Why do stupid people sound so confident?

Post Reply New Topic

Seriously...

If someone's spouting pseudoscience, they usually yell it and have a crowd of mates around them...

If someone's not a scientist and is spouting facts, they will say 'well, I have read that' and they will be tentative and remind everyone 'I'm not actually a scientist' and say it in a quiet voice and have one or two people around them...

I hate 'seems like' arguments so I will point to the Dunning-Krueger affect: https://www.verywellmind.com/an-overvie ... competence.

This is really annoying to me!

If someone doesn't know something, they should shut up. Not every single thing in the world is a matter of opinion. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised at this point if someone came up with a random alternative theory for gravity without any scientific backing. Why not - after all, the flat earth society exists...

Stupid woman at the park the other day wound me up cos in really thick words/tone, she said that humans don't share DNA with chimpanzees so we shouldn't test on chimpanzees. I know of decent animal rights arguments against it, but most of them rely upon our closeness to chimps actually!*

* And when it comes to medicine: if we can't test on humans because of ethics reasons, I want us to test on the nearest thing before releasing it to the public. I'm against animal testing on things like makeup because they're not essential.

Speaking with an inflated sense of confidence is the best weapon they have to protect their fragile egos.

dunning-kreuger. they're not smart enough to know they're not as smart as they think they are. put metaphorically, still waters run deep, shallow brooks babble.

Not something I've really considered...I've witnessed it many times, though.

In the hope that thoughts\observations on this subject are permitted, even if they don't constitute "knowledge"...

The suggested "Dunning-Krueger" effect would certainly explain a number of instances I have witnessed, but others seem like the person is simply wishing to be the centre of attention, and lacks the capacity to "retreat" once crossing the limit of their knowledge on a topic (or even to realise they have hit that point), instead pushing on in the hope that no-one challenges them.

Another alternative could be that they have participated in\witnessed discussions around similar topics in the past which resonated with them and are simply repeating what they recall of the "dominant" speaker in the belief that what they heard was true, potentially as they hadn't been exposed to any other information source of the subject previously and so had nothing to measure this new information against.

It also seems much more common (from experience) in an off-line situation (although not restricted to this) due to the difficulty in others supplying information counter to theirs in order to disprove them, so the most "charasmatic"\"confident" person is usually the one whose "input" is retained\"believed" by participants in a conversation, rather than the most knowledgable on the topic.

This annoys me greatly too, but what is the point of correcting someone who is too stupid to understand the facts

If they're decent people & it's affecting others: to help the others.

When it isn't harming anyone else or harming the wrong person physically/seriously, I leave them to it.

I didn't used to. But if someone thinks the Battle of Hastings happened in 1955? It doesn't actually hurt anyone, just makes them sound daft

If they're not decent people, there's no point at all. Selfish people don't care if they're killing your sick relatives.

Actually I've seen more nonsense pseudoscience and similar online than I have irl.

And I've seen more generalisations about people based on demographics: race, gender, sexuality for eg, back and forth online than irl. I'm tired of such debates.

There is a difference between being stupid and being ignorant.
Discussing a subject can increase the enlightenment of that subject.
But having an open mind is needed.

For example:
I and other non Americkans are criticised, by some Amerikans, for contributing to the political discussions about America.
I find this odd, intolerant and ironic.

It depends if you like a challenge

I've found it can sometimes be useful, even if you know you won't get through, simply for the opportunity to "test"\"challenge" what you know (Sometimes the simple process of going over what is known in a situation such as this can lead to the realisation that there is a gap\branch which you had previously overlooked\made assumptions regarding and so requires investigation at a later time), as well as to help arrange your "argument" in a different\more convincing\persuasive way, should you come across a person willing to discuss the subject in a reasonable manner at a later time.[1]

And sometimes the "correction" isn't intended for the person with which you are having the conversation, but rather for the benefit of 3rd parties who may see\hear what is being said...Whether to help them gauge the subject being discussed, or the people taking part in the discussion (which naturally includes yourself).

[1] Doing some research on counter views on a given topic, then presenting them as though you believe them (requires a degree of discipline to stick to\press those counter views, as well as to try and present them as honestly\"effectively" as possible) is also good for this (preferably online so you can "fill the gaps" in the argument you are presenting as\when required), as long as you are prepared for the potential fallout - Something that didn't exist when I was taught this method in school, where the reference material was whatever was available in the paper\on the telly\wireless or at the school\local libraries and you "knew" a lot more about the audience (and they knew you as a person).

I'm not sure which is worse, an overwhelming fear of failure, and doubt as to the worthiness of an achievement, or being highly over confident.

Trivial aside. Went to prep school where the battle of Hastings was fought.

One reason may be that they do not know what they do not know.  Another may be that they think they know everything -- like when foreign citizens who have never visited America claim to know all about how our culture and society is run, while they also deny the existence of the obvious problems in their own countries.

Ignorance and pride ... pride and ignorance ...

No wonder why Firemonkey speaks Norman French so well.....

I don't know why they do that but it really, really annoys me.

I was going to say because of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

But since you cited it in the OP I guess you already knew that.

I do this also, but the intended target needs to have an open mind.

That is the go-to, yes.

In younger people, it is also called: "Arrogance of youth."