12
$\begingroup$

Online descriptions of the Dunning-Kruger effect are often accompanied by a "mount stupid" graphic similar to the below - from a Psychology Today article:

enter image description here

However, the research paper does not contain this graphic. Here are some of the graphics from the original 1999 paper:

enter image description hereenter image description here

These graphics bare little resemblance to the ones found online - having no "mount stupid" in evidence. The online images vary widely in their presentation, so if there is a primary source, then it would be good to know which one is the correct graphic, or if they are all fake.

[enter image description here][![enter image description here]7enter image description here

Similar images are used on some posts in this forum:

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Just speculating, couldn't the peak be explained by the difference between actual test-score and perceived ability from the figures? The peak becomes smaller with every quartile. What is missing could be the part from before 'mount stupid'. $\endgroup$ – Robin Kramer Jul 31 '17 at 11:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I am not sure, but maybe the graphic was originally a representation of the Four stages of competence? (See also: 2nd to last paragraph of cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/16265 where a U Shaped graph was mentioned) $\endgroup$ – Chris Rogers Jul 31 '17 at 15:16
  • $\begingroup$ The Illusion of Explanatory Depth (mentioned in my comment to that question) has a U-shaped graph that you can see here: researchgate.net/profile/Leon_Rozenblit/publication/50868445/…. Though it bears some similarity to the above, it's notably a U-shaped graph, not an S-curve, and it ends higher than it starts. It is a potential candidate here as it measures something similar to Dunning-Kruger (confidence of knowledge relative to actual knowledge). $\endgroup$ – Arnon Weinberg Jul 31 '17 at 15:34
2
$\begingroup$

Short answer
The cartoon graphics showing mount stupid seem to be exaggerated, popular-scientific representations, and should, as far as I can see, be regarded as schematics to illustrate a more subtle effect.

Background
From what I can find, the cartoons you provide are exaggerated and simplified versions depicting the more pronounced examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect like in Fig. 1 where subjects performed a Wason task (Schlösser et al., 2013). The mountain is somewhat visible here, especially in panel B where the raw scores are plotted. There the subjective performance increases monotonically, while the perceived score in the poorest quartile is above the second, which resembles the peak you are referring to. However, this is one of the most pronounced samples I could find and it may well be caused by variance, as other graphs in that same paper, other sources you provide above (Kruger & Dunning, 1999) don't show this peak. Similarly, plots in Dunning (2011) are less pronounced at this point.

Mountain of Stupid
Fig. 1. Actual versus perceived performance on Wason task. Dotted line represents where perceived performance should lay according to the Krajč–Ortmann model. source: (Schlösser et al., 2013)

References
- Dunning, Advances Exp Soc Psych (2011); 44: 247-96
- Kruger & Dunning, J Personality Social Psych (1999); 77(6): 121-34
- Schlösser et al., J Economic Psych (2013); 39: 85-100

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.