that...... isn't even the right graph
Oh can I have the correct one then?
this is the actual graph used in the 1999 paper
ever since learned about it i cant see the other one the same way.
How is this?
I was kinda baffled cause this is actually the only graph in the entire original paper, so where on earth does the other come from?
And it turns out the other one is partially made up, but not completely. In the original graph we can see that the distance between the line denoting the test score and the perceived ability changes.
Participants in the bottom quarter of test results have a very large gap between estimate and result, this gap narrows with increasing test scores, then the gap size increases again for the top quartile of test results.
And that is kinda what we see in the graph you find when you look up Dunning Kruger Effect, except the way things are labeled is partially nonsense. If we ignore the first part of the curve before the maximum, which doesn't correlate to anything in the original graph, we then first see large values denoting the large discrepany between estimates and test results, values decrease with increasing competence and then rise again.
Note that the size of the gap between perceived ability and score is total, it is merely shows how much the perceived ability differed from the score, not whether the participants over or underestimated themselves.
Also the curvature is exxagerated, but yeah this is where this graph comes from.
The more you know 🌈.... the more likely you are to underestimate your test scores by a moderate amount.
Hmm, good to know so I can either under or over estimate my ability in the test on the Dunning Kruger Effect
