I went through the whole article, and I am not only very skeptical about the claimed debunk but wonder what kind of psychological trope you might label as corelative to such an article.
I mean "bad science built only on rhetoric" is a double edged sword, you know.
To start with, the graph presented at the end does not look like the one from the original article, where the self assessment does grow significantly, though it starts higher than average and grows less quickly than external assessment.
Also the article focus on "random" data set which, but we know that there are different classes of apparent noisy plots. Noisy distribution of self assessment would actually be an informative figure too.
So the biggest issue here is its kind of pretending that whatever the way the ordinate value is coupled to, if it includes the abscissa in its definition you'll get the same kind of plot as a result, which is obviously false. You could easily come with arbitrary values coupled to "x" that would look radically different.
I mean "bad science built only on rhetoric" is a double edged sword, you know.
To start with, the graph presented at the end does not look like the one from the original article, where the self assessment does grow significantly, though it starts higher than average and grows less quickly than external assessment.
Also the article focus on "random" data set which, but we know that there are different classes of apparent noisy plots. Noisy distribution of self assessment would actually be an informative figure too.
So the biggest issue here is its kind of pretending that whatever the way the ordinate value is coupled to, if it includes the abscissa in its definition you'll get the same kind of plot as a result, which is obviously false. You could easily come with arbitrary values coupled to "x" that would look radically different.