badgolferman
2025-01-02 15:37:12 UTC
Considering the constant disagreements and one sided opinions being
discussed here, this article may be appropriate for some of you.
-----------
COLUMBUS, Ohio — The next time you find yourself in a heated argument,
absolutely certain of your position, consider this: researchers have
discovered that the more confident you feel about your stance, the more
likely you are to be working with incomplete information. It’s a
psychological quirk that might explain everything from family
disagreements to international conflicts.
We’ve all been there: stuck in traffic, grumbling about the “idiot”
driving too slowly in front of us or the “maniac” who just zoomed past.
But what if that slow driver is carefully transporting a wedding cake,
or the speeding car is rushing someone to the hospital? The fascinating
new study published in PLOS ONE suggests that these snap judgments stem
from what researchers call “the illusion of information adequacy” — our
tendency to believe we have enough information to make sound decisions,
even when we’re missing crucial details.
“We found that, in general, people don’t stop to think whether there
might be more information that would help them make a more informed
decision,” explains study co-author Angus Fletcher, a professor of
English at The Ohio State University and member of the university’s
Project Narrative, in a statement. “If you give people a few pieces of
information that seems to line up, most will say ‘that sounds about
right’ and go with that.”
In today’s polarized world, where debates rage over everything from
vaccines to climate change, understanding why people maintain opposing
viewpoints despite access to the same information has never been more
critical. This research, conducted by Fletcher, Hunter Gehlbach of
Johns Hopkins University, and Carly Robinson of Stanford University,
reveals that we rarely pause to consider what information we might be
missing before making judgments.
The researchers conducted an experiment with 1,261 American
participants recruited through the online platform Prolific. The study
centered around a hypothetical scenario about a school facing a
critical decision: whether to merge with another school due to a drying
aquifer threatening their water supply.
The participants were divided into three groups. One group received
complete information about the situation, including arguments both for
and against the merger. The other two groups only received partial
information – either pro-merger or pro-separation arguments. The
remarkable finding? Those who received partial information felt just as
competent to make decisions as those who had the full picture.
“Those with only half the information were actually more confident in
their decision to merge or remain separate than those who had the
complete story,” Fletcher notes. “They were quite sure that their
decision was the right one, even though they didn’t have all the
information.”
Social media users might recognize this pattern in their own behavior:
confidently sharing or commenting on articles after reading only
headlines or snippets, feeling fully informed despite missing crucial
context. It’s a bit like trying to review a movie after watching only
the first half, yet feeling qualified to give it a definitive rating.
The study revealed an interesting finding regarding the influence of
new information. When participants who initially received only one side
of the story were later presented with opposing arguments, about 55%
maintained their original position on the merger decision. That rate is
comparable to that of the control group, which had received all
information from the start.
Fletcher notes that this openness to new information might not apply to
deeply entrenched ideological issues, where people may either distrust
new information or try to reframe it to fit their existing beliefs.
“But most interpersonal conflicts aren’t about ideology,” he points
out. “They are just misunderstandings in the course of daily life.”
Beyond personal relationships, this finding has profound implications
for how we navigate complex social and political issues. When people
engage in debates about controversial topics, each side might feel
fully informed while missing critical pieces of the puzzle. It’s like
two people arguing about a painting while looking at it from different
angles: each sees only their perspective but assumes they’re seeing the
whole picture.
Fletcher, who studies how people are influenced by the power of
stories, emphasizes the importance of seeking complete information
before taking a stand. “Your first move when you disagree with someone
should be to think, ‘Is there something that I’m missing that would
help me see their perspective and understand their position better?’
That’s the way to fight this illusion of information adequacy.”
https://studyfinds.org/science-confirms-know-it-alls-typically-know-less-than-they-think/
discussed here, this article may be appropriate for some of you.
-----------
COLUMBUS, Ohio — The next time you find yourself in a heated argument,
absolutely certain of your position, consider this: researchers have
discovered that the more confident you feel about your stance, the more
likely you are to be working with incomplete information. It’s a
psychological quirk that might explain everything from family
disagreements to international conflicts.
We’ve all been there: stuck in traffic, grumbling about the “idiot”
driving too slowly in front of us or the “maniac” who just zoomed past.
But what if that slow driver is carefully transporting a wedding cake,
or the speeding car is rushing someone to the hospital? The fascinating
new study published in PLOS ONE suggests that these snap judgments stem
from what researchers call “the illusion of information adequacy” — our
tendency to believe we have enough information to make sound decisions,
even when we’re missing crucial details.
“We found that, in general, people don’t stop to think whether there
might be more information that would help them make a more informed
decision,” explains study co-author Angus Fletcher, a professor of
English at The Ohio State University and member of the university’s
Project Narrative, in a statement. “If you give people a few pieces of
information that seems to line up, most will say ‘that sounds about
right’ and go with that.”
In today’s polarized world, where debates rage over everything from
vaccines to climate change, understanding why people maintain opposing
viewpoints despite access to the same information has never been more
critical. This research, conducted by Fletcher, Hunter Gehlbach of
Johns Hopkins University, and Carly Robinson of Stanford University,
reveals that we rarely pause to consider what information we might be
missing before making judgments.
The researchers conducted an experiment with 1,261 American
participants recruited through the online platform Prolific. The study
centered around a hypothetical scenario about a school facing a
critical decision: whether to merge with another school due to a drying
aquifer threatening their water supply.
The participants were divided into three groups. One group received
complete information about the situation, including arguments both for
and against the merger. The other two groups only received partial
information – either pro-merger or pro-separation arguments. The
remarkable finding? Those who received partial information felt just as
competent to make decisions as those who had the full picture.
“Those with only half the information were actually more confident in
their decision to merge or remain separate than those who had the
complete story,” Fletcher notes. “They were quite sure that their
decision was the right one, even though they didn’t have all the
information.”
Social media users might recognize this pattern in their own behavior:
confidently sharing or commenting on articles after reading only
headlines or snippets, feeling fully informed despite missing crucial
context. It’s a bit like trying to review a movie after watching only
the first half, yet feeling qualified to give it a definitive rating.
The study revealed an interesting finding regarding the influence of
new information. When participants who initially received only one side
of the story were later presented with opposing arguments, about 55%
maintained their original position on the merger decision. That rate is
comparable to that of the control group, which had received all
information from the start.
Fletcher notes that this openness to new information might not apply to
deeply entrenched ideological issues, where people may either distrust
new information or try to reframe it to fit their existing beliefs.
“But most interpersonal conflicts aren’t about ideology,” he points
out. “They are just misunderstandings in the course of daily life.”
Beyond personal relationships, this finding has profound implications
for how we navigate complex social and political issues. When people
engage in debates about controversial topics, each side might feel
fully informed while missing critical pieces of the puzzle. It’s like
two people arguing about a painting while looking at it from different
angles: each sees only their perspective but assumes they’re seeing the
whole picture.
Fletcher, who studies how people are influenced by the power of
stories, emphasizes the importance of seeking complete information
before taking a stand. “Your first move when you disagree with someone
should be to think, ‘Is there something that I’m missing that would
help me see their perspective and understand their position better?’
That’s the way to fight this illusion of information adequacy.”
https://studyfinds.org/science-confirms-know-it-alls-typically-know-less-than-they-think/