Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect#DK Effect is Simply Autocorrelation

{{Article history

| action1 = GAN

| action1date = February 23, 2023

| action1link = Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect/GA1

| action1result = failed

| action1oldid =

| action2 = PR

| action2date = June 27, 2023

| action2link = Wikipedia:Peer_review/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect/archive1

| action2result =

| action2oldid =

|action3 = GAN

|action3date = 13:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

|action3link = Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect/GA2

|action3result = listed

|action3oldid = 1171842359

|currentstatus = GA

| dykdate = 4 September 2023

| dykentry = ... that "the first rule of the Dunning–Kruger club is you don't know you're a member of the Dunning–Kruger club"?

| dyknom = Template:Did you know nominations/Dunning–Kruger effect

|topic = Social sciences and society

}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|1=

}}

{{High-traffic|date=22 June 2007|site=Reddit|url=https://redd.it/2087r|date2=23 June 2007|site2=Digg|url2=http://digg.com/tech_news/Does_the_average_digger_suffer_of_the_Dunning_Kruger_syndrome}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

| algo = old(90d)

| archive = Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect/Archive %(counter)d

| counter = 6

| maxarchivesize = 70K

| archiveheader = {{aan}}

| minthreadstoarchive = 1

| minthreadsleft = 4

}}

Did you know nomination

Disproven

"To establish the Dunning-Kruger effect is an artifact of research design, not human thinking, my colleagues and I showed it can be produced using randomly generated data." https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-dunning-kruger-effect-isnt-what-you-think-it-is/

it can. Should be pointed out that there is no such effect.

DK is an artifact of study design and can be reproduced applying the same analisis to random noise.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-dunning-kruger-effect-isnt-what-you-think-it-is/ 216.99.19.19 (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:That is not a reliable source. Constant314 (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:This article presents the statistical explanation combined with the better-than-average effect. It is one among several competing explanations and is already discussed in our article in the subsection "Statistical and better-than-average effect". Phlsph7 (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:Did you do the [https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1Jm4J1tjoz73ttUkRQjjrnsQbjgva3dS-#scrollTo=0duv-vQ39mMD obvious] or something different? Dagelf (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Dunning–Kruger Curve

Does anyone know if the Curve you can see if you use Google Images is something that is related to this effect?

You can find it in Commons:

thumb

or is it just something commonly attributed to Dunning–Kruger, but in fact is something totally unrelated. jcubic (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:Often attributed to DK but in fact completely unrelated. There is a good discussion of that image in the archives. Constant314 (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::@Constant314 What archives? Can you provide a link? jcubic (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:::They are in that yellow box on the right side of the page opposite of the table of contents. Maybe {{ping|Phlsph7}} can help you find the discussion. Constant314 (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Found it: there was a lengthy discussion about this and similar misleading diagrams three years ago, see Talk:Dunning–Kruger_effect/Archive_5#Illustration. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

: https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1Jm4J1tjoz73ttUkRQjjrnsQbjgva3dS-#scrollTo=0duv-vQ39mMD Dagelf (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::No point in posting this twice. Keep the discussion on Disproven thread. Constant314 (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Average IQ?

The article says "the average IQ is 100". No, it isn't, generally, because of the Flynn effect. A better example should be found instead, or this one made more specific in a way that would make it correct. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:I think IQ tests are standardized to an average of 100. As I understand it, the Flynn effect is the observation that people keep getting better at IQ test, which is why the scoring of IQ tests is regularly adjusted to keep the standard average at 100. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::It is probably not an important detail for this article. Constant314 (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::The source implies that the average IQ is 100. Also Intelligence quotient has a source confirming that "For modern IQ tests, the raw score is transformed to a normal distribution with mean 100 and standard deviation 15." So the text in our article is correct. Lova Falk (talk) 12:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)