If we assume random data then the people at the lower end will over-estimate their own performance the same amount that people on the higher end will under-estimate theirs.
However, if the under-performers consistently over-estimate more than the over-performers under-estimate there is still some merit to the effect, isn't there?
That is, the interesting number is the difference between integral of y-x on lower half vs the integral of y-x on the upper half. Does that make sense to anyone else?
However, if the under-performers consistently over-estimate more than the over-performers under-estimate there is still some merit to the effect, isn't there?
That is, the interesting number is the difference between integral of y-x on lower half vs the integral of y-x on the upper half. Does that make sense to anyone else?