Page 61 - WTP Vol. VIII#2

direction in above-average folks. The more a compe- tent individual knows, the less confident the person is likely to be, within limits. Of course there are exceptions, such as celebrated experts or geniuses who are highly verbal, but in the main, people who pursue a particular topic in depth appreciate how much they still do not know and how much remains to be discovered, so they tend to underestimate their knowledge and ability.
Take the example of someone who decides to pursue a science degree leading to research on vertebrate vision, that is, on how we are able to see the world. The individual might finish a college degree in chemistry, for example, then concentrate in graduate school on neuroanatomy and physiology. By focusing
“The more we actually know about the real
world, the less confident we tend to be in our beliefs and conclusions.”
on the visual system of the human brain, the area of study narrows even more to specific brain pathways from optic nerves through mid-brain structures called the thalamus and superior colliculi and then to Area 17 of the human cortex. Specialization might proceed to narrower frames of reference, including synaptic electrical impulses and neurotransmit-
ter interactions key to understanding visual nerve signals, perhaps down to the level of molecules. If you asked such a student back in tenth-grade biology to describe how we are able to see, you might get a reasonably confident answer about the eyeball and retina. However, ask the same person as a mid-career researcher, and you might encounter reluctance even to begin to address the question. I can vouch for the last statement because I was the student just de- scribed. Indeed, when pursuing any topic toward the limits of human knowledge, it’s tempting to conclude we as human beings know relatively little at present compared with what has yet to be explained. Genuine exploration in depth—learning more and more about less and less—often teaches modesty rather than certainty along with the idea that a certain amount of confusion can be productive rather than undesirable.
Intelligence in human beings has been defined in
various ways, sometimes controversially, but what- ever the definition, the capacity spans a wide range across humanity, often expressed as a score. With a value of 100 dead center (the average or mean value for IQ as it is often expressed), half the population by definition scores less than 100 and half scores higher. Regardless of the merits or faults associated with tagging intelligence with a number, humans clearly vary widely in that capacity. If intelligence is corre- lated with an ability to recognize one’s own cognitive capacity or task performance—in a word, metacogni- tion—the Dunning–Kruger effect might be extended to suggest those with relatively lower intelligence are likely to be more convinced of their illusory superi- ority and the accuracy of their mistaken views than those with relatively greater intelligence, who are in general more reluctant to sound off with assurance. If that proposition is correct, then one can begin to understand how mistaken views often become more widely expressed and disseminated than expert knowledge.
Let’s take a few examples of things people think they know—or say they believe—to understand how
the confidence paradox plays out in everyday life. The situation often starts with belief bias. Rather than considering the actual merits or complexities of a proposition, belief bias prompts individuals to rationalize almost any information to support a pre- existing belief, and that can be risky. It’s one thing
to dabble in aromatherapy or to fantasize about imaginary auras for fun, but it’s downright foolish or dangerous to infer herbal “detoxification” or magic crystals hold a cure for cancer or dementia because of a belief that true cures must be “natural.”
We’ve all heard one of the most famous phrases in advertising history about milk being good for the body (Got milk?) and more recently, about glutens be- ing bad for our health. To what extent do we believe the pitches? Sales-targeting by advertisers is so effec- tive that it can lead not only to belief but also to emo- tional connections with, or reactions against, a given commodity, dietary or otherwise. Think about the implied connection, marketed to young men, between hot sex and racy sportscars for instance. It’s more than happenstance that from a young age, most kids exposed to television have heard and seen ubiqui- tous ads claiming dairy products do a growing body good. In fact, the American Dairy Association, owner of the National Dairy Council, has been touting the health benefits of dairy foods practically since its founding in 1915. Is it any wonder ordinary individ- uals who are nonexperts in the science of nutrition
(continued on next page)
54