In an online discussion elsewhere today someone linked this article which in turn linked the paper Gignac & Zajenkowski, The Dunning-Kruger effect is (mostly) a statistical artefact: Valid approaches to testing the hypothesis with individual differences data (PDF) (ironically hosted on @gwern's site).

And I just don't understand what they were thinking.

Let's look at their methodology real quick in section 2.2 (emphasis added):

2.2.1. Subjectively assessed intelligence
Participants assessed their own intelligence on a scale ranging from 1 to 25 (see Zajenkowski, Stolarski, Maciantowicz, Malesza, & Witowska, 2016). Five groups of five columns were labelled as very low, low, average, high or very high, respectively (see Fig. S1). Participants' SAIQ was indexed with the marked column counting from the first to the left; thus, the scores ranged from 1 to 25. Prior to providing a response to the scale, the following instruction was presented: “People differ with respect [...]

---

First published:
May 16th, 2024

Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6Tqm8Jet9mzo6buj9/the-dunning-kruger-of-disproving-dunning-kruger

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

“The Dunning-Kruger of disproving Dunning-Kruger” by kromem

LessWrong (30+ Karma)

“The Dunning-Kruger of disproving Dunning-Kruger” by kromem