I'm unconvinced. There are other studies that show that there's more to it than confounding factors. For example: > not only is the Dunning–Kruger effect not

I'm unconvinced. There are other studies that show that there's more to it than confounding factors. For example: > not only is the Dunning–Kruger effect not merely a statistical artefact at the group level, it also cannot be explained solely by Bayesian shrinkage in the rational estimations of individual participants. [1] Note too that we've veered way off from the original assertion that DK had failed replication, through the fallback claim that it was an artifact of analysis itself then finally to the claim that though data artifacts are part of it, there could be confounding factors. [1] https://matanmazor.github.io/files/papers/mazor2021dunning.pdf https://matanmazor.github.io/files/papers/mazor2021dunning.p...