Education, done correctly, doesn’t teach you what to think but how to think.

Is the Dunning-Krugger effect mainly displayed by low education people?

In my own personal experience pretty much everybody displays that in areas outside their expertise, and I definitely include myself in this.

For example the phenomenon of people offering what basically amounts to Medical advice is incredibly common outside the Medical profession - pretty much every-fucking-body will offer you some suggestion if you say you're feeling like you have a bit of a temperature or something generic like that.

It's also my experience that highly educated people don't have any greater introspection abilities than the rest (i.e. for self-analysis and self-criticism) or empathy (to spot when other people feel that you're talking of your ass).

Maybe it's the environment I grew in, or the degrees I learned and professional occupations I had (so, Physics, Electronics Engineering, Software Engineering) that are too limited to make a judgement, maybe it's me showing my own Dunning-Kruger effect or maybe my observations are actually representative and reasonably correct: whichever way, my 2c is that learned people are no better at the adult mature skills (such as introspection and empathy) than the rest, something which also matches with my experience that the Education System (at least were I studied, Portugal of the 80s and 90s) doesn't at all teach those personal skills.

So IMHO, your assumption that the majority of those people have low education is probably incorrect, unless you're anchoring that on the statistic that most human beings on Planet Earth have low education, in which case they're certainly the majority of the confidently incorrect even if they're no more likely to be so than the rest simply because there's more of them than of the rest.

PS: Also note that amongst highly educated people there are people from different areas which emphasize different modes of thinking. My impression is that whilst STEM areas tend to emphasize analytical thinking, objectivity, assumption validation and precision, other areas actually require people to in many ways have a different relationship with objective reality (basically anything in which you're supposed to persuade others).

There's a lot of different things that get pumped into "intelligence". There's "reasoning ability", "knowledge", "wisdom", and a whole host of others, some in the category of traditional intelligence, and others around things like emotional intelligence.

Raw knowledge is something that schools can teach through memorization. You have facts. Memorization isn't the best way to do it, since context and such can often make information stick better, but some things you're eventually going to memorize, intentionally or not (I don't calculate 6*6=36 every time).

Reasoning or analytical ability is much harder to teach, since you can't really make someone more able to have insights and such.

Wisdom is something that can be trained I'd phrase it. I don't think you can be taught it like you can a history lesson, but it needs to be trained like a sport. How to apply reason to a situation, how the knowledge you have relates to things and other bits of knowledge. Which things are important and which aren't.

It sounds like you're mostly taking what I've called wisdom, with a dash if introspection tossed in, which can play very well with wisdom. "How sure am I about this?" Is a question wisdom might make you ask , and you need to know yourself to know the answer.
Knowing how to question the right part of something, so that you're not getting caught up in the little inconsistencies and missing the big one, or considering the wrong facts that are unimportant to a situation.
(A pet peeve of mine) Sometimes people will bring up statistics of race in relation to crime. People with perfectly good reasoning ability and knowledge will get caught up debating the veracity of the statistics, or the minutiae of the implications of how other statistics interplay to lead to those numbers, both in an attempt to deny the conclusion of the original argument.
The more wise thing to do is to question why this person is making the argument in the first place. Use your knowledge of society to know there are racists who want to convince others. Your reasoning to know that someone more interested in persuasion than truth can twist numbers how they want. Reject their position entirely, instead of accepting their position as valid and arguing their facts.

No, education gives you a good faith foundation so your neural connections are well groomed and not messy. Arguing in good faith is the basis for what we consider a fact is, and our sciences and legal systems. It's the basis of progress. It also stops you from being bamboozled, even by yourself, and prevents delusional thinking.

And in terms of IQ, yes, remembering facts DOES make an IQ score go up significantly.

Curiosity and openmindedness are related to intelligence, along with resiliency.

Education packs you with group of people so your instinct wants you to live in community and puts a boss ( teacher ) above you, because they want you to become a factory worker in capitalistic world. Poor animals are we.

Memorizing data doesn't make one smarter... but learning concepts absolutely does.

The classic, "we'll never need this in adult life" is math like Pythagoras' theorem, or factoring binomial equations (remember FOIL?). We don't learn that math because it's practical for adult life... we learn that math so that grown ass adults don't think someone using algebra is performing black magic.

Seems silly... but it's just like how many folks never learned past middle school biology and now think XX&XY are the only chromosomal possibilities.

I am a flight instructor. I had to study the fundamentals of instruction to earn that title, so I believe I can speak with some authority on this subject.

When discussing facts, figures and such, we consider four levels of learning. The easiest, fastest and most useless is rote memorization. Rote memorization is the ability to simply parrot a learned phrase. This is fast and easy to achieve, and fast and easy to test for, so it's what schools are highly geared toward doing.

An example from flight school: A small child, a parrot, and some Barbie dolls could be taught that "convective" means thunderstorms. When a meteorologist says the word "convective" it's basically a euphemism for thunderstorms. You've probably already memorized this by rote. You would correctly answer this question on the knowledge test:

Which weather phenomenon is a result of convective activity?

A. Upslope Fog

B. Thunderstorms

C. Stratus Clouds

Okay, what should a pilot do about thunderstorms? Are they bad? What about a thunderstorm is bad? A student who can answer those questions, who can explain that thunderstorms contain strong turbulence and winds that can break the airplane or throw it out of control have reached the Understanding level.

Problem: Sitting in the classroom talking about something is NOT flying a plane. I've had students who can explain why thunderstorms are dangerous fly right toward an anvil-shaped cloud without a care in the world, because they didn't recognize a thunderstorm when they saw one. Living in a forest, people around here don't get a good look at them from the side; the sky just turns grey and it rains a lot and there's bright flashes and booming noises. If you can get a good look at one, it's a tremendously tall cloud that flattens out way up high and tends to have a bit that sticks out like the horn on an anvil. Even in the clear air under that horn you'll get severe turbulence. A student that can identify a thunderstorm and steers to avoid it can Apply their knowledge, and have thus reached the Application level.

It's a sign that you're ready for your checkride if, upon getting a weather briefing that includes convective activity, the student makes wise command decisions to either reschedule the flight for a day of safer weather, or for isolated storms plots a route that steers to the safe side of the weather and plans for contingencies such as turning back or diverting to alternates. A student that alters his navigational choices based on weather forecasts has reached the correlation level.

It's difficult to go beyond the understanding level in a classroom with textbooks and paper tests, which is too much of what K-12 and college is like.

I think part of intelligence is the ability to recognize patterns that can be abstracted and generalized, and memorizing data is just one means of making the data available to your brain for pattern recognition. Like, if you come up with a possible theory, the quickest way to test it is to see if anything you already know would invalidate it; so the more you know, the more quickly you can sift through possible theories.

So, yeah—education reminds you that you might be wrong, while memorizing things gives you a tool to prove yourself wrong.

People in this thread have a hard time understanding what intelligence denotes.

Hint: it's not success or being smart.

A healthy level of skepticism, both of other people's ideas and of one's own, is a sign of great intelligence.

Intelligence is such an elusive concept, but here goes anyway…

Knowing stuff makes you knowledgeable. You’re either born intelligent, stupid or somewhere in between. No amount of studying will ever change that, unless studying also involves copious amounts of alcohol. In that case, you’ll only get dumber.

Anyway, studying gives you information and tools, and what you’re talking about is a bit of both. If you go through a training system like that, you’ll be equipped to process and evaluate information, but none of that changes how intelligent you are. Sure, you can sound really smart to other people by using fancy terms and explaining complicated things. Those words alone don’t make you intelligent. Having the innate ability to understand that level of information does.

I’m sure there are really smart people living in rural parts of India where they don’t learn to read or even count very far, but they can do really clever stuff when hunting birds or weaving baskets. Even though they didn’t receive much education beyond what they learned from the local villagers they can still be intelligent. If they were born in a wealthy family in UK, these people would probably go to Oxford and graduate with a PhD in no time.