Our knowledge of things tends to make us arrogant about what we know. I fall victim to this every day at my job, where I blindly call out the most probable cause and solution to a number of technical problems based on a description from a non-technical person and many years of running into every issue imaginable (and just because I can't imagine it doesn't mean it can't happen). I am probably wrong half the time, but the other half of the time I look like a hotshot computer genius, so it's OK. At least that isn't what I really get paid for. There are people who we call experts who perform their most important duties using the same methods and bravado that I solve tech problems with. Market forecasters, school counselors, therapists, and financial advisers all use their ample expertise to take wild guesses. Advice is just a realm of business where you can get paid for simply appearing to know something without having to show results. The truth is that no matter how much you know, the future always knows more.
Arrogance of knowledge is not limited to the amply experienced either. In an experiment to judge the effect of incremental information, two groups of people were shown a very blurry picture of a fire hydrant. This picture was too blurry to identify, but incrementally un-blurred versions of the picture were revealed to each group until the image was a bit easier to see. The end image was the same for each group, but one group was subjected to 5 increments of de-blurring and the other was subjected to 10. The first group (with 5 increments) was more accurate in guessing that it was a picture of a fire hydrant than the second group. Why? People only need a few pieces of information to make a decision, and once that decision is made, they stick with it no matter what. To explain why the first group was more accurate, many of them had not made a decision before the final slide. Meanwhile, the group that was given more bits of information made their decisions midway and used each subsequent piece to justify it. Even if the later increments contradicted their guesses, they didn't revise their initial idea.
Arrogance of knowledge is not limited to the amply experienced either. In an experiment to judge the effect of incremental information, two groups of people were shown a very blurry picture of a fire hydrant. This picture was too blurry to identify, but incrementally un-blurred versions of the picture were revealed to each group until the image was a bit easier to see. The end image was the same for each group, but one group was subjected to 5 increments of de-blurring and the other was subjected to 10. The first group (with 5 increments) was more accurate in guessing that it was a picture of a fire hydrant than the second group. Why? People only need a few pieces of information to make a decision, and once that decision is made, they stick with it no matter what. To explain why the first group was more accurate, many of them had not made a decision before the final slide. Meanwhile, the group that was given more bits of information made their decisions midway and used each subsequent piece to justify it. Even if the later increments contradicted their guesses, they didn't revise their initial idea.
We treat our ideas like possessions and we do not like to let them go. Once they are created, they are ours and nobody can take them away from us. This was demonstrated in another experiment where students were given the option to take one of two tests. Test A was difficult, but came with generous bonus points. Test B was easy, but had no bonus. Admirably, 81% of the students chose Test A. Then came the big reveal! It turned out that Test A did not come with any bonus, but was still just as hard. The students were offered the chance to switch if they wanted. Stubbornly, 75% of the students who chose Test A stuck with their decision. You say, "That's stupid, I would have chosen Test A for the challenge anyhow." Well, a control group had 31% of the students choosing the harder test knowing there was no reward, so there are many people like you out there, but it took that initial deception to double that number.
Whether our choices are on what test we want to take or on the big political debate du jour, the amount of information we get in either direction rarely matters once we've decided. If we say we know "because..." then this is more arrogance we are using to shield our egos from alternative views. Then, this tower of information we build up only blinds us to the creeping contradictions. I've always said that I never wanted to learn what is already known. This made sense to me, but not to anyone else. I saw knowledge as this trap that we get stuck in because when we learn the rules, we also play by them. If I flipped a coin 99 times and it landed on heads each time, a statistician would say that the probability of tails on the next flip was still 50%. A thinker would say it was rigged.
How much we know, how learned we are or how long we've been doing something usually only serves to condition us to color within the lines. When a commenter on this blog bothered to insult me in the same breath he claimed to be a part of some Ivy League program, I laughed at the idea of someone taking themselves so seriously. Understanding a little bit of history may not help us predict the future, but it can help us understand radical ideas. History doesn't crawl, it jumps. Spurred by leaps in ideas, events and inventions, our world is driven by the extraordinary. Embracing commonly held boundaries does little to move us forward. Think thoughts that nobody has thought before. Don't be a turkey.
7 nibbles: