3 ms·
The best don't tend to overestimate their skill; they underestimate it. The D-K results show a consistent bias in estimates toward (somewhere near) the mean. He
by tempestn 3y ago
The best don't tend to overestimate their skill; they underestimate it. The D-K results show a consistent bias in estimates toward (somewhere near) the mean. Hence an overestimate at the bottom and an underestimate at the top.
- Jensson 3y ago> The best don't tend to overestimate their skill; they underestimate I wrote the wrong word, I fixed it. The best can't overestimate their rank, so of course that wasn't what I meant.
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoDunning-Kruger posits this as a psychological effect, yes? On the top half psychological effects such as imposter syndrome could come in to play. Have sociological factors such as being kind or big fish little pond been considered as likely causes of the misestimates?
- chiefalchemist 3y agoI have the same question...why do some get it so wrong? Was there a nudge in the process of the study that caused some to answer what they did? Heck, I'm wondering if "Honestly, I can't say" was an allowed response. Or were they forced to pick a number? If so, then I'd want to know what happens when you ask 100 ppl to pick a number between 0 and 100. I bet it's not evenly distributed. Maybe the beginners give a "discounted" version of the distribution? Even if the autocorrection explanation is off, there does now seem to be flaws in DK, at least from the perspective of pure and proper science