> The article acknowledges this somewhat, but it’s an example of another confidence fallacy: The idea that nobody knows what they’re talking about.
It was the opposite for me realization for . When I was young I was assuming if somebody was saying something, they were likely knowing what they were talking about.
After a bit of a ride in life, I know now that people that does do exist, but they are a rare bread, and usually about some very specific topic.
Competent people are the exception, not the rule, degraded mode is the default for humanity, and we are pretty good at going with it. At the beginning I though: what they are doing must be complicated, since it takes so much time and effort, or since there is so much debate about it. One day, you have to do it yourself, or you are behind the curtain, and you realize in 2 years anybody seriously working at it would be better that those life timers.
But still, because of the social pressure, playing pretend is the status quo for most.
Not just about jobs, not just about science, but about pretty basic things in life as well.
In fact, we are constructing a lot of our society around myths that are emerging because of this collecting behavior. It's quite fascinating to watch unfold, but it's such a waste of potential.
Reading what you wrote makes me think of the Murray-Gelman Amnesia Effect. Most people get their information from media and in my limited, anecdotal experience when media talk about an area I do have a great deal of knowledge in there are always mistakes. My belief is that most of us don’t know what we are talking about except in a few areas.
> Using the people picked for funny Jimmy Kimmel interviews is hardly representative, given that they’re literally hand-picked to be the most ridiculous responses.
This is my least favorite genre of lazy content, especially when accompanied by some kind of moral that society is getting dumber.
> their own random guesses about the climate have equal footing to those of career climate scientists.
Notwithstanding that climate models improve with time, is the percent of climate scientist guesses that have come true over the last 50 or so years - at least the "alarmist" ones, which are the ones that climate deniers take issue with - better than chance? It seems the consensus were calling for global cooling in the 70s and then warming disaster around the turn of the century, both of which didn't happen
"Global cooling" was never an expert consensus, so far as I can tell. It was a thing some people thought might happen and would probably be bad, but the idea that in the 1970s everyone was confidently predicting that the climate would cool and it would be a disaster appears to be a thing made up by the boo-to-climate-science lobby.
(In the 1970s some journalists were confidently predicting disastrous cooling. Journalists gonna journalist.)
Some people have in fact looked at the question "how do historical climate-science predictions match up with reality?" and the answer is "rather well". For instance:
"Our survey began with a literature review of every peer-reviewed reference we could find."
"The first result we found is that all of the 17 models correctly projected global warming (as opposed to either no warming or even cooling). While this is so unsurprising to climate scientists that it is not even mentioned in the paper, it may be surprising to non-experts. The second result is that most of the model projections (10 out of 17) published between 1970 and 2000 produced global average surface warming projections that were quantitatively consistent with the observed warming rate."
"To account for differences in emissions between the simulations and reality, we calculated the warming rates with respect to anthropogenic radiative forcing, the rate at which human emissions trap energy at Earth’s surface, instead of calculating them with respect to time. Using this novel metric of the warming rate, we found that the model projections were even more consistent with reality (14 out of 17 models captured this)."
The "for profit" industry underwrites the entire scientific/academia industry. Most (all?) of basic science is paid for by the defence industry.
Science is just as political and conformist as any other industry. "career climate scientist" is just an appeal to authority, who actually would sign praise to anyone that would pay them enough.
An academic is just a person who wants someone to give them money so that they never have to face the vagarities of real life outside of the ivory tower.
Scientists that bring in funding are therefore particularly valuable and highly sought after. However, those that bring-in extramural funding, but do not act politically correct are often quickly dispensed with. Because other donors may dislike them.
Really weird that people still put them on pedestals, but I guess "More Doctors smoke Camels."
It's just another business.
Is this comment, which is riddled with spelling, grammar, punctuation, and capitalization mistakes, satire?
No. There are tons of people who sympathise with that viewpoint.
The "death of expertise" phenomenon is given a grandiloquent title to cover up what it's really about: the death of trust in academia. Experts are a much larger category of people than academics and there's no generalized crisis of confidence in e.g. plumbers, electrical engineers, advertising executives, whatever. But those people are rarely interviewed as "experts" by the media and political classes. Instead, when these people push for new social policies on the back of "expertise" it's always academics.
And that's a problem because universities don't care about quality control at all and so academic expertise is absolutely overrun with fraud, stupidity, dishonesty and pervasively low standards. The average well read intelligent person not only can beat the career scientist in many fields, but often will, simply because the distorting effects of the academic system are so large.
posted 3am on a toilet in my third language I almost never speak.
Looking forward to your arguments about the substance at hand in fluent Swahili.
100% agree on this. State of the industry is bad because we put on layers and layers of rubbish to cover up the mess we started with dom and js and later decided we can introduce this pile of junk to everybody by inventing node.
I once saw a crew filming the Jay Leno man on the street bit in Santa Monica, and they had cue cards for the participants to read.
everything is fake, even unscripted tv
Everything on tv is 'scripted'. 'Reality' tv shows. Even interviews, like 60 minutes, have writers.
When you are telling people that they are on Lie Witness News and ask them an absurd question, they know that their knowledge of current events is not being tested.
> know what the game is and are playing "yes, and"
Do you have a source for this?
Not that I can point to, but people have witnessed the filming of these segments (Kimmel usually films them on the most touristy part of Hollywood Boulevard near his studio) and reported that this happens.
But how do those people know? It's not like witnessing it in person gives them mind-reading ability. Are interviewees going around and telling others "I was playing the 'yes, and' game?" How do people know what they intend?
I'm American, and I haven't experienced other cultures firsthand, but in my experience there's certain people in America that fit this description and certain people that don't.
> This is an American feature too.
How about it's a feature of certain individuals?
I love when people pick a few data points and then use that to generalize a broad swath of over 300 million individuals. I'm sure we could find Japanese, Chinese, Russian, Australian and British people that all have this "feature" too. It still doesn't imply that those entire countries fit that description :)
It is hard to argue against the cultural stereotypes of others. I have a German born friend with the same fault of being unusually sure about shit they are ignorant of, which is usually very annoying and just not funny.
The existence of the show almost self-validates that the stereotype has some truth within the US itself, although judging which individuals fit into a stereotype/group depends on oneself. You appear to be distancing yourself from that particular stereotype, which is understandable.
I personally admire cultures that laugh at themselves, as is presumably happening with that show. UK culture seems to take the piss out of itself relentlessly, often with deep cultural insight, and weirdly enough often with a perverse reverse pride. I believe wit is highly valued in the UK within all levels of their society, not just highfalutin intellectual pythonic comedy.
True, its a stereotype and Americans certainly are not all the same.
Completely agree, there's a strong cultural part in the confidence of the incompetent and it's especially one that I've noticed with Americans and their obsession with self-esteem regardless if it's based on competence.
In many parts of the world it's much more frowned upon for the less experienced to voice their opinion, and that forces them to really think if they want to say what they're thinking. It correlates a lot with respect to authority, and comes with the downside of missing out on the originality of youth at times.
Personally, I'd prefer a middle-ground, but one where experience and competence are weighed into considering any opinion.
See in the NYC subway when a tourist asks someone for directions. You'll get half the car chiming in, telling all their secret routes and spots to avoid. Tourist usually walks away more confused than before they asked.
If you think this is a feature of Americans, you should definitely visit Latin America then.
Lol that's interesting observation. I dont know enough to rate just yet.
In Latin America, at least in mine and my wife's countries, people not only have very strong opinions about all that is happening in the world (Putin? Ukraine? Monkeypox? Homeschooling? Bitcoin? yes) but also everything that is happening in the lives of everyone in their social circle. It gets pretty exhausting if you are not into discussing your shit or everybody else's.
Perhaps a feature of Americas.
Says much about your self-confidence.
If you can't bring yourself to admit incompetence, well. You paint yourself as a person who is unable to learn.
That's a bit harsh maybe? I'm not sure it's all about self confidence per se. Your mind can play tricks on you. Do you go around assuming that people you meet are lying to make fun of you? Is that thing they're mentioning the same as that thing you were reading about a few days ago? Is it lacking in self confidence to assume that it was, or to assume that it wasn't?
Regardless, at some level, it points less to self-believed knowledge, as is the premise of the article, and more to socially pressured self-presentation.
Everyone on Jimmy Kimmel who went home and thought to themselves, or told their significant other "I didn't know what they were talking about but went along with it" is contradicting the premise of the piece.
These experiments / "experiments" tend to involve a significant factor that would invoke bs'ing. E.g. being interviewed on camera from a crowd - saying "uh" and "dunno" instead of answering is guaranteed to get your clip cut. Or in a scientific experiment: our society values knowledge. So if your amount of knowledge is being measured, a natural response would be to try to look extra good.
If they did am experiment like this, informing everyone a priori that some of the statements are bs, and that at the end, they're graded on identifying the bs as well as their knowledge, that could lead to a different outcome. At least it's one way to somewhat mitigate the desirability of appearing knowledgeable.
I didn't say it was the ideal approach, or that it was anything approaching the moral one.
It's just what I would probably do at this stage in my life.
At least half of all people are below average intelligence.
That would be fine if the average weren't so damn low to begin with.
That's not the sad part, the sad part is how many people who aren't that smart are convinced they really are very smart because they happen to work with computers.