According to https://www.ndnu.edu/how-long-does-it-ta...20country.

There are about 3.5 million people in the US with degrees in psychology. For John’s statement to be verified, he would need to provide evidence that at least 1 750 001 of those people don’t believe that the Dunning-Kruger effect exists.

I’ll wait.

Boru

(May 8, 2025 at 11:55 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 8, 2025 at 11:20 am)Sheldon Wrote: The source is in the quote....

Yeah, the source being IN the quote was one of several red flags. You seem to be posting fraudulent citations.

Ok, so you are claiming that the source was incorrect, except I didn't offer a citation, but I did check the source offered in the quote was genuine, also I, and others have offered several other sources. You by the way have only offered your own bare opinion still, not one source of any kind...talking of red flags. 

So address those other sources, and offer at least one of your own, and I may be inclined to ignore your lie here, implying I offer fraudulent citations, based on one example that you have not demonstrated to be so, with... surprise surprise...another bare claim...

Meanwhile here is a quote from that very source you are claiming is fraudulent, explaining what the Dunning Kruger effect is and how it works:

Psychology Today

You sunshine have been caught out by your own ego driven hubris, again...analyse that...

Now, what reason, if any, can you offer that the Jesus character in the gospel myths, is a deity?

It's hard to imagine anyone can cut your chosen superstition more slack to justify itself than that, you came to an atheist debate forum after all, so it's time to piss or get off the pot.

(May 8, 2025 at 12:57 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: According to https://www.ndnu.edu/how-long-does-it-ta...20country.

There are about 3.5 million people in the US with degrees in psychology. For John’s statement to be verified, he would need to provide evidence that at least 1 750 001 of those people don’t believe that the Dunning-Kruger effect exists.

I’ll wait.

Boru

We all will wait, as it was clearly bullshit. Now if anyone would like to scroll back, they will see that I predicted what john would say, that he would either double down with more unevidenced denials, or move on and ignore it, he went with the former. 

So, do I get an honorary degree in psychology, for "knowing how his mind works"?

it couldn't at this point, be worth any less than the one John is claiming to have.

So I have seen the scattergun approach to debate, where people make endless disjointed claims, and move on without even attempting to evidence them, see john's contributions here as an example.

Now I was wondering is there a name for the opposite approach, where someone offers less and less, in an attempt to deflect, and evade post content that exposes their bluffing nonsense? It's a tactic I have seen a few times from bluffers like John, on the internet, when their claims are exposed more and more. Sometimes they go away for a bit, and then come back, or even switch forums and start again. 

In religious apologetics it is often what is called telling lies for Jesus, where they are so convinced that the belief is all that matters, then lying to try and convert people is a good thing.

(May 8, 2025 at 12:58 pm)Sheldon Wrote: Ok, so you are claiming that the source was incorrect, except I didn't offer a citation, but I did check the source offered in the quote was genuine, also I, and others have offered several other sources.

Stop; I don't care to talk to someone who promotes fraudulent citations.

"There is no Dunning-Kruger." (Psychology Today, 2020)

Quote:Stop; I don't care to talk to someone who promotes fraudulent citations.

They aren't  fraudulent. Nice try

Quote:"There is no Dunning-Kruger." (Psychology Today, 2020)

Yup one publication which doesn't prove it doesn't exist

(May 8, 2025 at 1:53 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 8, 2025 at 12:58 pm)Sheldon Wrote: Ok, so you are claiming that the source was incorrect, except I didn't offer a citation, but I did check the source offered in the quote was genuine, also I, and others have offered several other sources.

Stop; I don't care to talk to someone who promotes fraudulent citations.

"There is no Dunning-Kruger." (Psychology Today, 2020)

1. The source I cited is the same one you're citing, so if it's fraudulent why are you using it?
2. that source also carried an article claming the effect was real.
3. Several other sources were also cited. 
4. These multiple sources show your claim to be wrong, no one needs to demonstrate that the effect is real to do that. 
5. The article in your source does not support your claim, that:
    a) "most people with a psychology degree know the dunning-kruger effect doesn't exist."
6. I predicted you would double down on your lie with mendacious denials, you have done just that. 

Liar liar pants on fire, seems the only apropos response now, you even lied that you "didn't care to respond" and then responded. 

Still not one reason from you, why you believe the Jesus character in the gospel myths, is a deity? 
The thing about bluffing the way you do John, is you will inevitably be found out, like your bluff to have falsified the theory of evolution. In the end people who bluff in this way, just look silly.

Try lying and denying you made the claim John, see if that works? That's what you did last time, though of course it failed.

(May 8, 2025 at 2:18 pm)Sheldon Wrote:

(May 8, 2025 at 1:53 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Stop; I don't care to talk to someone who promotes fraudulent citations.

"There is no Dunning-Kruger." (Psychology Today, 2020)

1. The source I cited is the same one you're citing, so if it's fraudulent why are you using it?
2. that source also carried an article claming the effect was real.
3. Several other sources were also cited. 
4. These multiple sources show your claim to be wrong, no one needs to demonstrate that the effect is real to do that. 
5. The article in your source does not support your claim, that:
    a) "most people with a psychology degree know the dunning-kruger effect doesn't exist."
6. I predicted you would double down on your lie with mendacious denials, you have done just that. 

Liar liar pants on fire, seems the only apropos response now, you even lied that you "didn't care to respond" and then responded. 

Still not one reason from you, why you believe the Jesus character in the gospel myths, is a deity? 
The thing about bluffing the way you do John, is you will inevitably be found out, like your bluff to have falsified the theory of evolution. In the end people who bluff in this way, just look silly.

Try lying and denying you made the claim John, see if that works? That's what you did last time, though of course it failed.

At best the article points to an active debate not definitive conclusion

(May 8, 2025 at 2:12 pm)The Architect Of Fate Wrote:

Quote:"There is no Dunning-Kruger." (Psychology Today, 2020)

Yup one publication which doesn't prove it doesn't exist

The irony went over your head. His fraudulent quote is "from" Psychology Today. It's just funny to show what a real article there says.

(May 8, 2025 at 2:12 pm)The Architect Of Fate Wrote:

Quote:Stop; I don't care to talk to someone who promotes fraudulent citations.

They aren't  fraudulent.  Nice try

Quote:"There is no Dunning-Kruger." (Psychology Today, 2020)

Yup one publication which doesn't prove it doesn't exist

Indeed not, but John's claim was that "most people with a psychology degree know the dunning-kruger effect doesn't exist."

As Boru pointed out here:

Quote:According to https://www.ndnu.edu/how-long-does-it-ta...20country.

There are about 3.5 million people in the US with degrees in psychology. For John’s statement to be verified, he would need to provide evidence that at least 1 750 001 of those people don’t believe that the Dunning-Kruger effect exists.

Now of course John did not specify only the US, so even this would not properly evidence his comical sweeping hubris. And so far all he has offered is the claim, and one article, and from a source he claims is fraudulent when it runs an article he doesn't like, oh dear.