4 ms·
A similar argument was made a couple of years ago, here's the rebuttal of the argument from back then [2022]: https://andersource.dev/2022/04/19/dk-autocorrelat
by renlo 2mo ago
A similar argument was made a couple of years ago, here's the rebuttal of the argument from back then [2022]: https://andersource.dev/2022/04/19/dk-autocorrelation.html https://andersource.dev/2022/04/19/dk-autocorrelation.html
- 5555watch 2mo agoIt's an interesting read. Curiously, it doesn't really debunk anything. The fact that given X and Y random and independent, that Y-X is correlated with X doesn't disprove the Dunning Kruger. It in fact proves that Y = 1 X is a poor predictor, and the true model is Y = 0 X. In other words, perceived ability (of the human) cannot predict the actual test scores. Which is exactly what DK claims, but to a very extreme effect. Note that, if there is actual signal (plus noise), e.g., if Y = X + eps; so the actual score is exactly the perceived score plus some added variation, the (Y-X)~X will be uncorrelated. In such case, there will be no DK effect, because the users are good at predicting their actual test scores, plus some constant variation.