We discussed this in a previous thread. The author is basically hypothesizing that perhaps people are so universally terrible at predicting their ability, their

We discussed this in a previous thread. The author is basically hypothesizing that perhaps people are so universally terrible at predicting their ability, their self-rating is like an unconditional random variable - just a random draw that is not influenced by their actual ability level at all. If this is true, then when your actual ability is high, your self-rating is likely to be lower than your ability simply by random chance. For example, if ability ranges from 0-100, your actual ability is 99, and your self-rating is a uniform random number from 0-100, your self-rating is 99% likely to be lower than your actual ability. Conversely, if your actual ability is low, your self-rating is likely to exceed your actual ability level. When it's explained clearly and simply, the criticism raises a lot of questions. Are people actually that bad at rating their own ability? I doubt it.