Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect

DK Effect is Simply Autocorrelation

The article otherwise largely fails to communicate the degree to which the DK effect is pseudoscience. The statement "the statistical explanation interprets these findings as statistical artifacts" needs to be expanded and made much more prominent to explain why the effect is simply autocorrelation and should not be basis for any cognitive or metacognitive claims despite its appeal. The autocorrelation claim is easy to understand and should be a convincing argument for changing the first paragraph to make clear that while the concept is appealing, it is not based on a valid statistically methodology and should not be taken too seriously.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a claimed cognitive bias[2] whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge. Some researchers also include in their definition the opposite effect for high performers: their tendency to underestimate their skills. Despite its intuitive appeal the effect can be statistically explained as autocorrelation[1] and should not be used to formally explain cognitive biases or metacognitive phenomena regarding self-evaluation of ability, knowledge or experience.

Simply put for any sample of test scores on a 0-10 scale, the likelihood that someone who scores 0 will overestimate the performance is necessarily higher than someone who scores 10. The reverse is also true: anyone who scores 10 will necessarily underestimate their performance more that someone who scores 0.

The ironies are replete, as pointed out in the article: "there is a delightful irony to the circumstances of their [Dunning and Kruger's] blunder. Here are two Ivy League professors arguing that unskilled people have a ‘dual burden’: not only are unskilled people ‘incompetent’ ... they are unaware of their own incompetence. [...] In their seminal paper, Dunning and Kruger are the ones broadcasting their (statistical) incompetence by conflating autocorrelation for a psychological effect."

The popularity of the DK effect may be an interesting study in how bad science can take hold in the popular mind given how many people seem to take it seriously without considering the fatal flaws in the methodology used to identify the alleged phenomenon. DK also serves as an example of how bad science can get through the scientific peer review process, especially if it comes from a highly reputable institution. --Chassin (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

This has already been discussed several times. See, for example, Talk:Dunning–Kruger_effect/Archive_5#Neutral_Point_of_View and Talk:Dunning–Kruger_effect/Archive_5#Is_this_true?. For details on the criticisms of the Dunning–Kruger effect, see the section Dunning–Kruger_effect#Criticism_and_alternatives in our article. And your source, https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/, is not reliable. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Other sources may indeed be preferred, such as Nuhfer et al (2006). The outcome of previous discussions notwithstanding, the fact remains that the opening paragraphs of the introduction still fail to offer caveats regarding flaws in empirical methods used to support the claims, and instead tend to give credence to it based on its broad application and intuitive appeal. If anything, the only effect Dunning claims to have identified is the tendency for everyone to overestimate their ability, not just people with low ability, and certainly not for those with high ability to underestimate theirs. The first paragraph is misleading in multiple respects and should be revised to address these shortcomings.

The first mention of criticism is in paragraph 4 and characterizes it as "debate" and dismisses it as "not denying the empirical findings", when that is precisely what the statistical criticism does unequivocally. If we compare how criticism of this topic is addressed to the pseudoscience of physiognomy, we can clearly see in the opening of the second paragraph that it is "regarded among academic circles because of its unsupported claims; popular belief in the practice of physiognomy is nonetheless still widespread". The same can be said of the DK effect insofar as the shapes of peoples heads differ and people self-evaluate inaccurately, but the differences in head shapes and self-evaluation errors do not provide the necessary support for their respective theories regarding ability, expertise, or experience. On the contrary, the empirical data when analyzed correctly falsifies them both equally, which in the final analysis is only method we have at our disposal. --Chassin (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

the empirical data when analyzed correctly falsifies them both equally Which reliable source says so? Paradoctor (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

See https://fortune.com/2023/05/08/what-is-dunning-kruger-effect-smart-intelligence-competence-john-cleese/ 77.204.39.138 (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Chassin Perhaps the article itself, as well as the studies, are proof enough, not because of, perhaps in spite of what they thought they studied. User:Dagelf|Dagelf]] (talk) 07:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you're putting way too much faith in that one article (a blog post, really) and its dubious claims. The main issue that I find with it is the fact that the author of that blog post uses the term "autocorrelation" incorrectly (he doesn't seem to understand what autocorrelation actually is). For another perspective, here's a rebuttal from data scientist Daniel Anderson explaining why the major claims in the article you posted are wrong (he includes worked out examples): https://andersource.dev/2022/04/19/dk-autocorrelation.html Metatrain (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I looked into this, the archived discussion doesn't seem to be particularly convincing on why not to mention dissent here. The scientific articles quoted by Fix seem rather convincing (if not damning) on the maths. But I get that they haven't been cited as often as the Dunning Kruger article they're pointing at. I'm pretty sure I can't get away with AFDing the article or something crazy like that. But... I do think that NPOV allows me to put the counterveiling point of view that Dunning-Kruger's paper is bad because (given sources claim) they messed up their maths. --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC) (Even if they didn't mess up their maths, they definitely did maths in a way that has been confusing to skilled scientists. They may have ended up confusing themselves, this seems plausible based on the cited sources. Either way, not Wikipedia's battle: But for sure we can write that not everyone thinks the effect is real!)

So I might be a little rusty. What's the exact policy reasons for removal of each of the sources? The published papers demonstrate that you can get the Dunning-Kruger graph from random noise (oops). The web source confirm-ably summarizes the papers, thus can usefully be seen as a secondary source. Usually when people actually dig in and read sources, they do also take 1 minute extra time to post their findings on the talk page (or link to where it was previously discussed) But I'll go read them again just to be sure, did I miss anything? --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Annnd... just came back from reading papers, especially Nuefer 2017 concludes with: "Because of insufficient attention to Numeracy, Current prevalent explanations of the nature of human self-assessment seem to rest on a tenuous foundation.".

Due to the replication crisis in (among others) psychology, we're likely to see many papers like these going forward. Maybe I'm late to this party: is there standing Wikipedia policy when it comes to bad replications or methodological flaws? Else I'd just apply NPOV, and at least report that there have been reported issues with a particular study. (whether the report is correct or not is a different story, but it got published, so we can say it has and by whom.) --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello Kim Bruning and thanks for your attempts to improve this article. I agree that it can be challenging to get arrive at a balanced overview of the academic literature on the Dunning-Kruger effect.

The lead section is supposed to summarize the body of the article. If you want to add new content to the article, it's usually best to add them first to the body of the article. If they are accepted, a later step might be to consider whether the new content is important enough to get a short mention in the lead section, see WP:LEAD

If you want to add some content to the body of the article, you should make sure that it is based on reliable sources, see WP:RS. For example "economicsfromthetopdown.com" is not a reliable source for the Dunning-Kruger effect. The body of the article already discusses the statistical explanation. So it might be best to read through it first and familiarize yourself with the sources cited there before adding new text to it. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah, our posts crossed, yup I was doing that.

On third rereading of article alongside sources , we actually have a section Statistical. The actual papers say it's a statistical artifact alright. In regular English they're saying "there's actually no effect".

I sort of get why Gignac 2020 gets cited throughout: because it has a very thorough review. The thing is, Gignac et al do this thorough review so that they can then set up a very thorough attack. They follow it by their own empirical study with a very large sample size. In this empirical study -with corrected methods- they fail to replicate Dunning-Krueger. The conclusion (very carefully and politely worded, as is proper) states that they expect that pretty much every Dunning-Krueger study will fall if subjected to more detailed scrutiny with the improved statistical methods we have available today.

A lot of people read citations as being supportive of a claim or view. Rather -here- citation of Gignac is often merely supportive of the fact that a particular view has been published. If that was all, I think at least something in the intro that says that more recent sources have replication issues would be fine.

But we actually do have a section that says "it's a statistical artifact". Somehow I feel this section is not quite clear in pointing out that those papers are saying "Dunning-Krueger effect is not a thing". Possibly because the underlying papers use somewhat couched wording?

I fully understand that patrollers can't always go and read sources in-depth. I'd appreciate any tips (or links to tips) on how to make their life easier here. --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC) It'd be funny if wikipedia had an 'externally disputed' banner, for effects that -at times- have failed to replicate. While a fun idea, it's sadly probably above wikipedia's pay grade.

I removed the added passage for now. If you have suggestions on how to improve the section on the statistical effect then they are welcome. But it might be helpful to give the reliable sources cited there a close reading before. For example, Gignac 2020 do not deny the existence of the Dunning-Kruger effect in general. They primarily state that its magnitude is smaller than initially thought because part of it can be explained through statistics. You also have to be careful whether the studies in question assess the Dunning-Kruger effect measured in relative terms or in absolute terms, as explained in the section "Measurement, analysis, and investigated tasks". Many only target the Dunning-Kruger effect measured in relative terms. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

To avoid further edit warring, I suggest that you create a draft first and propose it at the talk page rather adding and re-adding your content directly to the article, see WP:EDITWAR. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Right, so procedurally speaking, so far I've adhered to WP:1RR, which falls rather short of WP:EDITWAR, I should think. I do agree that there are only very few exceptions to the rule that one should not revert a revert, but in this case "other party did not engage on talk page" is actually one of them. The reason is that since they don't reply on talk, there's simply no (D)iscussion on talk, and thus we can technically go back to (B)OLD and try again. It's not pretty but (sometimes) it works; and isn't that just WP:BRD in a nutshell to begin with. :-/ --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

No problem so far, but for one reason or another, this article attracts edit wars. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

A more ignorant me would've said Ego... but the common use of the word is in stark contrast with William James and Freud's definition. But it speaks to peoples' sense of self importance, which appears to be one of the few self evident things in life. Perhaps we should create the latter page and redirect it here...? Dagelf (talk) 08:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Three refereed papers on this topic have convenient Wikidata entries:

• <ref name="Nuhfer2016">{{cite Q|Q56566524|url-status=live}}</ref> or repeat ref <ref name="Nuhfer2016" />
• <ref name="Nuhfer2017">{{cite Q|Q56566525|url-status=live}}</ref>
• <ref name="Gignac2020">{{cite Q|Q108932700|url-status=live}}</ref>

Boud (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC) (PS: I see that the sfn structure for citation is used... Boud (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC))

I started a small section in the content, currently called Validity dispute, but there's probably a better section title to consense on. I think it's clear that the existence of the effect is disputed. Gignac & Zajenkowski 2020 don't just say that the effect "is" small, what they say in their abstract is On the basis of a sample ... contrary to the Dunning-Kruger hypothesis. Additionally, the association ... contrary to the Dunning-Kruger hypothesis. It is concluded that, although the phenomenon described by the Dunning-Kruger hypothesis may be to some degree plausible for some skills, the magnitude of the effect may be much smaller than reported previously. In other words, they found evidence contrary to the Dunning-Kruger hypothesis while accepting that a small effect for some skills might exist (since they didn't do tests for all well-known skills).

Something should go up to the lead, but in proportion to the length of this section in the body, so currently it would have to be a very brief sentence. Waiting to see how this section develops would make sense: there is no deadline. Boud (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello Boud and thanks for taking the time to write this section. I slightly modified the text and merged it into the subsection "Statistical", which already discusses this interpretation. It would be great if you could add the precise page numbers since the claim seems to be quite strong. Phlsph7 (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure where this is going. How do you go from "there is a statistical explanation for DK effect" to "there is no DK effect"? I get the debate over whether DKE is a cognitive bias or just a statistical artifact, but gee, an effect is an effect no matter how it is explained. Constant314 (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Scientists often word things very carefully. When scientists describe something as a "statistical artifact," they are often implying a significant doubt about the validity of the observed phenomenon as a true effect.

In the case of the papers we looked at today, one of the papers demonstrates that you can outright feed random data into a Dunning-Kruger-style statistical analysis and still get a very convincing looking outcome if you're not very very careful.

Their subsequent paper argues that people were indeed not careful enough.

Note that does find other self-assessment effects, just not the Dunning-Kruger effect.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Please quote (with pg #s) the relevant passages from the papers you cite. EEng 08:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Constant314: I don't think anyone disputes the effect shown in the diagram: if you ask people about how skilled they think they are and compare it with how skilled they actually are, you get the diagrams shown in the article. In this sense, there is an undisputed effect there. The disagreements are only about how to explain these diagrams.

Trying to find claims in scientific articles that the researchers do not explicitly make can very easily lead to original research. If a paper does not directly support a claim then we should be very careful about making this claim in our articles. I found a page number for the bottom and ceiling effect. But this seems to be included in the regression toward the mean that is already explained earlier so I'm not sure that we need it. And the more widesweeping claim still needs page numbers.

Even if we could find direct support for these radical claims in sources, we still have to be careful about undue weight. For example, from Mazor & Fleming 2021: In one of the most highly replicable findings in social psychology, Kruger and Dunning1 showed that participants who performed worse in tests of humour, reasoning, and grammar were also more likely to overestimate their performance. This is a high-quality source (Nature Human Behaviour) that is more recent. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Phlsph7: If you're happy with my edits to the paragraph, then please remove the page needed tag. I agree that "most of" was unjustified - without a full review of the post KD1999 literature, that claim cannot be made. Nuhfer do make a claim something along the lines of "most", but without trying to prove it, and their aim is not do a literature survey.

I'm not sure if people here have already mentioned the March 2022 reply by Dunning, but as a comment in a professional journal by a known expert (the D of DK), it should be usable, especially for some of its sources. Boud (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the page numbers, this helps. However, the quotes don't mention any specific statistically flawed studies so maybe we should not either. I reformulated the passage to be closer to the conclusion of the study and I removed the page needed tag. I also removed the mention of Gignac and Zajenkowski since their position in relation to statistical artifacts and alternative explanations is already discussed in detail earlier. Given the page number, I don't think that a lengthy quote is required but feel free to restore it if you disagree. I also added page number for Nuhfer et al. 2016 but I not sure how relevant it is for that particular conclusion. My main remaining doubt would be that it's not clear that this specific individual study merits to be mentioned. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps these graphs show what they mean, to anyone who don't understand the explanations elsewhere... I don't think stating the obvious is a "radical claim"? Dagelf (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

When scientists describe something as a "statistical artifact," they are often implying a significant doubt about the validity of the observed phenomenon as a true effect.

The article says, The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities. This is true even if that overestimation is caused by regression to the mean: very incompetent people cannot underestimate their competence because their competence is already at the bottom, so they can only judge it correctly or overestimate it, which, on average, means that they overestimate it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect&diff=1212672204&oldid=1212638810 So I picked up this edit by User:Dagelf, looks like some additional sources from The Usual Suspects. I think the consensus so far seems to be to put this under statistics for now, at least until/unless more scientists start to agree. I'm not married to the wording there, except that the word 'autocorrelation' should probably in the article *somewhere* at least. This group of statisticians did write a number of peer-reviewed articles on the topic, after all.

btw.. In general, I think it's appropriate to post a reasoning on the talk page if you're editing/reverting good-faith edits, where the reasoning might not be immediately obvious. Reverting with "This should be discussed[...]" is slightly ironic. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, that was fun. I actually double-checked the citations, but none of the provided citations actually mentioned autocorrelation themselves. I've trimmed the remaining wording down to the minimum that the citations do support. And that's why one does double-check I guess. :-/ --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kim Bruning Oh boy. There was one I citation I misplaced, but found again. Will link it. Dagelf (talk) 07:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I shall await your refs wrt autocorrelation.

By the way, does NPOV really want to be anthropomorphized that badly? Take it easy, the wiki will still be here tomorrow! --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I took Nuefer’s 2017 discussion of correlations to be the basis for the use of the term “autocorrelation” in the title of the article [2] that started all this. It seemed correct to me and was the reason I thought it right to raise the issue in the first place. Chassin (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that "the first rule of the Dunning–Kruger club is you don't know you're in the Dunning-Kruger club"? Source:
  • ALT1: ... that the metacognitive explanation of the Dunning–Kruger effect states that low performers overestimate their skills because they are unable to recognize their incompetence? Source:
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/1948 Cotton Bowl Classic
  • Comment: ALT0 would a candidate for the quirky hook. If it does not work, ALT1 is the regular alternative.

References

Sources

• Duignan, Brian (2023). "Dunning–Kruger effect". www.britannica.com. Archived from the original on 30 November 2021. Retrieved 7 December 2021.
• Dunning, David (1 January 2011). "Chapter Five – The Dunning–Kruger Effect: On Being Ignorant of One's Own Ignorance". Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 44. Academic Press. pp. 247–296. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-385522-0.00005-6. ISBN 9780123855220. Retrieved 20 December 2021.
• Howard, Jonathan (28 November 2018). Cognitive Errors and Diagnostic Mistakes: A Case-Based Guide to Critical Thinking in Medicine. Springer. p. 354. ISBN 978-3-319-93224-8.

Improved to Good Article status by Phlsph7 (talk). Self-nominated at 14:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Dunning–Kruger effect; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - Yes, only significant matches are from Wikipedia mirrors and quotes.

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Epicgenius (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: There is currently a discussion on the talkpage about whether the line from ALT0 should be included in the article. If it is removed then we would not able to use ALT0 and we would need to default to ALT1. I suggest that we put the nomination on hold until this issue is resolved. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

It was a clever hook (ALT0) but it is not apparent in the article so I will promote ALT1. But ALT1 checks out and is interesting and verifiable. I see Earwig alerts to a direct copy of our article. Lightburst (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Darwin quote

@Phlsph7, I see you removed a Darwin quote with comment 'not the right place for quotes'. I feel the quote is relevant, since it shares key concepts with the article. Is there a better place within the article for its inclusion? Chumpih ^t 11:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello Chumpih and thanks for your suggestion. I agree that the quote has some relevance. Maybe it could fit into the section "Practical significance" because it applies the topic to science. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Chumpih ^t 12:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Since Darwin (obviously) does not mention Dunning-Kruger explicitly, adding the quote is WP:OR and does not belong. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree. There is no reason to think that Darwin is talking about a general effect. It could just be a rebuke to his detractors. The quote should be removed. Constant314 (talk) 12:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I also quite like Bertrand Russel's quote: The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.

While I did insert the Darwin quote after seeing it and thinking "that's just like D-K", to paraphrase Chuck D, I'm pretty sure that thought was thought before. And digging round just now, I found this:[3], amongst others, which demonstrates that comparing D-K to Darwin's quote is not so WP:OR original. Not everyone dislikes the quote. So the question is: how best to best present the info? Perhaps we could have another section on Actually, D-K had precedents ..., with a few other references, per that source and others? Perhaps as a sub-section of Dunning-Kruger effect#Practical significance? Chumpih ^t 22:12, 21+22 November 2024 (UTC)

A full section or subsection is probably too much. We could add a sentence to the section; maybe something along the lines: Historical precursors of the Dunning–Kruger effect were expressed by theorists such as Charles Darwin ("Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge") and Bertrand Russell ("The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts"). But we would need high-quality sources that they are actually considered precursors. The website "alittlebithuman.com" is not a good source and does not mention Russell. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

we would need high-quality sources That is the point. A Wikipedia editor reading a Darwin or Russell quote and thinking "that's just like D-K" is not enough for inclusion in the article. We need a reliable source reading a Darwin or Russell quote and thinking "that's just like D-K". Chumpih should re-read WP:RS and WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Totally agree re. credible source. I'd like to think this is doable. Aside from the above [4], there's [5], and both are far from WP:RSP, this isn't a particularly contentious thing: we need to avoid WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. And yes, a (sub)section is probably overkill. I quite like the suggested words from Phlsph7, but where's the ideal place to put them? Chumpih ^t 18:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The ideal place to put them is not in the article. Send them to a reliable source, and if they are published, then they can go in the article, quoting that reliable source. Why is that so difficult? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

This one [6] appears also to be churnalism. Clearly multiple sources have identified these precursors to D-K, but none of them so far appear particularly WP:RS. Would we be viable to state as much? Chumpih ^t 09:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think psychologyfanatic.com is a reliable source either. There is a lot of misinformation about the DKE out there, so we should rely on academic sources like peer-reviewed journals. I removed the quote for now until the sourcing issue is resolved. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Bingo! Via Google Scholar: [7] and [8]. Chumpih ^t 09:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

+1 --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for looking up the sources. I added a modified version of the suggestion above to the section "Practical significance". It's not the ideal place but it's probably better than the alternatives. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

edit of 21 November 2024

@Metatrain: This is in regard to your edit of 21 November 2024.

Speaking generally about this edit, I don't see a meaningful improvement.

My suggestion is that you self-revert this edit, then present one or two portions of the proposed edit, thereby allowing editors to focus on how those couple of changes improve the article (or not). Following a resolution of those first couple of bits, rinse and repeat with the remaining portions of the proposed changes. Fabrickator (talk) 07:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

It's a meaningful improvement in several ways, not least of which being that the previous version was poorly written. Did you write it? Is that why you're defending it?

Here are just a few examples:

1) Previous version: "A different interpretation is further removed from the psychological level and sees the Dunning–Kruger effect as mainly a statistical artifact."

"A different interpretation is further removed from the psychological level" is a grammatically clunky, somewhat incoherent mess. That's why I edited it into something more well-written and sensical:

Current version: "Some researchers have argued that the Dunning–Kruger Effect is actually a statistical artifact rather than a psychological phenomenon."

This is objectively better. "Some" is also an important qualifier here because the "statistical artifact" argument is currently a minority position (by far) within the prevailing DKE literature.

2) The previous explanation of "regression to the mean" is incoherent and does not give an accurate portrayal of the phenomena nor does it explain its direct relevance to the DKE (at least in the way that Gignac & Zajenkowski see it in their paper). So, I rewrote it to be a more accurate and grammatically sensical explanation and I also provided an example that demonstrates its direct relevance to the DKE. Again, this is objectively better than the previous version.

3) Previous version: "Most researchers acknowledge that regression toward the mean is a relevant statistical effect that must be taken into account when interpreting the empirical findings."

Really? "Most researchers" acknowledge that? Was there a poll taken of all researchers at some point asking them this exact question and I missed it? No. The quoted passage above is misleading, unfalsifiable, and is a dubious claim made without any supporting evidence offered. It's also, again, grammatically sloppy. So, I rewrote it so that it is worded more professionally and does not contain any factually misleading, unfalsifiable statements. Again, this is objectively better than the previous version.

Current version: "Some researchers have cautioned that, for Dunning-Kruger Effects to be valid, regression toward the mean should be ruled out as an explanation when interpreting results." Metatrain (talk) 08:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello Metatrain and thanks for your suggestion. I restored the previous version for now since it's not clear that your suggestion constitutes an overall improvement. For example, some claims you introduced are false, like the claim that most respond that their IQ is higher than 100 despite this being a statistical impossibility. This is not statistically impossible: if you ask three people, and they respond with 110, 110, and 80, you have an average of 100 and most people think they are higher than 100. I agree with Fabrickator: it might be better to address your improvement suggestions one point at a time instead of rewriting everything in one go.

Concerning the points you raised

1. The typical form of the statistical explanation does not deny that psychological phenomena are involved, like the better than average effect, which is a psychological bias. We can try to find a different formulation if you don't like the current one, but this should be formulated carefully.
2. I don't think the previous expression of the regression toward the mean is incoherent and inaccurate and you have not explained why you think this. The text also connects the regression toward the mean with the DK effect, so I'm not sure why you say that it fails to do so.
3. This is based on Dunning 2011 and McIntosh et al. 2019. They explain how considerations about the regression toward the mean are normally taken into account. I don't think the current formulation implies that there was a poll among DK effect researchers. In principle, I'm not opposed to a reformulation. A refomulation should keep the original meaning, which is not the case for your suggested reformulation. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)