GAW was forced to ban several of long-time contributors over the past few days after some extremely unacceptable behaviour both on the site and in modmail. What happened? These users were warned, asking them to tone it down, get re-focused a bit (maybe go camping?), etc., but instead the behaviour only got worse, and, finally, becoming very concerning. Rather than sit out their vacations and re-focus, the users decided opted for the nuclear option.
We HATE banning good users! Especially permanently! Everyone should be having fun here. But.
We will ban insane behaviour like this, all day, every day, equally, any user, it doesn't matter. This kind of crazy, insane behaviour (doxing, threats, posts on other WINs, etc.) towards GAW's mods, our users, posts, comments, or abuse in modmail, will not be tolerated.
These users are now PM'ing various users here, and these conversations are now filtering up to the mod team. Feel free to reply if you want, etc., but, if you choose to engage, you'll quickly see this same immature behaviour from them as they will quickly demonstrate why they were banned.
GAW will continue to have one of the best online communities around. The entire mod team remains committed to keeping GAW focused on Q, focused on solid, quality discussion, and keeping us ready for The Storm. Thank you!
EDIT: Here are some answers to some questions we're getting asked.
Why can't the mod team do anything about this contact? Apologies, we aren't able to control how the .WINs work, and we're sorry many of you were forced to deal with this unfortunate situation.
How does GAW run? Other than the 100% volunteer mod team, basically, several years ago, we were lucky enough to get invited to run on the same digital infrastructure that The_Donald.WIN (now Patriots.WIN, of course) ran on. Why? Because Q was part of the movement, but they wanted us annoying (LEL 😎) "Q believers" to have their own space so that regular patriots could have the option to participate or not. The mods have no access to the codebase. We found ways to add our own feel here (pepes, colours, etc.), but we don't have the ability to shadowban, or otherwise hassle anyone, anywhere. We can only control user access, sticky posts, and remove harmful comments.
Hmm... I'm not sure that's an accurate description of the Dunning-Kruger effect. That was an experiment showing that people with low ability tend to overestimate their skills. It also has a lot of mathematical evidence as to why it may not even be statistically significant or true.
I never tire of pointing out to people that it is actually a graph
The graph also highly describes the Great Awakening process.
The "peak of mount stupid" is where most normies are after going through the education system and believing they know everything.
The first time you get redpilled, and you realise everything you know is a lie, is when you fall into the valley of despair. You dont hit the bottom until you recognise everything is a lie.
And then as you quest for truth, you will head onto the slope of elightenment. Almost all the Anons are on this slope. We know the inadequacy of our own knowledge all too keenly, since everything we are told is a lie, but we also have learnt how to make our way out of it. Its slow and tedious, but eventually one hopes to reach the "Plateu of sustainability"
So, when someone mentions Dunning-Kruger on reddit, I always ask them "What was your valley of despair like?" because, if you havent experieced a valley of despair, you are at "Mt Stupid" !
I think mine was when I realized my own pastors from my old church were verbally emotionally, and physically abusing a friend of mine's son, and then some incidents involving me and my daughter, not abusive but very hurtful. There have been other awakenings, but that's one of the biggest.
I've had a long journey of humbling, and discovery since then. It was so hard knowing that people I loved and trusted were secretly so wicked.
I am far from perfect, but I'm wise enough to know life is a journey, and not a destination, and to take it one day at a time.
This graph shows the more complete data for the Dunning-Kruger Effect. This one includes the opposite end where competent people generally underestimate their abilities.
Basically "The more you know, the more you realize you dont know". Or as Bertrand Russell put it:
Youre right, this could absolutely be used to describe the mental process happening during a normies awakening process.
And your comment just made me realize that the opposite end of the D-K Effect graph can also describe people who started the awakening process long ago. We're the ones who sometimes second guess (and even doubt) our own knowledge.
I don't understand where the first graph graph came from. The peak of mount stupid doesn't come from Dunning-Kruger at all (the first peak is not in their data set), and your graph is one of four they included in their paper (self-assessment of grammar). While it's true that at the very upper end there's between 10% and 25% underestimation of skill, it's interesting there's almost no underestimation in logic and reasoning:
https://graphpaperdiaries.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/logicgraph.png
But there's a significant overestimation at the low end.
Edit: By first graph, I'm referring to the one in the post you responded to.
Did a quick search... half the graphs and explanations online have been very simplified.
For some reason they only include the ignorant side that overestimate, and completely ignore the other end of the scale.
They Dun Krugered & we's likes it!
Mom...Jeffery Joseph is doxxng me again!!!
It can also refer to highly competent people over estimating the ability of others.
Thats the "imposter syndrome"
It only refers to self assessment.
Highly competent people underestimating their own abilities would fall under Dunning-Kruger effect.
I thought that was what we were talking about? /confused :)
What you described isnt the 'Dunning-Kruger Effect'.
D-K Effect is about peoples false perception of their own abilities (or knowledge), versus the actual reality of those abilities.
It doesnt include ones perception of other peoples abilities.
I don't believe that's the case either. Their study strictly limited its findings to differences between objective reality and self-assessment. I'm not aware of anything in their experiment involving assessment of other people.
(I'm not speaking to the validity of the claim that the bias in assessment also extends to other people -- only to the claim that it falls under the Dunning-Kruger effect.)