> Lets say the overconfidence is always that you feel 50% of those better than you are actually worse than you. So everyone is equally overconfident, just that the top wont move their own placings as much as the bottom since there are much fewer people that they can mistake being worse than them. Then apply noise to this and you get the graph Dunning-Kruger got.
But the data of original D-K paper shows that the top 25% people underestimate their placings. So this whole paragraph, while logically true, has little to do with the original D-K effect.
> You could say "But they are better at estimating their rank!", but that is just a mathematical artefact, it isn't a psychological result. Even if everyone always guessed that they are number 1...
If everyone always guessed that they are number 1, it's a huge psychological result: it means people are extremely irrational when it comes to self-evaluation.
> But the data of original D-K paper shows that the top 25% people underestimate their placings. So this whole paragraph, while logically true, has little to do with the original D-K effect.
That is what you would expect under my model, due to the randomness being limited upwards for the high placings but still go downwards. That is the effect the article we are talking about refers to when they say "Autocorrelation".
But the data of original D-K paper shows that the top 25% people underestimate their placings. So this whole paragraph, while logically true, has little to do with the original D-K effect.
> You could say "But they are better at estimating their rank!", but that is just a mathematical artefact, it isn't a psychological result. Even if everyone always guessed that they are number 1...
If everyone always guessed that they are number 1, it's a huge psychological result: it means people are extremely irrational when it comes to self-evaluation.