Checking the Inclusion Criteria 2 & 3, it does seem at surface read to miss out on the "overconfidence" factor where the comparator is biased towards the affirmation for the "in group" i.e. is X or Y better at [domain]. However, the more insidious social culprit may be the question is X or Y worse.. - ThreadSky

About ThreadSky

neondistraction.bsky.social • 89 days ago

Checking the Inclusion Criteria 2 & 3, it does seem at surface read to miss out on the "overconfidence" factor where the comparator is biased towards the affirmation for the "in group" i.e. is X or Y better at [domain]. However, the more insidious social culprit may be the question is X or Y worse..

Comments

neondistraction.bsky.social•89 days ago

Given the subject ages are restricted to 18 and younger, it also makes me wonder if the kind of mathematics that is taught during those years is far less prone to inaccurate self assessment. You can't pretend to be right when answering math questions at that level. Maybe a humbling factor?

stemfactually.bsky.social•89 days ago

Survey data is always iffy for many reasons, definitely. But it is a decently large meta study worth considering. Unfortunately my background is in chemistry not psych, and therefore a limitation in my interpretation of the field-specific details.

neondistraction.bsky.social•89 days ago

Though I should say it's a valuable barometer to ensure we constantly test that education and personal potential is being fully cultivated for all.

neondistraction.bsky.social•89 days ago

I'd say you're fortunate 😁 psych is too soft a field, prone to the whims of the current zeitgeist.

stemfactually.bsky.social•89 days ago

Fortunate in some cases! I love chemistry but would also enjoy knowing more psych. When I get some spare time I plan to read some texts.

Posting Rules

Be respectful to others
No spam or self-promotion
Stay on topic
Follow Bluesky's terms of service

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply