That would make sense, except that graphs generated from random data show identical bias for overestimation and underestimation, as can be seen in the article.

That would make sense, except that graphs generated from random data show identical bias for overestimation and underestimation, as can be seen in the article. And this is opposed to graphs from the DK paper, which show a smaller underestimation bias for experts than an overestimation bias for low-skill people. (Of course that alone doesn't prove anything, just saying that to my understanding, nothing in the article contradicts my interpretation of DK).