The fediverse is looking like the objective best alternative, more so day by day.

If I really like a creator, I’ll donate to them. Ads are an intrusion on privacy, and everybody has the right to block them without moral backlash.

Everyone educated on the topic understands that it’s a pop psychological misrepresentation of some very interesting work.

The irony of this is that those who aren’t “educated on the topic” do not realize that by describing the Dunning-Kruger effect as the law of “overconfident stupid people”, they themselves have become subjects of the effect.

What I was trying to say is that the Dunning-Kruger effect being misrepresented as something that only applies to “stupid people” is often done by people who are themselves undereducated on its topic. The DK effect applies to everybody.

This is exactly the way I think about it!

Your summary is correct. However, most people use the Dunning-Kruger effect to describe individuals with low intelligence as arrogant. Another issue is that most people as soon as they learn about the effect think that they’ve become immune to it.

Referencing the Dunning-Kruger effect in casual contexts. Most people who refer to it, have not really read about it enough to be qualified to use it.

Or being confident about disliking reading in general, whether be it fiction or scientific literature.

Doesn’t this depend on the stylistic environment of the text? Personally, I’d consider it alright given that the sender and the receiver are in a casual relationship. It only makes one seem uneducated if they are using it in a more formal, or perhaps a public context.