Maybe I don't know how to read with understanding, but to me this article makes only two points:
1. The effect was about all people, not just dumb people.
2. The same graph can be obtained "by random".
Point 1. makes sense, but 2. is left unexplained. There is a lot of words, but no content. Almost as if GPT-3 was writing it :) .
This is a non-trivial simulation so the details are really important! Shame they are nowhere to be found.
[0]: https://ibi.gmu.edu/faculty-directory/patrick-mcknight/ [1]:https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=sH44LC4AAAAJ...
1. the DK-effect supposedly increases the noisier subjects estimates of their abilities are, 2. the graph relies on breaking the data into quartiles 3. experts are less noisy in their estimates of their abilities than are non-experts.
There is also the paper: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1...
Still I think the article does a disservice in not laying out the argument in plain language. I don't particularly feel like puzzling it out
This is the only substantial claim the author makes, yet the result is delivered in two measly sentences.
I feel snookered.
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.
(Regarding that example, a person may even withstand the confrontation with the test score, like, "I guess, even a native speaker doesn't get more than 65% on average", or, "99% is surely not that unusual, everybody with a decent understanding should get a score like this".)