I think there's both a component of numbers and psychology here. If the dispersion in perceived score caused by inaccuracy is wide enough to touch the bounds, it will force a trend towards the mean. This effect is possibly exacerbated by a tendency of perception to stray from "extremes", so subjects with a score near the edges will trend to the mean more strongly as they are unlikely to rate themselves the very best or very worst.
In a simplified experiment where we give people a 3 question quiz, those who got 2 questions right have one overestimation option, 3, and two underestimation options, 0 and 1. So it's very easy to adjust for autocorrelation by checking if a large group of 2-scorers underestimate more than twice as often as they overestimate. Then we see how their tendencies compare against 1-scorers and how they deviate from naturally overestimating more than twice as often as underestimating.
I haven't reviewed these types of papers, but if nobody made even that basic adjustment in their analysis, how many others have been missed in experiments like this?
The stasticial phenomenon exists, surely - but I think it will be very confusing for everyone to re-use the same name.
I get what you are trying to say, but this isn’t true… every natural number has the same amount of numbers greater and smaller… an infinite number.
(Now rate your confidence in making that assertion.)
I don’t understand what you are saying about my confidence?
The point of DK is that when you don’t know shit, any non-degenerate self assessment will result in overestimating your ability. In short, “there are more natural numbers above smaller natural numbers than bigger ones”. This doesn’t have to do with psychology, and it’s expected that it appears when evaluating random data. That’s a good thing! It means DK exists even when us pesky humans aren’t involved at all, not that DK doesn’t exist at all.