That's a good insight about Dunning-Kruger meeting the criteria for a sticky idea. I think the fit may be even better than you say. Everyone knows somebody who overestimates themselves in an annoying way, and I think DK hooks up with these memories instantly. So while DK is not a story per se, it might as well be; it releases stories in the brain.
I'd add another reason for the surprising catchiness of the Dunning-Kruger Effect: it's easy to say. Seriously, say "Dunning-Kruger Effect" several times: it's easy to say and actually feels good, like you've said something really substantive. Sounds trivial, but I bet it isn't.
Edit: oh and here's another: it's self-flattering. Who, on hearing this principle, has ever thought, "Oh, that's just like me, always overrating myself"? No. We all identify with the competent hero, unappreciated even by himself.
Slightly OT, but from reading about the Dunning-Kruger effect:
"Across four studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. "
I find myself wondering -- how do you (formally) test someone on their humor ability?
Any content online should be clearly structured and scannable.
For example if you read a reference at the bottom of the page to something in the middle, it helps to have headings to quickly find what was mentioned.
This is important when people have attention spans of 3-year olds, as they do when reading online.
I spend a lot of time thinking about what makes songs catchy. It's trickier than you might think (if you don't take the bottom of the barrel approach of endless repetition). One day I plan to have an algorithm for this.
Most of these ideas mesh pretty well with my theories on that. Of course, I'd love to see some predictive tests before I declare anything psychological fact.
Interesting. Even if you actually scope it down to the name, some of these principles still hold true. For example, take flickr - its simple, and unexpected as syntax. Kind of when I think of it now, it might be part of the reason why I remembered it in the first place. Althought now with everybody in Web 2.0 using some sort of an interesting syntax.. it is not as unexpected, and thus not as memorable anymore.
I'd add another reason for the surprising catchiness of the Dunning-Kruger Effect: it's easy to say. Seriously, say "Dunning-Kruger Effect" several times: it's easy to say and actually feels good, like you've said something really substantive. Sounds trivial, but I bet it isn't.
Edit: oh and here's another: it's self-flattering. Who, on hearing this principle, has ever thought, "Oh, that's just like me, always overrating myself"? No. We all identify with the competent hero, unappreciated even by himself.