If people are all pretty-much crap at estimating their own skill, then you'd expect all estimates to be roughly their actual skill, plus-or-minus some random error-margin with some kind of probabilistic distribution (Gaussian?).
If that were the case, then high-skilled people would be more likely to underestimate their skill (because their actual skill is greater than the mean). That (I think) is an example of "reversion to the mean".
If that reasoning is right, then the DK claim may be true, but it says nothing about the comparative estimating propensities of high-skilled and low-skilled people. It just says that low-skilled people tend to overestimate their skill, and vice-versa. But that's exactly what you'd expect, amirite?
If people are all pretty-much crap at estimating their own skill, then you'd expect all estimates to be roughly their actual skill, plus-or-minus some random error-margin with some kind of probabilistic distribution (Gaussian?).
If that were the case, then high-skilled people would be more likely to underestimate their skill (because their actual skill is greater than the mean). That (I think) is an example of "reversion to the mean".
If that reasoning is right, then the DK claim may be true, but it says nothing about the comparative estimating propensities of high-skilled and low-skilled people. It just says that low-skilled people tend to overestimate their skill, and vice-versa. But that's exactly what you'd expect, amirite?