Re:The Dunning-Kruger Effect Is Probably Not Real
by glangdale on Saturday December 26, 2020 @06:56PM
(#25547484)
Point 2 also had me scratching my head. The supposed evidence for it (that graph) is statistical mystery meat.
If the two metrics (confidence and ability) were independent in a simulation, you'd expect to see a more-or-less flat line on confidence if you sorted by ability. So the model clearly insists on some sort of association between them, no? If the association is weak, you get a cross-over. Big deal.
Also, the graphs don't really look all that similar - especially when you consider the fact that the line on which the associated variable have been sorted by quantile is always going to be ascending (duh).
Tufte says "to clarify, add data" - one thing that neither the chart from the original study nor the simulated one respects. Surely we'd learn more from also being able to eyeball a scatterplot.
If the two metrics (confidence and ability) were independent in a simulation, you'd expect to see a more-or-less flat line on confidence if you sorted by ability. So the model clearly insists on some sort of association between them, no? If the association is weak, you get a cross-over. Big deal.
Also, the graphs don't really look all that similar - especially when you consider the fact that the line on which the associated variable have been sorted by quantile is always going to be ascending (duh).
Tufte says "to clarify, add data" - one thing that neither the chart from the original study nor the simulated one respects. Surely we'd learn more from also being able to eyeball a scatterplot.