> Dunning-Kruger is, approximately “I’m good at the thing I do” (by someone who is actually incompetent).
Nope, but I can overlook because DK is misunderstood this way by almost everyone, and the authors have caused & encouraged the misunderstanding.
Dunning and Kruger didn’t test anyone who’s actually incompetent at all! The use of that word in the paper is so hyperbolic and misleading it should have been rejected on those grounds alone. They tested only Cornell undergrads. They didn’t check whether people were good at what they do, they only checked how well people could estimate the skill of others around them. The participants had to rank themselves, and the whole mysterious question in the paper is why the ranking wasn’t perfect. (And is that a mystery, really?) It is hypothesized that DK measured nothing more than a statistical case of regression to the mean, which is well explained by having to guess how good others are: https://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2010/07/07/what-the-dunning-...
Contrary to popular belief, DK did not demonstrate that people wildly overestimate their abilities. The primary data in the paper shows a positive correllation between self-rank and skill. There’s no reversal like most people seem to think. Furthermore, they only tested very simple skills at and least one of them was completely subjective (ability to get a joke.) Other papers have shown that no such effect occurs when it comes to complex subjects like engineering and law; people are generally quite good at knowing they didn’t major in a subject.