anosognosia; Unskilled and unaware of it

[Stella_Omega]

Some of our stalwart posters have exhibited what seems to the resat of us to be both an unfathomable stupidity and an absolute confidence in their capabilities. This phenomena is akin to anosognosia, a condition in which a person who suffers from a disability seems unaware of or denies the existence of his or her disability. For example, some people can absolutely lose all awareness of one side of their body-- a pencil on the table to their right simply does not exist, and their explanations for that non-existance are irrefutable to them.

Similarly, someone who cannot make cognitive leaps in judgement cannot recognise that cognitive leaps can possibly exist, no matter how many times we try to describe that process to him.

This NYT article is a nice overview of the phenomenon.

And for those who wish to read the actual paper, here's a link to a PDF;
http://www.physics.emory.edu/Faculty/weeks/journal/kruger-jpsp99.pdf

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Does the diagnosis include girls who think theyre boys?

 

[TxRad]

Does the diagnosis include girls who think theyre boys?

No, but it does cover old men like you who think they are smart and funny when they are definitely not.

 

[trysail]

Anosognosia, anosognostic. n. •Anosognosia is a condition in which a person who suffers disability seems unaware of or denies the existence of his or her disability.

Good word!





“There is an often-quoted verse in Sanskrit, which appears in the Chinese Tao-te Ching as well:

‘He who thinks he knows, doesn’t know. He who knows that he doesn’t know, knows. For in this context, to know is not to know. And not to know is to know.’ ”

- Joseph Campbell
The Power Of Myth

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I especially like the Donald Rumfeld reference. If there was ever anyone who was incompetent to run an invasion and didn't know it, Rummy was the one!

 

[jomar]

Good word!





“There is an often-quoted verse in Sanskrit, which appears in the Chinese Tao-te Ching as well:

‘He who thinks he knows, doesn’t know. He who knows that he doesn’t know, knows. For in this context, to know is not to know. And not to know is to know.’ ”

- Joseph Campbell

I know I lent that book out and now I don't know where it is.

 

[trysail]

I know I lent that book out and now I don't know where it is.

...but, ... but, "not to know is to know." Now I'm really confused!


Which book? The Tao-te Ching or The Power of Myth?

 

[oggbashan]

Sir Isaac Newton expressed it quite well:

I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.

And General Wellington:

All the business of war, and indeed all the business of life, is to endeavour to find out what you don't know from what you do: that's what I called 'guessing what was at the other side of the hill'.

Knowing that you don't know is one of the assets of age and experience.

Og

 

[Stella_Omega]

And Boxlicker stands as our practical demonstration of the principle.

 

[jomar]

...but, ... but, "not to know is to know." Now I'm really confused!


Which book? The Tao-te Ching or The Power of Myth?


[/B]

I know!


Power of Myth - a good read

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I'm kind of torn about this, whether the Dunning-Kruger effect is something real and a new discovery, or whether it's just a way of rephrasing something we already know: dumb people make dumb decisions. (That, in fact, is how we know they're dumb.)

To say that incompetent people are incompetent because of their own ignorance of their incompetence seems pretty tautological to me. If they were aware of their ignorance, presumably they'd do something about it and wouldn't be ignorant anymore, so it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

And to say that the bank robber who rubbed lemon juice on his face because he thought it would make him invisible was caught because of his ignorance of his ignorance seems less accurate than saying he was caught because of his ignorance of reality. (Had everyone else in the bank believed that rubbing lemon juice on your face made you invisible, he still would have been caught, not because of his ignorance of what he didn't know, but because of his ignorance of what is.)

It also bothers me because it seems to me that the consequence of accepting the D-K effect is to say that, since we can never know anything about things we don't know--the unknown unkowns--all effort is futile.

 

[bronzeage]

I know I lent that book out and now I don't know where it is.

You know where the book is not, and have no certain knowledge of where it is, which is better than confidence in a mistaken belief.


A mistaken belief is the foundation of most of life's major fuck ups.

 

[glynndah]

You know where the book is not, and have no certain knowledge of where it is, which is better than confidence in a mistaken belief.


A mistaken belief is the foundation of most of life's major fuck ups.

Well, that ~ and beer.

 

[trysail]

Knowing that there are unknown unknowns can help one avoid being "Fooled By Randomness"



With a bow in the direction of Nassim Nicholas Taleb.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fooled_by_Randomness

 

[egelante]

To say that incompetent people are incompetent because of their own ignorance of their incompetence seems pretty tautological to me. If they were aware of their ignorance, presumably they'd do something about it and wouldn't be ignorant anymore, so it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It seems to me to be a faith against reason argument. That the ignorant cannot see their ignorance is inevitable, and it gives them certainty in themselves and their beliefs (beliefs because ignorance rarely founds itself). It becomes blind faith. I think I'd better leave that thought hanging.

However, the whole thing can be turned upside down: those who are most able and aware can be those who have the least certainty of their abilities, simply because they can perceive the faults in what they do. Referring to the last part of your post, I find that it is this that tends to create the most tragic sensations of futility in people - a fear of committing oneself to a potential fallacy.

 

[Stella_Omega]

A lot of people do try to keep a running tally of their knowledge-- where they are expert, dilettante, trivial, or unlearned. A cheerful competence, that would be my ideal. Or perhaps a brooding, Byronic competence?

To say that incompetent people are incompetent because of their own ignorance of their incompetence seems pretty tautological to me. If they were aware of their ignorance, presumably they'd do something about it and wouldn't be ignorant anymore, so it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Yes, it is-- but it's also an accurate description of the phenomenon, and it points out the futility of trying to educate these sorts of folk-- once we've seen that it simply cannot be done we should know we're shouting down a bottomless well, and I'm not pointing fingers at anyone here like those of us who keep arguing with Box....

 

[oggbashan]

I think so much unwitting ignorance is the result of believing that in life there are always only two mutually exclusive options either A is true, or B is true.

If you can recognise that both A and B can be true in some situations and that both A and B can be false in others and that there are shades in between - then you are not likely to be that ignorant.

Our political threads tend to demonstrate my point. Either President Bush was the worst President ever, or President Obama now is. Recognising that some of their actions were/are good, and some were/are not so good, even if you supported the other, seems a step that many posters cannot take.

Og

 

[egelante]

I think so much unwitting ignorance is the result of believing that in life there are always only two mutually exclusive options either A is true, or B is true.

If you can recognise that both A and B can be true in some situations and that both A and B can be false in others and that there are shades in between - then you are not likely to be that ignorant.

Our political threads tend to demonstrate my point. Either President Bush was the worst President ever, or President Obama now is. Recognising that some of their actions were/are good, and some were/are not so good, even if you supported the other, seems a step that many posters cannot take.

Og

Nicely said - I'm trying to get to the root some of that mutual exclusivity in my thread, though I doubt it will ever happen.

 

[Liar]

When I read about cognition in college, a guest lecturer put it quite aptly:

"There are two kinds of ignorance - road blocks and potholes. If you keep your eyes in the horizon, you can avoid the road blocks, but will fall into the potholes, if you keep your eyes on the ground, you can avoid the pot holes, but will crash into the roadblocks. Smart people are those with split vision."

 

[TxRad]

Ignorance can be changed with information and education but only if the ignorant want to change.

Now, stupidity on the other hand, is through to the bone.

 

[Huckleman2000]

I think so much unwitting ignorance is the result of believing that in life there are always only two mutually exclusive options either A is true, or B is true.

If you can recognise that both A and B can be true in some situations and that both A and B can be false in others and that there are shades in between - then you are not likely to be that ignorant.

Our political threads tend to demonstrate my point. Either President Bush was the worst President ever, or President Obama now is. Recognising that some of their actions were/are good, and some were/are not so good, even if you supported the other, seems a step that many posters cannot take.

Og

Except that, by many objective standards, Bush was the worst President ever. Even the Usual Wingnuts run from his legacy, claiming that he wasn't a "true" Conservative, claiming that they don't support Republicans, or claiming their own Libertarian affiliations, thereby absolving themselves of any possible real-world repudiation of their ideologies. That's why there's now the various "Tea Parties" - George Bush was so bad that even Republicans cannot stomach remaining "Republican".

 

[DeeZire]

On the other hand, GWB received a 50% + approval rating in the recent Tea Party polling data.

 

[3113]

It also bothers me because it seems to me that the consequence of accepting the D-K effect is to say that, since we can never know anything about things we don't know--the unknown unkowns--all effort is futile.

Ah! Welcome, Dr. M, Welcome! We have been waiting for you to realize that, to cross at last into true understanding. Come right this way, the others are waiting to greet you, and have you take your seat in our observation booth....

 

[Handley_Page]

I think my Boss used to suffer from this.

 

[Verdad]

To put it in writerly terms, can one write a character smarter than oneself? One can equip them with a knowledge of facts that supersedes one's unaided memory, take three hours to write that quick and witty exchange the characters seem to think of in a snap, provide them with preternatural powers of observation, disallow them to make the mistakes we rashly make, and so on.

One can't make them fundamentally smarter, though, (deeper, more insightful, etc) any more than one can escape from one's head and take a look at things 'as they really are'—if such a thing exists, but that's a different matter....

For a dramatic demonstration, one could consider writing a being of superhuman intelligence. Sci-fi writers have tried 'only more so' augmentations, but if they're smart, they've kept such characters on the scene but briefly and from a distance, or they've kept their tongue firmly in their cheek. Sustaining a superior being's point of view in all seriousness and for a significant amount of time is, well, impossible.

That's what I think the article is saying, in a way, only I'd disagree with Doc it spells doom for all learning. One needn't go as far as to contemplate the unknowable unknown; the focus of the article is the unknown unknown, and one does, if gradually, shift the boundaries of that. What could have been as outside of one's consciousness as not to even exist as a blank spot on the map at eighteen is not so at thirty, or forty, or sixty. The issue of being confined to one's own skin remains, but it's not quite as bleak.

I wonder if it's inherent cognitive limitations, let's say, that lies at the root of the drivel we're often subjected to, though (or subject others to!) Certainly there's no lack of faulty logic and scarce familiarity with facts, but even in that, the emotional plays a big part. There are also conflicting interests and values, though, and it's here that it becomes truly…interesting.