The democratic process relies on the assumption that citizens (the majority of them, at least) can recognize the best political candidate, or best policy idea, when they see it. But a growing body of research has revealed an unfortunate aspect of the human psyche that would seem to disprove this notion, and imply instead that democratic elections produce mediocre leadership and policies.
The research, led by David Dunning, a psychologist at Cornell University, shows that incompetent people are inherently unable to judge the competence of other people, or the quality of those people's ideas. For example, if people lack expertise on tax reform, it is very difficult for them to identify the candidates who are actual experts. They simply lack the mental tools needed to make meaningful judgments.
As a result, no amount of information or facts about political candidates can override the inherent inability of many voters to accurately evaluate them. On top of that, "very smart ideas are going to be hard for people to adopt, because most people don’t have the sophistication to recognize how good an idea is," Dunning told Life's Little Mysteries.
He and colleague Justin Kruger, formerly of Cornell and now of New York University, have demonstrated again and again that people are self-delusional when it comes to their own intellectual skills. Whether the researchers are testing people's ability to rate the funniness of jokes, the correctness of grammar, or even their own performance in a game of chess, the duo has found that people always assess their own performance as "above average" — even people who, when tested, actually perform at the very bottom of the pile. [Incompetent People Too Ignorant to Know It]
We're just as undiscerning about the skills of others as about ourselves. "To the extent that you are incompetent, you are a worse judge of incompetence in other people," Dunning said. In one study, the researchers asked students to grade quizzes that tested for grammar skill. "We found that students who had done worse on the test itself gave more inaccurate grades to other students." Essentially, they didn't recognize the correct answer even when they saw it.
The reason for this disconnect is simple: "If you have gaps in your knowledge in a given area, then you’re not in a position to assess your own gaps or the gaps of others," Dunning said. Strangely though, in these experiments, people tend to readily and accurately agree on who the worst performers are, while failing to recognize the best performers.
The most incompetent among us serve as canaries in the coal mine signifying a larger quandary in the concept of democracy; truly ignorant people may be the worst judges of candidates and ideas, Dunning said, but we all suffer from a degree of blindness stemming from our own personal lack of expertise.
Mato Nagel, a sociologist in Germany, recently implemented Dunning and Kruger's theories by computer-simulating a democratic election. In his mathematical model of the election, he assumed that voters' own leadership skills were distributed on a bell curve — some were really good leaders, some, really bad, but most were mediocre — and that each voter was incapable of recognizing the leadership skills of a political candidate as being better than his or her own. When such an election was simulated, candidates whose leadership skills were only slightly better than average always won.
Nagel concluded that democracies rarely or never elect the best leaders. Their advantage over dictatorships or other forms of government is merely that they "effectively prevent lower-than-average candidates from becoming leaders."
This story was provided by Life's Little Mysteries, a sister site to LiveScience. Follow Natalie Wolchover on Twitter @nattyover. Follow Life's Little Mysteries on Twitter @llmysteries, then join us on Facebook.
http://news.yahoo.com/people-arent-smart-enough-democracy-flourish-scientists-185601411.htmlThe Dunning-Kruger effect was an answer to my prayers a few years ago when I couldn't figure out why the parents of my students acted the way they did. It's obvious that the majority of people don't realize how stupid they are.
I'm consistently shocked and amazed by the intellectual ineptitude of people. For example, yesterday, I learned that five of my students in one of my classes could not read a non-digital clock. I learned that at least four of them (the vocal ones) did not know the participants of the Civil War. I then took a survey in the hallway between classes and multiple students - including two upper classmen - could not tell me the participants of the Civil War.
These people vote.
What's worse is that I've come to realize that there are many, many topics that
I have not studied enough. All I've heard are talking points from my father and a few others that have shaped my view on these particular topics. For example, Jimmy Carter.
Everyone knows that Carter was a horrible president, right? It's just common knowledge. I'm bright enough to not preach the failure of his presidency because I wasn't around for it; however, my thoughts and opinions are most definitely influenced by the fact that the Democrats in the late 1970s produced the worst president of all time, and many have compared Obama to Carter.
It wasn't until recently that I learned a little bit about Carter - like his giving up the Panama Canal. I can now say at 27 years old that I know why Carter was considered a terrible president. On the other hand, at 27 years old, I can admit that I voted in two elections with a subconscious influence that Democrats had produced one of the worst presidents of all time.
My point is that I don't know what the solution is. I'm a land owning, tax paying, college graduate, and I am certain that I make uninformed decisions regarding politics. This is largely due to a lack of education (blame the public schools or my study habits). It's not due to a lack of intelligence or accomplishments.
0 Replies
819 Views