Blog Calendar
    November     ►
SMTWTFS
     
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Archive RSS
About This Author
Come closer.
Complex Numbers
#1065605 added March 5, 2024 at 11:12am
Restrictions: None
Ignorance is...
Here's an example of finding an article that aligns with my existing worldview but having my doubts.



That doesn't mean it's right, of course. But it also doesn't mean it's wrong.

Optimistic thinking, often celebrated in self-help literature as a pathway to happiness, health, and longer life, can also lead to poor decision-making.

This has been clear to me for a while.

Research from the University of Bath shows that excessive optimism is actually associated with lower cognitive skills such as verbal fluency, fluid reasoning, numerical reasoning, and memory. Whereas those high in cognitive ability tend to be both more realistic and pessimistic in their expectations about the future.

Basically: ignorance is bliss.

Well, no, not really, because ignorance is simply not knowing something, which has nothing to do with how smart you are. Everybody's ignorant about lots of things. But stubborn, willful ignorance is another matter entirely... also not necessarily correlated with intelligence.

In any case, I'll note that the passage I just quoted seems to be very careful not to imply causation. Does excessive optimism make a person less clever, or does being an idiot lead to optimism? Or, alternatively, is there something else causing both effects? Much as I want to believe the article, that seems like an important thing to find out.

“This points to the idea that whilst humans may be primed by evolution to expect the best, those high in cognitive ability are more able to override this automatic response when it comes to important decisions. Plans based on overly optimistic beliefs make for poor decisions and are bound to deliver worse outcomes than would realistic beliefs,” Dr Dawson added.

Okay, I'm going to need a reference on that "primed by evolution" thing, hopefully not from bogus evolutionary psychology. Also, why isn't this "override" attributed to evolution?

“Unrealistically optimistic financial expectations can lead to excessive levels of consumption and debt, as well as insufficient savings. It can also lead to excessive business entries and subsequent failures. The chances of starting a successful business are tiny, but optimists always think they have a shot and will start businesses destined to fail,” Dr Dawson said.

But, clearly, they're not all destined to fail (unless you take the really long view that every business will fail eventually, even if it takes a few centuries). If we didn't have people taking a shot at these things, we wouldn't have businesses at all. It's like the baby turtles' march to the sea.

The study took data from a UK survey of over 36,000 households and looked at people’s expectations of their financial well-being and compared them with their actual financial outcomes. The research found that those highest on cognitive ability experienced a 22% increase in the probability of “realism” and a 35 percent decrease in the probability of “extreme optimism”.

For once, I can't complain about the sample size. But there are other obvious yellow flags here. UK only, for starters. How cognitive ability was determined from a mere survey: did they basically ask trivia questions? Even if not, there are major issues concerning the standard IQ tests. And how do we know that they're studying truly independent variables?

“Unrealistic optimism is one of the most pervasive human traits and research has shown people consistently underestimate the negative and accentuate the positive. The concept of ‘positive thinking’ is almost unquestioningly embedded in our culture – and it would be healthy to revisit that belief,” Dr Dawson added

Sounds to me like someone hated the idea of positive thinking and set out to debunk it. I can understand that impulse, as I share it. But, first, if science goes into an investigation wanting a certain outcome, that outcome is more likely (even excluding fraud or other shenanigans). And second, I have serious questions about the methodology.

So I put this in the category of "stuff I want to believe, and which tracks with stuff I've been saying, but can't trust the science."

© Copyright 2024 Robert Waltz (UN: cathartes02 at Writing.Com). All rights reserved.
Robert Waltz has granted InkSpot.Com, its affiliates and its syndicates non-exclusive rights to display this work.
... powered by: Writing.Com
Online Writing Portfolio * Creative Writing Online