Why Do We Feign Knowledge?
Everyone claims at one point to have knowledge of something they have no knowledge of. But why? It's all about who you perceive yourself to be that dictates your feigned expertise.
Claiming knowledge of things we have no knowledge of is something everyone has done at one point or another, whether intentionally or unintentionally. This kind of overconfidence has a science behind it, and Cornell professor David Dunning is one of the men who studies it. Mary Dooe from PRI writes that it's a bit of a psychological phenomenon — people who claim expertise in a subject they know nothing about.
Dunning has put this claimed intelligence to the test, asking participants to answer questions on various fake subjects from political figures to cities. Yet, despite their non-existence people still have an opinion about them. He explains:
"What we find is that people are quite ready to start talking about things they can't possibly know anything about because we made that thing up in our office just the week before."
He says that there's a rational reason for this rather silly behavior, saying that we assume anything anyone is asking us has some basis of truth. So, why bog down a conversation with questions? Instead, he says, "People don't necessarily exactly know what they know versus what they don't know; they infer what they know versus what they don't know from, let's say, preexisting notions they have about themselves."
It all depends on how you see yourself. If you consider yourself a geek, of course you're going to know about that comic book or tech product that may not exist. Perhaps, you consider yourself a political news junkie — ever hear of this candidate that doesn't exist? Sure.
As for what causes this overconfidence is unclear. Dunning says:
"There is a reason to believe that at times we are going to make mistakes and claim knowledge of things we have no knowledge of. We're inveterate storytellers; we're inveterate explainers; we're inveterate theory inventors. We see something out there in the world and we try to explain why it's happening."
The anti-vaxxer movement is a clear result of that. Parents want to know why their child has autism, and a narrative begins to form with questionable science between rising vaccination rates correlating to rising rates of autism.
Read and listen to more at PRI.
Photo Credit: Shutterstock
The Russian-built FEDOR was launched on a mission to help ISS astronauts.
Most people think human extinction would be bad. These people aren't philosophers.
- A new opinion piece in The New York Times argues that humanity is so horrible to other forms of life that our extinction wouldn't be all that bad, morally speaking.
- The author, Dr. Todd May, is a philosopher who is known for advising the writers of The Good Place.
- The idea of human extinction is a big one, with lots of disagreement on its moral value.
Picking up where we left off a year ago, a conversation about the homeostatic imperative as it plays out in everything from bacteria to pharmaceutical companies—and how the marvelous apparatus of the human mind also gets us into all kinds of trouble.
- "Prior to nervous systems: no mind, no consciousness, no intention in the full sense of the term. After nervous systems, gradually we ascend to this possibility of having to this possibility of having minds, having consciousness, and having reasoning that allows us to arrive at some of these very interesting decisions."
- "We are fragile culturally and socially…but life is fragile to begin with. All that it takes is a little bit of bad luck in the management of those supports, and you're cooked…you can actually be cooked—with global warming!"