= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
fubarobfusco comments on Others' predictions of your performance are usually more accurate - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (16)
It looks to me like this is a copy of the graph summarizing the results of one of the four studies (specifically, the third) in the cited paper. It is not accurate to describe it as "the general relationship". The other three studies don't show the same curve, although they all do show the bottom quartile predicting their ability as above the median but below the top quartile.
One thing I've always found suspicious about this paper: Why report quartiles? The four studies had n=65, 45, 84, 140 respectively. Why choose to bin this large number of participants into only four bins? That seems unusually low resolution. Why quartiles and not quintiles or deciles?
You're exactly right, sorry. I'll keep the picture because I think it suffices to illustrate the trend, but I'll update my description for clarity. Here are the other summary graphs for studies 1, 2, and 4
ETA: Strangely apropos this post, David Dunning is doing a Reddit AMA right now; I should go ask him why he and Kruger (1999) chose to report quartiles!