<p><strong>Short answer</strong><br>
The cartoon graphics showing mount stupid seem to be exaggerated, popular-scientific representations, and should, as far as I can see, be regarded as schematics to illustrate a more subtle effect. </p>

<p><strong>Background</strong><br>
From what I can find, the cartoons you provide are exaggerated and simplified versions depicting the more pronounced examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect like in Fig. 1 where subjects performed a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wason_selection_task" rel="noreferrer">Wason task</a> <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167487013000949" rel="noreferrer">(Schlösser <em>et al</em>., 2013)</a>. The mountain is somewhat visible here, especially in panel B where the raw scores are plotted. There the subjective performance increases monotonically, while the perceived score in the poorest quartile is above the second, which resembles the peak you are referring to. However, this is one of the most pronounced samples I could find and it may well be caused by variance, as other graphs in that same paper, other sources you provide above <a href="https://www.avaresearch.com/files/UnskilledAndUnawareOfIt.pdf" rel="noreferrer">(Kruger &amp; Dunning, 1999)</a> don't show this peak. Similarly, plots in <a href="https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8226/22ed711dfc0f63a232f31ac3163fb3cb8b55.pdf" rel="noreferrer">Dunning (2011)</a> are less pronounced at this point.    </p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/EQ3y4.jpg" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/EQ3y4.jpg" alt="Mountain of Stupid"></a><br>
<sup>Fig. 1. Actual versus perceived performance on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wason_selection_task" rel="noreferrer">Wason task</a>. Dotted line represents where perceived performance should lay according to the Krajč–Ortmann model. source: <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167487013000949" rel="noreferrer">(Schlösser <em>et al</em>., 2013)</a></sup> </p>

<p><sub><strong>References</strong><br>
<strong>-</strong> <a href="https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8226/22ed711dfc0f63a232f31ac3163fb3cb8b55.pdf" rel="noreferrer">Dunning, <em>Advances Exp Soc Psych</em> (2011); <strong>44</strong>: 247-96</a><br>
<strong>-</strong> <a href="https://www.avaresearch.com/files/UnskilledAndUnawareOfIt.pdf" rel="noreferrer">Kruger &amp; Dunning, <em>J Personality Social Psych</em> (1999); <strong>77</strong>(6): 121-34</a><br>
<strong>-</strong> <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167487013000949" rel="noreferrer">Schlösser <em>et al</em>., <em>J Economic Psych</em> (2013); <strong>39</strong>: 85-100</a></sub></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-24T13:09:02.030Z
2018-04-24T13:20:55.403Z
2018-04-24T13:20:55.403Z
AliceD
<p>I seem to have found the primary source of this piece of misinformation. I did a deep dive into this about a year ago when I saw these charts and instantly noticed none of them come from the source paper in any way.</p>
<p>I traced back reference upon reference until I finally found a chart with a watermark to this url: <a href="https://artandtechnology.com.au/index.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">artandtechnology.com.au</a></p>
<p>Searching around the site, I found this image sitting there:
<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/x9Xdh.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/x9Xdh.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>Using the Wayback Machine I found this post is dated <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20111120041742/http://www.artandtechnology.com.au:80/cartoons/index2.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">October 15, 2011</a>. Notice how the picture states Nobel Prize Psychology 2000 and on the post he states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This team won the Nobel Prize for Psychology in 2000 for proving that the unskilled in a field do not know what they don't know.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Which is a fact I also see repeated on a lot of similar charts, despite being completely untrue.</p>
<p>Setting a <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=dunning%20kruger%20before:2011-10-15&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Google image search to only show posts before that date</a>, I find only one other similar chart from a blog post. The blog post, found <a href="https://timpanogos.blog/2011/04/13/graphic-version-of-the-dunning-kruger-effect/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a>, posts a <a href="https://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&amp;id=2177" rel="nofollow noreferrer">comic</a> from the webcomic Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal stating that it seems like a good representation of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. This blog post is from April 13, 2011. The SMBC comic is as follows:</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/x4i2e.gif" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/x4i2e.gif" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>This comic was posted March 8, 2011 and makes no mention of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. The only thing linking this comic to the Dunning-Kruger Effect is the aforementioned blog post.</p>
<p>My assumption is that the the cartoonist who made the cited Dunning-Kruger chart did a Google search for the term after hearing about it, saw the image result for blog post containing the SMBC comic, and copied it with only cursory knowledge. From there it was used by a few articles and it just spread from there.</p>
<p>These are all the earliest found mentions of anything with the Dunning-Kruger effect and a chart of this shape. All other versions of this seem to come after 2011. I found an article citing the artandtechnology.com.au chart in 2012, and then someone made a similar chart in <a href="https://confrontingmediocrity.net/2013/08/31/you-probably-dont-know-what-youre-talking-about-you-only-think-you-do/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">2013</a>. Most charts look very similar to the artandtechnology.com.au one or are just slightly modified version to hide the source.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-27T18:33:48.603Z
2022-12-27T18:33:48.603Z
Devon Sherman
<p>I believe this is the primary source of the &quot;mount stupid&quot; version of the graphic, another SMBC comic from 2011: <a href="https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-12-28" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-12-28</a></p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/NdR5O.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/NdR5O.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-07-20T19:12:51.023Z
Welcome; an answer should in essence be a standalone answer with backgrounds and references. Right now this is akin to a link only answer, without a clear message other than 'here's another interesting web page'. This is not really an answer, but an implicit pointer.
AliceD
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-07-15T05:02:00.087Z
2023-07-15T05:02:00.087Z
JuffoWup
<p>(Thanks to a comment by @RebeccaJ.Stones) David Dunning <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq3t0G_zadQ&amp;t=1495s" rel="nofollow noreferrer">confirms</a> that the &quot;mount stupid&quot; graphic is <strong>not</strong> the Dunning-Kruger Effect.</p>
<p>This <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcfRe15I47I" rel="nofollow noreferrer">video essay</a> covers the topic quite well (also see <a href="https://jerz.setonhill.edu/blog/2020/04/07/dunning-kruger/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this post</a>). The graphic is incorrect in several important ways:</p>
<ul>
<li>The Dunning-Kruger effect is about performance, not expertise, so there is no learning process involved.</li>
<li>The Dunning-Kruger effect is about estimated performance, not confidence.</li>
<li>Poor performers are not more confident or arrogant than high performers - they just over-estimate themselves by a wider margin.</li>
</ul>
<p>These differences mean that <strong>the graphic is not just exaggerated, but outright wrong</strong>.</p>
<p><strong>Source:</strong></p>
<p>Some of the comments point to a possible candidate source, called the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gartner_hype_cycle" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Hype Cycle</a> (see also <a href="https://www.quora.com/Where-exactly-did-this-Dunning-Kruger-effect-chart-come-from-I-often-see-it-but-I-couldnt-find-it-in-original-study/answer/Martin-Turner-57" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this post</a>), that actually pre-dates Dunning-Kruger by a few years:</p>
<div class="s-table-container"><table class="s-table">
<thead>
<tr>
<th style="text-align: center;"></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/ttJ61.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/ttJ61.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table></div>
<p>This graphic is based on as much evidence as the &quot;mount stupid&quot; varieties - ie, none. Compare to:</p>
<div class="s-table-container"><table class="s-table">
<thead>
<tr>
<th style="text-align: center;"></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/wAbpc.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/wAbpc.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table></div>
<p>Additionally, it is worth noting that the Dunning-Kruger effect itself is under contention, as I summarize in my answer to: <a href="https://psychology.stackexchange.com/a/26553/7001">Is there evidence to support the Dunning-Kruger effect?</a> Thus, even if the graphic was correct, it may not represent a real effect anyway.</p>
<p><strong>Evidence:</strong></p>
<p>However, to test the Internet meme, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000102" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Sanchez &amp; Dunning (2018)</a> conducted several studies comparing accuracy to confidence through a learning process, with results depicted by graphics such as this one:</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/oJaT0BA4.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/oJaT0BA4.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>The proposed term for this effect is &quot;beginner's bubble&quot;. These results were replicated in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/dec0000122" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Sanchez &amp; Dunning (2020)</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01677-8" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Lackner et al (2023)</a>. Thus ironically, the &quot;mount stupid&quot; graphic may depict a real effect, just based on the wrong research!</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-08T04:56:10.477Z
2024-10-01T22:45:23.313Z
2024-10-01T22:45:23.313Z
Arnon Weinberg
<p>Online descriptions of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect" rel="noreferrer">Dunning-Kruger effect</a> are often accompanied by a "mount stupid" graphic similar to the below - from a <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/head-in-the-cloud/201701/the-dunning-kruger-president" rel="noreferrer">Psychology Today article</a>:</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/XgbX3.jpg" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/XgbX3.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p>However, the research paper does not contain this graphic.  Here are some of the graphics from the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10626367" rel="noreferrer">original 1999 paper</a>:</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/77HVY.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/77HVY.png" alt="enter image description here"></a><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/qXEs2.jpg" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/qXEs2.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p>These graphics bare little resemblance to the ones found online - having no "mount stupid" in evidence.  The online images vary widely in their presentation, so if there is a primary source, then it would be good to know which one is the correct graphic, or if they are all fake.</p>

<p>[<img src="https://i.sstatic.net/NJkCp.png" alt="enter image description here">][<img src="https://i.sstatic.net/QbnWs.png" alt="![enter image description here">]<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/NJkCp.png" rel="noreferrer">7</a><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/wgoc9.jpg" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/wgoc9.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p>Similar images are used on some posts in this forum:</p>

<ul>
<li><a href="https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/17251/what-is-the-term-of-having-a-high-perceived-confidence-while-having-limited-know/17252">What is the term of having a high perceived confidence while having limited knowledge?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/16626/quantifying-the-dunning-kruger-effect">Quantifying the Dunning-Kruger Effect</a></li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-07-31T11:02:33.263Z
Just speculating, couldn't the peak be explained by the difference between actual test-score and perceived ability from the figures? The peak becomes
 smaller with every quartile. What is missing could be the part from before 'mount stupid'.
Robin Kramer-ten Have
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-07-31T15:16:57.393Z
I am not sure, but maybe the graphic was originally a representation of the [Four stages of competence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_competence#The_four_stages_of_competence)?  (See also: 2nd to last paragraph of https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/16265 where a U Shaped graph was mentioned)
Chris Rogers
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-07-31T15:34:54.943Z
The Illusion of Explanatory Depth (mentioned in my comment to that question) has a U-shaped graph that you can see here: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Leon_Rozenblit/publication/50868445/figure/fig3/AS:277573679501318@1443190130464/Fig-3-Self-ratings-of-knowledge-averaged-across-all-items-and-subjects-by-time-for.png.  Though it bears some similarity to the above, it's notably a U-shaped graph, not an S-curve, and it ends higher than it starts.  It is a potential candidate here as it measures something similar to Dunning-Kruger (confidence of knowledge relative to actual knowledge).
Arnon Weinberg
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-08T01:37:29.827Z
What does the graph of the *ratio* of the perceived and actual values look like?  I think they'd look somewhat like the valley, and extrapolating back to 0,0 would complete it.
Ray Butterworth
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-14T12:42:02.090Z
Well, it would look like this
https://ibb.co/5vFFSWf
So the image - even as a knockoff from Kûbler-Ross Five stages of grief it seems to be simplified but still deliver a correct message.
Sure absolutely, you wont be able to place a ruler and say - hey this is where you are, but is anyone trying to apply it like that?
David Bern
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-07-08T09:28:29.587Z
[This YouTube video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq3t0G_zadQ&t=1496s) has Prof. Dunning discussing these plots: *I wish I had done that, and I wish that were the Dunning-Krueger effect, but it's not the Dunning-Krueger effect.  It's unethical to let this go, as people thinking this is the Dunning-Krueger effect.*
Rebecca J. Stones
<cognitive-psychology><reference-request><bias><metacognition><confidence>
What is the primary source of the "mount stupid" graphic?
Arnon Weinberg
# What is the primary source of the "mount stupid" graphic?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-07-31)

Online descriptions of the [Dunning-Kruger effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect) are often accompanied by a "mount stupid" graphic similar to the below - from a [Psychology Today article](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/head-in-the-cloud/201701/the-dunning-kruger-president):

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/XgbX3.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/XgbX3.jpg)

However, the research paper does not contain this graphic. Here are some of the graphics from the [original 1999 paper](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10626367):

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/77HVY.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/77HVY.png)[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/qXEs2.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/qXEs2.jpg)

These graphics bare little resemblance to the ones found online - having no "mount stupid" in evidence. The online images vary widely in their presentation, so if there is a primary source, then it would be good to know which one is the correct graphic, or if they are all fake.

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/NJkCp.png)][![![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/QbnWs.png)][7](https://i.sstatic.net/NJkCp.png)[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/wgoc9.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/wgoc9.jpg)

Similar images are used on some posts in this forum:

* [What is the term of having a high perceived confidence while having limited knowledge?](https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/17251/what-is-the-term-of-having-a-high-perceived-confidence-while-having-limited-know/17252)
* [Quantifying the Dunning-Kruger Effect](https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/16626/quantifying-the-dunning-kruger-effect)

**Tags:** cognitive-psychology, reference-request, bias, metacognition, confidence

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Just speculating, couldn't the peak be explained by the difference between actual test-score and perceived ability from the figures? The peak becomes  smaller with every quartile. What is missing could be the part from before 'mount stupid'.  
> **username_2**: I am not sure, but maybe the graphic was originally a representation of the [Four stages of competence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_competence#The_four_stages_of_competence)?  (See also: 2nd to last paragraph of https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/16265 where a U Shaped graph was mentioned)  
> **username_0**: The Illusion of Explanatory Depth (mentioned in my comment to that question) has a U-shaped graph that you can see here: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Leon_Rozenblit/publication/50868445/figure/fig3/AS:277573679501318@1443190130464/Fig-3-Self-ratings-of-knowledge-averaged-across-all-items-and-subjects-by-time-for.png.  Though it bears some similarity to the above, it's notably a U-shaped graph, not an S-curve, and it ends higher than it starts.  It is a potential candidate here as it measures something similar to Dunning-Kruger (confidence of knowledge relative to actual knowledge).  
> **username_3**: What does the graph of the *ratio* of the perceived and actual values look like?  I think they'd look somewhat like the valley, and extrapolating back to 0,0 would complete it.  
> **username_4**: Well, it would look like this https://ibb.co/5vFFSWf So the image - even as a knockoff from Kûbler-Ross Five stages of grief it seems to be simplified but still deliver a correct message. Sure absolutely, you wont be able to place a ruler and say - hey this is where you are, but is anyone trying to apply it like that?  
> **username_5**: [This YouTube video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq3t0G_zadQ&t=1496s) has Prof. Dunning discussing these plots: *I wish I had done that, and I wish that were the Dunning-Krueger effect, but it's not the Dunning-Krueger effect.  It's unethical to let this go, as people thinking this is the Dunning-Krueger effect.*  

---

## 4 answers

### Answer by username_0 on 2021-12-08. Score: 5 | Accepted answer

(Thanks to a comment by @RebeccaJ.Stones) David Dunning [confirms](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq3t0G_zadQ&t=1495s) that the "mount stupid" graphic is **not** the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

This [video essay](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcfRe15I47I) covers the topic quite well (also see [this post](https://jerz.setonhill.edu/blog/2020/04/07/dunning-kruger/)). The graphic is incorrect in several important ways:

* The Dunning-Kruger effect is about performance, not expertise, so there is no learning process involved.
* The Dunning-Kruger effect is about estimated performance, not confidence.
* Poor performers are not more confident or arrogant than high performers - they just over-estimate themselves by a wider margin.

These differences mean that **the graphic is not just exaggerated, but outright wrong**.

**Source:**

Some of the comments point to a possible candidate source, called the [Hype Cycle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gartner_hype_cycle) (see also [this post](https://www.quora.com/Where-exactly-did-this-Dunning-Kruger-effect-chart-come-from-I-often-see-it-but-I-couldnt-find-it-in-original-study/answer/Martin-Turner-57)), that actually pre-dates Dunning-Kruger by a few years:

|  |
| --- |
| [enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/ttJ61.png) |

This graphic is based on as much evidence as the "mount stupid" varieties - ie, none. Compare to:

|  |
| --- |
| [enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/wAbpc.jpg) |

Additionally, it is worth noting that the Dunning-Kruger effect itself is under contention, as I summarize in my answer to: [Is there evidence to support the Dunning-Kruger effect?](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/a/26553/7001) Thus, even if the graphic was correct, it may not represent a real effect anyway.

**Evidence:**

However, to test the Internet meme, [Sanchez & Dunning (2018)](https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000102) conducted several studies comparing accuracy to confidence through a learning process, with results depicted by graphics such as this one:

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/oJaT0BA4.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/oJaT0BA4.png)

The proposed term for this effect is "beginner's bubble". These results were replicated in [Sanchez & Dunning (2020)](https://doi.org/10.1037/dec0000122) and [Lackner et al (2023)](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01677-8). Thus ironically, the "mount stupid" graphic may depict a real effect, just based on the wrong research!


---

### Answer by username_6 on 2018-04-24. Score: 6

**Short answer**  
The cartoon graphics showing mount stupid seem to be exaggerated, popular-scientific representations, and should, as far as I can see, be regarded as schematics to illustrate a more subtle effect.

**Background**  
From what I can find, the cartoons you provide are exaggerated and simplified versions depicting the more pronounced examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect like in Fig. 1 where subjects performed a [Wason task](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wason_selection_task) [(Schlösser *et al*., 2013)](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167487013000949). The mountain is somewhat visible here, especially in panel B where the raw scores are plotted. There the subjective performance increases monotonically, while the perceived score in the poorest quartile is above the second, which resembles the peak you are referring to. However, this is one of the most pronounced samples I could find and it may well be caused by variance, as other graphs in that same paper, other sources you provide above [(Kruger & Dunning, 1999)](https://www.avaresearch.com/files/UnskilledAndUnawareOfIt.pdf) don't show this peak. Similarly, plots in [Dunning (2011)](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8226/22ed711dfc0f63a232f31ac3163fb3cb8b55.pdf) are less pronounced at this point.

[![Mountain of Stupid](https://i.sstatic.net/EQ3y4.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/EQ3y4.jpg)  
Fig. 1. Actual versus perceived performance on [Wason task](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wason_selection_task). Dotted line represents where perceived performance should lay according to the Krajč–Ortmann model. source: [(Schlösser *et al*., 2013)](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167487013000949)

**References**  
**-** [Dunning, *Advances Exp Soc Psych* (2011); **44**: 247-96](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8226/22ed711dfc0f63a232f31ac3163fb3cb8b55.pdf)  
**-** [Kruger & Dunning, *J Personality Social Psych* (1999); **77**(6): 121-34](https://www.avaresearch.com/files/UnskilledAndUnawareOfIt.pdf)  
**-** [Schlösser *et al*., *J Economic Psych* (2013); **39**: 85-100](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167487013000949)


---

### Answer by username_7 on 2022-12-27. Score: 2

I seem to have found the primary source of this piece of misinformation. I did a deep dive into this about a year ago when I saw these charts and instantly noticed none of them come from the source paper in any way.

I traced back reference upon reference until I finally found a chart with a watermark to this url: [artandtechnology.com.au](https://artandtechnology.com.au/index.html)

Searching around the site, I found this image sitting there:
[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/x9Xdh.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/x9Xdh.jpg)

Using the Wayback Machine I found this post is dated [October 15, 2011](https://web.archive.org/web/20111120041742/http://www.artandtechnology.com.au:80/cartoons/index2.html). Notice how the picture states Nobel Prize Psychology 2000 and on the post he states:

> This team won the Nobel Prize for Psychology in 2000 for proving that the unskilled in a field do not know what they don't know.

Which is a fact I also see repeated on a lot of similar charts, despite being completely untrue.

Setting a [Google image search to only show posts before that date](https://www.google.com/search?q=dunning%20kruger%20before:2011-10-15&source=lnms&tbm=isch), I find only one other similar chart from a blog post. The blog post, found [here](https://timpanogos.blog/2011/04/13/graphic-version-of-the-dunning-kruger-effect/), posts a [comic](https://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2177) from the webcomic Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal stating that it seems like a good representation of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. This blog post is from April 13, 2011. The SMBC comic is as follows:

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/x4i2e.gif)](https://i.sstatic.net/x4i2e.gif)

This comic was posted March 8, 2011 and makes no mention of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. The only thing linking this comic to the Dunning-Kruger Effect is the aforementioned blog post.

My assumption is that the the cartoonist who made the cited Dunning-Kruger chart did a Google search for the term after hearing about it, saw the image result for blog post containing the SMBC comic, and copied it with only cursory knowledge. From there it was used by a few articles and it just spread from there.

These are all the earliest found mentions of anything with the Dunning-Kruger effect and a chart of this shape. All other versions of this seem to come after 2011. I found an article citing the artandtechnology.com.au chart in 2012, and then someone made a similar chart in [2013](https://confrontingmediocrity.net/2013/08/31/you-probably-dont-know-what-youre-talking-about-you-only-think-you-do/). Most charts look very similar to the artandtechnology.com.au one or are just slightly modified version to hide the source.


---

### Answer by username_8 on 2023-07-15. Score: 0

I believe this is the primary source of the "mount stupid" version of the graphic, another SMBC comic from 2011: <https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-12-28>

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/NdR5O.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/NdR5O.png)

> **Comments:**
> **username_6**: Welcome; an answer should in essence be a standalone answer with backgrounds and references. Right now this is akin to a link only answer, without a clear message other than 'here's another interesting web page'. This is not really an answer, but an implicit pointer.  

---

