[ad_1]
It turns out that some people aren’t just confidently wrong in arguments. They’re practically *celebrating* their wrongness with a fireworks display of self-assurance.
According to a study published Wednesday in the esteemed journal Plos One — renowned for its groundbreaking research on everything from worm psychology to how to get a cat to stop looking so smug — it seems we might have a psychological festivity happening every time we assert our opinions without a hint of doubt.
“Our brains are overconfident like a toddler who just learned to tie their shoes but insists they’re ready for the Olympics,” mused Angus Fletcher, a professor of English at Ohio State University and co-writer of this revolutionary piece of research.
Fletcher, in between bouts of existential reflection on the human condition, teamed up with two psychology researchers to measure how people decide how right they are about various situations or individuals using the skim-read method of information gathering — where you take a casual glance at the first paragraph and declare yourself a subject matter expert.
“People leap to judgments faster than they leap to defend their favorite Netflix show,” he claimed.
In a dramatic twist worthy of a soap opera, the researchers gathered nearly 1,300 intrepid participants, averaging around the wise age of 40. They all feasted on a fictional narrative about a school grappling with a water shortage thanks to an aquifer playing a game of hide-and-seek.
About 500 folks were given one version of the saga that backed merging schools, complete with three persuasive arguments and a neutral point that served as a side salad. Another 500 absorbed the alternative perspective that heavily favored remaining independent — because who doesn’t love being alone at a party? The final group of 300, the “must-have-it-all” control group, received the balanced meal of seven arguments — three for merging, three against, plus that bland neutral point that nobody asked for.
After a round of reading, the participants proudly shared their opinions on the school’s fate and how supremely confident they felt about the information they had assimilated—despite glaring evidence to the contrary. The surveys revealed that most people were quicker to agree with whatever they had just ingested than with a balanced diet of facts. Those who gobbled down a single perspective trotted out their confidence like it was a prize winning pig at a county fair, without a care for the control group who had dined on the full platter.
Half of the group then had the opportunity to read the opposing side’s material, which threw a wrench into their previously unshakeable beliefs. Shockingly, when confronted with actual facts, they often reconsidered their stance. The newfound flexibility was met with much hand-wringing as they reported less confidence in their opinions.
“We assumed people would cling to their viewpoints like a cat to a sunbeam, but it seems that new, plausible information can, quite mysteriously, lead them to abandon ship,” Fletcher exclaimed, revealing a ray of sunshine in the otherwise murky waters of human rationality.
Interestingly, the researchers found their light of hope dimmed when it came to long-standing beliefs, like political opinions that are rooted deeper than a tree’s roots in a fertile climate. “While people may be more flexible with their opinions than we had anticipated, politics seems to be a stubborn weed in the garden of open-mindedness,” Fletcher added.
Todd Rogers, a behavioral scientist at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, couldn’t help but liken this experience to the famous “invisible gorilla” study, where participants miss the obvious because they’re too focused on spotting things like rogue jellybeans instead. “This study shows that there’s a cognitive tendency to remain blissfully unaware of how little we truly know — like staring into the abyss while wearing blinders,” Rogers concluded.
The researchers also unearthed a phenomenon called the “illusion of explanatory depth,” wherein individuals believe they understand how your average toilet operates, but once probed, they can only explain how to flush it while simultaneously pondering life’s great mysteries.
“The true tragedy isn’t just that people are wrong — it’s that they hold the kind of confidence in their wrongness typically reserved for election night broadcasts,” said Barry Schwartz, a psychologist and professor emeritus in social theory and social action at Swarthmore College.
The hopeful remedy? “Be curious and embrace those things we call humility.” Apparently, if participants who were hand-fed opposing views were ready to loosen their death grip on ignorance, there’s still a chance for us all to embrace newfound levels of enlightenment and sense the ground beneath us as solid, albeit slightly cracked.
“If this study tells us anything, it’s that even the most steadfast opinions are mere sandcastles, ready to be swept away by the tide of new information,” Schwartz concluded, offering a glimmer of optimism in a world overflowing with certainty.
Source
