Comments on: You are not so smart...

You are not so smart...

dave78981 — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:17:52 -0800

The Misconception: You celebrate diversity and respect others' points of view. The Truth: You are driven to create and form groups and then believe others are wrong just because they are others. Related. Previously.

By: spicynuts

spicynuts — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:28:32 -0800

By: elektrotechnicus

elektrotechnicus — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:32:30 -0800

Clearly the group of researchers knows us quite well.

By: sammyo

sammyo — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:32:54 -0800

Dave, we were just about to email your invitation to ISC (Internet Star Chamber) but now you're basically excommunicated.

By: griphus

griphus — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:36:50 -0800

They named their baseball team the Eagles after an animal they thought ate snakes. They should've called themselves the Mongooses. The Fighting Mongooses.

By: Celsius1414

Celsius1414 — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:37:50 -0800

Mongeese. Fighting Mongeese. And if you don't believe that's the spelling, I'll meet you on the baseball field later.

By: GuyZero

GuyZero — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:40:01 -0800

Just remove the links and this is pretty much ever MetaTalk post ever.

By: Bunny Ultramod

Bunny Ultramod — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:40:24 -0800

See also: hipsters. I can't tell if this was an act of intentional, scabrous, self-lacerating irony or not.

By: dave78981

dave78981 — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:40:35 -0800

I thought the first two comments on the You Are Not So Smart article proved the point pretty well: "Haha, so bleak, maybe in a more matriarchal society there would be more room for negotiation, still tribal, but far less violent." "You read this whole post, then said to yourself "if only men could see with the clarity that women see with". I was skeptical of how true this could be until i read that comment."

By: spicynuts

spicynuts — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:47:35 -0800

I can't tell if this was an act of intentional, scabrous, self-lacerating irony or not. It wasn't scabrous.

By: Bunny Ultramod

Bunny Ultramod — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:49:01 -0800

Good. It can be bad to pick at those things.

By: cashman

cashman — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:50:29 -0800

Thanks for this.

By: Foci for Analysis

Foci for Analysis — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:02:26 -0800

Great find. I'll make sure to email the links to all my family members, friends, acquaintances and strangers because they don't understand how wrong they are all the time.

By: Splunge

Splunge — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:03:00 -0800

Don't send me one. I don't need it.

By: Joey Michaels

Joey Michaels — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:05:30 -0800

The Fighting Mongooses. Mongeese. Fighting Mongeese. Sorry, you're both wrong. Out here in Hawaii, it has been definitively proven that the correct plural of "mongoose" is "plenty mongoose," pronounced "planni mongoose." Usage: "Ho, brah, I wen stay clearing rocks away from da wall. I lift one up and underneath was one nest with planni mongoose." I tell you what, we have planni mongoose out here.

By: beefetish

beefetish — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:06:35 -0800

Christ the "You Are Not So Smart" blog reeks of a certain kind of tiresome Internet assholism. The Robbers' Cave experiment and associated post is totally awesome though.

By: jillithd

jillithd — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:09:07 -0800

"Haha, so bleak, maybe in a more matriarchal society there would be more room for negotiation, still tribal, but far less violent."

I was actually thinking along similar lines. But more interested in how it would be different as I understand 11 and 12 year old boys act differently than 11 and 12 year old girls. Not necessarily BETTER, but DIFFERENT.

By: ZenMasterThis

ZenMasterThis — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:11:34 -0800

MetaFilter: You are driven to create and form groups and then believe others are wrong just because they are others.

By: spicynuts

spicynuts — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:25:17 -0800

All your forms and groups are belong to us.

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:25:26 -0800

To be fair, a lot of their ideas are stupid and wrong. (The thing I always worry about with these is the false equivalency that allows, say, climate-change deniers, to say, "See? They do it too!")

By: Decani

Decani — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:27:32 -0800

This is not true. I only believe people are wrong when they are actually, you know, wrong. Like religious people or Lady Gaga fans.

By: twirlip

twirlip — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:40:54 -0800

Christ the "You Are Not So Smart" blog reeks of a certain kind of tiresome Internet assholism. Huh, you think so? Plenty of Internet assholes talk about cognitive biases as a way of demonstrating their own superior intellect, but this blog doesn't read that way to me at all -- it just seems like standard pop-sci fare. Maybe I need to recalibrate my assholometer.

By: This, of course, alludes to you

This, of course, alludes to you — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:43:42 -0800

beefetish, isn't every kind of internet assholism tiresome

By: straight

straight — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:48:01 -0800

The misconception: Experiments like these allow you (yes, YOU!) to make widely generalizable statements about groups and flat assertions about individuals. The Truth: People differ widely, including their ability to understand and empathize with others. Some people are in fact very good at it. Trying to discount someone's point of view by psycho-analyzing them, "You only believe that because of how you were raised" is lame, but discounting someone's point of view by socio-analyzing them, "You only believe that because, on average, group dynamics encourage those kinds of beliefs" is even lamer. Lake YouAreNotSoSmart, where they presume that Men are dumb, Women are dumb, and all the children are below average.

By: This, of course, alludes to you

This, of course, alludes to you — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:50:25 -0800

Trying to discount someone's point of view by psycho-analyzing them, "You only believe that because of how you were raised" is lame
what if they were raised by fucking wolves what then, huh

By: dave78981

dave78981 — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:51:08 -0800

Lake YouAreNotSoSmart, where they presume that Men are dumb, Women are dumb, and all the children are below average. You're forming your own little group there, aren't you?

By: straight

straight — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:53:18 -0800

Yeah, it's the group of people who get that joke, vs. the group of people who don't.

By: xod

xod — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:53:32 -0800

It's not the mere existence of the others I object to; it's their lack of authenticity.

By: Bunny Ultramod

Bunny Ultramod — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:54:28 -0800

what if they were raised by fucking wolves what then, huh Rome.

By: notyou

notyou — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:56:02 -0800

Well, one way or another, somebody's gonna be right. We'll be okay if we can mostly agree on the "one way or the other".

By: dave78981

dave78981 — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 12:01:30 -0800

Yeah, it's the group of people who get that joke, vs. the group of people who don't. A-hem

By: beefetish

beefetish — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 12:03:16 -0800

this of course etc: Of course not, don't be silly. twirlip: I think the editorial tone of a lot of pop-sci blogs is super douchey, so there you go.

By: mmrtnt

mmrtnt — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 12:39:41 -0800

I don't find Dobbs any more believable even if he does have a mustache now.

By: straight

straight — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 12:43:17 -0800

Okay, I'll spell it out. It's precisely as dumb to presume that everyone is below average as it is to presume that everyone is above average. Some people are "so smart."

By: dave78981

dave78981 — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 13:12:52 -0800

It's precisely as dumb to presume that everyone is below average as it is to presume that everyone is above average. I'm not sure what article you read, but there was nothing about presumptions of being either above or below average in the articles linked in the post. What's curious to me is that there is often the presumption that we are our own people, completely in charge of our destinies when in fact there are many undercurrents, both psycho- and socio- (and other) that we only get glimpses of through experiments like these. Some people get really upset about this for some reason, but I just find it interesting.

By: and for no one

and for no one — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 13:58:00 -0800

How big is your tribe? You might believe that your tribe is your immediate family. You might believe everyone on the planet is part of the same tribe. Most likely you're somewhere in between. This is the most fundamental explanation for our rabid political alignments: somewhere between "it's all they're fault" and "we're all in the same boat."

By: HappyEngineer

HappyEngineer — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 14:41:53 -0800

The results showed liberals believed they knew more about conservatives than conservatives knew about liberals. The conservatives believed they knew more about liberals than liberals knew about conservatives. Both groups thought they knew more about their opponents than their opponents knew about themselves. There are two possibilities here. One is that both sides are equally misguided. The other is that one of the sides really does have an asymmetric level of understanding (they really do know more about the other side and themselves). It would be interesting to see a study that tried to fully tease that out. I'll bet that anyone who was once on one side but is now on the other has a higher chance of scoring higher.

By: elfgirl

elfgirl — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 15:31:12 -0800

Wow, they've discovered ethnocentrism! Amazing no one noticed it before.

By: carping demon

carping demon — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 15:37:40 -0800

Is this one of those last throes of pomo articles, or just another demonstration that surveys aren't science?

By: emmet

emmet — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:12:03 -0800

The piece I thought was most interesting, and irritating, was the notion that somehow our social dynamics haven't progressed beyond what makes sense to 12-year old boys dropped into a camp in the middle of the woods. Far more interesting to me is what happened after that: how did we evolve more sophisticated and useful cultural dynamics? How did we evolve the notion that diversity is awesome? How does a culture, starting there, evolve into the one that interrupted their homicidal battles? And from there to here? Wherever here is... That and Robber's Cave State Park sounds really cool.

By: twirlip

twirlip — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:53:31 -0800

Wow, they've discovered ethnocentrism! Amazing no one noticed it before. That's an unfair oversimplification. If the authors of the journal article have "discovered' anything, it's that people, both as individuals and as groups, consistently overestimate their own level of insight into others and underestimate others' insight into them. That's not ethnocentrism, but it is (according to You Are Not So Smart) one of the mechanisms by which ethnocentrism perpetuates itself. So we've got evidence for a common cognitive bias, which in turn helps to clarify our understanding of how groups relate to one another. It may not be an earth-shaking revelation, but that seems like useful information to me. Is this one of those last throes of pomo articles, or just another demonstration that surveys aren't science? Do you have an actual problem with the methodology, or do you just not like the conclusions? (You can read the full text of the journal article here.)

By: Lovecraft In Brooklyn

Lovecraft In Brooklyn — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:54:29 -0800

So its a whole site about the realization I had when I was 13 that the Hot Topic goths were just as conformist as the Abercormbie & Fitch kids?

By: straight

straight — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 17:04:53 -0800

If the authors of the journal article have "discovered' anything, it's that people, both as individuals and as groups, consistently overestimate their own level of insight into others and underestimate others' insight into them. Or more precisely, they discovered that this is true of some college students. Because they only report the average effect of entire groups, we don't even know if they found that all college students do this or a majority or maybe (I didn't look at the results closely enough to see if this is a possibility) even a minority who do it a lot. I'm not sure what article you read, but there was nothing about presumptions of being either above or below average in the articles linked in the post. I'm talking about the stupid article that jumps from, "Some studies show that some people do this sometimes" to "You definitely do this, Mr. Not As Smart As You Think You Are!"

By: dave78981

dave78981 — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 17:05:35 -0800

how did we evolve more sophisticated and useful cultural dynamics? How did we evolve the notion that diversity is awesome? How does a culture, starting there, evolve into the one that interrupted their homicidal battles? I think the beginnings of the answers to these questions lie in this experiment too: the two groups started to work together to achieve common goals and started to put aside their differences when it was in the group's best interest to do so and when immediate competition for resources was alleviated. You see that played out all the time in real life. As far as embracing diversity, maybe as individual groups grow larger and larger, they naturally break into smaller cohesive groups that then embrace different but complimentary ideals. That's just a guess, but it seems like truth to me.

By: dave78981

dave78981 — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 17:25:16 -0800

I'm talking about the stupid article that jumps from, "Some studies show that some people do this sometimes" to "You definitely do this, Mr. Not As Smart As You Think You Are!" It's just an interesting way to explain things that are observed. The author of the article seems to believe people act this way. I don't think he's making any value judgement that because you act this way, you're an above average or below average human being. I'm not really sure why this seems to upset you so much.

By: dave78981

dave78981 — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 17:27:12 -0800

Maybe this is the reason?

By: macross city flaneur

macross city flaneur — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 17:29:42 -0800

So I guess in this case the tribal others are the scientists who think we have enough free will to escape this kind of knee-jerk group behavior? Or that they aren't that determinative to begin with? Or maybe it's just the regular folks who think they have free will. You know, the people who "aren't that smart". Seems like somewhat axe-grindy language, doesn't it? But who's the grudge against? People who believe their behavior isn't determined by these factors, or at least as much by, say, concrete substantive evidence, argument, logic, and experience? Yes, those people ARE idiots. I would hate to live in a culture that thought that THOSE things mattered, when really it just comes down to simple matters of power and tribalism. What I want to know is, why are the authors trying to pick a fight? Are some people more driven by these group dynamics than others, or is this research meant to constitute an un-nuanced argument for cultural relativism? I read Lord of the Flies in the 8th grade. I was wise enough then to see some of what Golding was writing about in my fellow classmates, but it also seemed to me like a Hobbesian fantasy. And as I got older I began to wonder what "civilization" has at stake in myths of regression in isolation, a touchstone of modernity since at least Robinson Crusoe.

By: carping demon

carping demon — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 17:32:41 -0800

I read the posted abstract and the posted article. There was nothing about methodology in the article. It was a story. I did not read the comments to the article. I looked for a way to download the paper at the abstract page and didn't find one. Thank you for the pdf. I may look at it. However, the article says nothing new about individuals or groups. It amounts to nothing more than, "You think you're so different and you're not." I would be amazed if anyone on Mefi didn't already know that.

By: straight

straight — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 21:21:54 -0800

I'm not really sure why this seems to upset you so much. Pointing out that dumb things on the internet are dumb requires getting upset?

By: emmet

emmet — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 09:54:06 -0800

I think the beginnings of the answers to these questions lie in this experiment too: the two groups started to work together to achieve common goals and started to put aside their differences when it was in the group's best interest to do so and when immediate competition for resources was alleviated. You see that played out all the time in real life. Thinking about this more, I began to wonder what the results might have been if the initial introductions of the two groups had fostered collaboration rather than competition. What if one tribe had the bat and the other one had the ball? Or something similar. As the article points out, there are strong inclinations to follow established cultural paths, what if they'd been mutually beneficial at the start? That I'd really love to see.

By: This, of course, alludes to you

This, of course, alludes to you — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 22:34:33 -0800

@beefetish You say that, but I wonder, sometimes.

By: Lovecraft In Brooklyn

Lovecraft In Brooklyn — Sat, 27 Aug 2011 03:04:04 -0800

Apologies for the snark. It was an amazing article, and relevant to MeFi as much as anyone.

By: clvrmnky

clvrmnky — Sat, 27 Aug 2011 08:43:29 -0800

Misconception: a single study observing a specific set of people can be used to extrapolate across all people, everywhere. The Truth: humanity is fucking complicated and gnarly, and we do things for a huge variety of reasons, some of which are really, really hard to test for.