Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

People Think They Already Know Everything They Need To Make Decisions 99

Posted by msmash from the issued-in-public-interest dept.
New research challenges assumptions about decision-making, revealing people tend to believe they have sufficient information regardless of actual data at hand. A study by Gehlbach, Robinson, and Fletcher, published earlier this month, found participants consistently overestimated their knowledge when given partial information on a hypothetical school merger scenario.

Nearly 90% favored merger when presented pro-merger facts, while only 25% did when given opposing data. However, opinions shifted when full information was provided, suggesting malleability of views despite initial overconfidence. Researchers caution this bias could be exploited in today's fractured media landscape, where partial or misleading information often circulates unchecked.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

People Think They Already Know Everything They Need To Make Decisions More

People Think They Already Know Everything They Need To Make Decisions

Comments Filter:

  • TFS (Score:5, Insightful)

    by garyisabusyguy ( 732330 ) on Wednesday October 16, 2024 @01:07PM (#64869557)

    People who think they are not stupid, are stupid

    People who think they are stupid take steps to ensure they do not do stupid things

    Lessons learned, assume that you are stupid and take steps to reduce the impact

    • Basically like every idiot here who thinks they can run Tesla and SpaceX better than Elon.

      • Basically like every idiot here who thinks they can run Tesla and SpaceX better than Elon.

        You left out Twitter -- uh, I mean X. How is that one working out?

        • I don't use it or pay any particular attention to it, but a few things I can think of:

          1) He's not the CEO, unlike Tesla and SpaceX
          2) Apparently it was already on financially shaky ground before he even touched it

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Musk does not run SpaceX and his involvement in running Tesla may not be a good thing. After Twitter, his lack of skill should be pretty obvious.

    • This isn't a C vs Rust thread.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Not quite.

      People that think they are smart and know everything, are generally stupid. On the other hand, people that think they are smart, but that are aware of all the things they do not know and all the areas where they cannot form a competent opinion, are smart.

      As usual, things are more complicated.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      People who think they are not stupid, are stupid

      People who think they are stupid take steps to ensure they do not do stupid things

      Lessons learned, assume that you are stupid and take steps to reduce the impact

      More formally known as the Dunning-Kruger effect or as put by Bertrand Russell, "The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.". [wikipedia.org]

      • More formally known as the Dunning-Kruger effect or as put by Bertrand Russell, "The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.".

        These popular assumptions from Dunning-Kruger study is little more than discredited nonsense.

        "Our results supported the third hypotheses by confirming that (a) peoples' self-assessed competence generally accords with their demonstrated proficiency and (b) peoples' frequencies of self-assessed underestimation of their competence are similar to their frequencies of overestimation."

        "However, our study refuted two tenets of the second hypothesis by showing that (a) no strong propensity exists toward overconfide

  • Just look at how many people think that LLMs are going to reach the next level and make decisions for them, regardless of actual data at hand.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by dfghjk ( 711126 )

      Note that LLMs make decisions regardless of actual data at hand.

      • I admire the confidence and LLM has. It has the sort of self assuredness that sends people up the corporate ladder. They will go far in management.

    • Just look at how many people think that LLMs are going to reach the next level and make decisions for them, regardless of actual data at hand.

      I'm going to test your theory by asking ChatGPT what I should have for lunch. It suggested a hamburger. Thing is, I'm actually craving chicken. So, while it can make decisions, it still can't read minds.

  • Well, of course. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Petersko ( 564140 ) on Wednesday October 16, 2024 @01:09PM (#64869563)

    If you're a free will denying nut job, like I am, you think that the guy sitting on the couch in the theatre of the mind is merely "informed" of the result, and the great machine that retroactively justifies everything can be heard underneath the floorboards, constantly cranking away, building the illusion of logical solidity around the vapor that is emotional reaction.

    • You do not need to deny the existence of free will. It does not exist, regardless what you think.

      • I have no choice but to deny it. That's the point, :D

      • might as well use my free will to point out that your using your free will to argue this ;P

      • Although there are religious derivatives that side with your thinking, free will does exist. In any given moment, there are certainly trajectories based on past experience, the likely outcomes.

        And people prove them wrong all of the time, and the universe is on their side on a macro scale. It's all physics, ultimately. Some can marginally predict outcomes using physics but much is unknown in physics, dimensions, and what interactions among the manifestation of inter-dimensional dynamics can be even understoo

        • I think I disagree with every single element of your post. That's impressive. What's not just metaphysical word salad seems to be just... wrong. Right down to the misunderstanding of the predictable direction of local entropy. I am not a closed system.

          • Right you are. Metaphysical world is just what you can't sense.

            Actual extra dimensions are real and they exist. What influence do they have on what we sense as direction in this dimension? No one really knows; we just guess. Nonetheless, extra dimensions exist.

            "Metaphysical" as a term connotes ouija boards and bending spoons. Yet extra dimensions exist, and we're occupying them in one form or another.

            • You don't see the problem, though? You confidently declare that extra dimensions exist - a claim that has zero actual evidence to support it. You declare free will exists, again without anything but a dodgy circular reference through other unsupported ideas. It's metaphysical not because it's not sensed, but in the truest sense of the definition. Abstract and untethered to reality. How you think anything of what you proposed proves free will is beyond me.

              Actually... now that I think about it, I think you ar

              • If I have a hook in your mouth, try these:
                https://www.sciencedaily.com/r... [sciencedaily.com]

                https://news.wisc.edu/physicis... [wisc.edu]

                and if you needed a higher authority,

                https://home.cern/science/phys... [home.cern]

                What of those? They mathematically exist. One famous coder calculated it out to 88+. Which of those influenced your diet today, or the strange bond you have with X or Y that you can't explain?

                To tie this upthread, what influence/instinct information comes from these possible dimensions in terms of interconnected rationale for decisi

                • And if you've the time, read about John Conway and his Free Will Theorem. Start here: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/0... [nytimes.com] then go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] and soon you'll start to link the quantum with the mathematical dimensions, and what might live or be connected to them. I don't know what they are. But I like researching what they could plausibly be.

                  • I followed the first two far enough to get the gist. If you're willing to put certainties into spaces where testability is far, far away, then we are operating on incompatible philosophies. If it smells like, "What the Bleep do We Know?!", I can't be bothered. It's science-colored junk food.

                    I have no problem with grand ideas. But don't confuse pretty proposals with proof. Look at how string theory is making a beeline for the trash bin. And people spent decades being infatuated with it.

                    Ultimately my point is

                    • There is the existential, rather than science. Science is a chain-of-authorities proof system, and it works. And yes, there is the inexplicable. And there are charlatans believing they have the truth, grounded in science. I'm not trying to inject doubt in science.

                      It is the inexplicable that science and researchers mull, then through various devices, try to explain-- or at minimum, document.

                      What is found through the method can be truth, paradox, and evolution in ideas based through evidence. As dimensions ar

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      Sounds like Dark City [wikipedia.org].

  • The study sets up a fictional scenario about which people have no previous or outside information and no personal interest. All of which is more or less necessary for a study, but which makes its relevance to thorny real-world issues like politics dubious at best.

    • Are you assuming the people receive political information from factual sources?

    • All of which is more or less necessary for a study, but which makes its relevance to thorny real-world issues like politics dubious at best.

      Some people just love to labor under the delusion that political views are malleable if people are presented with the right sort of information. Maybe in other countries they are, but here in the USA we're doing that sports team fanaticism thing hardcore. Facts just don't matter anymore. My team is better, your team sucks, be sure to support my favorite team on election day!

      • Make sure to donate to your sports team so they can demolish the stadium

      • All of which is more or less necessary for a study, but which makes its relevance to thorny real-world issues like politics dubious at best.

        Some people just love to labor under the delusion that political views are malleable if people are presented with the right sort of information. Maybe in other countries they are, but here in the USA we're doing that sports team fanaticism thing hardcore. Facts just don't matter anymore. My team is better, your team sucks, be sure to support my favorite team on election day!

        And yet you only see one team saying things like "everyone on the other team should be hung"

      • Some people just love to labor under the delusion that political views are malleable if people are presented with the right sort of information.

        They are, it's just that the right sort of information is that which divorces the view from the party affiliation. If you frame things so that the person you're talking to doesn't know how their favorite pundit wants them to respond, then you can get a very different answer.

    • I suspect there's a bias towards action instilled in us from 20,000 years of running from leopards compelling us that an immediate decision better than standing still and having a long think on things. It's not great, but one piece of data that's rarely in evidence: how long can you deliberate before the leopard eats you. That's more of an art than a science IMO.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        20,000 years of running from leopards

        I hear the growl in the tall grass. I didn't need any more information.

        I suspect that the PP was modded Troll by those employed in the persuasion business. "You think you are ready to make a decision. But allow me a few minutes of your time to present you with additional facts."

        "No. You sound like a leopard. That's all I need to know."

        • “Fifty thousand years ago there were these three guys spread out across the plain and they each heard something rustling in the grass. The first one thought it was a tiger, and he ran like hell, and it was a tiger but the guy got away. The second one thought the rustling was a tiger and he ran like hell, but it was only the wind and his friends all laughed at him for being such a chickenshit. But the third guy thought it was only the wind, so he shrugged it off and the tiger had him for dinner. And th

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Sique ( 173459 )
      That's the whole point of the study. In this set-up, people aren't invested in the results and have no previous partial information which could have predetermined their decision.

  • marginal futility (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Pseudonymous Powers ( 4097097 ) on Wednesday October 16, 2024 @01:11PM (#64869575)
    I have all the information I need to make yet another uninformed decision, thank you.

  • Just the title is enough to know everything!

  • The first rule of making a decision or writing requirements is, "You are wrong."

    Gather more information, gather information that goes against your bias, be less wrong.

    See also: bike shed syndrome.

  • I already knew.

  • Self deluded (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    People who are 'educated' think they are too smart to be deceived or manipulated.

  • Who says I strictly need to make correct or smart decisions. I am quite able to make decisions without the burder of being correct.

  • It's not so bad (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Wednesday October 16, 2024 @02:07PM (#64869775)

    You're never going to have perfect knowledge of a situation - making judgement calls based on incomplete information is a requirement of continued existence.

    The real skill comes in understanding your degree of ignorance and what risk that represents in a given situation. Which is tough, because that's likely one of your areas of ignorance.

    The secondary skill is understanding you may not be making the optimal choice, and remaining open to new information and changing course as a result of new understanding that information may bring.

  • But it's good that someone checked.

  • "Humans are lazy"

  • I long since learned I don't know everything (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday October 16, 2024 @03:28PM (#64870057)
    to make decisions. One of the things that really pisses me off about our economic system is that it assumes I have perfect information. Which I don't.

    Buddy of mine got a chance at a "promotion". Same pay, but he was told it would come with longer hours and he'd have to come in on his days off for meetings. He also got told that the company probably wouldn't hire for the position anyway, they'd just hire another line worker which would make my buddy's job easier.

    Naturally he turned it down.

    Well, turns out they did hire someone, who is a lazy boob making my buddies life harder. And there was no extra hours worked and quiet a bit more pay.

    Basically everything he was told is a lie.

    Nevermind that at any moment the owner of the companies we work for could be planning to screw us all over and we don't find out until the last minute.

    You *never* have enough information to make informed decisions because there's always someone holding back to get leverage over you. But like this article says, we act like we're in control.

    Trust the system. Trust the system. No need for change. No need for transparency. You're so amazing you can do it all on your own. Trust the system.

    • There are two situations under which humans make poor choices with higher frequency

      1. Under the influence of fear
      2. Under time constraints

      First determine if there is an actual, time sensitive threat to your well-being, best case you have trained tirelessly and your Mushin response [wikipedia.org] is adequate, or just jump and scream. Either works in a fix

      Next, having determined there is no immediate threat, recite the Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear [goodreads.com] in order to reinforce the logic lessons your received from Thufir Hawat [fandom.com]

      H

    • ... a lazy boob making my [buddy's] life ...

      No, he's an experienced employee who knows how to dump his boss's shit on underlings. That's why the new employee didn't work more hours.

      • Modern managers are expected to do line work. He's supposed to be helping out and doing line work consistently and doesn't because he's a lazy boob.

        I think you misunderstood something about my post. What I was saying is is that the management never had to work extra hours and they didn't come in on their days off. That never happened. My buddy was lied to because the management was lying about how much they work.

        The problem with our system is you don't have the information you need to make good dec

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by evanh ( 627108 )

      I'm not sure how that was the system. That was one individual playing power games and being an asshole. Sadly it's all the rage. He was probably told to offer the position to a certain number of people. Naturally, he advantaged one his own "friends", who is likely now being leaned on for political backing.

  • Politian's have been exploiting this for years.

  • ... often circulates unchecked.

    The first story wins the hearts and minds, this is nothing new: It's why modern propaganda happens on social media, not on the op-ed pages of a 'prestigious' newspaper by a cleverly mis-named think-tank (frequently a euphemism for PR monger).

    While "Doctor Phil" McGraw was a media slut/whore that offered little to his patients: He had a valid point, "You don't know what you don't know". The US has suffered a century of propaganda where more and more of science and everyday problems have become political

  • New research challenges assumptions about decision-making, revealing people tend to believe they have sufficient information regardless of actual data at hand.

    We make decisions every day based on the data at hand. What other option is there? And some of us, not all, change our mind when new information presents itself. People who wait to have "sufficient information" to make a decision never make a decision at all. There is always more information you don't have. Obviously you try to add information you anticipate is critical, but in the end you have to make a decision with or without that information.

  • If that info is biased you really can't know that.

    Shocker, when addition information is provided that decision may be different.

    Recognizing that you may not know an entire situation is half the battle. But sometimes a decision must still be made regardless, which is probably how this study was conducted - was there a choice to say that a decision was not possible given the limited facts? Probably not.
  • "People don't know what they don't know, and often don't know that they don't know it." Great, thanks.

  • esp after the wrong-wing trolls here... you people who think you know everything are *such* a trial to those of us who do.

Slashdot Top Deals

Promising costs nothing, it's the delivering that kills you.

Close