Corbynomics: A Dystopia

antrobus

Moby wrote: »

Does it really... well never mind......

Yup. It does sometime pay to actually read links.:)

Moby wrote: »

...Problem is I'm on a dodgy computer and put up the wrong link...... but since you are so interested I posted another link as well on a later post. ...........

Well, I've never actually heard of the DK effect before, so I tought I'd see what all the fuss was about. (Yes, there are some things that I don't know.:))

Moby wrote: »

...It was to Katherine Burson's critique:-
Burson, K.; Larrick, R.; Klayman, J. (2006). "Skilled or unskilled, but still unaware of it: how perceptions of difficulty drive miscalibration in relative comparisons". Journal of Social Psychology 90 (1): 5.

A "critique" isn't quite the same thing as saying that it is "widely accepted that DK's research and it's basis is discredited".

I would actually refer you to this paper;

Why the Unskilled Are Unaware: Further Explorations of (Absent) Self-Insight Among the Incompetent
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2702783/

which addresses that Burson et al paper , and critiques that, reviews the literature to date, carries out some further research, and concludes that "these findings reaffirm the notion that poor performers show little insight into the depth of their deficiencies relative to their peers".

I would therefore conclude that, far from being "discredited", the DK effect is perfectly valid, but that (as always in the social sciences) some people don't like it, and thus academics argue about it, and try and make a name for themselves by attempting to demolish whatever happens to be seen as accepted wisdom at the time.

Personally, I would have thought that the idea that (to put it in layman's terms) stupid people often aren't aware of how stupid they are and have an over-inflated sense of their own intellectual brilliance, is clearly true given the experience of reading the MSE forum.

(And no, I don't mean you.):)

antrobus

Moby wrote: »

If only it were true.......but this country's radicalism is pretty poor gruel. History has shown.....(Corn Laws, Chartist movement etc).... the privileged have an ability to give just enough away to stop real change ever take place....and of course they are always defended by their working class canon fodder types as well.....who are happy with the crumbs from the table of their betters.;)

But the Corn Laws were abolished in 1846; whilst the Chartists put forward six specific demands and, assuming that this current government does get around to finally equalising constituency sizes, that will leave annual parliaments as the only thing outstanding.

Thus real change has taken place.

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

...Except those little things, people remain as starving playthings of the aristocrats pleading for crumbs from the top table....

What have the Romans ever done for us?

Moby

gadgetmind wrote: »

Try this one and pick a language.

http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/a-bad-workman-blames-his-tools.521076/



That paper effectively said that there is no difference between the competent and the incompetent people, because the incompetent ones overestimate themselves roughly in the same way as the competent ones underestimate themselves.

It's usually referenced as a supporting paper, including in the DK wikipedia entry.

The main problem with DK is that a lot of less competent people misundestand the effect it describes, and then use their incorrect understanding as a basis to say that it's wrong. Of course, it's hard to explain this to those people.

Yes you seem to get it now. Its used as a theory when it's not relevant. As I said! You may also benefit from reading John Bowlby's theories on Maternal Attachment and the effect of this on a child's development. Far more relevant to deprivation, lack of opportunity/equality etc.

Moby

I would actually refer you to this paper;

Why the Unskilled Are Unaware: Further Explorations of (Absent) Self-Insight Among the Incompetent
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2702783/

which addresses that Burson et al paper , and critiques that, reviews the literature to date, carries out some further research, and concludes that "these findings reaffirm the notion that poor performers show little insight into the depth of their deficiencies relative to their peers".

I would therefore conclude that, far from being "discredited", the DK effect is perfectly valid, but that (as always in the social sciences) some people don't like it, and thus academics argue about it, and try and make a name for themselves by attempting to demolish whatever happens to be seen as accepted wisdom at the time.

Personally, I would have thought that the idea that (to put it in layman's terms) stupid people often aren't aware of how stupid they are and have an over-inflated sense of their own intellectual brilliance, is clearly true given the experience of reading the MSE forum.

Agreed but a lot of the research reviews also say that the theory is often misappropriated and used inappropriately and a debate about that is what I tried to put up. I was using a tablet and was travelling so put the wrong link up.

To me though the main point is being missed. There is a lack of let's say emotional intelligence from many on this nasty little thread to engage with the wider issues that Corbyn is raising. I would argue that his election is raising uncomfortable issues, (for the Labour Party....I know!) but also for the wider public and that's the area where he needs to be engaged with. Diversion and distraction from real social issues which incidentally deserve a better response than.......'because I made my way in the world anyone can if they try hard enough'........... is simplistic in the extreme and does not assist the debate... and to me is a symptom of intolerance. You were right to say Corbyn is derided.....I also think he is hated... .....but continually raising the ghost of McCarthyite phobia about unions and communists is a bit of a stretch! and frankly that's basically the level of the debate on this thread!

Moby

antrobus wrote: »

But the Corn Laws were abolished in 1846; whilst the Chartists put forward six specific demands and, assuming that this current government does get around to finally equalising constituency sizes, that will leave annual parliaments as the only thing outstanding.

Thus real change has taken place.

Yes............... but you fail to see the changes in context as does Generali above. Something that is regarded as fair now wasn't then and changes only came about as a result of protest!.....the landowners, mercantile classes etc knew that and gave enough away to avoid revolution.....unlike of course what happened in Europe at the same time......1848 revolutions etc!

Generali

Moby wrote: »

Yes............... but you fail to see the changes in context as does Generali above. Something that is regarded as fair now wasn't then and changes only came about as a result of protest!.....the landowners, mercantile classes etc knew that and gave enough away to avoid revolution.....unlike of course what happened in Europe at the same time......1848 revolutions etc!

That's not true though. People revolted in Europe mostly because they were starved into it. The French Revolution, the real biggie, came about simply because of a series of failed harvests. It's why Jacobeanism never really spread beyond France and the USA.

Anyway, you'd hate Jacobites. Too much freedom for a socialist.

Moby

Generali wrote: »

That's not true though. People revolted in Europe mostly because they were starved into it. The French Revolution, the real biggie, came about simply because of a series of failed harvests. It's why Jacobeanism never really spread beyond France and the USA.

Anyway, you'd hate Jacobites. Too much freedom for a socialist.

No there was a lot more to it than that....there was starvation but there have been starvations throughout history.....what was different this time? Of course what was different were the ideas, the enlightenment, the idea that protest could bring about change, the idea that a serf/worker didn't just have to accept their lot from the rich and powerful....my allusion to crumbs from the table etc! No rich landowner would just give up their land! They had to be forced into it.....and there was a gradual shift to universal suffrage, whereas power had always traditionally been concentrated in the King and through him given to his barons to defend his realm....now people with no land can vote! My point is that change had to be fought for over the centuries....power is never given willingly. The ruling classes in this country though have always been cute.....they saw the way things were going in Europe and they gave away just enough to avoid their overthrow. You could argue that's why we are so different to France? Corbyn is part of that tradition. He is not an enemy of the state, he just wants to change how it works and who it works for. He is clear about that. Labour had become compromised by continually tacking to the centre in the pursuit of power....look at Scotland! This debate is refreshing imo. It shouldn't be stifled and I think people should have the good grace to tackle the issues seriously, instead of just deriding him for being a terrorist sympathiser blah blah blah and harking back to the seventies! The issues he raises are as relevant now as they were then!

gadgetmind

Moby wrote: »

You could argue that's why we are so different to France?

Yes, but we're different to France in a good way.

This debate is refreshing imo. It shouldn't be stifled and I think people should have the good grace to tackle the issues seriously

The whole class struggle freedom for Tooting thing isn't exactly refreshing but I certainly think the public should be aware of the views aired and sympathies expressed by those on the far left.

instead of just deriding him for being a terrorist sympathiser blah blah blah and harking back to the seventies! The issues he raises are as relevant now as they were then!

Well, he *is* a terrorist sympathiser, and his views do hark back to the 70s (and earlier), so in the interested of balance these aspects shouldn't be stifled either.

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

No there was a lot more to it than that....there was starvation but there have been starvations throughout history.....what was different this time? Of course what was different were the ideas, the enlightenment, the idea that protest could bring about change, the idea that a serf/worker didn't just have to accept their lot from the rich and powerful....my allusion to crumbs from the table etc! No rich landowner would just give up their land! They had to be forced into it.....and there was a gradual shift to universal suffrage, whereas power had always traditionally been concentrated in the King and through him given to his barons to defend his realm....now people with no land can vote! My point is that change had to be fought for over the centuries....power is never given willingly. The ruling classes in this country though have always been cute.....they saw the way things were going in Europe and they gave away just enough to avoid their overthrow. You could argue that's why we are so different to France? Corbyn is part of that tradition. He is not an enemy of the state, he just wants to change how it works and who it works for. He is clear about that. Labour had become compromised by continually tacking to the centre in the pursuit of power....look at Scotland! This debate is refreshing imo. It shouldn't be stifled and I think people should have the good grace to tackle the issues seriously, instead of just deriding him for being a terrorist sympathiser blah blah blah and harking back to the seventies! The issues he raises are as relevant now as they were then!

your choice of historical struggles is a little selective

why not share your praise on the French revolution that lead to dictatorship, mass murder, European wide war and the deaths of 100s of thousands ordinary people.

or your views on the wonders of the Soviet empire that killed, starved imprisoned millions.

or Corbyn/McDonnell/Abbotts own heroes, the Maoist that killed 50 million

or maybe that working class hero Pol Pot : not so many dead but he had a smaller population to kill

Corbyn's views on democracy, liberty and killing people are relevant to decent people and are valid points to discuss: clearly acolytes don't need to engage their brains and obviously understand why you want to suppress such discussions.