|
|
|
|
|
by hf
4092 days ago
|
|
The author states, as regards the interpretation of the
Dunning-Kruger diagrams, that [i]n two of the four cases, there’s an obvious positive correlation between
perceived skill and actual skill, which is the opposite of the pop-sci
conception of Dunning-Kruger.
In my corner of the universe, you don't get to cherry-pick which pieces
of data (ie "what instances of two sets of random variables") you bestow
the golden twig of correlation upon. If I'm not entirely mistaken,
correlation is very much a global feature, not a measure of proximity of
two points on a chart.So, yes, Dunning-Kruger (as evinced from the diagrams sported here) indeed seems to make a weaker claim: that there's no
correlation between “perceived ability” and “actual ability”. As such,
this claim is as far from the "pop-sci conception" of Dunning-Kruger as
it is from the author's. |
|
Also, what corner of the universe are you from? Loess regression, hierarchical modeling, conditional analyses... methods for finding "non-global" correlations aplenty.