[I am not a psychologist, but here is my summary of how I think the real effect works...
Let's say we have a skill we can be assessed on a scale of 1-10. 1 is worst, 10 is best.
The popular perception of the Dunning Kruger effect is that people lower on the scale, say 2 or 3, rate themselves highly - say 7 or 8. And people who are higher - say a 7 or 8 - rate themselves more modestly - say a 5 or 6. i.e. people who are less skilled rate themselves as being better performers than people who are better.
The actual effect is a lot weaker, and a kind of reversion to the mean. If you are a 2 or 3 you may rate yourself a 4 or a 5. If you are a 7 or an 8 you may rate yourself as only a 6 or a 7. Less skilled people are well aware that they are less skilled, but may underestimate the degree of the effect.]
The Dunning Kruger effect effect, eh?
Are you aware that your whole post just said "Nobody understands the version of this thing in my head?" This us a studied thing. You need sources and conclusions drawn from them, not your own speculation (not that it was horribly off the mark, but come on, man)
I'll see myself out.
Of course my understanding is also based on some probably misremembered media, combined with a five minute refresher on the Wikipedia page, so it may be equally erronious. Please do you own research.
The exact percentage of people getting it wrong was plucked out of the air, but that's not the important part of his comment.
How sublimely apropos!