As stated elsewhere DK has 2 claims:

1. Low-skilled people overestimate their performance and skilled people underestimate their performance

2. Skill correlates with self-assessment accuracy

My first issue with the article is that it implies that since we get effect #1 with random data, that invalidates the respective DK conclusion. This IMO is misleading because random data represents a null model that is very different from my intuitive null model, that of people generally capable of assessing their skills (which I truly believe).

My second issue is that there's no relationship between effect 2 and the random data experiment, which doesn't exhibit anything of the sort. We can have a discussion about the cited papers and effect 2 as the reproduced plot doesn't show density and density plots from the paper do seem to support DK, but that's not my main gripe with the article.

If a person's true skill is 5 on a 1-100 point scale, but the person is completely unaware of their true skill and will guess randomly, then their estimate will bias heavily in the direction of overestimating their skill, even if they were not intrinsically motivated to overestimate their skill, simply because far more of the available guesses are higher than their true ability.

In other words, the available probability space itself biases in the direction of overestimating their ability, for those people.

Is that right andersource?

I don't know the statistical right answer here, but curious to know.