[expazl]

> Yes, the latter more difficult to do accurately, but if people were really able to evaluate themselves, they would be able to understand they’re, on average, below or above the median.

Lets suppose I ask you "How tall are you?" would you be able to answer? Good, then you are able to accurately asses your own height.

Now lets suppose I ask you "How tall are you as a percentile of this group including you and 99 people who you don't know who are". You should realize that you can't do that exactly as accurately because you don't have perfect knowledge of their heights just from knowing your own.

Now for the even more convoluted and actual Dunning-Kruger assessment. I ask you "How tall are you?" great, now at which percentile do you think your deviation from your actual height falls compared to the deviations from these other 99 peoples esstimates of their actual heights? How on earth are you supposed to answer that unless you have some sort of knowledge about how they perform? Are people a cm off? Are some people 10cm off? Are people being mm precise?

The problem with the Dunning-Kruger effect is that it effectively says "People who are on average worse at estimating their own height tend to underestimate it, while people who are on average better at estimating their own height tend to overestimate it", but if you look at the absolute ability of people to estimate their own height it's similar independent of how close people get. But the Dunning-Kruger analysis methodology is set up such that it transforms random noise into an observation of the Dunning-Kruger effect, which is the problem highlighted in the OP. Part of the problem here is to have participants estimate on a percentile range instead of doing a simple absolute estimation. You can ask people "So how far off do you think you are in cm's?" And you'll see that people are fairly consistent in accessing their own ability and so the Dunning-Kruger effect goes away. The effect is a result of the methodology not of the actual people being test.

But that's a hard sell for most people because they have a bias about "dumb people" and the effect as originally stated confirms that bias, so people hold on to the conclusion even as holes in the methodology becomes apparent.