The claim that skill does not exist or that people are totally unable to recognize how good they are at anything is quite radical.
You are sort of smuggling in the assumption for example that Olympian medalist lifters, when asked how much they can deadlift, will have the same distribution of answers as people who never deadlift (but are aware that totally sedentary men can probably deadlift like 200lbs and totally sedentary women can probably deadlift like 150lbs). If this were true, it would be worth publishing a paper about it.
It's sort of surprising to me to read your comment because TFA is an extended rebuttal of your comment.
> I think a lot of controversy comes from how Dunning and Kruger's paper leads people to interpret the data as hubris on the part of low-performers, and the statistical analysis demolishes that interpretation. Not knowing how well you performed is not the same thing psychologically as "overestimating" your performance.
D-K actually found that low performers were less accurate at assessing their skill than high performers, and the article you refer to obviously did not find this effect in random data, so I'm not sure how it was demolished.
You are sort of smuggling in the assumption for example that Olympian medalist lifters, when asked how much they can deadlift, will have the same distribution of answers as people who never deadlift (but are aware that totally sedentary men can probably deadlift like 200lbs and totally sedentary women can probably deadlift like 150lbs). If this were true, it would be worth publishing a paper about it.
It's sort of surprising to me to read your comment because TFA is an extended rebuttal of your comment.
> I think a lot of controversy comes from how Dunning and Kruger's paper leads people to interpret the data as hubris on the part of low-performers, and the statistical analysis demolishes that interpretation. Not knowing how well you performed is not the same thing psychologically as "overestimating" your performance.
D-K actually found that low performers were less accurate at assessing their skill than high performers, and the article you refer to obviously did not find this effect in random data, so I'm not sure how it was demolished.