The Dunning-Kruger Effect Is Probably Not Real
The Dunning-Kruger effect may just be a data artefact (2020)
The Dunning-Kruger effect, a celebrated theory that incompetent people overestimate their abilities, may be a statistical artifact rather than a real cognitive bias. This article investigates the original 1999 study and subsequent critiques, including simulations showing that random data can reproduce the effect's signature graph. Experts argue that measurement error in self-assessment, not a flaw in human reasoning, explains the phenomenon. The piece also clarifies common misconceptions, such as the effect applying to everyone, not just the unskilled, and distinguishes it from related biases like overconfidence.
We have no instance in the history of scientific discovery where a finding improves by increasing measurement error. None.
- hector_vasquez
Man sets out to write article on DK Effect, comes across one skeptical study, confidently writes article refuting DK Effect.
It writes itself.
- belviewreview
The reason people find the DK effect persuasive is that everyone has run into this many times in their own lives. Like with an idiot boss who thinks he knows your job better than you do, or an article by someone that gets things completely wrong about a topic that you yourself know very well, through personal experience or extensive study. And we have all been dismayed about the impact such people can have, like through their decisions or influencing each other.
If the research can't demonstrate the DK effect, then the research is bad, like poorly designed.
- brlewis
The key claim: "Random data actually mimics the effect really well."
This makes some sense. If people are asked to guess a number between 1 and 6 and then roll a die, the people who roll low are more likely to overestimate and the people who roll high are more likely to underestimate. But the key is precisely how well random data mimics the effect.
- unwise-exe
The chart they show from the original paper is approximately just:
perceived_ability = 0.5 + (actual_ability / 4)
(With the caveat that "ability" is a percentile rather than some absolute measure.)
That's not the negative correlation that it's often presented as in discussions. And it could as easily relate to mis-measuring everyone else's skill as to mis-measuring your own skill.
- MBCook
Even if it isn’t true, it’s got the feeling of truthiness (1).
I don’t expect it to ever go out of the public consciousness. Like other things that were never real like Stockholm Syndrome I suspect it’s just stuck in the zeitgeist now.
- _0ffh
Damn, I remember I worked through the whole damn thing some years ago when I read this article for the first time, and it didn't hold up to it's claim. I was actually contemplating to do a write-up, but it wasn't really important to me so I didn't. Seeing the same article re-appear on HN for the second time now I really wish that I did. Unfortunately I've forgotten the details by now.
- datakan
Replication crisis. More than half of all psychology studies are not reproducible.
I'm at the point honestly, where I don't even consider psychology to be a science anymore.
- renlo
A similar argument was made a couple of years ago, here's the rebuttal of the argument from back then [2022]: https://andersource.dev/2022/04/19/dk-autocorrelation.html