Usually when people cite Dunning-Kruger, the results are explained by a corollary of reversion to the mean. Incompetents think they're more average than they are, prodigies think they're more average than they are, full stop.
If you look at the original measurements, they are mostly explainable on that basis. The usual claim that incompetents think they know better than experts doesn't show up in those results, and they don't report that.
That's not to say there aren't people who are really delusional -- Trump exists -- but it's not a rule.
It's not reversion to the mean, exactly, because there's no time series involved, but similar statistical laws operate.
If there's a real "effect", meriting a name, it's that incompetents are even bad at identifying the average, and miss, often thinking they are above average just because they don't really even understand what average means.
If you look at the original measurements, they are mostly explainable on that basis. The usual claim that incompetents think they know better than experts doesn't show up in those results, and they don't report that.
That's not to say there aren't people who are really delusional -- Trump exists -- but it's not a rule.
It's not reversion to the mean, exactly, because there's no time series involved, but similar statistical laws operate.
If there's a real "effect", meriting a name, it's that incompetents are even bad at identifying the average, and miss, often thinking they are above average just because they don't really even understand what average means.
They cited this in their actual results.