> You are over-interpreting the Dunning-Krueger paper. Almost certainly true, as I've never read the actual paper; I've encountered the concept and phenomena

> You are over-interpreting the Dunning-Krueger paper. Almost certainly true, as I've never read the actual paper; I've encountered the concept and phenomena in the wild. I take your word for it. If you have a better term for what I am describing, I will be happy to learn it. Their research seems to lack introspection and fundamental rigor. Did you get a different impression than that, from the essay? My contention (if mimesis was my thesis) is that it is research insofar as it carries out the activity of research, but that it carries out that activity without being truly informed by the material of the research; process disassociated from content. However, it was a question, not an assertion; I've no opinion.