I would also expect that courtesy of things like Dunning-Kruger, people towards the bottom will be as bad at estimating IQ as they are competence at any particular thing.
In 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.
The weaker claim is what holds in my example: in 4 out of 4 cases, the bottom quartile was very wrong in their assessment. I was speculating as to possible causal explanations; I think it is how they do the assessment.
Looking at those graphs, I can think of one rule that explains all four groups: say you are a above average when asked does the trick.
FWIW, the original Dunning-Kruger study did not show the effect that it’s become known for. See: https://danluu.com/dunning-kruger/
In particular:
The weaker claim is what holds in my example: in 4 out of 4 cases, the bottom quartile was very wrong in their assessment. I was speculating as to possible causal explanations; I think it is how they do the assessment.
Looking at those graphs, I can think of one rule that explains all four groups: say you are a above average when asked does the trick.