I can't let go of “The Dunning-Kruger Effect is Autocorrelation”

What about the replication crisis? It's possible to use rigorously sound statistics to lie (or at least unknowingly spread falsehoods). I can't tell you how many times I've seen headlines or abstracts of studies that seem to contradict ones I've seen previously, and back and forth! Particularly in the social sciences.

I recall one study that said all white people are committing environmental racism against all non-white people. I dove in and read the whole thing wondering what method could have yielded scientific confidence in such a broad result. Turns out the model used was a semi-black box that required a request for access and a supercomputer to run. But it was in a Peer Reviewed Scientific Journal and had lots of Graduate Level Statistics so I guess it seemed trustworthy.

As a novice on DK, it seems to me that, for DK to be 'suprising' (in the parlance of the OP), four phenomena must hold:

1) an incompetent person is poorer than average at self assessment of their skill

2) as a person's competence increases at a skill, their ability to self-assess improves, until they become 'expert' which is defined by underappreciating their own skill (or overappreciating the skill of others)

3) DK is surprising (interesting) only when some incompetent persons who suffer from DK cannot improve their performance, presumably because their poor self-assessment prevents their learning from experience or from others.

4) Worse yet, some persons suffering from DK cannot improve their performance in numerous skill areas, presumably because their poor self-assessment is caused by a broad cognitive deficit (e.g. political bias), preventing them from improving on multiple fronts (which are probably related in some thematic way).

If DK is selective to include only one or two skill areas, as in case 3, that is not especially surprising, since most of us have skill deficits that we never surmount (e.g. bad at math, bad at drawing, etc). DK becomes surprising only in case 4, when we claim there is a select group of persons who have broad learning deficits, presumably rooted in poor assessment of self AND others — to wit, they cannot recognize the difference between good performance and bad, in themselves or others. Presumably they prefer delusion (possibly rooted in politics or gangsterism) to their acknowledgement of enumerable and measurable characteristics that separate superior from inferior performance, and that reflect hard work leading to the mastery of subtle technique.

If case 4 is what makes DK surprising, then DK certainly is not described well by the label 'autocorrelation' — which seems only to describe the growth process of a caterpillar as it matures into a butterfly.

> I think Dunning Krueger makes intuitive sense.

It’s been argued before that this is the only reason that DK gained any notoriety; because it feels right, not because it is right. It’s the “just-world” theory: we want to believe that confident people are overcompensating.

Is it actually intuitive though? Consider your own example. Most people who don’t know piano or figure skating are well aware that they don’t know, and do not rate themselves highly at all. Would it be surprising to learn that people who don’t know any law or engineering don’t often hold any doubts about their lack of skill, and by and large are not deluded nor erroneously believe they’re great at these things they don’t know?

The DK paper didn’t measure knowledge-based skills like piano, figure skating, or law. It measured things like the ability to get a joke, and conversational grammar. How would you rate your own ability to get a joke? (Does this question really even make a lot of sense?)

It’s important that the methods in the DK paper focused on tasks that are hard to self-evaluate, because when people have tried to replicate DK with more well defined knowledge-based activities, they have often demonstrated the complete opposite effect, that there is widespread impostor syndrome, and skilled people underestimate themselves.

One of the best commentaries on DK is Tal Yarkoni’s, and he came to the (perhaps similar?) conclusion that DK is probably regression to the mean. https://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2010/07/07/what-the-dunning-...

It bugs me that DK reached popular consciousness and get misinterpreted and misused more often than not. For one, the paper shows a positive correlation between confidence and skill. The paper is very clearly leading the reader, starting with the title. The biggest problem with the paper is not the methodology nor the statistics, it’s that the waxy prose comes to a conclusion that isn’t directly supported by their own data. People who are unskilled and unaware of it is not the only explanation for what they measured, nor is that even particularly likely, since they didn’t actually test anyone who’s verifiably or even suspected to be incompetent. They tested only Cornell undergrads volunteering for extra credit.

Even though I lack a medical degree I have a high degree of confidence that the intestines of most people are not sufficiently large enough to support that amount of faeces.