Note: I am not talking about Law of the instrument.

I am referring to the following (anti-)pattern of behavior:

A person very competent in one area (say, Philosophy) peremptorily expressing his opinion on an unrelated area (say, Medicine) as if he were an expert there also (and he is not).

There are many prominent examples (e.g., an expert in finance making sweeping assertions with great confidence and surrounded by insulting language ... [about] a field he palpably does not master), but, obviously, plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

Does this pattern actually exist statistically or is it just a variant of the Dunning-Kruger effect ("Unskilled and Unaware of It")?

One way to test this would be to plot the DK curve (actual expertise vs. self-assessment) for a given domain for

  • the "general population" (people who have no significant expertise in other domains) and
  • the "outside experts" (people who are experts in an unrelated domain)

and check whether they would be statistically significantly different.

E.g., one can try to use StackExchange as the source of data: measure the user expertise by the reputation and subjective assessment thereof by the "confidence level" of their posts (questions/answers/comments).

Has something like this been done? Does the question make sense to the practitioners in the field?


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.