Check out Nuhfer et al 2016, who had a different explanation for why Dunning Kruger wasn't true.
Dunning Kruger effect: lower performers overestimate their ability, and higher performers underestimate their ability.
How did they find that? They asked participants to take a test and then had them do a self-assessment. Both were standardized from 0-100. They rated a participant's self-assessment accuracy by "self-assessment minus test score."
What's wrong with that method? You can't arrogantly self-assess as though you got a 130, and you can't humbly say that you got -50. Because of the standardization, you're bound by 0 and 100. This method makes it almost impossible for higher performers to overestimate their ability and for lower performers to underestimate.
What they actually found was that higher performers tend to be better at self-assessment. Lower performers are less accurate, but in both directions (not just overconfident).
Dunning Kruger effect: lower performers overestimate their ability, and higher performers underestimate their ability.
How did they find that? They asked participants to take a test and then had them do a self-assessment. Both were standardized from 0-100. They rated a participant's self-assessment accuracy by "self-assessment minus test score."
What's wrong with that method? You can't arrogantly self-assess as though you got a 130, and you can't humbly say that you got -50. Because of the standardization, you're bound by 0 and 100. This method makes it almost impossible for higher performers to overestimate their ability and for lower performers to underestimate.
What they actually found was that higher performers tend to be better at self-assessment. Lower performers are less accurate, but in both directions (not just overconfident).