Yup. Assuming the sample sizes are statistically significant, the original paper clearly shows:
- On average, people estimate their ability around the 65th percentile (actual results) rather than the 50th (simulated random results) -- a significant difference
- That people's self-estimation increases with their actual ability, but only by a surprisingly small degree (actual results show a slight upwards trend, simulated random results are flat) -- another significant difference
The author's entire discussion of "autocorrelation" is a red herring that has nothing to do with anything. Their randomly-generated results do not match what the original paper shows.
None of this really sheds much light on to what degree the results can be or have been robustly replicated, of course. But there's nothing inherently problematic whatsoever about the way it's visualized. (It would be nice to see bars for variance, though.)
- On average, people estimate their ability around the 65th percentile (actual results) rather than the 50th (simulated random results) -- a significant difference
- That people's self-estimation increases with their actual ability, but only by a surprisingly small degree (actual results show a slight upwards trend, simulated random results are flat) -- another significant difference
The author's entire discussion of "autocorrelation" is a red herring that has nothing to do with anything. Their randomly-generated results do not match what the original paper shows.
None of this really sheds much light on to what degree the results can be or have been robustly replicated, of course. But there's nothing inherently problematic whatsoever about the way it's visualized. (It would be nice to see bars for variance, though.)