Why do people often seem to have problems admitting ignorance?

[Revoltingest]

Nobody likes to be wrong. I'm the first to admit that I'm the last to admit that I'm wrong about something. I like to think (and there is some truth to this) that this is because I tend not to form opinions about things until I have thought about them and studied them in some depth. Thus if I don't know much (or anything) about a particular topic, I won't weigh in on issues regarding it. I'll just admit that I don't understand enough to comment or that I don't know.
We are all ignorant of most subjects. Yet for some reason I continuously find people talking about subjects, fields, or topics they don't really understand as if they were experts. And I don't get it. True, I'm biased here: if I am interested in some subject I am not content until I am sufficiently familiar with it to understand the technical literature, and I often avod subjects that aren't academic or don't have technical literature because I can't get the kind of answers I look for (e.g., I don't pay much attention to stories in the news as I can't verify the findings the way I feel compelled to). Most people are happy to read popular literature on subjects they are interested in. And that's fine.
Yet time and time again I find people making adamant statements about the implications of the big bang theory, quantum mechanics, special relativity, deterministic physics, neuroscience, the nature of scientific research, the scientific method, logic, math, etc., despite having at best an understanding of these subjects that can be gained from reading sensationalist books, websites, or magazine articles.
Do others also find people reluctant to admit ignorance of a subject/topic? If so, any thoughts on why this is or whether there are particular subjects/topics that individuals tend to believe they have an understanding of which they don't in act possess? Do people tend to insist their beliefs about some subject they actually don't really know much about are correct because they believe they understand the issues better than they in fact do, or is it more because they don't want to admit they really don't understand (or both?)?
What makes people believe they understand subjects or topics (especially academic) and how often do you think they actually do?

Whuh?

 

[Skwim]

Q. Why do people often seem to have problems admitting ignorance?

A. No doubt because they don't consider themselves ignorant. In your case, although you may have a better understanding of a subject than they do doesn't necessarily mean they recognize it. And why should they? You seem to delight in pursuing subjects on a level above that of the casual layman, filling your posts with jargon and explanations that take more than a casual familiarity to grasp---something I suspect you're very aware of---a cheap ego feed perhaps Yet people are willing to discuss stuff with you. That they do so is nice, and that they believe they have something of substance to contribute is to their credit, but to characterize their firm belief in a possible miscomprehension as some kind of problem with admitting ignorance is not only belittling but downright unfriendly. Of course they might feel the same way about you and your inability to admit your ignorance, but so far they haven't had the conceit to construct a thread announcing it.


.


.

 

[savagewind]

Q. Why do people often seem to have problems admitting ignorance?

Yet people are willing to discuss stuff with you.

Oh good, it's not about me. Sometimes I suffer low self-esteem and paranoia so when I see threads like this I think maybe it is about me. It isn't.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The Dunning-Kruger Effect never rests.

Also, everyone wants to be liked and respected.

Personally, I leave technical talk for my technical life, as discussing most of the stuff I do outside of RF with most of the people within RF would be a rather unrewarding endeavor, for all parties involved. Enough people are ignorant of even basic knowledge and concepts. I can't imagine wasting my time trying to discuss more advanced topics with such a general audience, or what the reward would be when many of them would predictably not be able to intelligently discuss the topics.

 

[Akivah]

We are all ignorant of most subjects. Yet for some reason I continuously find people talking about subjects, fields, or topics they don't really understand as if they were experts.

I encounter this all the time in an office setting. You go to ask someone a question and you can tell within 5 seconds that they don't know the answer. Yet instead of saying so, they will hem, haw, push papers around, try to do web searches and finally give a lame 'answer' that just switches around the words of your original question. It would be so much quicker, easier, and more efficient if people would just say "I don't know." But in my experience, that almost never happens. People just don't like admitting that they don't know something.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Q. Why do people often seem to have problems admitting ignorance?

A. No doubt because they don't consider themselves ignorant.

Thank you. That answers one of my questions, although I do think sometimes at least individuals initially think they are sufficiently knowledgeable about something but when confronted with evidence to the contrary they realize they don't know as much as they thought but don't wish to admit this.
In fact, this raises another point. Most information one comes across (in conversation, in school, on a discussion board, in a newspaper, etc.) is wrong. For example, I remember it being common knowledge when I was a teenager that the most poisonous spider was the daddy-long legs but that it wasn't dangerous because the length of its legs prevented it from biting you. Most people, however, when told that the daddy-long legs isn't even a spider, let alone poisonous, have no problem admitting they didn't know as much as they thought. In general, I think most people most of the time will, when they assert X because e.g., they heard it somewhere, will yield to somehow who appears to really know. This is as true of facts about sports (e.g., how many homeruns Mantle made or the number of superbowls the patriots have won) as it is academic fields. Some people will insist they are right about just about anything (my brother-in-all tends to do this) but I think most people are perfectly willing to accept a statement they made is wrong if they aren't really knowledgeable and it seems like the other person is.
But in particular cases, the opposite is true. For example, I've seen individuals whose knowledge of physics doesn't extend beyond popular sources contradict a quote from a textbook or physics journal, or claim that the Greek of some NT passage really means X even though they don't know Greek. In the case of religious texts, I get it: if religious belief is anything, it is certainly ideological in nature. But when it comes to e.g., machine learning, neuroscience, QM, etc., I don't understand the reason for insisting one is right when confronted with contrary information.

In your case, although you may have a better understanding of a subject than they do doesn't necessarily mean they recognize it. And why should they?

You don't think it is possible to recognize when somebody seems to know what they are talking about? Certainly, there are cases in which two people disagree about a topic neither is an expert on and it can be hard to establish whose knowledge is greater, and additionally greater knowledge doesn't necessarily translate into being right (especially when the difference is small). But it seems to me fairly obvious most of the time when members are experts in some field or knowledgeable about it. I've never doubted that Copernicus really is a professional linguist because it is obvious to me from his posts that he knows of what he speaks. Same with angellous_evangellous and NT studies (even before I read his dissertation), viole with mathematics, Revoltingest and engineering, Caladan and archaeology, Meow Mix and cosmology (and physics), Quintessence and biology, etc. And of course all of these members and others are knowledgeable about subjects related to their fields (if they are in a field) or subjects they have studied (e.g., I know Shadow Wolf has a degree in psychology).

You seem to delight in pursuing subjects on a level above that of the casual layman, filling your posts with jargon and explanations that take more than a casual familiarity to grasp

No. I don't like doing that, but I am terrible at simplifying. I also usually communicate with other specialists who also use jargon and technical explanations, which doesn't help. Occasionally, I will use technical explanations on purpose (usually because I am being petty out of irritation) so that if the other person wants to tell me I am wrong they have to go beyond e.g., linking to Wikipedia. Often, I will use explanations from the literature rather than my own because I know that I am terrible at simplifying and at least as bad as being concise. Additionally, I don't like to appeal to personal claims of expertise, so I appeal to expert literature.

Yet people are willing to discuss stuff with you.

Sometimes. Often I find that I am simply continually contradicted and my arguments dismissed or ignored, or better yet frequently I find someone denying the accuracy of a quote from specialist literature I have used so that nobody need take my word for some claim.
But I'm not really concerned in this thread with my interactions on the formus or in general. I'm not even concerned with why people act as if they are knowledgeable about academic subjects specifically. I was thinking about this when talking with a friend who works in the Registrar's Office in a university in Massachusetts. She has several coworkers who constantly answer questions about e.g., student records or degree requirements or whatever that are wrong. They don't know what they are talking about but that doesn't seem to prevent them from giving false information rather than asking her (my friend) what the answer is, or asking someone else whose job it is to answer such questions.
To be clear, my friend isn't an academic; her position in the university is a staff position not faculty. The co-workers who act knowledgeable when they aren't likewise aren't academics nor are they dealing with questions concerning some academic field. My point with this thread is far more general then my interactions here or people who act knowledgeable about technical subjects. The subject could be baseball, some office policy, who Elrond's parents were, whether Kepler formulated is laws of planetary motion after Newton (a claim my brother-in-law made that at the time I was pretty sure wasn't true but didn't bother to argue about), or whether Pocahontas (in the Disney film) sings the line "blue-corn moon" vs. "new born moon" (a bet I made with my older sister when we were young, and which I lost).

 

[Sapiens]

Nobody likes to be wrong.

Not true of everyone. I love to be wrong ... that means I learned something new,

I'm the first to admit that I'm the last to admit that I'm wrong about something.

Sure, it takes some doing to unseat something that I have read up on, or learned is school or thought about at length. But that's why I enjoy it when it happens.

I like to think (and there is some truth to this) that this is because I tend not to form opinions about things until I have thought about them and studied them in some depth. Thus if I don't know much (or anything) about a particular topic, I won't weigh in on issues regarding it. I'll just admit that I don't understand enough to comment or that I don't know.

Exactly.

We are all ignorant of most subjects.

Most people are ignorant of most subjects, Some of us know a great deal about a limited suite of subjects. There are a few who know at least the basics about a large number of subjects.

Yet for some reason I continuously find people talking about subjects, fields, or topics they don't really understand as if they were experts. And I don't get it.

In most cases that is rationalization, they are making it up as they go along and trying to apply logic to their often wrong preconcieced notions. This is especially true when it comes to science and history.

True, I'm biased here: if I am interested in some subject I am not content until I am sufficiently familiar with it to understand the technical literature, and I often avoid subjects that aren't academic or don't have technical literature because I can't get the kind of answers I look for (e.g., I don't pay much attention to stories in the news as I can't verify the findings the way I feel compelled to). Most people are happy to read popular literature on subjects they are interested in. And that's fine.

Me too, though I do read the news.

Yet time and time again I find people making adamant statements about the implications of the big bang theory, quantum mechanics, special relativity, deterministic physics, neuroscience, the nature of scientific research, the scientific method, logic, math, etc., despite having at best an understanding of these subjects that can be gained from reading sensationalist books, websites, or magazine articles.

To expand on what I said above, people rarely debate big bang theory, quantum mechanics, special relativity, deterministic physics, neuroscience, the nature of scientific research, the scientific method, logic, math, etc., in a pure sense. When is that last time your heard competing scientific perspectives on any of these topics? What you hear are people with a solid grounding in a technical field arguing the details of that field with those who don't even understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, but who are in the argument to try to make some ancillary point like ID or YEC.

Do others also find people reluctant to admit ignorance of a subject/topic? If so, any thoughts on why this is or whether there are particular subjects/topics that individuals tend to believe they have an understanding of which they don't in fact possess? Do people tend to insist their beliefs about some subject they actually don't really know much about are correct because they believe they understand the issues better than they in fact do, or is it more because they don't want to admit they really don't understand (or both?)? [/quit}
I don't think it is any of those things, I think it has more to do with most peoples' inability to deal with the changes in the underlying worldview that admitting to being wrong would require. Far easier on their psyche to stick their fingers in their ears and yammer.

What makes people believe they understand subjects or topics (especially academic) and how often do you think they actually do?

I don't think that they believe that they understand, I think that they believe that the facts should conform to their presuppositions.

 

[Father Heathen]

Pride.

 

[idav]

OK, I'm a moron with a terrible grasp of human nature. Granted. But I really DON'T get it! It confuses me. Reluctance to admit one is wrong? Sure, I get that (all to well). But when it is obvious that all of us are ignorant of most subjects, why the reluctance to acknowledge when this is the case?

I normally don't have trouble admitting being wrong but most discussions in his forum seem to be more opinion than fact, especially in fields that even experts have trouble wrapping their heads around it. People even want to claim Einstein and other scientists are wrong when things run counter to their informed opinions. Its a real debate when the facts are hard to fathom.

 

[viole]

Nobody likes to be wrong. I'm the first to admit that I'm the last to admit that I'm wrong about something. I like to think (and there is some truth to this) that this is because I tend not to form opinions about things until I have thought about them and studied them in some depth. Thus if I don't know much (or anything) about a particular topic, I won't weigh in on issues regarding it. I'll just admit that I don't understand enough to comment or that I don't know.
We are all ignorant of most subjects. Yet for some reason I continuously find people talking about subjects, fields, or topics they don't really understand as if they were experts. And I don't get it. True, I'm biased here: if I am interested in some subject I am not content until I am sufficiently familiar with it to understand the technical literature, and I often avod subjects that aren't academic or don't have technical literature because I can't get the kind of answers I look for (e.g., I don't pay much attention to stories in the news as I can't verify the findings the way I feel compelled to). Most people are happy to read popular literature on subjects they are interested in. And that's fine.
Yet time and time again I find people making adamant statements about the implications of the big bang theory, quantum mechanics, special relativity, deterministic physics, neuroscience, the nature of scientific research, the scientific method, logic, math, etc., despite having at best an understanding of these subjects that can be gained from reading sensationalist books, websites, or magazine articles.
Do others also find people reluctant to admit ignorance of a subject/topic? If so, any thoughts on why this is or whether there are particular subjects/topics that individuals tend to believe they have an understanding of which they don't in act possess? Do people tend to insist their beliefs about some subject they actually don't really know much about are correct because they believe they understand the issues better than they in fact do, or is it more because they don't want to admit they really don't understand (or both?)?
What makes people believe they understand subjects or topics (especially academic) and how often do you think they actually do?

Difficult question. I just give my two cents here.

I think this is because many confuse "ignorance of X " with "being too stupid to understand X". Forgetting, thereby, that mastering a subject takes usually years of effort and dedication and "being smart" is a necessary condition to master it, and not a sufficient one.

This is asymmetrically stronger with hard disciplines like math or physics, probably because they are traditionally associated with "being smart if you get it".

I think this can be tested. If I say to someone that she has no clue of science, I usually get a much stronger emotional response than if I tell her that she has no clue about medieval chinese poetry. Even if she has no clue of either of them.

Ciao

- viole

 

[allfoak]

Nobody likes to be wrong. I'm the first to admit that I'm the last to admit that I'm wrong about something. I like to think (and there is some truth to this) that this is because I tend not to form opinions about things until I have thought about them and studied them in some depth. Thus if I don't know much (or anything) about a particular topic, I won't weigh in on issues regarding it. I'll just admit that I don't understand enough to comment or that I don't know.
We are all ignorant of most subjects. Yet for some reason I continuously find people talking about subjects, fields, or topics they don't really understand as if they were experts. And I don't get it. True, I'm biased here: if I am interested in some subject I am not content until I am sufficiently familiar with it to understand the technical literature, and I often avod subjects that aren't academic or don't have technical literature because I can't get the kind of answers I look for (e.g., I don't pay much attention to stories in the news as I can't verify the findings the way I feel compelled to). Most people are happy to read popular literature on subjects they are interested in. And that's fine.
Yet time and time again I find people making adamant statements about the implications of the big bang theory, quantum mechanics, special relativity, deterministic physics, neuroscience, the nature of scientific research, the scientific method, logic, math, etc., despite having at best an understanding of these subjects that can be gained from reading sensationalist books, websites, or magazine articles.
Do others also find people reluctant to admit ignorance of a subject/topic? If so, any thoughts on why this is or whether there are particular subjects/topics that individuals tend to believe they have an understanding of which they don't in act possess? Do people tend to insist their beliefs about some subject they actually don't really know much about are correct because they believe they understand the issues better than they in fact do, or is it more because they don't want to admit they really don't understand (or both?)?
What makes people believe they understand subjects or topics (especially academic) and how often do you think they actually do?

On a message board, ignorance is weakness.

Very few come here thinking that they know nothing.
Most come here because they think they do know something.

 

[Ouroboros]

Nobody likes to be wrong.

Agree. And it's something I try to keep in mind about myself in many discussions. This is the proper definition of being open minded, to remember that "I could be wrong" and try to look at the other person's perspective. It's hard, but it's vital for one's own development.

What makes people believe they understand subjects or topics (especially academic) and how often do you think they actually do?

They (we) do it because most of us participating in forums feel superior to the fellow members on the forum. I'm better than you, so therefore...
And how often do they understand it for realz? Circa never.

And you can trust me on this, because this topic I totally and completely understand, so I'm not wrong here... m'kay?

 

[Ouroboros]

On a message board, ignorance is weakness.

Good point. It's the wolf-pack mentality. Dogs for instance, won't admit easily that they're hurt, because if they do, it's a weakness and the pack can shun them.

Very few come here thinking that they know nothing.

At times, I started threads just for the interest and wants to learn, but it tends to crash and burn because other posters don't expect someone just to ask something out of interest. It's the unspoken rule that you're not supposed to start a thread in something you don't understand, but rather you start a thread to educate and tell others.

Most come here because they think they do know something.
So true. We all come to forums because we think we can contribute... but oh, aren't we all so wrong...

 

[Ouroboros]

OK, I'm a moron with a terrible grasp of human nature. Granted. But I really DON'T get it! It confuses me. Reluctance to admit one is wrong? Sure, I get that (all to well). But when it is obvious that all of us are ignorant of most subjects, why the reluctance to acknowledge when this is the case?

I think Allfoak got something. It's the pack mentality. Don't show weakness. Be tough, hard, and if you can scare the other party away, then you're magically right. So rudeness (like calling people hypocrites or liars, or tell them "boohoo" or give them big gifs of face-palms) can be rewarding since you don't have to go any deeper in thoughts, but can freak the other person out and "win by default." It's all about being the alpha-dog.

Essentially, the "forums" we have online are not like the Greek ideas of forum where you share ideas and expand your horizons. The online forum is more like the Colosseum. You go in there to fight and win or die. So you better have the guard up, and be ready to fight, and be right.

 

[allfoak]

At times, I started threads just for the interest and wants to learn, but it tends to crash and burn because other posters don't expect someone just to ask something out of interest. It's the unspoken rule that you're not supposed to start a thread in something you don't understand, but rather you start a thread to educate and tell others.

The way that i get past this problem is with my journal.
I post whatever i want on my journal without having to defend it, I then put links in my signature to let people know it is there for them to peruse at their leisure without having to debate whether it is right or wrong.
This way people get to see what i know and i get to pick and choose the topics that i discuss through the threads that others start.

What i do is a psychological exercise.
I want to know how much i actually know, i find out by putting myself in a position of having to defend everything i say.
The strategy seems to work.

The hope of course is that there is a mutual benefit.
Knowing that we actually have something to offer others is important to us all.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I think Allfoak got something. It's the pack mentality. Don't show weakness. Be tough, hard, and if you can scare the other party away, then you're magically right. So rudeness (like calling people hypocrites or liars, or tell them "boohoo" or give them big gifs of face-palms) can be rewarding since you don't have to go any deeper in thoughts, but can freak the other person out and "win by default." It's all about being the alpha-dog.

Essentially, the "forums" we have online are not like the Greek ideas of forum where you share ideas and expand your horizons. The online forum is more like the Colosseum. You go in there to fight and win or die. So you better have the guard up, and be ready to fight, and be right.

there's factual win, then there's emotional win...

 

[Ouroboros]

there's factual win, then there's emotional win...

And many times they're in conflict.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

On a message board, ignorance is weakness.

I have to confess I love xkcd. I would give just about anything to talk with the author

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The online forum is more like the Colosseum. You go in there to fight and win or die. So you better have the guard up, and be ready to fight, and be right.

Is it weird that I am totally imaging the movie Gladiator here?

 

[Willamena]

Sometimes it's just about expectations. Where it's expected that there is an answer; where it's expected of you to provide an answer; where it's expected that an answer is better than no answer, then a person will try to fulfill life's expectations with speculations.