The science of protecting people’s feelings: why we pretend all opinions are equal

Source file Click here

It’s both the coolest — and also in some ways the most depressing — psychology study ever.

Indeed, it’s so cool (and so depressing) that the name of its chief finding — the Dunning-Kruger effect — has at least halfway filtered into public consciousness. In the classic 1999 paper, Cornell researchers David Dunning and Justin Kruger found that the less competent people were in three domains — humor, logic, and grammar — the less likely they were to be able to recognize that. Or as the researchers put it:

We propose that those with limited knowledge in a domain suffer from a dual burden: Not only do they reach mistaken conclusions and make regrettable errors, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it.

Dunning and Kruger didn’t directly apply this insight to our debates about science. But I would argue that the effect named after them certainly helps to explain phenomena like vaccine denial, in which medical authorities have voiced a very strong opinion, but some parents just keep on thinking that, somehow, they’re in a position to challenge or ignore this view.

So why do I bring this classic study up now?

The reason is that an important successor to the Dunning-Kruger paper has just been come out — and it, too, is pretty depressing (at least for those of us who believe that domain expertise is a thing to be respected and, indeed, treasured). This time around, psychologists have not uncovered an endless spiral of incompetence and the inability to perceive it. Rather, they’ve shown that people have an “equality bias” when it comes to competence or expertise, such that even when it’s very clear that one person in a group is more skilled, expert, or competent (and the other less), they are nonetheless inclined to seek out a middle ground in determining how correct different viewpoints are.

Yes, that’s right — we’re all right, nobody’s wrong, and nobody gets hurt feelings.

The new study, just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is by Ali Mahmoodi of the University of Tehran and a long list of colleagues from universities in the UK, Germany, China, Denmark, and the United States. And no wonder: The research was transnational, and the same experiment — with the same basic results — was carried out across cultures in China, Denmark, and Iran.

In the experiment (described in further detail in this previous paper), two separate people view two successive images, which are almost exactly the same, but not quite. In one of the images, there is an “oddball target” that looks slightly different. The images flash by very fast, and the two individuals have to decide which one, the first or the second, contained the target.

Sounds simple enough — but the two individuals didn’t merely have to identify the target. They also had to agree. Each member of the pair — the scientists wonkily call it a “dyad” — separately indicated which of the images contained the target, and how confident they were about that. Then, if there was a disagreement, one individual was chosen at random to decide what the right answer was – and thus, who was right and who was wrong. And then, both individuals learned the truth about whether their group decision had been the correct one or not.

This went on for 256 intervals, so the two individuals got to know each other quite well — and to know one another’s accuracy and skill quite well. Thus, if one member of the group was better than the other, both would pretty clearly notice. And a rational decision, you might think, would be for the less accurate group member to begin to favor the views of the more accurate one — and for the accurate one to favor his or her own assessments.

But that’s not what happened. Instead, report the study authors, “the worse members of each dyad underweighted their partner’s opinion (i.e., assigned less weight to their partner’s opinion than recommended by the optimal model), whereas the better members of each dyad overweighted their partner’s opinion.” Or to put it more bluntly, individuals tended to act “as if they were as good or as bad as their partner” — even when they quite obviously weren’t.

The researchers tried several variations on the experiment, and this “equality bias” didn’t go away. In one case, a “running score” reminded both members of the pair who was faring better (and who worse) at identifying the target — just in case it wasn’t obvious enough already. In another case, the task became much more difficult for one group member than the other, leading to a bigger gap in scores — accentuating differences in performance. And finally, in a third variant, actual money was offered for getting it right.

None of this did away with the “equality bias.”

So why do we do this? The authors, not surprisingly, point to the incredible power of human groups, and our dependence upon being good standing members of them:

By confirming themselves more often than they should have, the inferior member of each dyad may have tried to stay relevant and socially included. Conversely, the better performing member may have been trying to avoid ignoring their partner.

Great instincts in general — except, of course, when facts and reality are at stake.

Nobody’s saying we ought to be mean to people, or put them down when they’re wrong — or even that experts always get it right. They don’t.

Still, I think it’s pretty obvious that human groups (especially in the United States) err much more in the direction of giving everybody a say than in the direction of deferring too much to experts. And that’s quite obviously harmful on any number of issues, especially in science, where what experts know really matters and lives or the world depend on it — like vaccinations or climate change.

The new research underscores this conclusion — that we need to recognize experts more, respect them, and listen to them. But it also shows how our evolution in social groups binds us powerfully together and enforces collective norms, but can go haywire when it comes to recognizing and accepting inconvenient truths.

I like to think America is still recoiling from England's tyranny. I know, that sounds completely radical... but, if you imagine that the fear of "too much authority" was baked into the American Pie (read: The Constitution/Bill of Rights/American Lore), then it's easy to see how that view could transcend a couple hundred years. I am reading a book called Revolutionary Summer: The Birth of American Independence by Joseph J. Ellis, and it talks about this very thing. In the colonies, there was a lot of "fear" of too much governmental power. Experts were distrusted because the Americans were beginning to value their own self-governance more.

Because America developed itself into a representative democracy, we are obsessed with a society where everybody gets a say.. whether it's relevant or not.

I don't actually agree with that sentiment... But, who gets to decide who the experts are? It becomes a very dangerous game when somebody holds all the cards because they know the most... *shrugs*

I don't have a solution for this problem. I learned today that humans can actually have psychological problems that THEY CANNOT WORK THROUGH. There are problems we have created that we were not biologically programmed to have to deal with. Losing parts of the body, extreme overweightness, being born the wrong gender, religion-related issues of existential proportion, etc. Humans have a whole host of things we cannot actually deal with... I always thought we were endlessly adaptable to any reality. But, that's not a sane thing to think... We are limited by our biology. Of course we are. lol. It's crazy to think otherwise...

And, it's possible that we cannot deal with the thought of not having a voice. In my body's mind, it cannot comprehend the radical thought that some humans might have a bigger worth in some areas (and my strengths might lie in different ones). It's possible that it's JUST too nuanced for us to really understand it on the whole. Maybe this causes people to go mad... They start spouting that everything is "EQUAL" and "FAIR"... but, fair and equal aren't even the same thing.

I can easily say that opinions are unequal... but, I still feel HORRIBLE when somebody tells me I'm wrong and systematically destroys my argument. :dry: Somethings cannot be worked through.

it's never bothered me to refer to someone else's knowledge...

i've been wrong and have learned from it...i've never considered myself an expert in anything and given the circumstances would easily defer to someone that has proven to know more....

if someone is wrong and can be proven wrong then i'll let them know...i don't enjoy "hurting" anyone's feelings, but if they're wrong and you don't correct them it can be much more damaging than if you spare their feelings and allow them to continue being wrong...and if i'm wrong i like to be informed of it (with some proof if possible) so i can make the corrections...i hate being wrong....

this guy has a degree and that guy has a degree and they both starve in the jungle
how does a layman recognize an expert

in a land where theres a sucker born every minute the idea of letting other people decide for me is less intelligent than refusing expert advice

if im not an expert how can i tell who the expert is when their heads all bobble the same way?

This is something that we've been arguing about for a long time ... :laugh:

I know this, but I don't know that. What sort of distortion of Liberty or Equality would make anyone believe that my opinion (δόξα) about that is equal to the knowledge of someone who interacts with that in a much more familiar way (in other words knows that) ??? :S

In arguing this before, I've used the illustration about a heart surgeon and a plumber : both do work dealing with pipes (of sorts), yet, when I need heart surgery, I would really prefer the surgeon to do the work. When my waterworks aren't functioning, I call the plumber, not the hospital. It does not mean that the surgeon and the plumber are not equal as citizens and as fellow human beings -- but they each serve their specific respective function just because they have expertise in one and the other domain. With respect to particular fields of experience, their respective opinions are NOT equal.

To make the category error of valuing equality in judgement about particular fields of experience by the same overarching ethics about democratic equality (which is itself very questionable) or human rights equality just seems like utter stupidity to me. But then what the hell would I know ??? :whistle:

We've known about the original research for a long time, but this is not really getting us past our twisted ideas of what should be equal among equal citizens with equal basic rights. And as long as we cling to that, what impetus does anyone have for educating oneself (whether it yields a diploma or not), if "everyone has a right to their opinion" and "all opinions are equal" ("we're all equal so all our opinions are equally valid") ?

I believe that we only have the right to an opinion when we take up the responsibility to inform ourselves about the matter first (and a diploma doesn't necessarily make one "informed" ; common-knowledge and hear-say certainly do not). Knowledge grows, evolves, is dynamic in various other ways and we need to be up to date about what has been learnt. Since there is an incredibly vast spectrum of subjects that it is at least helpful that we know about, it would be impossible for anyone to know everything expertly. Thus, we specialise. But part of that specialisation should be the confidence in others' specialisations (letting their opinions count more). We can still be equal in worth as human beings and as citizens, but only insomuch as we can accept and value the diverse qualities that make us un-equal.

Do you think that the internet has made this worse?

Not only can people quickly get small amounts of information on any topic, thus making them feel like an expert and want to share their "expertise," but the ability to share information, anonymously or otherwise, makes it even harder to tell the experts apart from the novices. This could have led to a greater need to take all opinions heard (or read) more seriously as more people can sound like experts without actually being experts and it's harder to tell who is actually talking (or writing).

Add that to our ability to, having read something by an "expert," go on the internet and find things by other "experts" that disagree with the first and I can see how we might have to consider everyone's opinion as possibly valid. This may sometimes be from the need to protect other's feelings, but other times might be from general confusion as to who to believe. I don't know about everyone here, but I don't have enough time to go fact checking every single thing I read.

Slight shift: as far as not putting down people's opinions to avoid hurting their feelings I get that there are circumstances where that's necessary. My best friend's girlfriend has an opinion about everything and it's usually wrong, but I usually just nod along and try not to punch her because she makes my friend happy and I don't want to ruin their relationship or our friendship. To me that's more important than telling her that she's wrong.

Goken wrote: Do you think that the internet has made this worse?

Maybe I think that this in combination with

Alexandre Orion wrote: I believe that we only have the right to an opinion when we take up the responsibility to inform ourselves about the matter first

Helps protect use against the internet. If we find "an expert" who says something which seems 1 step off then we need to go to the source data and make sure we are informed right?

I think what the internet has the advantage of allowing those voices which are not part of the main stream a space however it also allowing those voices which are not part of the main stream a space.

imo in the final analysis the internet is the greatest resource we have to verify the aithenticity of any material

however
the creationist debate left me deciding im just going to take on faith that science based creation myth is more factually correct (real science - not "my interpretation of jesus said its true now i have to make it true" science) and religion creation myths need to be aware of the role they fill and not attempt to impose themselves on other things which fulifill other roles

this understanding came as a result of being bombarded with so much expertise that i felt even getting a phd of my own would be no guarantee against being wrong because apparently even people with phds are taking both sides of the issue so i got the understanding that the understanding i got would be more a matter of where i got it than that i got it. get it?

the jargon got beyond the point i was willing to tolerate or verify

so "at the end" of that whole experience i was basically in the same position i had begun except i had a migraine

here i was thinking doctors were going to make me feel better lol

People who try to protect other people's feelings only try to protect their own imo.

I sort of think democracy works better when only tangible stakeholders are involved; which might see it layered - where you vote for your council, the councillors vote for the state premier, and the state premiers vote for national president... for example. At each level you could even inject other entities as voters perhaps, such as peak industry body and union representation.. say at perhaps state level for those two examples. This way each vote is more likely to be informed better to the decision's they are making as they are voting to decisions which directly impact them and then going the other way.... responsibility of different layers of governance could be better aligned to those same extents of stakeholders capacity to be influenced. In theory making a much better alignment. Still a completely democractic system but without the disconnect which happens now where everyone is pretty much ignorant of the details of what these people are doing, so just vote in popularity and shallow emtpy slogans. Indeed lower levels in my system might have to vote more often to ensure better representation filters upward.

In the same way to the broader topic, peoples opinions should matter IMO - to the extent they are able to form relative opinions.