However, I disagree with his interpretation of Dunning and Kruger's figures. There is limited data in those figures of course (3 sets with 12 points of data and 1 set with 8 points), and I don't know how big the actual sample sizes were. But in all 4 cases, it clearly and significantly shows that people with low actual ability overrate themselves and people with high actual ability underrate themselves.
> The pop-sci version of Dunning-Kruger is that, the less someone knows about a subject, the more they think they know.
I can only guess that he is interpreting that too literally. I always took the latter part as "the more they think they know [compared to what they actually do]". You could plot "perceived - actual" or "perceived / actual" instead of the figures in the paper to make it more obvious.