Since its publication in 1999 in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, the study by David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University back to cyclically recur in the media, forgotten and regularly rediscovered in current events coincide in which it flaunts incompetence - of course any reference to recent political appointments is purely coincidental.

In fifteen years, "the Dunning-Kruger effect," has become a cult classic, earned his place in the Hall of Fame of psychology, occupying a place that is somewhere halfway between the Milgram experiment and Murphy's law.
Behind its title a bit 'caustic - Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments - the study shows, with a fine sense of humor, a series of summarized interesting results as follows: yes , usually the most incompetent are the ones that have the highest opinion of their ability.
To determine these results, Dunning and Kruger tested four groups of volunteers about different skills such as humor, grammar or logical reasoning, asking them to evaluate the performance after each test.
After four tests, the results were perfectly clear: individuals who have gone worse were convinced that they were the best, while those more competent underestimated their capabilities.
To confirm the existence of this cognitive distortion called "excess effect of trust," Dunning and Kruger have reconvened subjects who performed best and worst few weeks later ... to make correct five copies of the texts and re- evaluate their performance in the light of their competition.
Again, as you may have guessed by now, the self-confidence of the less competent was not tarnished.
However, at the very least, those who had achieved the results "the best," have revised their opinion of themselves positively.
In more than fifteen years after its first formal identification, cognitive distortion that makes the "idiots confident," to use the term coined by Paul Dunning on Pacific Standard, it has never been questioned, as well as being confirmed regularly by other jobs.
For example, on 4 May 2016, researchers at McGill University in Montreal have published in PLOS ONE magazine a study that shows that motorists are the most dangerous driving behavior (in terms of speed, driving under the influence or in respect of Highway Code) were also those who complained most of the other drivers, without ever questioning their vision of road safety.
A classic case of Dunning-Kruger.
The world is condemned to be populated by stupid windbags who overpay estimate?
Not necessarily.
Because the Dunning-Kruger effect is a much more subtle phenomenon.
Cognition and metacognition
As explained on Ars Technica in-depth analysis of the phenomenon, the conclusions of the two psychologists are not so extraordinary.
Ask someone to evaluate their skills in any one area, it will be highly unlikely to frankly answer that knows nothing or that it is not able to do that particular thing.
Take, for example, the sketch of Jimmy Kimmel, shot during the 2014 edition of the indie South by Southwest festival, that asks the public concerts do you think of a number of band invented out of whole cloth: rather than try everything in all small humiliation of admitting his ignorance in front of the camera, the majority of respondents prefer stuttering trivialities not too specific, with the air of someone who has mastered to perfection the topic.
Unfortunately, human beings are like that: hopelessly confident in their abilities and unable to admit his ignorance.
But if the lack of meta-cognition (the ability to assess themselves) is not a fault in itself, soon became problematic when it comes to intrude in a group hierarchy: if we have a natural tendency to position the upper floors of a particular group, also possess the ability to understand that the average of a group is, precisely, average.
Therefore, if we are among the best, the others must necessarily be worse for contrast.
And that's where the problems begin, because not only are we not best placed to judge ourselves, but the same also applies to our ability to judge others.
On Pacific Standard, Paul Dunning reformulates the results of his famous study by admitting that "it is the very logic to assume this lack of foresight: because incompetent to recognize their shortcomings in a particular area, should in fact have those same skills that It lacks. "
Consider, for example, mastery of grammar: how can we know whether or not mastered its rules if first we do not know?
That's what mechanism illustrated in essence the Dunning-Kruger effect: the relationship between cognition and metacognition, which makes it extremely difficult to assess its own capacity or the other, when you possess it.
A great truth in everything and entirely self-evident.
But do not worry, we are not condemned to remain forever the "idiots confident": the study of Dunning and Kruger also shows that, once addressed properly, suddenly, the incompetent become more aware of their weaknesses - and, consequently, the strength of the other.
However, the relationship between cognition and metacognition does not explain the systematic overconfidence seen among the least equipped or lack of confidence, the same systematic way, the most gifted people.
To understand these issues, Dunning says, we have to delve directly into the human brain.
We are machines of misinformation
For the psychologist, the problem lies not in the lack of information, but disinformation caused by our mind.
"An ignorant mind," says Dunning in Pacific Standard "is not an empty and immaculate container, but a hodgepodge full of experiences misleading and unnecessary, theories, facts, ideas, strategies, algorithms, heuristics, metaphors and insights that, unfortunately, take the form of accurate knowledge.
This mixture is an unfortunate consequence of one of our greatest strengths as a species.
We are of the greatest decoders and theorists.
"In other words, our brains and imagination have no limits to misinform machines, which create a number of certainties to start from scratch, in spite of rationality.
Coupled to our inability to properly assess our capabilities, this innate talent for creating "knowledge" ex nihilo turns us all into ignorant confident of their ability.
Worse, some of these false certainties originate in childhood, even before we realize it.
Finally, says the psychologist, our stubbornness to defend our vision of things in spite of what proves to us that the reality is another (as in the case of "incompetent" experiment of 1999 who continued to believe you are talented even after "proper" test performed by persons most capable of them) comes from a series of "sacrosanct beliefs," that we can not question without running into a violent shock called cognitive dissonance (such a powerful shock that pushes for example, some people believe that Mandela died in 1980.)
Questioning the series of sacrosanct certainties undermines all his view of himself.
A type of operation that our mind refuses to carry out categorically.
So we prefer to believe what is more comfortable than to disagree with the truth of the facts, as this is undeniable: at times, we are simply ignorant and we would have everything to gain by simply admitting our ignorance rather than climb on mirrors.
But most of us continue to pretend to know what you do not know and corporate hierarchies will therefore continue to be governed by the principle of Peter, under which an employee is able to reach a level beyond which it can not go because of his incompetence.
To escape idiocy too confident of himself, says Dunning, let us remember that true wisdom lies in the consciousness of their intellectual limitations.
We know, as summarized by Socrates, he knew nothing.
To confess one's ignorance it is already a first step towards knowledge.

From Vice