A Paradox of confidence

[Souron]

It seems to me that the more people know about a subject, the less confident they are, less confident in the accuracy of what they know, and in the effectiveness and reliability of processes that they don't understand.

For example, I think that people who have the most confidence in the invisible hand of the market are those that have not read any literature on how the invisible hand actually works. (This is not a comment on the merits of laissez faire capitalism)

From a rational perspective, knowledge should increase confidence; the more evidence you have to support a claim, the more likely that claim is to be true. Sometime of course new evidence will put into question prejudices, so a portion of the evidence would suggest a different conclusion. And it is rare that all the evidence taken alone will point to the same conclusion. But nevertheless, the process of accruing evidence and identifying and countering seeming contradictions should give a person confidence in their conviction. But while that process is effective in trying to reach a conclusion, or trying to persuade an open mind, it does not seem to have the right effect with existing opinions.

People have more confidence in things they are told are true, then in things where they are explained why something is true.

Do you agree that confidence and knowledge about a subject have a inverse relationship?

If this observation is true then this is a problem for the effectiveness of democracy and human society in general. It means the most confident and activist people are the ones you should listen to the least. But because these people are confident they are the most active in spreading their message or otherwise acting on it. The result is an unjustifiably confident populous capable of all the atrocities that come from dogma. Democracy works in favor of this, because in a democracy it is numbers not strength of argument that ultimately matter. But even outside the political sphere, a disparity between evidence and confidence is detrimental to the progress of society.

What do you think? How bad is the problem, and what can be done?

 

[warpus]

I think you are sort of describing the Duning-Kruger effect

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to realize their mistakes.[1] The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority. This leads to the situation in which less competent people rate their own ability higher than more competent people. It also explains why actual competence may weaken self-confidence. Competent individuals falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. "Thus, the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others."

The Dunning-Kruger effect strikes at my work often

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Using BOLD CAPS makes this problem go away.

 

[Ataxerxes]

I think you are sort of describing the Duning-Kruger effect



The Dunning-Kruger effect strikes at my work often

Nice reference. I've noticed that when I play competitive bridge. The more definitive the explanation of why partner's bid was wrong always shows a more idiotic explainer. My line for one player was "She's trying to teach her partner the finer points of the game. Problem is, she has no idea what they are." The person she was trying to teach was actually a better player than she was, but he never recognized that.

Unfortunately, the idiots are also, perhaps inevitably, more argumentative.

 

[Lillefix]

The more you know about a subject, the more embarrassing it will be if you're wrong.

 

[say1988]

The more you know about the subject, the more you realise you don't know.

I forget where I heard this (my gut says somewhere on TV), but the idea was:
People who call themselves experts are generally idiots, because the more knowledge you have on a subject, the more you see yourself lacking and therefore are not an expert.
It is those with a vague understanding of the basic level that will tout themselves as experts.

I think that is just a layman's simplified explanation of what Warpus posted from a slightly different perspective.

To apply it to the OP subject:
Those with and in depth knowledge of the markets see where problems and questions exist.
Those with a basic idea don't see these things and are more confident about what they know.

 

[sophie]

This is absolutely true, especially in History, though I feel this stems less from a lack of confidence in one's abilities, and more the realization, with more study, that answers are never simplistic in History, and therefore the more studied you become in History, the less willing you are to make generalized statements as you realize the imprecision in such remarks. Or that could just me.

Whereas 2 years ago I was perfectly content to say "Henry VIII's break from the church in 1532 was the English Reformation, and was a singular action, and that everything in England was fine and dandy after this formation of the Anglican church", when in reality the moving of England from Catholic to Protestant is really a much more complicated set of Reformations spanning over a period of 50 years, and which occurred in a very helter skelter and uneven manner, and in fact Henry VIII seems to have not even truly wanted to break with the Catholic Church in the first place, or at the very least to not really have known at all what he wanted.

And even this second statement is a terrible generalization that I probably shouldn't have made in the first place. So you see the problem with learning more history.

The more you know about the subject, the more you realise you don't know.

I forget where I heard this (my gut says somewhere on TV), but the idea was:
People who call themselves experts are generally idiots, because the more knowledge you have on a subject, the more you see yourself lacking and therefore are not an expert.
It is those with a vague understanding of the basic level that will tout themselves as experts.

I think that is just a layman's simplified explanation of what Warpus posted from a slightly different perspective.

To apply it to the OP subject:
Those with and in depth knowledge of the markets see where problems and questions exist.
Those with a basic idea don't see these things and are more confident about what they know.

Basically this

 

[Valka D'Ur]

It seems to me that the more people know about a subject, the less confident they are, less confident in the accuracy of what they know, and in the effectiveness and reliability of processes that they don't understand.

...

People have more confidence in things they are told are true, then in things where they are explained why something is true.

Do you agree that confidence and knowledge about a subject have a inverse relationship?

If this observation is true then this is a problem for the effectiveness of democracy and human society in general. It means the most confident and activist people are the ones you should listen to the least. But because these people are confident they are the most active in spreading their message or otherwise acting on it. The result is an unjustifiably confident populous capable of all the atrocities that come from dogma. Democracy works in favor of this, because in a democracy it is numbers not strength of argument that ultimately matter. But even outside the political sphere, a disparity between evidence and confidence is detrimental to the progress of society.

What do you think? How bad is the problem, and what can be done?

I think (from my own life experiences) that this is nonsense. By the logic you've set out, because I know nothing about calculus, I should be extremely confident discussing it. And because I have over 30 years' experience raising cats (all age groups, from newborn to venerable senior), I should have no confidence whatsoever in dealing with cats - guess that means I should give up my volunteer job at the homeless cat shelter, right?

As for having more confidence in things I'm told are true... for a lot of my childhood and teen years, some members of my family and society in general told me that God is real, that prayer works, that "sin" is real, the Old Testament is real history, etc. and that astrology is science. You know what helped me shake my head out of those cobwebs? Having it explained to me - logically and rationally, with scientific evidence - why that stuff is not true. I think most OT regulars know by now which point of view I have more confidence in: I trust that which is explained and shown to me, more than what is just told to me.

(I used the example of religion/science, but there are numerous other examples that could be used as well; let's not derail the thread on this point, please)

Confident activists should not be listened to... interesting. Would the American posters here say that Martin Luther King Jr.was confident? He was certainly an activist. And because he was both confident and an activist, he should not be listened to (as much). Again, that's just one example I could think of (a lot of MLK-themed content on the Cheezburger network lately, which is why that's the first person who came to mind).

There are activists who are confident and sensible, and there are those who are confident and stupid, or confident and nutcases. The challenge is figuring out which is which, and realizing that people are not necessarily only one sort; there are many shades of grey in these issues.


But having said all that, I will say that nearly every day I have to deal with people somewhere online whose attitude is, "I know I'm right. Don't confuse me with facts."

 

[Terxpahseyton]

People have more confidence in things they are told are true, then in things where they are explained why something is true.

This is the core of it.
As social studies have shown - if people delegate the responsibility to a authority, their morality suffers - and badly so. As far as I know the tests to show this were so conclusive that this can be assumed as a natural attribute of humankind.

I would say this can not only be applied on a typical command chain, but the distribution of knowledge and insights as well. To use the OP's example of the "magic hand": People with superficial knowledge will automatically delegate the responsibility to think those theories through to those they got it from. Saying the people with the superficial knowledge feel less responsible for checking what they are saying, as a subordinated person feels less responsible for checking if what he or she is doing is morally acceptable. In both cases the source is an authority. Just that the magic-hand-advocate had the freedom to choose the authority his or himself. The basic role of said authority isn't changed by this, however (I don't see why). Which is to take over responsibility. In one case for the moral aspect of an action, in the other case for the plausibility of a theory.

PS: Because this is a common misunderstanding: I am not necessarily talking about conscious decisions here, but rather absolutely natural tendencies.

 

[kiwitt]

I know personal anecdotes are not really evidence, but ...

I thought I was confident in my knowledge of WWII, that I could even make my own version of WWII as historical as possible. However the more I studied and researched the more I still need to learn. While I may understand the big picture and the major campaigns, there are a lot of details that still needs to be discovered and some may be more relevant than others, to further enhance my mod. I even found myself watching old WWII documentaries on youtube (if a picture says a thousand words, imagine what moving pictures provide) and the true horrors of that war came to light.

I believe I could be working on my WWII mod for the rest of life and still not have it finished. So these days, I seek out information that expands on this detail in the shortest possible time.

 

[sophie]

Another good example: I'm starting to push into the more advanced realms of Spanish grammar, and since I've been out of practice, my problem has been that I don't end up speaking because when I get into the more intricate sentences I can't decide upon which tense I'm supposed to be using. The result is that I often say very little when I speak in Spanish. This is contrasted with learners who are not aware of these tenses, and so are content to butcher the language instead.

 

[Leifmk]

I think you are sort of describing the Duning-Kruger effect

Yes, that was what I was going to mention (although I would have had to do some googling because I couldn't remember the name). This effect explains much of human history, in a somewhat depressing manner, and I expect there's nothing that can ever be done about it.

 

[mangxema]

I think (from my own life experiences) that this is nonsense. By the logic you've set out, because I know nothing about calculus, I should be extremely confident discussing it. And because I have over 30 years' experience raising cats (all age groups, from newborn to venerable senior), I should have no confidence whatsoever in dealing with cats - guess that means I should give up my volunteer job at the homeless cat shelter, right?

The OP is somewhat limited in describing the phenomenon, but the effect does exist. The confidence doesn't go to zero for 'experts' but does taper off after a point. I am reminded of my friends who were into martial arts... They'd say the white belts have little confidence because they know they know very little, and the black belts have a reasonable amount because they know that any competent person in their art could beat them if they're not careful... but it is the green belts who are the cockiest because they are emboldened by what knowledge they have, but haven't quite yet realized its limitations, and it is they who tend to fail most spectacularly.

 

[Skwink]

I think you're looking too far into it.

 

[Souron]

I think (from my own life experiences) that this is nonsense. By the logic you've set out, because I know nothing about calculus, I should be extremely confident discussing it. And because I have over 30 years' experience raising cats (all age groups, from newborn to venerable senior), I should have no confidence whatsoever in dealing with cats - guess that means I should give up my volunteer job at the homeless cat shelter, right?

You're taking the trend to the extreme possible case, which is a strawman of what I'm saying. Obviously the totally ignorant tend to be aware of their ignorance, so they have no confidence what so ever and the trend does not apply. That said I can comment on things related to the examples you give:

Mathematics is rather unique in its monopoly on absolute proof, so it does have some resilience to this effect. However when making predictions about the capabilities of mathematics to solve problems, I wonder who has the most confidence, the ignorant or the ones assigned the task?

In the cat example, my milder suggestion is that a person who has as much experience as you would be less confident in their ability to raise another cat than someone who only ever owned one cat.

Confident activists should not be listened to... interesting. Would the American posters here say that Martin Luther King Jr.was confident? He was certainly an activist. And because he was both confident and an activist, he should not be listened to (as much). Again, that's just one example I could think of (a lot of MLK-themed content on the Cheezburger network lately, which is why that's the first person who came to mind).

There are activists who are confident and sensible, and there are those who are confident and stupid, or confident and nutcases. The challenge is figuring out which is which, and realizing that people are not necessarily only one sort; there are many shades of grey in these issues.

Surely what matters is not the confidence of the presenters, but the merit of their words. So if there is an environment where arguments tend to be propagated and promoted for reasons other than merit there is a problem. Even worse is when there is an inverse relationship between merit and popularity.

BTW, Happy MLK day

 

[nishant1911]

This effect explains much of human history, in a somewhat depressing manner, and I expect there's nothing that can ever be done about it.

actually you can do something about it. study psychology and learn characteristics of such people and how to deal with them (which i fear even more arrogance is the answer)

 

[Leifmk]

Well, on the micro level. But on the macro level, thousands of future incompetents are born daily.

 

[Souron]

Well, on the micro level. But on the macro level, thousands of future incompetents are born daily.

There are 371,124 people born everyday that are incompetent at everything but pooping and sleeping. But that's not the problem.

 

[Janig]

to excel at something is always good and should provide confidence. specialisation is a key part of society, but for confidence it is important to maintain moderation if youre not certain of making progress in your field. you may find leading a more balanced lifestyle will boost your confidence, if u have lifestyle problems write about them.

 

[Zelig]

I think (from my own life experiences) that this is nonsense. By the logic you've set out, because I know nothing about calculus, I should be extremely confident discussing it.

However, you're confident in your ability to go about life without knowing calculus.

To me, with a math degree, "calculus" represents very basic knowledge in a massive field, which is the underpinning for nearly all important science today - going through life without this basic knowledge seems odd, to me.