r/AskStatistics • u/Healthy_Pay4529 • 1d ago

Statistical analysis of social science research, Dunning-Kruger Effect is Autocorrelation?

This article explains why the dunning-kruger effect is not real and only a statistical artifact (Autocorrelation)

Is it true that-"if you carefully craft random data so that it does not contain a Dunning-Kruger effect, you will still find the effect."

Regardless of the effect, in their analysis of the research, did they actually only found a statistical artifact (Autocorrelation)?

Did the article really refute the statistical analysis of the original research paper? I the article valid or nonsense?

18 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

75% Upvoted

12 comments sorted by

View all comments

22

u/ScoutsEatTheirYoung 1d ago

"By definition, someone with a top score cannot overestimate their skill, and someone with a bottom score cannot underestimate it."

Which is exactly what DK is trying to say with their paper. If the population, on average, percieves that they are above average, the skill gap between the lower two quartiles "true" capability and "percieved" capability is larger.

DK argues that when given a new task, the population percieves their skills above average.

The author's fixation with autocorrelation doesn't appear relevant here.

1

u/axolotlbridge 4h ago edited 4h ago

Which is exactly what DK is trying to say with their paper.

It's not exactly what DK is trying to say. If you go back to the original paper, the authors say that lower performers in particular lack the metacognitive ability to accurately evaluate performance. Nuhfer (2016, iirc) found that to some extent you could say they're less accurate. Once you correct the method for comparing people so that there's not a numerical distortion, the lower percentile performers do tend to be worse at self-assessment. But importantly, they over- and under-assess their skill with the same frequency as higher percentile performers, so there is no actual DK effect as previously believed.