Dolcomen. Today We're going to talk about science and how I'm always right, So just remember that AJ take us away.
A new study published in the Public Library of Science is shedding light on why people often stand firm in their beliefs during debates. The reason they think they have all the facts even when they don't. The study authors are calling this the illusion of information adequacy, which was demonstrated in an experiment where participants were split into two groups. Two groups were given opposite but incomplete facts about a fictional school merger, and the third group was given all
the facts. So despite the incomplete information, the two groups with health the facts believed that they had enough information to make an informed decision. However, when presented with the full picture, their opinion shifted to match that of the group that had all the facts. This is good news, so that people are more open to changing their minds than expected, and the study actors say that being more curious about other people's perspectives can lead to deeper, more
honest conversations about serious issues. So curiosity may have killed the cat, but perhaps it won't be what kills humans. This story is from Fortune by any Freemen on October Ninetheen, twenty twenty four.
Thanks AJ, And I have to say that you're more hopeful than I am, and I would expect that. One thing for me is I recall that my dad used to very sarcastically say, don't confuse me, but the facts my mind is made up when he was talking to people who just refuse and ignore the obvious. And it did come to mind almost the big onset of this article. And I was hopeful, like you, Aj, that it showed
that people were willing to change their mind. But being a little more dubious, I feel that in a controlled environment it's one thing, but you know, tell somebody who's taking survey questions and answers. But in a real world environment, how do you think this would play out? With people talking about things where they are in their own echo chamber? What do you think you think this would be likely effective for them too.
One of the study leaders and flecchers, he noted that he thinks that the most common disagreements stem from just simple misunderstandings, like you know, your partner doing the lotary wrong, or putting the toilet paper under instead of over, and he said that being able to employ curiosity during those very small conflicts will help you during bigger, more difficult conversations. And you know that this would put you in a better position to have a real discussion about substantive disagreements,
which are often political in nature. So I completely agree with this. I think that being able to look at someone else's perspective before making a harsh remark or you know, thinking that they're doing something to be malicious cull solve a lot of the issues that cause unnecessary stress and anxiety for the average person and within their their close relationships and friendships. And it may seem like a small skill to master, but it's all about changing the brain
that our brain reacts to things. And when we begin to react more curiously about small issues, you know, wanting to learn more, that's when we start to do the same with other issues, like even the big ones like political disagreements, religious beliefs or stances on social justice, or professional settings at work and things that are you know, a big deal and not just on a personal level.
Cara, I was wondered about you do you do you think that people because there are some people who just dismiss science entirely. They will say that, you know, God created the world in six thousand years, or the Earth's flat, or you know, the shroud of torrenchs you convince all of us to go to church tomorrow. What do you think about these kinds of people? Do you think that this could be something useful to reaching out the people like them too, or how do you think about that?
I do? I mean, I think it is important to note that on some of those points that you made, there may be people who are dug in on certain issues and they are committed to their positions on those issues, not because of any kind of information that they have received that supports those things, but because of some other motivation, such as they need to continue to believe those things in order to prop up worldview that they feel they would be endangering their soul if they did not continue
to believe in, or you know, various other kinds of motivations. They don't have to be religious ones. So yes, I think there are occasions where perhaps no amount of curiosity or kind and compassionate and empathetic communication may change someone's
mind right there on the spot. But I think that the nature of the interaction and does matter, And I think this article fits into the larger conversation that we've been seeing lately about this concept of the backfire effect, which is kind of a sort of popular term that we use to describe this proposed effect that may occur, which says that when people are presented with information that contradicts the belief that they currently hold, they're actually more
likely to dig their heels in than to change their minds. And we kind of took that as the truth for some time, but recently we've been seeing more questions being raised about whether it may be a little bit more complicated than that, and it's not always the case that people dig their heels in when they're presented with contradictory information. People do sometimes change their mind. I know I have before,
I know we probably all have. Here we can probably think of an example of a time that we changed our mind when we were presented with contradictory evidence, And in a lot of cases, I think if we consider why we changed our mind in the face of that evidence, it may have to do with factors such as how
that information was delivered. Was it coming from someone that you genuinely believed was interested in you and your well being and did not have nefarious intent, Was it delivered in a way that was compassionate and empathetic, or was it delivered in a way that was rude and insulting and accusatory.
These may be.
Factors that are more important when deciding whether someone is going to change their mind or not. So I do agree with the gist of this article when it's suggesting that people exhibit some curiosity before they just jump in and start assuming that other people have bad intent or that we need to just dig in our heels.
But it seems that it is also a case of the less someone knows, the more confident they'll feel about it, And this reminded me of the dune in Cruder effect is a concept that that was actually coined by two psychologists in the nineties, and they noticed that people with limited knowledge or skilled in a specific area who thought that they knew enough, they usually overestimated their abilities and thinking that they knew more or better than most people
based on the small amount of information that they knew about a specific topic, right because they had, you know, read an article or news about a news headline, and then suddenly they thought that they knew the whole the
entire situation. And on the opposite end. You also have people who are extremely skilled, for example, like a highly trained scientist or engineer, and they may believe that they don't know enough about their own field or their topic, and that their peers are more knowledgeable, so they underestimate their abilities. And the positive side of this is that when people doubt themselves or their knowledge, they're more likely to seek or their information and answers. But you know,
they don't in Kruger effect. Explains that why some people are more likely to fall for things like conspiracy theories. They think that they know enough about science or history, but they have no idea. And it seems that we are all prone to being on either side of the
don't in Kruger effect. But I think the solution is to be more self aware and to admit when you when you know enough or when you don't know enough, and to also realize that you're more than likely are never going to know everything and that there's always something new to learn. That's my personal model, like, I don't know shit, don't anymore.
Well, I was going to ask you about the Dunny Kruger effect, but I think you cave a pretty good explanation of that, And look, I get it. I know that all you other people are wrong sometimes, you know, but seriously, I hate being wrong. I will do not deny. I absolutely hate it. But I hated enough because it's one thing I hate more. I hate staying wrong even more. And so I think that with that in mind, you
mentioned all of us changing our minds. Well, you know, as a former Believer who work for a former clansman who is a delegate to a party that shall not be named a long time ago, decades ago. Yeah, I've changed a few of my views on a few things. So I think it serves as a good reminder for all of us to be reminded that we've been wrong
about things too. It's just sometimes it seems so hard thinking that the other people because once again, that's our otherness mentality that we like to portray, and it's good to be reminded that we fit in that category too, to make sure that we don't fall prey, because sometimes we are, but as being aware of it and having that self awareness, it's so important. So, Cara, I was going to switch over to you, how did you think? What do you think about I want to kind of
carry off on the dunning Kruger effect. Do you think that that's something you see on a regular basis? Is that something that you see and do you have a particular methodology on dealing with it? Oh?
Sure, Yeah, I do see that quite often, you know, and we sometimes say I even catch myself doing it sometimes and saying, oh, you know, I probably know just enough about this to be dangerous. And that's kind of what that is. And you know, to the point that was made earlier, Yeah, we never have all the facts. Our information is always incomplete, and we do have to still go about our lives and make decisions constantly throughout the day, many many times a day in the face
of incomplete and inadequate information. So yeah, we probably are kind of primed to do that. If we couldn't ever make a decision or come to a conclusion in the absence of all of the facts, we'd all be paralyzed with indecision for probably all of our lives. So, you know, I think it's okay to give people a little bit
of a past sometimes. But it's exactly that attitude that was mentioned earlier, of assuming not just that you know enough to have an opinion or come to a conclusion, but assuming that you are in possession of all of the facts and there's nothing more to be learned. That's when you know, Okay, that's that's not accurate. That's never going to be accurate. You're never in possession of all of the facts. It always pays to find out more.
It may be challenging. It may lead to you having to reconsider a belief that you kind of didn't want to have to reconsider, and it may lead to you know, for some people, dealing with nuance or gray areas is unsettling and difficult, and it may lead you to a place where you realize, hmm, I don't know enough information
about this topic to actually have a solid opinion. It could be this on the one hand, it could be that on the other hand, and we don't really have a good way to make a decision sometimes, and I think that can be very uncomfortable for people, But sometimes that's just the reality, and it helps to just be a little bit more comfortable with nuance if you can, and be ready to acknowledge that we don't have to
have all of the answers all the time. Like we say, quite often, it's perfectly okay to say I don't know, and I think we should do that more often. I know I should do that more often, and I'm the person who goes around saying that all the time. I should put that into practice more so, Yeah, I think that is basically my opinion on that I don't know for sure.
I have to say that I don't know as probably consistently the most honest answer you'll get from somebody, because rarely does anyone say I don't know when they really think they know the answer, unless they think it's a trap. So excluding that, now one thing, AJ, I know this articles about science, but you know me, so eventually it's going to also end up about politics. Do you think that there's an actual move to make science more dismissed?
Is that something that we see in leadership in some places, wanting science to be something that people don't learn much of so that they can be taken advantage of and being fed an easy story.
You can absolutely see this both in politics and in religion. I have to say that equally because we saw it in you know, twenty sixteen. I was actually involved in the March for Science, which was because of all the anti science moves that were being made by unnamed politicians at the time, and so we wanted to help educate people on topics, you know, medical science and the issues
of the environment. And when it comes to the other side to religion, then you have all of these incredibly inaccurate things being talked to children from from the Bible. So they learn all these different facts that are equally scientific and anti scientific, and they value them at the same level, like I don't know, like you need water to survive and then Jesus welcome water. Right, So kids grow up learning that type of science and thinking, oh,
it's all true. And so I think that yeah, ultimately we need we need to do better at teaching everybody, uh how how to understand science.
I think that that's part of what we see when we see this move to get the Bible in the classrooms, and they say every classroom they want to mix up that science belief with you know, Jesus, magic water and the wine or whatever else. And then it creates a god ability factor that I do think is dangerous and goes definitely to the heart of making it easy for people to believe they know all the facts. A CARO, I just wonder, is there anything you wanted to close out with.
You know, I don't think so because I don't want to have the final word on this matter, because I want to stay open and stay curious, and I don't think I have all the facts yet. But I was enjoying the conversation and I hope that we get to have more.
Well that's good because I don't really want you to have it anyway, So a j you.
And I will have the last word. I would say that speaking of curiosity, yeah, curiosity, epistemology, critical thinkingskepticism, these are all factors and skills that we need to learn and that can lead us to having more honest and unbiased conversations that results in less misunderstandings disagreements, and that we can help to further our society.
I have to say that I'm hopeful that Lucifer here gave us good advice. But you know, after all, should we take Lucifer's word? I think so. I don't know about you, but what I do know is that you are absolutely