The world around us is very complicated. But, while we tend to recognize this fact when prompted we routinely ignore it when it comes to expressing our own opinions. We tend to recognize the limits of other people’s knowledge while failing to recognize our limits. We all suffer from what Steven Sloman and Philip Fernbach refer to in their book The Knowledge Illusion as the illusion of explanatory depth.
Consider the following example from their book:
If you’re like most people, you rated your understanding of question 1 as very high. But, if you’re like most of those people you discovered in step two that you were virtually incapable of explaining in any sort of detail how a zipper actually worked. This is the knowledge illusion. As they point out in the book, “Our point is not that people are ignorant. It’s that people are more ignorant than they think they are. We all suffer, to a greater or lesser extent, from an illusion of understanding, an illusion that we understand how things work when in fact our understanding is meager.” Please understand that I’m not sharing this with you to make you feel bad. I’m sharing this to point out a crucial insight that will help you deal with real-world issues and to encourage you to cultivate an important critical thinking disposition: intellectual humility. What does any of this have to do with real-world issues? Well, take the example above about the zipper. Now, instead of asking about how a zipper works, substitute some political, ethical, or moral issues: abortion, capital punishment, immigration, cloning, climate change, etc. See the problem? If you’re like most people, you have an opinion on these issues. You think your opinion is well-founded and backed up with knowledge and facts. You’re also suffering from the illusion of explanatory depth. You think your knowledge of the issue is deeper than it really is. Don’t believe me. Try it. Consider the contentious issue of abortion. Set aside your position on abortion for a moment and consider just how much you know about this issue. What are the three most important Supreme Court rulings on abortion? What is the central argument in Roe v. Wade and what does it specifically imply about abortions? What percentage of women each year who become pregnant have an abortion? What is the breakdown in terms of trimesters for abortion? How many in each trimester? What laws are states able to pass regarding abortion? What are the central philosophical arguments relevant to this issue? Are you able to answer each of these questions in sufficient detail? And these are just a few of the questions you’d need to answer to claim you have a depth of knowledge on the abortion issue. If you are unable to answer these questions, then what exactly is your stance on abortion (whatever it is) based on? Now, consider all of the other ethical and moral issues we could consider in this way. Each one entails a depth of knowledge that most people do not have. But, most of those people have strong opinions on each of those issues. So, what should we do about this problem? There are several options to consider. 1. Start now and learn as much as you can about all of these issues. The trouble here, of course, is that you simply don’t have enough time to do this. No one does. There’s too much to master and too little time. 2. Continue to do what you’ve always done. Have your opinions and express them. What difference does it make if you know or not? It’s what you feel about these issues that matters. The problem here is that it does make a difference. What if you’re wrong and your push for a solution to the issue is a push towards action that just makes things worse. 3. Drop out of the game altogether. Don’t have opinions and if you do have them, don’t express them. Don’t participate in civic life. Don’t vote. The problem with this choice is that we need people to participate in civil society. In a participatory democracy, a representative republic, we need people to vote, advocate, inquire, and be a check on politicians. People need to be able to hold their representatives accountable for their actions. 4. Cultivate intellectual humility. Learn what you can but recognize that you won’t be able to be an expert on all of these issues. Also, recognize that you share the same problem with everyone else. Encourage others to see that the limits of your knowledge are the same as the limits of their knowledge. As Julia Galef advocates in her book The Scout Mindset, hold your beliefs lightly. Don’t be so sure of your own beliefs that you can’t or won’t listen to others. Be a person that works for dialog and discussion. See the common ground between you and those who hold different opinions. Of course, you can express your opinions and argue for them passionately. But, be prepared and open to seeing other views and seriously consider them as well. Another perspective on this is offered by Adam Grant in his book Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don’t Know, where he says: “Who you are should be a question of what you value, not what you believe. Values are your core principles in life–they might be excellence and generosity, freedom and fairness, or security and integrity. Basing your identity on these kinds of principles enables you to remain open-minded about the best ways to advance them. You want the doctor whose identity is protecting health, the teacher whose identity is helping students learn, and the police chief whose identity is promoting safety and justice. When they define themselves by values rather than opinion, they buy themselves the flexibility to update their practices in light of new evidence.” Given that we all suffer to one degree or another from the knowledge illusion, that means that all of us could update our knowledge. When we do so, we should also update our beliefs in light of this new evidence. Will we? Sloman and Ferbach’s book The Knowledge Illusion is subtitled Why we Never Think Alone. I think this provides another useful insights into how we should go about discussing contentious issues. Instead of being an advocate for a position where you defend that position against objections we need to try to engage in a cooperative investigation where we try to figure out together what is really going on and what the best course of action would be to solve problems. That’s also what Julia Galef means by her example of the scout mindset. She contrasts this with what she calls the soldier mindset. Cultivating a scout mindset requires intellectual humility. You can’t be so sure of your ideas that you’re unable to admit to being wrong. I’m going to talk more about being wrong in a future episode. For now I’ll leave you with this thought from the knowledge illusion book. Sloman and Ferbach point out that “It’s remarkably easy to disabuse people of their illusion, you merely have to ask them for an explanation.” Doing this for a simple item like a zipper makes people more open to admitting they don’t know as much as they think they know about larger more contentious issues. And, that makes it much easier to engage in a useful dialogue instead of a heated argument. Isn’t that what we want? Isn’t that what we need? If you enjoyed this episode please subscribe and visit me online at kevinjbrowne.com. Thanks for listening and I’ll see you on the next episode.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
kevin j. brownePhilosopher | Educator Archives
July 2022
improve your thinking: The course |