New type of stupid discovered !
Sort of, maybe. As well as stupid people not being intelligent enough to realise that they're stupid, we now have experts claiming to know things they can't possibly know. Perhaps this is an extreme example of the phenomena noted by Socrates :
Last of all I turned to the skilled craftsmen. I knew quite well that I had practically no technical qualifications myself, and I was sure that I should find them full of impressive knowledge. In this I was not disappointed. They understood things which I did not, and to that extent they were wiser than I was. But, gentlemen, these professional experts seemed to share the same failing which I had noticed in the poets. I mean that on the strength of their technical proficiency they claimed a perfect understanding of every other subject, however important, and I felt that this error more than outweighed their positive wisdom. So I made myself spokesman for the oracle, and asked myself whether I would rather be as I was--neither wise with their wisdom nor stupid with their stupidity--or possess both qualities as they did. I replied through myself to the oracle that it was best for me to be as I was.
The difference here, I guess, is that the experts are claiming an understanding of their own subject that's literally beyond perfect. They are claiming to understand things that don't actually exist.
Unfortunately, the original study is behind a paywall. I wonder if this was simply the experts making very quick snap judgements, or a more sinister form of argument from self-authority. Or perhaps they didn't want to appear stupid in front of the researchers ? More details needed !
I'm tempted to slip in a few nonsense terms at my next group meeting, just to see what happens. I think I could probably slip one or two things past a few people, but not others. I know with certainty that there are people in my group who if I make up a term, they will ask me what it means (because this has happened in the past when I've used an unfamiliar term). So I'm very curious why this didn't happen in this particular study.
Originally shared by Miguel Angel
Dunning has now conducted a new study with colleagues Stav Atir and Emily Rosenzweig, finding that expertise has its own pitfalls. In a series of experiments conducted at Cornell University, the researchers found that people with greater knowledge in a particular domain were more likely to claim knowledge that they could not possibly know.
http://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/the-atir-rosenzweig-dunning-effect-when-experts-claim-to-know-the-unknowable
I also need to add Ian Rawlings excellent comment :
ReplyDelete"We've got studies who show some people are too stupid to realise they're stupid so they think they're smart, and now a new study to show that some people are so smart they think they know things which can't be known. We may be working towards a unifying theory of stupidity which may give us a quantum leap in our understanding, or possibly lack of understanding, of knowledge or the lack of knowledge. Or something."
"Cutangle: While I'm still confused and uncertain, it's on a much higher plane, d'you see, and at least I know I'm bewildered about the really fundamental and important facts of the universe.
ReplyDeleteTreatle: I hadn't looked at it like that, but you're absolutely right. He's really pushed back the boundaries of ignorance.
They both savoured the strange warm glow of being much more ignorant than ordinary people, who were only ignorant of ordinary things."
- Terry Pratchett, Equal Rites
How dull it would be if we could know everything.
ReplyDeleteJohn Cleese briefly taught at a British public school where he was astounded by the limitations of some individuals who were incapable of grasping simple concepts.
ReplyDeleteIan Rawlings Yes, but some of the students seemed a little old.
ReplyDeleteThis is known more generally as the "Ivy League Professor Effect". Oh look, it happens at Cornell!
ReplyDeleteIan Rawlings Well, he wasn't doing that for his benefit you know. Pay attention!
ReplyDeleteRhys Taylor - I read your commentary, but not the article.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to take it a step further.
Some people believe in a being who may or may not exist. This being claims to be "all knowing". My question is how can a being, however highly advanced, possibly know what they don't know?
David Lazarus Interesting angle, not sure what you're driving at.
ReplyDeleteNot being a religious person myself, I don't really see an issue with believing in a more knowledgeable source. I know plenty of people who know things I don't know.
Rhys Taylor - My point is that this being, who may or may not exist, claims to know everything. This alleged being is thus unaware of its own stupidity because it cannot possibly know what it does not know.
ReplyDeleteDavid Lazarus It's a simple matter to keep a list of all things one does not have a list of ....
ReplyDeleteInteresting idea. Though, I am quite aware that I have absolutely no clue how the brain works. I don't even know precisely how ignorant I am because I know so little about it. Maybe there are only a few hundred things about the brain I don't know, maybe there are trillions. I can mark down the whole "brain" area as a massive gap in my knowledge, but I don't know how big that gap is.
ReplyDeleteSuppose that knowledge is finite and everything is knowable, in principle, to anyone or anything that is sufficiently advanced. If a being like this claims to know everything, its claim may well be false because it is not aware of the unknown unknowns. But there's nothing preventing such a being from really knowing everything either. Could it ever know if it knows everything ? I don't know...
I guess the belief in an omniscient being is a belief that it actually does know everything, not that it just claims to know everything, even though there's no way for lesser beings or even the being itself to be certain if this is correct.
Or, simpler example : suppose someone tells me they've flipped a coin. If I don't even know what a coin is, I'm screwed. I know I've just discovered another knowledge gap, but that's it. If I do know what a coin is, then that gap is infinitely smaller because I know with certainty that there are only two possible outcomes. So, in principle, if you knew enough about the Universe it might similarly be possible where you could reach a state where you could say precisely how big your knowledge gap was, then go away and learn all the missing stuff.
Or one can always say that the being is supernatural and not subject to physical laws or even logic.