> if an effect can be replicated with random noise, then it's not a psychological effect
This isn't true either. Statistical dependence does not determine or uniquely identify causal interpretation or system structure. See Judea Pearl's works (e.g. The Book of Why) for more on this.
People lacking the ability to self-assess is interesting psychologically. People can learn from experience in many other contexts. People can judge their relative position versus other people in many contexts. Why would they be so bad at this particular task? There could be a psychological underpinning.
Even if it turns out we have useless noise-emitting fluff in the place that would produce self-awareness of skill, that would be a psychological cause of a psychological effect. Not the ones that Dunning and Kruger believed they were seeing, but still.
Now, if you asked frogs for a self-assessment of skill, I would expect that data would not show any psychological effects.
> People lacking the ability to self-assess is interesting psychologically. People can learn from experience in many other contexts. People can judge their relative position versus other people in many contexts. Why would they be so bad at this particular task? There could be a psychological underpinning.
Is there an existing and relevant phenomenon about people lacking the ability to self-asses, that is true, proven, and not just trivia?
I do believe that people understand all the available information about their skills and performance, and they rate themselves according to it.
E.g. if they are asked about whether they perform good on an IQ test against their classmates they will produce noise (see E.g. the article "I can't let go of.."), and if they have the results of the IQ test, they will be able correctly calculate in which quartile they are.
I have no idea. I think it would be a fascinating experiment to take people who have never taken an IQ test, ask them how they think they'll do, then compare that against their actual performance.
"Noise" isn't a generic concept that can be universally applied in the same way in any scientific context. That's the point of the article. It doesn't make much sense to assume that people's self-assessments come from an internal random number generator.
It makes sense as a robotically developed null hypothesis, but it doesn't make sense in the real world.
This isn't true either. Statistical dependence does not determine or uniquely identify causal interpretation or system structure. See Judea Pearl's works (e.g. The Book of Why) for more on this.
People lacking the ability to self-assess is interesting psychologically. People can learn from experience in many other contexts. People can judge their relative position versus other people in many contexts. Why would they be so bad at this particular task? There could be a psychological underpinning.
Even if it turns out we have useless noise-emitting fluff in the place that would produce self-awareness of skill, that would be a psychological cause of a psychological effect. Not the ones that Dunning and Kruger believed they were seeing, but still.
Now, if you asked frogs for a self-assessment of skill, I would expect that data would not show any psychological effects.