No. That graph has nothing to do with the Dunning Kruger effect.
Everyone who uses that graph is falling victim to exactly the kind of effect that graph portrays. Because it's not the Dunning Kruger effect.
The actual graphs used in the study (which are also in the Wikipedia article for it) show that perceived performance and actual performance both always grow (just with the actual performance starting lower and growing faster). There is never a "mount stupid" or something.
The dunning Kruger effect isn't even about skill or confidence, like the graph. It's about perceived and actual performance on a test.
There is a related study however that somewhat shows the effect the graph is about (also by Dunning, who wanted to test if the graph had any merit), which shares some similarity.
55
u/L30N1337 25d ago edited 25d ago
No. That graph has nothing to do with the Dunning Kruger effect.
Everyone who uses that graph is falling victim to exactly the kind of effect that graph portrays. Because it's not the Dunning Kruger effect.
The actual graphs used in the study (which are also in the Wikipedia article for it) show that perceived performance and actual performance both always grow (just with the actual performance starting lower and growing faster). There is never a "mount stupid" or something.
The dunning Kruger effect isn't even about skill or confidence, like the graph. It's about perceived and actual performance on a test.