Sunday, March 11, 2012

people aren't smart enough for democracy



yahoo | 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.

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.

2 comments:

Tom said...


 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.


The Corporation considered technical expertise irrelevant to management.  "A good manager can manage anything."  "You get a sense of who to listen to."     It led to massive hilarity, but finally I laughed so hard that I quit.

CNu said...

How do you account for the application of the Peter principle Tom? Since its application is contrary to the rational self-interest of the hierarchy in which it's practiced - do you consider it a subversion of the hierarchy?

Let's take a functionally different, but I think related example, that of tenure in the academy. Arguably, academic subjects and academic work ought to be about as meritocratic as possible (peer review and all) but the reality is that the combination of tenure track and departmental consensus have interoperated to yield a "go along to get along" cultural norm that is the exact opposite of the spirited meritocracy one might expect. This same culture of mediocre consensus is also normative in public agency and non-profit hierarchies, as well.