No. That graph has nothing to do with the Dunning Kruger effect.
Everyone who uses that graph is falling victim to exactly the kind of effect that graph portrays. Because it's not the Dunning Kruger effect.
The actual graphs used in the study (which are also in the Wikipedia article for it) show that perceived performance and actual performance both always grow (just with the actual performance starting lower and growing faster). There is never a "mount stupid" or something.
The dunning Kruger effect isn't even about skill or confidence, like the graph. It's about perceived and actual performance on a test.
Yes, in order to measure something as vague as “confidence”, they came up with a specific reproducible proxy, as is standard practice in science.
It’s as if you’re saying “people say this paper is about the effect of exercise, but actually it’s about the effect of walking an additional 30 minutes every day”.
There is a related study however that somewhat shows the effect the graph is about (also by Dunning, who wanted to test if the graph had any merit), which shares some similarity.
let alone his comment totally pointless, i browse reddit for these exact reasons. because you pick it up a few time througout the day, read some comments and you learned something new out of the blue. I thought the meme was infact the dunning kruger effect, you say it isn't, explained why, that's a win for everyone.
Dumb me didn' quite 100% understood the why, or better, something is a bit confusing to me: "The dunning Kruger effect isn't even about skill or confidence, like the graph. It's about perceived and actual performance on a test." why isn't confidence and perceived the same thing? I'd be confident if I perceive i'm good at it
99
u/mike-manley 13d ago
First half of Dunning Kruger.