2650::
2646:@
2634:(
2459:(
2449:.
2429:.
2409::
2394:.
2358:)
2352:.
2339:)
2320:)
2314:.
2242:)
2210:(
2197:.
2133::
2079::
2025::
2019:9
1975:(
1956:(
1935:(
1927:@
1917:(
1901:(
1859:(
1832:(
1812:(
1797:(
1782::
1778:@
1767:(
1730:E
1717:(
1689:(
1670:(
1651:(
1624:)
1616:(
1602:(
1564:(
1542:(
1528:(
1502:(
1480:(
1460:(
1420:(
1387:(
1357:(
1337:(
1317:@
1301:(
1284:(
1265:(
1234:(
1203:(
1007:.
969:.
868:.
763:.
654:.
549:.
515:.
468::
410:.
402:"
398:"
299:.
222:6
218:5
214:4
210:3
206:2
202:1
199::
183:·
177:·
169:·
162:·
156:·
150:·
144:·
139:(
69:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.