WTF Fun Fact 13560 – Overconfidence in Scientific Knowledge

People’s overconfidence in their own scientific knowledge is usually a good sign that they don’t know much. In fact, the more negatively people view science, the more likely they are to be overestimating their scientific knowledge.

A study led by Cristina Fonseca of the Genetics Society and Laurence Hurst of the University of Bath, among other colleagues, recently looked at the intricacies of this phenomenon.

The Perception vs. Reality Gap in Scientific Knowledge

Ever met someone who confidently declared an opinion on a scientific subject only to find that their actual knowledge on the matter was limited? Why do people have varying attitudes towards well-evidenced science?

To unravel this complex relationship between attitude and self-perceived knowledge, over 2,000 UK adults were surveyed. The survey touched on their attitudes towards science and how they gauge their own understanding. Prior studies had indicated that those negative towards science had limited textbook knowledge but high self-belief in their comprehension. Building on this, the team investigated if this high self-belief was a common trait among all strong attitudes.

Focusing specifically on genetic science, the team posed attitudinal questions and queries about individuals’ self-rated understanding of terminologies like DNA. The findings were clear-cut: individuals at both extremes of the attitude spectrum—whether strongly in favor or against science—displayed high self-belief in their own comprehension. Conversely, those with a neutral stance were less confident in their grasp.

The Psychological Implications of Overconfidence

Psychologically, this is a logical pattern. To vehemently hold an opinion, one needs to be profoundly convinced of their understanding of the foundational facts. However, when delving deeper, a clear disparity emerges.

Those with strong negative sentiments, despite their self-belief, lacked extensive textbook knowledge. On the other hand, science proponents not only believed they understood the subject but also performed commendably in factual tests.

Rethinking Science Communication

Traditionally, improving scientific literacy focused on transferring knowledge from experts to the general public. Yet, this method might not always be effective and can sometimes even backfire. This study indicates a more fruitful approach might involve reconciling the gap between actual knowledge and self-perceived understanding.

Professor Anne Ferguson-Smith aptly points out the challenge in this: addressing misconceptions requires dismantling what individuals believe they know about science and instilling a more accurate comprehension.

This revelation implies a re-evaluation of strategies in science communication. Instead of just disseminating facts, there’s a pressing need to address individuals’ self-beliefs and bridge the gap between perception and reality. In doing so, a more informed and receptive audience for science can be fostered.

 WTF fun facts

Source: “It isn’t what you know, it’s what you think you know” — Science Daily

WTF Fun Fact 13250 – Posting Uninformed Comments

We all know that the comment section is a black hole that attracts uninformed comments. It’s the place where dignity and informed debate go to die. But a 2019 study by researchers at York College of Pennsylvania gives some insight into why these comments are so prevalent.

However, the authors distinguish between being uninformed (recognizing one’s own ignorance) and misinformed (confidently holding inaccurate beliefs). In this case, we’re talking mainly about misinformation. But not all researchers use these words in the same way.

Why are there so many uninformed comments and misinformed commenters?

In a nutshell, it’s because people just don’t read enough. If they do, they skim previews of most content. This is especially true when it’s about something that riles them up – like politics. They don’t take the time to really try and process what an article is about before they comment on it. In fact, skimming makes them highly confident that they do have something worthwhile to say. Never mind that this is correlated with having less reliable insight.

According to ScienceAlert’s coverage of the research (cited below):

“By glancing through article previews, instead of reading the full piece, many users overestimate their understanding of an issue, and this is especially true for those whose knowledge is guided by strong emotions – and, therefore, strong opinions.”

The research on uninformed comments comes from the academic article “A little bit of knowledge: Facebook’s News Feed and self-perceptions of knowledge” published in the journal Research & Politics.

There, the authors note:

“We argue that Facebook’s News Feed itself, with its short article previews, provides enough political information for learning to occur. However, this learning comes with an additional consequence: audiences who only read article previews think they know more than they actually do, especially individuals who are motivated to seek emotions.”

Emotions over data

You’ve probably noticed that people with strong opinions like to throw out information they seem confident about. But it’s worth considering how much it matches their desire to seem smart.

The researchers noted, “Those who are more driven by emotion allow the positive feelings associated with being right to override the need for actual accuracy, thus coming away from limited exposure to information falsely overconfident in their knowledge of the subject matter.”

Sound like anyone you know on social media?  WTF fun facts

Source: “Didn’t Read The Article Before Commenting? Science Says It Really Shows” — Science Alert