Do not "meta"! Or: how to "meta" and get away with it.
I tried to post a reasonable response to this person in my last post, but I am going to go "meta" and leave a comment here, for posterity, which was a reply to this, because the moderator might filter the comment; I did not realize how true what another "FBer" was saying until reading this arrogant and self-serving post about the incident in question. The comment is as follows: This is unfair; I saw how you acted in the group and this sounds like some kind of rationalization. The use of “plebians” is pompous and arrogant, like the rest of the posts that you quoted. “somehow under the illusion that they have the right to mock my perspective (meta-theory) on epistemology simply because my epistemology differs from their own epistemology.” Another example of pomposity and arrogance. No one is mocking your theory, because you did not come on talking about your theory but about critical rationalism and how it was a special case of Bayesian theory. You came into the group and tried to criticise CP, which the group then entertained and gave you much criticism and feedback, many people got frustrated, because it seemed, that, instead of engaging with the criticism, you either ignored it or changed the subject, and repeated things that had already been criticised. “This is an excellent example of the Dunning-Kruger effect, because they seem happy to mock my perspective while under the illusion that they are somehow more informed / intelligent than I am.” No, some of them believed they were more infomed about critical rationalism, which most of them were. So, no example of D-K is apparent. “Somehow” So it is impossible to be more informed that you are? that is what this quote sounds like; if so, have you tried considering whether it is you with the D-K?
The comment is as follows:
This is unfair; I saw how you acted in the group and this sounds like some kind of rationalization. The use of “plebians” is pompous and arrogant, like the rest of the posts that you quoted.
“somehow under the illusion that they have the right to mock my perspective (meta-theory) on epistemology simply because my epistemology differs from their own epistemology.”
Another example of pomposity and arrogance.
No one is mocking your theory, because you did not come on talking about your theory but about critical rationalism and how it was a special case of Bayesian theory. You came into the group and tried to criticise CP, which the group then entertained and gave you much criticism and feedback, many people got frustrated, because it seemed, that, instead of engaging with the criticism, you either ignored it or changed the subject, and repeated things that had already been criticised.
“This is an excellent example of the Dunning-Kruger effect, because they seem happy to mock my perspective while under the illusion that they are somehow more informed / intelligent than I am.”
No, some of them believed they were more infomed about critical rationalism, which most of them were. So, no example of D-K is apparent.
“Somehow”
So it is impossible to be more informed that you are? that is what this quote sounds like; if so, have you tried considering whether it is you with the D-K?