The statement "stupid people think they are smart" can often be true, and it’s supported by a psychological phenomenon called the Dunning-Kruger effect. This is a cognitive bias where people with low ability or limited knowledge in a certain area tend to overestimate their competence. In other words, when someone doesn’t know much about a subject, they may lack the insight needed to realise how little they know. Because they don’t understand the complexity of the topic, they assume it must be simple—and therefore think they’ve mastered it. There’s a fascinating real-life example that illustrates this perfectly. In 1995, a man named McArthur Wheeler robbed two banks in broad daylight without wearing any disguise. When he was arrested, he was genuinely confused, saying, “But I wore the juice!” He had read that lemon juice can be used as invisible ink and believed that rubbing lemon juice on his face would make him invisible to security cameras. This case was so bizarre that it inspired the psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger to study the phenomenon further, eventually leading them to describe and name the effect. It showed that the man’s confidence came from his ignorance—he didn’t know enough to realise how wrong he was.
We see this kind of thinking play out in everyday situations too. Imagine someone new to coding who watches a few tutorial videos and then confidently claims they could build a full-scale app on their own. Because they’ve only seen the surface, they believe the task is easy and that they’re already capable. Meanwhile, experienced developers—who truly understand the difficulties of building and maintaining complex software—are often more modest in what they claim they can do. That humility doesn’t come from weakness, but from a deeper understanding of how much they still don’t know.
Interestingly, as people become more competent, they often start to underestimate themselves. They become more aware of the challenges and feel less certain, even though they’re more skilled. This creates a kind of paradox where those who know less think they know more, while those who know more are often more cautious or self-critical.
So, while the statement may sound harsh, it reflects a real and somewhat ironic truth: the people who loudly believe they are the smartest in the room might just be the ones who understand the least. And those who quietly question themselves might be the most intelligent ones of all.
Dunning and Kruger explained that this pattern supported their broader argument: the skills needed to perform well in logical reasoning are the same skills needed to evaluate whether one's reasoning is correct or flawed. If a person cannot construct a sound argument or identify valid conclusions, they are also unlikely to notice when their reasoning is mistaken. This leads to a dangerous combination—poor logical performance paired with unjustified confidence.
The results from the logical reasoning section of their study added weight to their overall conclusion: people who are unskilled in a particular area often do not recognise their lack of skill, and as a result, they make imperfect self-assessments. In the context of logic, this means that those who make reasoning errors may do so not out of carelessness, but because they are genuinely unaware that their reasoning is flawed. This lack of awareness is at the heart of what later became known as the Dunning-Kruger effect.
The Dunning-Kruger effect was coined by two social psychologists, David Dunning and Justin Kruger, from Cornell University. They introduced this concept in their 1999 research pape: Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments”, published in: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121–1134 (1999).
In this paper, they presented a series of experiments that showed how people who performed in the lowest percentiles on tests of humour, grammar, and logic tended to overestimate how well they had done dramatically. The key insight was that incompetence not only causes poor performance, but also robs people of the ability to recognise their poor performance. Although their theory is often discussed in popular psychology books, this paper is the original and authoritative source.
The Dunning-Kruger experiment revealed a fascinating and somewhat ironic truth about human self-perception. In their 1999 study, psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger conducted a series of tests to measure people's abilities in areas such as grammar, logical reasoning, and understanding humour. After completing the tests, participants were asked to evaluate how well they thought they had performed compared to others.
What the researchers found was striking: their ignorance blinded them to their ignorance.
This discovery was what led to the formulation of the now-famous concept known as the Dunning-Kruger effect. It highlights a peculiar flaw in human thinking: when people know very little about a subject, they often don’t know enough to realise just how much they don’t know. As a result, they develop an inflated view of their abilities, sometimes even believing they are more capable than experts.
The paradox is that more competent people tend to assess themselves more realistically, and in some cases, even underestimate their abilities. That’s because greater knowledge brings greater awareness of complexity, nuance, and uncertainty. So, the more someone truly knows, the more likely they are to recognise how much more there is to learn.
Dunning and Kruger discuss the idea of imperfect self-assessments—the tendency for people to misjudge their own abilities, particularly when they lack competence in a specific area.
Dunning and Kruger argue that accurate self-assessment depends on a certain level of skill or knowledge. To judge how well you're doing at something, you must first understand how that task or subject works. However, the problem is that the very skills required to be competent are often the same skills needed to evaluate one’s competence. Therefore, people who are not very skilled or knowledgeable in a domain often don’t have the tools to recognise their own errors or weaknesses. This leads them to overestimate their performance, sometimes to a significant degree.
Their experiments showed that people who performed poorly on tasks involving grammar, logic, and humour routinely rated themselves far higher than their actual scores would justify. These participants not only failed to perform well, but they also failed to recognise that they hadn’t performed well. The researchers described this as a kind of “double burden”: the unskilled suffer not only from poor performance but also from a lack of insight into that poor performance.
The article also discusses how improving someone’s skills in a particular area not only makes them more competent but also gives them a better ability to judge their competence more accurately. Once participants were given some training in the skill being tested, they became more aware of their earlier mistakes and adjusted their self-assessments accordingly.
Dunning and Kruger explain that imperfect self-assessments are not just the result of overconfidence or arrogance. Rather, they arise from a lack of metacognitive ability—the ability to think about and evaluate one’s thinking. Without this, people are simply unable to judge where they stand in comparison to others, leading to inflated views of their skills. This insight helps explain why self-perception is often flawed and why those with the least expertise may be the most certain of their correctness.
Dunning and Kruger also explore the important relationship between competence and metacognitive skills—that is, the ability to evaluate and reflect on one’s thinking and performance. They argue that to be truly competent in any area, a person not only needs to master the actual skill or knowledge involved but also needs to possess the awareness to accurately assess how well they are doing.
One of the central ideas in their research is that the same skills required to perform a task are often the very ones needed to judge whether you performed it well or poorly. This connection between competence and metacognition means that people who lack skill in a given domain often also lack the insight to recognise their limitations. As a result, they are prone to overestimating their abilities, simply because they do not know enough to see what they’re doing wrong.
Dunning and Kruger’s experiments supported this idea. Participants who scored poorly on tests of logical reasoning, grammar, or humour tended to rate their performances much higher than they were. These individuals were not being intentionally dishonest or arrogant; rather, they genuinely believed they had done well, because their low level of competence did not allow them to see the flaws in their reasoning or answers. In other words, their lack of metacognitive skills was a key reason for their inflated self-assessments.
On the other hand, those who performed well on the same tasks were not only more competent in the subject matter but also better at evaluating their performance. These higher performers had the necessary understanding to compare their efforts accurately against standards of quality or logic, which helped them make more realistic judgments about how well they had done. Ironically, some of the most skilled participants underestimated their performance, perhaps because they assumed others would do just as well.
Dunning and Kruger emphasise that competence is not just about being good at something—it’s also about being able to recognise when you are doing something well and when you are not. Without this kind of reflective thinking, people remain unaware of their weaknesses, and this leads to the phenomenon now widely known as the Dunning-Kruger effect. Their work highlights the importance of not only developing skills but also cultivating the ability to think critically about one’s own performance, decisions, and beliefs.
In their article, Dunning and Kruger use the domain of humour as one of the key areas to illustrate how people cannot often accurately assess their competence. They chose humour because it is a skill that many people believe they possess, and it involves subjective judgment as well as subtle reasoning. What they found is that humour, like grammar and logic, is governed by underlying patterns and principles that not everyone fully understands—even if they think they do.
In their study, participants were asked to evaluate a series of jokes and rate how funny they thought each one was. These joke ratings had previously been evaluated by professional comedians, so there was a baseline or expert standard to compare against. After the participants completed the task, they were asked to assess how well they thought they had done compared to others.
The results showed a familiar pattern. Participants who were the least skilled at recognising what makes a joke objectively funny—those whose judgments strayed furthest from the professional comedians' assessments—were the ones who most overestimated their performance. They genuinely believed they had a strong sense of humour and that their ratings were accurate, even though their evaluations did not align with expert judgments. Their lack of understanding about what makes humour effective prevented them from recognising flaws in their reasoning. Essentially, they did not know what they didn’t know.
Dunning and Kruger used this as a clear example of how the unskilled are often unaware of their lack of skill, because they do not possess the cognitive tools needed to measure themselves properly. In the case of humour, this means they cannot tell the difference between what is genuinely funny and what simply aligns with their taste or assumptions. Their self-assessment is not grounded in an understanding of comedic structure, timing, or audience response—key elements that professionals consider.
This part of the study reinforces the larger point of the article: when people lack competence in a particular area, such as humour, they also lack the metacognitive awareness to see their limitations. As a result, they overrate their ability, not out of arrogance, but out of ignorance. The humor experiment served as a vivid and relatable example of how the Dunning-Kruger effect plays out in everyday life, especially in areas where people feel confident without necessarily being qualified.
Dunning and Kruger also explored logical reasoning as one of the key domains to test their hypothesis about self-assessment and incompetence. They selected logical reasoning because it is a fundamental skill that people often use in everyday decision-making, problem-solving, and argumentation. It also tends to be viewed as an objective area—there are clear right and wrong answers, which makes it ideal for testing how accurately people can evaluate their performance.
Participants in their study were asked to complete a logical reasoning test that included items designed to measure deductive and analytical thinking. After taking the test, they were asked to estimate how well they had done compared to others who took the same test. What Dunning and Kruger found was consistent with the results in other domains like grammar and humour: those who scored the lowest on the logical reasoning test were also the ones who most significantly overestimated their performance.
These individuals not only performed poorly, but they also could not recognise their poor reasoning skills. They thought they had done much better than they had, often placing themselves well above average in comparison to their peers. The irony was that their poor reasoning skills also made them unable to see the flaws in their own logic. In other words, their cognitive limitations prevented them from accurately judging the quality of their thought processes.
Dunning and Kruger discuss the concept of "Competence Begets Calibration," which refers to the relationship between a person’s level of competence in a particular domain and their ability to accurately assess their abilities. They argue that individuals who possess higher levels of competence in a given area tend to have a better understanding of their limitations and are more capable of accurately calibrating their skills. This means that those who are truly knowledgeable or skilled in a field are better able to gauge their performance and recognise when they have succeeded or failed.
Dunning and Kruger explain that competent individuals develop a more realistic sense of their own abilities, partly because their experience and knowledge allow them to see the nuances and complexities that others may miss. They are aware of the gaps in their knowledge and are thus more likely to make precise self-assessments. In contrast, those with lower levels of competence often lack the necessary framework to judge their abilities accurately. This discrepancy in self-assessment arises because they may not be aware of the criteria or benchmarks needed to evaluate their performance effectively.
Dunning and Kruger discuss a concept they refer to as "The Burden of Expertise," which highlights a paradox that often affects people who are highly competent in a particular area. According to their findings, individuals who possess significant knowledge or skill tend to assume that what they know is common knowledge—that others also share their level of understanding or can easily grasp the same concepts. This assumption leads them to underestimate how exceptional their expertise is, and as a result, they often evaluate their performance as being average or even below average, despite actually performing quite well. This phenomenon occurs because experts have internalised their skills to such an extent that they become second nature, and they forget how much effort it once took to acquire that knowledge. Since their mastery feels natural to them, they mistakenly believe that others must also find the same tasks easy. In essence, their competence blinds them to how much more they know than the average person. This misjudgment leads to a kind of modesty or underconfidence in self-assessment, not because they lack knowledge, but because they overestimate the abilities of others.
Dunning and Kruger emphasise that the burden of expertise means that truly competent individuals are often less likely to assert themselves or speak with the same level of confidence as those who are less competent but overconfident. This dynamic can create situations where the most knowledgeable voices are drowned out by more assertive individuals who lack expertise but are convinced of their correctness. In public discourse or leadership, this can have serious consequences, as it may lead to the elevation of misguided or simplistic views, while more accurate, nuanced perspectives are ignored or undervalued.
There is a view that "you don't have to be smart to be a leader". Many leaders are less competent, but they can control people and even institutions. Is this proclaimed true?
The ability of less competent leaders to control people and institutions is often a combination of several factors, including their strategic use of advisors, but also elements like manipulation, power dynamics, and the use of psychological tactics. Other key reasons can explain how such leaders manage to stay in control despite their apparent lack of competence.
One crucial factor is personal appeal, which allows certain leaders to manipulate public perception. Even if a leader is not highly skilled or knowledgeable in governance, their charismatic presence can rally the masses and create a sense of loyalty and admiration. This can be used strategically to build a powerful cult of personality, where the leader’s image becomes synonymous with the state or the nation. In these cases, the leader may not be particularly competent in the traditional sense but can maintain power through the perception of being a strong or visionary leader.
Another significant factor is political savvy. Many leaders who may not possess specific expertise or competence in key areas are still very adept at navigating political landscapes, exploiting existing tensions, and leveraging the right alliances to maintain their position. These leaders can often manipulate situations, divide rivals, and create a sense of crisis or fear that strengthens their grip on power. For instance, they may be able to frame themselves as protectors in times of uncertainty or economic instability, even if they have little actual capability to address the underlying issues.
Manipulation of institutions is another factor that enables less competent leaders to maintain control. By undermining or co-opting key institutions, such as the media, the military, or the judiciary, a leader can keep challenges to their authority at bay. In many cases, authoritarian leaders weaken institutional checks and balances, ensuring that no one group or individual can hold them accountable. This way, even if they are not particularly skilled in running the country, they can still manage to retain power by consolidating their influence over the structures of governance.
Additionally, reliance on advisors plays a role, but it’s not always about hiring competent advisors; it’s often about choosing those who are loyal rather than those who are qualified. Loyalty from advisors can often override their actual expertise, and the leader may prioritise building a circle of people who are willing to support their decisions, even if those decisions are flawed. In some cases, this creates an environment where groupthink or echo chambers prevail, and poor advice is reinforced, leading to continued leadership despite incompetence.
Furthermore, the use of fear and intimidation can play a central role. Even leaders who are not particularly competent may use repression, violence, or intimidation to maintain control. By using force or the threat of punishment, such leaders can suppress opposition and make people feel that challenging their authority is too dangerous. This creates an environment where even competent advisors or rivals may feel compelled to support or tolerate the leader's rule, despite their lack of capability.
Finally, economic control is another factor that can help less competent leaders hold on to power. By controlling key financial resources, state institutions, or patronage networks, leaders can reward loyalty, suppress opposition, and maintain a system of dependence that makes it difficult for rivals to challenge them. Economic resources can be distributed to maintain the support of influential groups, even if the leader’s policies or actions are inefficient or misguided.
Money is undoubtedly another significant factor that can contribute to a leader’s ability to control people and institutions. Financial resources often provide a form of leverage that can be used to influence others, gain support, and maintain power. In many cases, money is not just about personal wealth but about access to economic resources, which can be used strategically in various ways. The factor of “money” can include rank and position, such as titles, official posts, and institutional power. In many real-world cases, wealth, rank, and political title are deeply intertwined, and together they create a form of influence that can allow even less competent individuals to control others and dominate systems. A leader who lacks true competence might still rise to power or maintain control because they have access to financial resources, which can be used to buy loyalty, manipulate systems, fund propaganda, or suppress opposition. At the same time, if that individual also holds a formal rank or high office, such as being a president, general, or minister, their authority becomes institutionalised, meaning people are obligated to follow them not because of personal brilliance but because of their position within the hierarchy. In such environments, people often obey not out of respect for the leader’s intelligence or wisdom, but out of fear, duty, self-interest, or the desire to stay close to power. Thus, rank, wealth, and position can substitute for genuine leadership qualities, at least for a while. These tools can provide a leader with the appearance of legitimacy, allowing them to issue orders, enforce rules, and shape narratives—even if they lack the vision, knowledge, or moral clarity that true leadership requires. So, money in this context doesn't only mean physical currency. It also symbolises powerful assets, such as titles, ranks, or control over institutions—all of which can elevate a less competent person into a position where they can lead or dominate others. But without true competence or wisdom, that kind of power often becomes fragile, corrupt, or destructive in the long run.
One of the primary ways money influences leadership control is through economic power. Leaders with substantial financial resources can allocate money to build and sustain alliances with key individuals, organisations, or institutions. This might involve bribery, funding political campaigns, or offering financial incentives to supporters. By controlling financial resources, these leaders can effectively "buy" loyalty and ensure that the people around them have a vested interest in keeping the leader in power. For instance, financial backing can ensure that leaders maintain a strong political base, have access to essential networks, and secure the cooperation of powerful entities.
Another key aspect is that money enables the control of media and information. Wealthy leaders or those supported by financial resources can use their money to influence public perception. This can be done through direct ownership of media outlets or by funding PR campaigns, advertising, or social media influence. The ability to control or manipulate information can make a leader appear more competent, charismatic, or successful than they are, thus helping them maintain control over people and institutions.
Furthermore, financial incentives can be used to manipulate or persuade individuals to act in the leader’s favour. This could include offering people jobs, contracts, or other economic benefits in exchange for loyalty, compliance, or silence. In this way, money can be used as a tool to create a network of people who have a financial interest in supporting the leader, often making them dependent on the leader’s success for their well-being.
Money also enables leaders to maintain a well-funded apparatus of security, enforcement, and control. For example, wealth allows leaders to fund security forces, police, or military units that can protect their interests, suppress opposition, or intimidate rivals. The presence of financial resources can give a leader the means to exert coercion, both subtly and overtly, which can significantly contribute to maintaining their power.
In some cases, money helps these leaders by giving them the ability to undermine opposition. By using wealth to fund rival movements, create divisions, or support destabilising tactics, they can ensure that potential challengers to their authority remain weak or disorganised. Money can also be used to fuel propaganda or smear campaigns against adversaries, preventing them from gaining a foothold in the political or institutional landscape.
Ultimately, wealth serves as a multiplier for other forms of power. It enhances a leader’s ability to exert influence, manipulate outcomes, and maintain control over a larger network of people, institutions, and resources. Even if a leader lacks strong intellectual skills or competence, their financial resources can enable them to create the infrastructure of power—from loyal advisors to the media to law enforcement—that sustains their leadership.
Money is a crucial factor that enhances a leader’s ability to control people and institutions. It provides the means to secure loyalty, suppress opposition, manipulate perceptions, and maintain the necessary systems of support that ensure their continued authority.
The Dunning-Kruger effect continues to be cited widely in psychology and beyond, helping explain overconfidence in a range of areas—from politics to the workplace to everyday decision-making.
When linking the ability of less competent leaders to control people and institutions with the Dunning-Kruger effect, we can see that the Dunning-Kruger effect offers an interesting lens through which to understand how such leaders perceive and assert their competence. The Dunning-Kruger effect suggests that people with lower competence in a specific domain often overestimate their abilities, due to their lack of self-awareness and inability to recognise their limitations. In the context of less competent leaders, this effect may play a significant role in how they perceive their ability to govern, make decisions, and maintain control.
Less competent leaders, in line with the Dunning-Kruger effect, might not only overestimate their skills but also be unaware of the flaws in their decision-making. Their inability to recognise their limitations could make them more confident in their ability to manage complex political, social, or economic situations, even when they lack the expertise to do so effectively. This overconfidence may lead them to make bold decisions, pursue policies with little regard for their potential consequences, or even refuse to listen to competent advisors. The overconfidence that comes with the Dunning-Kruger effect can make them more likely to ignore expert advice or undermine competent individuals, as they believe their judgment is sufficient.
Furthermore, leaders affected by the Dunning-Kruger effect may have a skewed perception of how well they are managing the country or institution. They may misinterpret or fail to see the extent of their incompetence and believe they are successfully in control, even when their actions are leading to negative outcomes. This false sense of competence can lead them to double down on their policies or actions, rather than seeking out better solutions or admitting mistakes. Their inability to self-correct or seek guidance can contribute to poor governance.
At the same time, the Dunning-Kruger effect can also influence how others perceive and respond to these leaders. Advisors and supporters might prop up the leader’s overconfidence either out of loyalty, fear, or self-interest, even when they recognise the leader’s incompetence. In some cases, these leaders may surround themselves with individuals who reinforce their inflated sense of competence, creating an environment where the leader’s overestimation of their abilities is never corrected.
The Dunning-Kruger effect might prevent them from recognising their limitations, but their confidence (even if unfounded) can make them appear strong and decisive, giving them an edge in consolidating power. This is often sufficient to maintain control, even if their decisions are based on inaccurate self-assessments.
The Dunning-Kruger effect plays a crucial role in explaining how less competent leaders can remain in power. Their overconfidence, lack of self-awareness, and failure to accurately assess their abilities often contribute to their decision-making and leadership style. Combined with factors such as charisma, control over institutions, and political manipulation, the Dunning-Kruger effect can help explain why these leaders continue to exercise authority despite their apparent lack of competence.
So, does a leader need to be smart?
A recent study offers a surprising answer: up to a certain point, the smarter you are, the more effective you are as a leader. But being too smart can reduce how effective you are perceived, in large part because you lose touch with your subordinates. A leader does not necessarily need to be traditionally "smart" in the academic or intellectual sense, but a successful leader does need to possess a certain kind of intelligence—often a combination of emotional intelligence, strategic thinking, adaptability, and the ability to read people and situations well.
Different types of intelligence matter in leadership. For example, emotional intelligence—the ability to understand and manage one’s own emotions and those of others—is often more important than book smarts. A leader with emotional intelligence can build strong relationships, inspire trust, and navigate conflicts effectively. Similarly, a leader needs practical intelligence: the ability to make sound decisions, adapt to changing circumstances, and solve real-world problems, even without formal education or technical expertise.
Some leaders may not excel in logic or academic knowledge but are very skilled at managing people, understanding power dynamics, and communicating with influence. These qualities can allow them to rise to leadership and maintain control. In fact, history and modern politics have shown that many leaders succeed not because they are the most intelligent, but because they are perceived as confident, decisive, or inspiring—even if those qualities are more about style than substance.
That said, a complete lack of competence or insight can become a serious liability over time. If a leader consistently makes poor decisions, ignores expert advice, or refuses to learn, it can harm the people or institutions they are responsible for. In such cases, charisma or manipulation might help them maintain power temporarily, but it usually cannot compensate for deep incompetence in the long run—unless they surround themselves with competent advisors and allow those advisors to act on their behalf.
In conclusion, while a leader does not have to be the smartest person in the room, they must be smart enough to recognise their limits, rely on the right people, and continue learning. Leadership is not about ego or dominance, but about responsibility and service. True leadership involves more than intelligence—it requires wisdom, humility, vision, and the ability to inspire others to act toward a common goal.
