Why do some relatively intelligent people scorn the opinions and research of established authorities, instead basing their decisions on uninformed hearsay and internet gobbledygook?
I’m not focusing here on human cognitive biases generally, or wading into the swamp of absurd conspiracy theories. I’m trying to understand why people who are pretty skeptical about most things invest what little faith they do have in unworthy people and ideas. I’m talking about your uncle who thinks all politicians are crooked but thinks Trump cannot tell a lie, or your friend who thinks vaccinations are dangerous but takes handfuls of unproven nutraceuticals and Airborne gummies. They distrust everything but fall for the dumbest stuff.
It is impossible to function in society without trust. Even the most skeptical people drive through green lights. They trust the people who engineered the intersection and programmed the lights. They might look both ways as they enter the intersection, but they also have some trust that other drivers will observe and stop for the red light in their direction. Distrusting every person and institution is a not a strategy and it sets you up to fall for anything. If trust is required at least occasionally to function in society, the key is to develop your ability to determine who is trustworthy and who is not.
What is trust? I see trust as a skill set that reliably (but not perfectly) evaluates the fitness of an idea, person, or institution to deliver on it’s promises. It’s the ability to see the future based on your knowledge of how things have occurred in the past. Some people are better than others at these skills, but I think they can developed and strengthened.
Here are some common failures:
Some people never developed basic critical thinking abilities. They do not think in an evidence-based manner (arriving at conclusions by making and testing assumptions).
Some people prefer false promises of quick results over the hard work of making real progress. Many people and institutions are intentionally and constantly polluting the public square of information for their own personal gain—power, fame, money. Lies about getting rich quick, or the steel mills coming back to depressed industrial communities can be just too tempting to resist.
Some people choose their opinions based on affiliation rather than their own independent evaluation. They outsource their thinking to a political party, a lobbying organization, or a church.
Some people think that disagreeing with established wisdom shows how independent they are from the masses. (We should oppose the established wisdom when it’s wrong, but not because we think it’s cool to be a rebel. Making mistakes and causing problems is not cool).
Some people overestimate their expertise on a topic. Said Shakespeare, “The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.” This is the Dunning-Krueger effect: people who are least able at a task think they’re great at it. Consider the expertise it takes to become truly expert in a field: formal education, apprenticeship, long hours over years and decades. Experts get things wrong from time to time, of course, but what kind of pilot do you prefer to fly your plane, or what kind of doctor do you want treating your sick child—those who read a few articles on Facebook about aviation and medicine?
Some people typically prefer certainty, even when none is available. Few people and things fit neatly into all-or-nothing categories. Evaluating trustworthiness requires nuance. F. Scott Fitzgerald said, “…the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless and yet be determined to make them otherwise. This philosophy fitted on to my early adult life, when I saw the improbable, the implausible, often the ‘impossible,’ come true.” This is gray-scale thinking, holding contradictory information in our minds without shutting down. Black-and-white thinking is the enemy of discovery.
Some people confuse election methods with logical arguments. The democratic idea of one person, one vote can lead to a prejudice that every opinion has equal merit. Isaac Asimov said it best: “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” We have many freedoms in the United States, including the freedom to be stupid, but that doesn’t make an opinion correct.
Some people watch too many movies and television shows, and they get in the faulty habit of thinking that entertainment narratives provide reliable information about the way things work in the world. For example, our political system is certainly held hostage by dangerous people, but watching House of Cards is not how you’re going to discover who the real bad guys are. The screen is a fantasy land.
Some people are just arrogant jerks. “I’m smart and you’re stupid.” Darkly, their ignorance is not a failure of intelligence but a failure of character.
I hate to tell you, but all of us are guilty of one or more of these on occasion. And if you think you’re immune, you’re part of the problem! What can we do? Start by improving yourself, which is really the only change you can ensure actually occurs, because you are the one thing that is under your own control. Said Ramana Maharshi: “Your own Self-Realization is the greatest service you can render the world.”