The inverse correlation between confidence and competence
While it is not a new concept that the more we know the less we know I was wondering if there is some formula that defines this correlation of ignorance and knowledge to confidence and competence. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect)
We are born 100% ignorant of everything. Most people are not aware of it, but even the baby's feeding instinct does not kick-in right away. It takes a lot of patience by the mother to trigger this in a baby.
We die having some knowledge. This knowledge consists of various facts of various degrees of confidence. Some of that confidence is true; some not so much. But one way or another at the time we leave this experience generating world we have 100% of knowledge that we would ever accumulate at this stage.
It is intuitive that it gets harder and harder to acquire some new knowledge. So at first we learn very fast, but the more we know the harder it seems to grasp the next concept or the next level of deeper understanding of something we are already experts in. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_curve)
It is also intuitive that the more we know the less ignorant we become.
Since it is impossible for us to grasp everything it follows that 100% of ignorance will always be larger than 100% of individual knowledge.
Now, I would not want to be comparing apples to oranges here, so I believe it is prudent to point out that when I talk about competence and confidence I mean individual competence and individual confidence as it relates to individual knowledge and individual ignorance.
And thus I am proposing the following formulas:
IGNORANCE / KNOWLEDGE = CONFIDENCE
Ignorance will always be larger than knowledge and thus it follows that confidence will always be present. But knowledge will increase over time while ignorance would decrease by the same amount, thus confidence will diminish over time.
KNOWLEDGE / IGNORANCE = COMPETENCE
We start with no knowledge, thus we lack any competence at all at the time. We do grow knowledge and shrink ignorance and that seems to grow the competence.
Now here you can say that since ignorance is on a completely different scale from knowledge we would always get such tiny numbers that our competence would always be very close to 0 while confidence would be approaching absolute. And you are right, on individual scale we do know that little and we think of ourselves that much. However, my thought exercise was not about the actual metrics of knowledge, it was more about the impact of change of knowledge in numbers so that visualization could be possible.
Enough with the numbers, let's get to psychology of things. Here you can claim that you know many people who are highly competent and project undisputed confidence in their fields of knowledge. I guarantee you that this is a form of intellectual bullying. Since they know so much more than some of their peers, they do not want to engage into the same old banal conversations over and over again. I guarantee you that with peers that are on the level this confidence is put on a shelf and they become much more interesting conversationalists with very open mind. Just ask anyone of them :)
We are born 100% ignorant of everything. Most people are not aware of it, but even the baby's feeding instinct does not kick-in right away. It takes a lot of patience by the mother to trigger this in a baby.
We die having some knowledge. This knowledge consists of various facts of various degrees of confidence. Some of that confidence is true; some not so much. But one way or another at the time we leave this experience generating world we have 100% of knowledge that we would ever accumulate at this stage.
It is intuitive that it gets harder and harder to acquire some new knowledge. So at first we learn very fast, but the more we know the harder it seems to grasp the next concept or the next level of deeper understanding of something we are already experts in. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_curve)
It is also intuitive that the more we know the less ignorant we become.
Since it is impossible for us to grasp everything it follows that 100% of ignorance will always be larger than 100% of individual knowledge.
Now, I would not want to be comparing apples to oranges here, so I believe it is prudent to point out that when I talk about competence and confidence I mean individual competence and individual confidence as it relates to individual knowledge and individual ignorance.
And thus I am proposing the following formulas:
IGNORANCE / KNOWLEDGE = CONFIDENCE
Ignorance will always be larger than knowledge and thus it follows that confidence will always be present. But knowledge will increase over time while ignorance would decrease by the same amount, thus confidence will diminish over time.
KNOWLEDGE / IGNORANCE = COMPETENCE
We start with no knowledge, thus we lack any competence at all at the time. We do grow knowledge and shrink ignorance and that seems to grow the competence.
Now here you can say that since ignorance is on a completely different scale from knowledge we would always get such tiny numbers that our competence would always be very close to 0 while confidence would be approaching absolute. And you are right, on individual scale we do know that little and we think of ourselves that much. However, my thought exercise was not about the actual metrics of knowledge, it was more about the impact of change of knowledge in numbers so that visualization could be possible.
Enough with the numbers, let's get to psychology of things. Here you can claim that you know many people who are highly competent and project undisputed confidence in their fields of knowledge. I guarantee you that this is a form of intellectual bullying. Since they know so much more than some of their peers, they do not want to engage into the same old banal conversations over and over again. I guarantee you that with peers that are on the level this confidence is put on a shelf and they become much more interesting conversationalists with very open mind. Just ask anyone of them :)