>>708 I see where you are coming from,"how different type of people communicated' not ‘how different type of people react with thing’. It seems you have studied about this effect quite a bit. But the question is how many source have you been through?
Please note that I believe wholeheartedly that I am a fool. I know nothing I create nothing but simply copy other people ideas and paraphrasing. Here goes.
I can easily agree with you on this nuance of the interpretation. And I will? No I won't. Do keep in mind that you only drew a "fresh" conclusion from a single source or two. So you came up with that notion, one that I have been through. A quick research often do that to everyone. Let me entertain you with some of my notes from my hard-drive.
A Lack of Metacognition
1- The Dunning-Kruger effect is also related to difficulties with metacognition, or the ability to step back and look at one's own behavior and abilities from outside of oneself. People are often only able to evaluate themselves from their own limited and highly subjective point of view. From this limited perspective they seem highly skilled, knowledgeable, and superior to others. Because of this, people sometimes struggle to have a more realistic view of their own abilities.
2- The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which low-ability individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability as much higher than it really is. Dunning and Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive incapacity, on the part of those with low ability, to recognize their ineptitude and evaluate their competence accurately. (Source: https://medium.com/@johnhawks/excellent-comment-with-many-great-suggestions-6f64c6b872e2)
That statement implied:
Senior scientists are low-ability science communicators who think they are great a scientific communication. There is an assertion, and many do disagree. Most scientists are painfully aware of how hard it is to communicate their science properly, this including myself. And many do not want to communicate with non-expert people in fear of being misunderstood, or their words being taken out of context.
Most part scientists would be much happier if there is a scientific literate journalist who discusses with them about their research before he gets it to the public. Science communication/outreach coming directly from scientists is rare, precisely because proper communication is not something you can do with little practice. I agree that the communications skills of scientists should be at least so good that they can communicate with a scientific literate person/journalist, but anymore than that is asking the scientists to become journalists.
I do not think the solution to bad science coverage is to shift all responsibility on the scientists, because after all, they have to think about the problems in science, and not about the problems of how to reach people or sell it.
I did get you. But you got what I am saying now?
>>710 Don't compare me to your parents like that kiddo.
>>711 Bitch please. Did you even read? You wanna place a bet? How much do you have on you right now? Yo, It's never about winning or losing for me, kid. I do it because it's fucking fun to slap bitches with facts.
>>709 Doing this two days straight doesn't make it everyday, are you retarded?
