“One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision," wrote Bertrand Russell in his 1951 book, New Hopes for a Changing World.
Russell foretold a scientific discovery we call "cognitive bias," also known as the Dunning–Kruger effect. Psychologist Joyce Ehrlinger prefaced a 2008 paper she wrote with David Dunning and Justin Kruger, among others, with Russell’s comment.
“By now,” Ehrlinger noted in that paper, “this phenomenon has been demonstrated even for everyday tasks, about which individuals have likely received substantial feedback regarding their level of knowledge and skill.” Now, a new study published in Nature Human Behavior found that “Extreme opponents of genetically modified foods know the least but think they know the most.”
The authors of the study, led by Philip Fernbach, a cognitive scientist and co-author of The Knowledge Illusion: Why We Never Think Alone, "analyzed survey responses from a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults," reports Brian Gallagher in Nautilus. They obtained similar results, the authors write, “in a parallel study with representative samples from the United States, France, and Germany, and in a study testing attitudes about a medical application of genetic engineering technology (gene therapy).”
While Fernbach called the results of the study "perverse," they align well with other studies on the Dunning–Kruger effect and the psychology of extremism. “Extreme views often stem from people feeling they understand complex topics better than they do." Fernbach notes.
The study notes, "we find that as extremity of opposition to and concern about genetically modified foods increases, objective knowledge about science and genetics decreases, but perceived understanding of genetically modified foods increases."
"Extreme opponents know the least, but think they know the most," the study notes.
Is that stupid? What exactly is "stupidity"?
David Krakauer, the President of the Santa Fe Institute, told interviewer Steve Paulson, for Nautilus, stupidity is not simply the opposite of intelligence. “Stupidity is using a rule where adding more data doesn’t improve your chances of getting [a problem] right,” Krakauer said. “In fact, it makes it more likely you’ll get it wrong.” Intelligence, on the other hand, is using a rule that allows you to solve complex problems with simple, elegant solutions. “Stupidity is a very interesting class of phenomena in human history, and it has to do with rule systems that have made it harder for us to arrive at the truth,” he said. “It’s an interesting fact that, whilst there are numerous individuals who study intelligence—there are whole departments that are interested in it—if you were to ask yourself what’s the greatest problem facing the world today, I would say it would be stupidity. So we should have professors of stupidity—it would just be embarrassing to be called the stupid professor.”
The core issue is a deficit in metacognition—the ability to analyze one's own thoughts and performance. Poor performers are "doubly cursed": they cannot produce correct responses, and they cannot recognize when their responses are incorrect.
Am I cognitively biased because when reading this article, I immediately thought of Congress?
Mostly, the article reminded me of many leftists. Not thoughtful people on the left who engage in reasoned debate and are respectful and as passionate as I am. I'm referring to garden-variety left-wing screamers with the contorted faces and spittle-flecked lips who attend anti-Trump rallies. Then there are the insufferably arrogant leftists who know so much but understand so little.
They personify the Dunning–Kruger effect and complicate our politics to no end.
