Speaking with The Debrief, Dr. Justin Couchman, professor of psychology at Albright College and co-author of the recent study, says the ability to make correct intuitive decisions is increasingly becoming one of the most critical skills to have in the modern information-technology age.
I’d have to agree with that. One cannot immediately process the flood of information one gets these days. We’re wired for reflection and when we don’t utilize it, well…
Most everyone can recall a time when they’ve encountered someone unabashedly declaring they are correct and everyone else’s contradictory opinion is uninformed and simply wrong. At times it may seem evident that this person doesn’t know what they are talking about, however, they appear to be blissfully unaware of their ignorance.
In psychology, this phenomenon is known as the Dunning-Kruger effect
One wonders if the amount of argumentative pushback when challenged one suffering from DKE correlates to their depth of their ignorance.
To put it bluntly, the Dunning-Kruger effect says that due to cognitive bias, incompetent people are too inept to realize they are incompetent, which causes them to defend incorrect opinions or beliefs.
If only we had a way to access this kind of data on the flob. An audit of some kind.
Results of Dunning and Kruger’s research did not show that incompetent people think they’re better than competent people. Rather, it showed that bias causes incompetent people to believe they are more capable than they actually are.
Which might explain the humility…you know…of such a poster…er person.
A frequently cited problem on the CRT is the question: “A bat and ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat cost 1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?” The intuitive answer that readily comes to mind is .10, which is incorrect. The correct answer is .05 ($.05 ball + $1.05 bat = $1.10 total). To arrive at the correct answer, one must reject their initial “gut” response and engage in deliberative, analytical reasoning.
Researchers said the results suggest that low-performers were either less likely to initiate analytical thinking to verify their intuitive responses, or the output generated by analytical processes failed to provide convincing evidence for them to overturn their intuitive reaction. The results could mean that low-performers and high-performers may not use the same heuristic cues when judging their intuitive decisions’ accuracy. Low-performers may more heavily rely on less reliable suffice clues, such as answer fluency.
“We know from both human and monkey studies that our minds are capable of learning to notice when we are facing uncertainty and adaptively respond to it,” said Dr. Couchman. “Education is key. There is some hope that through education about intuitive errors and other cognitive fallacies, we could become better at mitigating our implicit biases. Metacognition often helps the implicit processes become more explicit, which is the best way of addressing bias. Rather than overriding your strongest intuitive response or fighting against it, you can learn to have other, more adaptive responses in the face of uncertainty.”
Hopefully, this will back educators away from “Ah-HA!” moments of “intuition.”
Good read, TT. Here’s the actual study for the nerdz: