xDeityx, on 27 June 2013 - 11:42 AM, said:
Where do I assume my competence? I missed that in the part you quoted. I believe that's just an assumption you made.
It almost seems like you are taking the D-K effect to be a law that states anyone who thinks they are good is therefore bad. That's now how it works. You should
read up on it.
I have and you did imply it by very nature of your post. The words, "I am competent" were not said but very much implied by stating that public Elo would show things thus proving that points made would be backed up by an arbitrary statistic.
No, I am not stating it as a rule. The study showed that those who truly are competent tended to be more realistic about their competence and actually tend to underestimate themselves. In fact further studies tended to show that those at the extreme ends of competency tended to misjudge their skill usually higher in the case of incompetent and lower in the case of the competent.
What comes from this is NOT that people who think they are competent are not but instead that we can't rely on anyone's self evaluation. Ironically it is typically those who believe others are incompetent(and thus they themselves are competent) who tend to bring up the Dunning-Kruger effect which in the end invalidates their point that someone else probably thinks they are good and are not.
Then we run into a whole different problem if you are judged by your "peers" to be competent because we often fall into a "Group Think" at that point or as Whyte called it, Rationalized Conformity. I find the "Competitive Players" tend to often fall into this. They tend to enforce group conformity of action and belief through repetition and authority. We are competitive players, we know how to play, and so we must understand the game.
Yes they play harder and that will give them some understanding of things some others will not be privy to, but it makes them just as liable to overlook things or come to a fallacious conclusion because of that group thinking. You get that comment, "Well, everyone who understands this game on a high level agrees with me." with the implication that they must be right. While this doesn't mean they are wrong it doesn't mean they are right either, it simply means that their socialized group whole all likely think and believe certain things as a group have come to a conclusion that likely hasn't considered other possibilities.
This is part of that whole "Public Elo" thing. You have deluded yourself into thinking that a high Elo score will innately mean a better understanding of the game. It could, I'll give you that much, but in reality it doesn't conclude a knowledge of the game. I could have a High Elo from coat-tailing on three better player's actions and simply always 4-manning with them. Elo doens't account for MY contributions or understand of the game, simply my team's contributions. Alternately I person could have a very good understanding of the game and only play casually in the worst mechs they can conceive because they find that challenging and fun. His knowledge could be specifically much more in depth than someone who has a high Elo especially when dealing with a topic the high Elo person has never considered.
Is there a reason to put a MG on a mech? The High Elo person will dismiss this out of hand with a "No, they are worthless. No one uses them. They are a joke at high level play." He is right but his reasoning for why they are bad is fallacious. Group think has told him they are bad and he is conforming. A Low Elo person may have actually tried for months to find a mech and load-out that makes MGs worth taking and may not have found it or more likely found they are only good in a niche situation. The conclusion is the same but it is actually BASED on more in depth understanding of the nature of MGs, after all you do NOT bring MGs to a 8 man queue match, do you?
This is why Public Elo means absolutely {Richard Cameron} in the grand scheme of things and judging people based upon the logic of their statements, their thoughts, and what evidence they can provide on the topic is more important than if you have ever faced them in an 8 man or what their Elo score is.
5
took that long to do 500+ damage in a spider
