Feeding My Ignorance

I've said it before - and I will probably say it again - it is really good when you get unexpected confirmation of things that you have written. In my recent post Tell Me About It I tackled the ever more prevalent problem of what is known as the "illusion of explanatory depth" with regard to our knowledge.

...

This is where we think we know a lot more about something than is really the case - as I said there - for most things our knowledge is superficial - but we will often claim that we "know" something even when that is clearly not the case.

The issue of "fake news" and related topics is high on everyone's agenda at the moment - especially in the US. It is therefore something that everyone has become an instant expert on - everyone believes they can tell the fake from the true - and everyone is, for the most part, falling into the trap that is set by the illusion of explanatory depth.

My unexpected confirmation came in the form of an article in the New York Times - Why We Believe Obvious Untruths. Now - given the subject matter - and our propensity for confirmation bias - and the fact that the authors of the article have a forthcomng book on the subject - we need to be careful that the article itself is an example of what it is warning us about. ;)

I won't go into detail about the article - but the main message is that we are unable to retain enough detail about everything to have an 'informed' opinion and so we rely on the fact that "someone else" knows - unfortunately, a large enough group of people soon form a consensus without anyone in the group having enough detailed knowledge to supprt that opinion.

I was particularly intrigued by the part of the article that discusses experiments that they have carried out which seem to show that our depth of 'understanding' is driven by our understanding of the availability of knowledge rather than the amount of knowledge we actually have.

The particular example was that if you are told "the scientists have not yet explained this" then you will "not know" either, but just being told that he scientists now have an explanation immediately increases your knowledge - without you knowing any more than the fact that "someone else" can explain it. Like all experiments, this relies on all sorts of assumptions, however, assuming that the experiment was properly designed this confirms the typical experience in the "real world".

The same effect explains why "ideas" and "opinions" tend to split a population along lines that already existed. You are more likely to "think that you know" something that you believe someone in your own circles already "knows" (although from this experiment it can be seen that it doesn't need anyone in the circle to know - it just needs them to "think they know"). More often than not, a community will "think" along similar lines.

The reason that it doesn't always happen is related to something else that I have previously touched upon - the fact that we each operate simultaneously in a number of different "communities" - work, church, family, etc.. When the "beliefs" of any two of these are different there exists a conflict - often seen as a paradox - and that needs to be resolved by stepping out of the conditions that cause the paradox.

Splits within churches or political parties are often triggered by these types of conflict - or at least I expect this is the case - I currently have no data to back that up (but at least I am, in this case, aware of the lack of depth of my understanding!!) I have seen many examples of pressures from one "world" impinging on someone's activities in another - often to their detriment because others are unaware of the 'external' (to that world - not to the individual) difficulties.

Generally though those who inhabit 'similar' universes will hold similar viewpoints - their persepctives will not vary much - and that is only reinforced by the fact that within any world there is an element of "us" and "them" that tends to morph into "us right - them wrong". Sometimes for no reason other than the fact that "they" are not "us".

We can all see plenty of examples in the world around us at the moment where two sides (or more) are pushing alternative views of "reality" which are being taken as "truth" by one side an "fake news" by the other. We all need to be more aware of the difficulties we face in distinguishing between these two states.... we all need to be aware of the "everyone knows that ..." argument to support our position - the reality may well be that no one really knows - just that everybody thinks someone else know.