I have observed in conversation that invariably if someone brings up Sturgeon's Law [1] either by naming it or quoting it ("90% of everything is crud|shit|garbage"), they invariably place themselves in the 10%. As if awareness of the law somehow insulates the speaker. That seems to be the case with D-K, per this article.
"I repeat Sturgeon's Revelation, which was wrung out of me after twenty years of wearying defense of science fiction against attacks of people who used the worst examples of the field for ammunition, and whose conclusion was that ninety percent of SF is crud. Using the same standards that categorize 90% of science fiction as trash, crud, or crap, it can be argued that 90% of film, literature, consumer goods, etc. is crap. In other words, the claim (or fact) that 90% of science fiction is crap is ultimately uninformative, because science fiction conforms to the same trends of quality as all other art forms."
Of course, to follow Sturgeon's own line of thought, that doesn't mean the other 10% aren't worth taking note of.
And if 90% of invocations of Sturgeon's Law are crap, well, we should judge them by the best examples too :)
But Sturgeon's law can't be false, whereas D/K really is commonly misunderstood and might not even be generally reproducible; it might not even be broadly true at all. D/K is certainly over-generalized and in popular culture applied to situations that are very unlike the experiments in the paper, which were only pretty trivial tasks. The D/K Effect "actually goes away, and even reverses, when the ability tests given to participants are very difficult." https://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2010/07/07/what-the-dunning-...