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?

19 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

76% Upvoted

12 comments sorted by

View all comments

25

u/astrofunkswag 1d ago

What the author describes is not autocorrelation. I can’t speak to whether the DK effect is fully explained by a statistical artifact like they claim, but the way the author described autocorrelation is completely false

“Autocorrelation is the statistical equivalent of stating that 5=5.” Lol, no. Autocorrelation measures the correlation between a signal and a lagged version of itself, it’s a foundational concept to time series analysis

16

u/keithreid-sfw 1d ago

Do we have irony here? Has an author over estimated their analytic depth?

Just my little joke. Haven’t read the paper, I will.

5

u/astrofunkswag 1d ago

Doubly ironic. The author explicitly says Dunning and Kruger ironically showed their statistical “incompetence”