1424
Dunning-Kruger (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] holdstrong@lemm.ee 23 points 7 hours ago

“It’s basic biology” mfs when advanced biology

[-] pyre@lemmy.world 11 points 6 hours ago

it is basic biology, ie biology simplified to teach a kid in middle school. the thing is sciences don't stop at middle school level. a lot of university education is about clarifying that things you learned before were simplified to the point that they're practically useless if not outright wrong.

[-] EnthusiasticNature94 16 points 7 hours ago

I agree with Dr. Jey McCreight on the science.

But for determining truth, both sides are wrong here.

Dunning-Kruger is bad, but so is credentialism and appeal to authority.

Many people with PhD's have had Dunning-Kruger. Someone else mentioned Ben Carson being great at neurosurgery, but not politics.

A PhD doesn't make you infallible.

I am saying this as someone who is taking graduate-level courses and will be pursuing my PhD. When I'm correct, it's not because my future PhD causes reality to magically conform to my opinions - it's because I rigorously looked at the evidence, logic, and formed my own conclusion that better aligns with reality.

[-] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 14 points 7 hours ago

You can even be incorrect on a subject you have expertise in.

[-] bountygiver@lemmy.ml 6 points 7 hours ago

that's why we have peer reviews for new findings by experts.

[-] EnthusiasticNature94 2 points 7 hours ago

Exactly, imagine if we threw away the entire peer review process and made it about, "Well I have a PhD! Checkmate."

We'd descend into a dark age for science.

[-] EnthusiasticNature94 6 points 7 hours ago

Experts often disagree.

If it were that easy, everything would be solved. We wouldn't need so much research or so many universities.

[-] freely1333@reddthat.com 1 points 5 hours ago

Listing Ben Carson as “not great at politics” when he was a polling national candidate for the highest office in the world is a wee bit of wild work. That’s like saying Kevin Durant is not great at basketball.

[-] EnthusiasticNature94 1 points 4 hours ago

Sure, but that's another discussion and is irrelevant to my point.

You should take it to the commentor who originally said that.

[-] Zerush@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

....and all in between, hormonal and/or physically. "Only two genders" is false

[-] nimble 9 points 8 hours ago

The phrase is funny but you wouldn't catch me dead wearing a logical fallacy

[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 5 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

I was unaware that an X chromosome could mutate into a Y and vice versa over the course of a lifetime. Do we know what causes that?

[-] Sibshops@lemm.ee 19 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

They are not saying that the X chromosome mutates to Y, but rather saying that XY doesn't define the sex. For example, some people with XY are born with female genitalia and look female their whole lives. Sometimes they don't find out they are XY until trying to have kids and are unable to. It isn't like the X changes to Y over time. That isn't possible.

[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 3 points 8 hours ago

So not what the phd claims

[-] Uruanna@lemmy.world 11 points 8 hours ago

It's weird how your first thought is "the PhD is wrong" and not "I must have misunderstood something" .

[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

“I must have misunderstood something” .

There was a reason I made that comment

Though I disagree with the conservative genitalia = gender ideology

[-] Beetschnapps@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago

Point being… the phd is wrong!

[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Or the thought the phd must have meant something else

But sure the phd is wrong if he meant that; just like those anti-vax doctors and anti-abortion doctors

[-] Beetschnapps@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

Straight up

[-] Sibshops@lemm.ee 11 points 8 hours ago

I think you may have misread. The PHD isn't saying that XY becomes XX, they are saying, genetically, a person carrying XY can be a cis woman. Biologically, XY doesn't determine the sex.

[-] Tamei@lemm.ee 2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

I honestly don't understand. What does define the sex biologically? The genitalia, then? I always understood positions like William's like "XY is the biologically male sex by definition, if the human develops female genitalia and feels like a woman they were biologically speaking still intended to be a man." I don't understand what else there could be on an elemental level to biologically determine the sex.

[-] JustAnotherRando@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

To preface: this is from a previous bout of hyper focus curiosity (i.e. I am not an expert). But the human genome is significantly more complex than "XX chromosome means biological female". Other genomic markers can trigger that don't align with the typical, which can result in male reproductive organs on a person with XX chromosome and vice versa. XX and XY are also not the only options. There are three, four, and even five somal groupings (e.g. XXY, XYY, XXX - note that to my understanding, you can't have all Y chromosomes even in these outliers). If anyone has further information or any corrections for me, I'd welcome them - I'm going off of memory from a couple of years ago and it's not directly relevant to me (i.e. I am cis-male with no known chromosomal abnormalities)

[-] Sausa@beehaw.org 1 points 5 hours ago

There's no one thing that defines sex, that's what makes it so complicated. What is often thought of as "biological sex" are two clustered sets of checkboxes (e.g chromosomes, genitalia, secondary sex characteristics, primary sex hormone), but people often have a mixture from both lists. Here's an interesting nature article on it https://www.nature.com/articles/518288a

[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 5 points 8 hours ago

Thank you for clarifying

[-] LongLive@lemmy.world 13 points 15 hours ago
[-] mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 5 hours ago

Error: url1 and url2 are the same

[-] Tibi@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 6 hours ago

I think it's sus that a Math Lecturer decides to post an article about philosophy and then doesn't describe any of the steps he took. The article basically just says i did a thing, but doesnt explain what he did/how to reproduce the result... On the other hand, philosophy is a field with many wrong conclusions and the like, so it is believable. But again in my eyes it's not proven, since it's just 'one guy' saying something and not replicated nor reproduced.

[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 29 points 19 hours ago

One time a woman told me that my lack of a second X Chromosome meant I would "always be a man"

So I gaslit her into thinking her husband had klinefelters.

I hate how Republicans think transphobia is science

[-] jaek@lemmy.world 1 points 20 minutes ago

That's gloriously devious

To be fair, a Person with a PhD still can have Dunning-Kruger on other subjects.

Ben Carson is a great Neurosurgeon, but dumbass on politics.

[-] EnthusiasticNature94 2 points 7 hours ago

Yeah, both sides are wrong here.

Dunning-Kruger is bad, but so is credentialism and appeal to authority.

[-] Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 10 hours ago

Neil deGrasse Tyson and literally anything other than astrophysics

[-] bradd@lemmy.world 8 points 17 hours ago

They can also on their subject.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Blazingtransfem98@discuss.online 51 points 22 hours ago

I think a lot of these XX XY "only two genders" people aren't just dunning Kruger, they're transphobic idiots with an agenda. So even if they had the science and knowledge it wouldn't matter because they're pushing their hateful stupid agenda, facts and logic be damned. They don't care, they just want to rationalize hating us trans people because we make them uncomfy.

[-] MiniMoose4Free@lemm.ee 3 points 11 hours ago

Is there some third gender that trans people can transition to that I'm unaware of? I'm afraid I don't follow the whole situation all too well sorry. My partner has some transgender family members, but i've never i've seen anyone that isn't male to female or female to male. I guess non binary exists, but doesn't that mean no gender or both?

I'm afraid I don't know much on the subject It's unfortunate.

[-] Ziglin@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago

Fear not I, a still rather confused individual, but with slightly more knowledge on the topic shall answer thy call (I seem to suffer from the curse referred to as "being genderfluid" by the scholars of that gender stuff)!

Somebody who is non-binary is just someone who does not feel like they are entirely male or female. This can mean that they are both, neither or a different gender not connected to either but also not entirely absent or of course any combination of the previous examples.

In my case (genderfluid) I just flop around on the gender spectrum, mostly not having a gender or feeling a bit feminine but sometimes I do feel male or like some other gender. Though genderfluid just means that the persons gender changes over time, it doesn't have to be the same genders that I experience.

Hope this helps :)

[-] InputZero@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago

You're confusing sex with gender. Both are a spectrum but sex is a biological spectrum of sexual organs in a living creature and gender is a quality, projection and performance of a person that also lands on a spectrum.

The confusion is because they both use male and female but sex and gender are different things. Gender can change throughout a person's life. A person's sex is consistent throughout life and can't be changed. A person's gender can't change their sex. Sex also isn't as simple as xx is female and xy is male, there's a whole bunch of things that can't put a person in one, both, or none of those categories. Gender is even more complicated.

[-] AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world 15 points 20 hours ago

I would honestly be very surprised if any Republican politicians actually care about sex or gender. I think they're just evil and those are convenient issues to divide the working class. When you don't have popular policy in real issues, you need to make up some fake ones to get people to still support you.

[-] drthunder@midwest.social 16 points 19 hours ago

The current moral panic about queer people is definitely manufactured, but the hatred that it's stirred up is still real. All the religious psychos in power (including Speaker of the House Mike Johnson) really believe that stuff and want to enforce their hierarchy.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] matlag@sh.itjust.works 36 points 23 hours ago

"Yeah but science can be proven wrong an change over time, while my beliefs and biases are forever!"

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] LadyAutumn 119 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Note how they always enshrine gender in biology, but then make all kinds of non-biological statements about what gender is.

"XX is woman"/"Large gametes is woman"/"can conceive is woman"

And then they'll say

"Women aren't as aggressive", "women are more emotional", "women like being in the home more", "those are women's clothes", etc.

The only reason it's so important for it to be biological is because of how it punishes gender non-conformity and makes the lives of trans people hell. Like it isn't ideologically consistent and they know that. They just don't care. If it was just about genitals or chromosomes, then why is it that gender dictates all these social things about us? The only reason to root gender in how you were born is to ensure gender roles are as rigid and immutable as possible.

[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 8 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

The only reason to root gender in how you were born is to ensure gender roles are as rigid and immutable as possible.

This, this right here, that's the game, that's the whole game. They want to punish transness and then start changing what the definition of trans is.

"Your daughter was wearing pants, and said no when my boy asked her out, that's trans behavior and it's unAmerican, might have to report you to a correction agency if this shit doesn't stop."

load more comments (14 replies)
[-] frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io 146 points 1 day ago

Confidently incorrect is the default with these people. I spend most of my time with family aggressively correcting misinformation about my field and related ones. They will die earlier thinking they know more because of Youtube. Getting them to stop taking bad health advice and mystery joint injections from a fucking chiropractor is the latest battle.

load more comments (13 replies)
[-] psoul@lemmy.world 33 points 1 day ago

Can I get a T shirt that says “I have Dunning-Krueger and your Phd looks cute”? I just have a lot of BS to share and I don’t want to be sorry about it.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2025
1424 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

13294 readers
3128 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS