What does the Dunning-Kruger effect say about neural networks?

It doesn’t seem shocking to me – based on my assumption that in humans, everyone has approximately the same number of neurons, it would then follow that the more intelligent humans have either more connections between neurons, or a more efficient algorythm for deciding which connections to make.

I am totally going out on a guesswork limb here (I’ll have to follow up with some research to see if others have come up with the same guesses, and to see if other people have found any way to know, or at least have a high probability of knowing) but I’m thinking that the more connections you have, the lower the probability of you feeling a feeling of ‘certainty’ because the lower the probability that a large number of connections will respond with a positive match – or, if you do get a solid positive match on some connections, you’ll get a solid negative match on some others that are only partially relevant. So in essence, the bigger your leafset for any decision, the less solid of a match you’re going to get on anything. Hence, the more intelligent you are, the less certain you’re going to feel.

Of course, part of intelligence is knowing when you don’t know. This is actually one of the most important skills in my toolkit – part of why I get paid the big bucks, I suspect, is that I know when I don’t know.

One Response to “Interesting”

  1. Alderin Says:

    I think this may be another latent instinctual bias, one that helped us overcome some of the many obstacles that separate us from lower animals. This bias basically says, “I can do that, no problem”, even if there is no training or skill developed to actually accomplish that. Sometimes, even today, you can’t gain a skill until you attempt to exercise that skill in a task. Modern humans are a product of previous peoples who thought they could, then went and did. This bias is only a problem when it is overdeveloped and interferes with gaining skills or knowledge, in my opinion.

Leave a Reply