There wasn't an actual explanation as to WHY it wouldn't be real. They show the original plot, then another plot generated with random data that looks like a da

There wasn't an actual explanation as to WHY it wouldn't be real. They show the original plot, then another plot generated with random data that looks like a dampened version of the original effect. Then there are like 10 paragraphs on either side of these two pictures, which don't do a lot to support these critical plots. I am left unsatisfied! > "The above Dunning-Kruger graph was created by Patrick McKnight using computer-generated results for both self-assessment and performance. The numbers were random. There was no bias in the coding that would lead these fictitious students to guess they had done really well when their actual score was very low. And yet we can see that the two lines look eerily similar to those of Dunning and Kruger’s seminal experiment. A similar simulation was done by Dr. Phillip Ackerman and colleagues three years after the original Dunning-Kruger paper, and the results were similar." OK, so you removed the brain, and made some models that produce somewhat similar results. What if your models just modeled the brain? How does this refute the original?