Dunning-Kruger effect in American politics

[Pelerin]

Ahem. This whole discussion seems to be some kind of… meta… illustration… performance art… something.

So first of all the “political knowledge” being assessed is things like the length of a senator’s term and who the current Secretary of Energy is (p. 16). So look it up in the Constitution or sit outside the Secretary of Energy’s office and ask his name when he walks in. (Her name. It’s a her, I looked it up. It’s Jennifer Granholm.) I’m not sure that these questions merit all this epistemological handwringing, and if they do then things have escalated pretty badly beyond politics so it doesn’t matter anyway.

But… I’m not sure that this is really all that valuable in the first place. After all I have opinions on renewable energy and nuclear weapons (yep, Department of Energy) that I think are pretty valid even though I didn’t know Jennifer Granholm was head of the Department of Energy. Do I need to know the ins and outs of nuclear game theory in order to have a valid opinion on MAD?

It does get a bit interesting where they measure how people respond when they assess others’ knowledge based on how they perceive their politics. Surprise, people rate people like themselves higher. But I would hazard a guess that you could get similar results if the questions were about algebra or sports trivia.

[Bootstrap]

Boot, I’d be glad to discuss this with you if agree to do so in good faith. So far, every time I have discussed this topic you end up impeaching whatever I have as “not good enough evidence”, which makes it tiresome to go over again and again.

Hi Josh - a couple of thoughts. I imagine you and I both think we are acting in good faith. When you signal that I am not, that feels like you are trying to invalidate me and what I have to say. Also, you often to make up phrases and act as though I said them, e.g. "orange man bad" or "not enough good evidence". I try not to do that to you.

I am more likely to say something like this:

I think MennoNet would be a quite different place if we all took the perspective that:

1. Trials happen. We don't know all the evidence until the trial happens, and even then, we aren't the juries who hear it all. We don't all have to take sides beforehand. Or double down afterward, insisting that we know better.
2. Investigations and impeachments happen. We aren't running them. It's not a combat sport we need to engage in.
3. Elections happen. That's how we find out what voters prefer. There really isn't a better way.

I think both Trump and Bide are accountable to all of that. I don't know what "accountable" means outside of that kind of framework. To me, at least, it seems like some Trump supporters object whenever Trump is subject to these things.

You may disagree, you may have other ways of establishing truth, but I think I am discussing in good faith when I say these things. And I think you were arguing in good faith when you said this:

Many of us on MN lack confidence in the things you listed above:

#1. I don’t think that trials necessarily uncover the truth nor mean justice prevails.
#2. Investigations and impeachments and indictments are political. The fact they happen means almost nothing.
#3. Elections at best mean 50.1% of the people who showed up to vote (which often is only 25% of eligible voters, which is in turn closer to 20% of the total population) decided something. 1 out of 5 people agreeing on something means very little to me.

At worst, elections are not conducted fairly so it doesn’t even mean 1 out of 5 people agreed on something.

I feel like you consider items 1-3 deeply meaningful. A lot of us don’t.

I do wonder what source of truth you consider better than the ones I suggested. And how you would expect people across the political spectrum to agree on how to determine truth in these areas. How do you know what you think you know?

[Bootstrap]

Overall I would say that the Bible is my foundation for determining what is true or not and then after that I rely on 20 centuries of church discernment on various topics. I place very low reliability on anything very modern that had its foundation laid by people whose lifestyles were expressly anti-Christian. For example, I don’t respect Margaret Mead’s work in anthropology.

But on these things, you and I generally agree. Though I am definitely not plain. I think we agree because we have a shared source of authority and some agreement on how to use it and apply it to our lives.

The areas we disagree on are generally things that the Bible does not directly address.

[Bootstrap]

So first of all the “political knowledge” being assessed is things like the length of a senator’s term and who the current Secretary of Energy is (p. 16). So look it up in the Constitution or sit outside the Secretary of Energy’s office and ask his name when he walks in. (Her name. It’s a her, I looked it up. It’s Jennifer Granholm.) I’m not sure that these questions merit all this epistemological handwringing, and if they do then things have escalated pretty badly beyond politics so it doesn’t matter anyway.

I agree that they could have used a better set of questions.

But… I’m not sure that this is really all that valuable in the first place. After all I have opinions on renewable energy and nuclear weapons (yep, Department of Energy) that I think are pretty valid even though I didn’t know Jennifer Granholm was head of the Department of Energy. Do I need to know the ins and outs of nuclear game theory in order to have a valid opinion on MAD?

No. But if you express opinions on the details of nuclear game theory, implying you know a lot about it, that's different.

[Bootstrap]

It does get a bit interesting where they measure how people respond when they assess others’ knowledge based on how they perceive their politics. Surprise, people rate people like themselves higher. But I would hazard a guess that you could get similar results if the questions were about algebra or sports trivia.

Quite likely. The Dunning-Kruger effect was not originally about American politics. This particular paper says it applies to politics too.

[Josh]

Many of us on MN lack confidence in the things you listed above:

#1. I don’t think that trials necessarily uncover the truth nor mean justice prevails.
#2. Investigations and impeachments and indictments are political. The fact they happen means almost nothing.
#3. Elections at best mean 50.1% of the people who showed up to vote (which often is only 25% of eligible voters, which is in turn closer to 20% of the total population) decided something. 1 out of 5 people agreeing on something means very little to me.

At worst, elections are not conducted fairly so it doesn’t even mean 1 out of 5 people agreed on something.

I feel like you consider items 1-3 deeply meaningful. A lot of us don’t.

I do wonder what source of truth you consider better than the ones I suggested. And how you would expect people across the political spectrum to agree on how to determine truth in these areas. How do you know what you think you know?

Simply put, I don't think elections somehow set out what the "truth is", much less the purported results boards of elections and the news media end up publishing.

Truth comes from the Bible, church teachings of esteemed men (such as early church fathers), and the collective witness of Christianity. Truth does not really come from jury trials; there are countless examples of trials that reached something that was quite other than justice and truth (the Dredd Scott decision would be a good example; Roe v. Wade is another). This doesn't mean I am against juries, but I don't think the English common law trial necessarily means we discover "the truth".

And how you would expect people across the political spectrum to agree on how to determine truth in these areas.

The answer is "we can't". Truth is found God and in the personification of God known as the man Jesus, the logos. If people do not agree on that, they necessarily cannot find and agree on truth together. We may or may not be able to agree on a set of facts like "my trash was taken out last Tuesday" but even that becomes challenging, as we can see from the intense level of political discord in America right now.

And, ultimately, I don't think the kingdom of God is promoted or advanced by somehow finding political consensus. Quite the opposite, actually. Jesus' kingdom is a disruptive one that announces itself as superior to all other kingdoms.

[Josh]

So first of all the “political knowledge” being assessed is things like the length of a senator’s term and who the current Secretary of Energy is (p. 16). So look it up in the Constitution or sit outside the Secretary of Energy’s office and ask his name when he walks in. (Her name. It’s a her, I looked it up. It’s Jennifer Granholm.) I’m not sure that these questions merit all this epistemological handwringing, and if they do then things have escalated pretty badly beyond politics so it doesn’t matter anyway.

I agree that they could have used a better set of questions.

Those things are "facts", but they are quite different from the logos, that is, actual truth. And "facts" can be hard to verify. (It is not very important to me who the Secretary of Energy is, so I will often accept an unreliable source at their word that claims it to be so and so.)

It is a fact that I am Josh, but when someone really needs to be sure, they often look for facts from a variety of sources to back that up. They are trying to inch a little closer to the truth by doing that.

[Pelerin]

But… I’m not sure that this is really all that valuable in the first place. After all I have opinions on renewable energy and nuclear weapons (yep, Department of Energy) that I think are pretty valid even though I didn’t know Jennifer Granholm was head of the Department of Energy. Do I need to know the ins and outs of nuclear game theory in order to have a valid opinion on MAD?

No. But if you express opinions on the details of nuclear game theory, implying you know a lot about it, that's different.

Yeah, but reading the paper, especially the conclusion, it seems like that where they’re trying to go. They ask the questions they do then say things like, “Online discussion is rife with unsubstantiated rumors […].” I assume people aren’t discussing rumors that Rick Perry might still Secretary of Energy.

I suppose I’m sticking up for the idea that people can form valid opinions even without understanding underlying causes. An example of what I have in mind is inflation recently. Economists can argue all day long that actually inflation is way down (if your exclude this or measure that with a certain method). Ok fine but people sense that they don’t have as much money left over from a paycheck as they used to and for a large number of people that’s probably true. That sense of also probably affected by who they voted for (but then the study might be too).

Maybe put it this way: knowledge is good but intuition works too. This is the foundation of democracy—no one can be an expert on everything but everyone can still be trusted to make a judgement.

[Bootstrap]

It is a fact that I am Josh, but when someone really needs to be sure, they often look for facts from a variety of sources to back that up. They are trying to inch a little closer to the truth by doing that.

Well, exactly.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, I point to a video that "exposes" you. In real life, you are actually a convicted rapist and serial killer who is posting from prison, according to this video. The video says "truth" about a hundred times, and insists that people who believe this are a lot smarter than people who think you are actually Josh. It dwells on the hypocrisy of you claiming to be who you are not.

How do we determine if that video is telling the truth? I think we need to find people who actually know you, and we need good reason to believe that they do. And it might take time to track this down. Sometimes - and this is a good example - the claim is simply ridiculous and it isn't worth the effort.

I do not have personal knowledge that would let me prove this one way or another. I would have to rely on what others know. And I would need to know why I believe they know. My intuition would be pretty much worthless if I came to believe this was a serious question. (Which I do not.)

[Bootstrap]

I suppose I’m sticking up for the idea that people can form valid opinions even without understanding underlying causes. An example of what I have in mind is inflation recently. Economists can argue all day long that actually inflation is way down (if your exclude this or measure that with a certain method). Ok fine but people sense that they don’t have as much money left over from a paycheck as they used to and for a large number of people that’s probably true. That sense of also probably affected by who they voted for (but then the study might be too).

I think knowledge and intuition are different tools, useful for different things. People know intuitively if inflation is hitting them. But their intuition may not tell them much about the causes.

People may also have very intuitions, e.g. about the risks of Covid, and we have to figure out how to live together peacefully, given our different intuitions. Many of our churches had to work that out. There really wasn't an objective way to be sure what level of precautions were needed in many cases, intuition and feelings were as important as data in figuring that out in church. Data can give you numbers that quantify risk, but intuition is involved in figuring out how to respond to that.

Maybe put it this way: knowledge is good but intuition works too. This is the foundation of democracy—no one can be an expert on everything but everyone can still be trusted to make a judgement.

I think that depends on what you mean by that.

Intuition is always reasoning from something. So are reason and emotions and spiritual discernment. Intuition is how we deal with a world where we have to decide and there is way too much information. We need it. But it's often important to ask about the assumptions behind our intuition, reason, and emotions. All three may be based on knowledge or ignorance.

For instance, I think democracy allows everyone to have intuitions about who is guilty and who is innocent, but their intuitions do not decide whether they go to jail. I think democracy allows everyone to vote for a President, but we don't each have a different president based on our intuitions about who actually won.