Your Understanding Is My Understanding

In four experiments, we tested the community-of-knowledge hypothesis, that people fail to distinguish their own knowledge from other people’s knowledge. In all the experiments, despite the absence of any actual explanatory information, people rated their own understanding of novel natural phenomena as higher when they were told that scientists understood the phenomena than when they were told that scientists did not yet understand them. In Experiment 2, we found that this occurs only when people have ostensible access to the scientists’ explanations; the effect does not occur when the explanations exist but are held in secret. In Experiment 3, we further ruled out two classes of alternative explanations (one appealing to task demands and the other proposing that judgments were mediated by inferences about a phenomenon’s understandability). In Experiment 4, we ruled out the possibility that the effect could be attributed to a pragmatic inference.

[1]  Geoff Cumming,et al.  On the (non)persuasive power of a brain image , 2013, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[2]  M. Welbourne,et al.  The Community of Knowledge , 1986 .

[3]  B. Sparrow,et al.  Google Effects on Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having Information at Our Fingertips , 2011, Science.

[4]  Raymond S. Nickerson,et al.  How We Know—and Sometimes Misjudge—What Others Know: Imputing One's Own Knowledge to Others , 1999 .

[5]  Jeffrey C. Zemla,et al.  Missing the trees for the forest: a construal level account of the illusion of explanatory depth. , 2010, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[6]  Steven M. Smith,et al.  The effects of demand characteristics on the reporting of tip-of-the-tongue and feeling-of-knowing states , 1996 .

[7]  Leonid Rozenblit,et al.  Discerning the Division of Cognitive Labor: An Emerging Understanding of How Knowledge Is Clustered in Other Minds , 2008, Cogn. Sci..

[8]  Deena Skolnick Weisberg,et al.  The Seductive Allure of Neuroscience Explanations , 2008, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[9]  Maxwell J. Roberts,et al.  Integrating the mind : domain general versus domain specific processes in higher cognition , 2008 .

[10]  D. Wegner Transactive Memory: A Contemporary Analysis of the Group Mind , 1987 .

[11]  Frank C. Keil,et al.  Overestimation of Knowledge About Word Meanings: The "Misplaced Meaning" Effect , 2014, Cogn. Sci..

[12]  David R. Gruber,et al.  Persuasive images in popular science: Testing judgments of scientific reasoning and credibility , 2012, Public understanding of science.

[13]  S. Kitagami,et al.  Neuroscientific information bias in metacomprehension: The effect of brain images on metacomprehension judgment of neuroscience research , 2013, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[14]  Emily J. Hopkins,et al.  Deconstructing the seductive allure of neuroscience explanations , 2015, Judgment and Decision Making.

[15]  S. Baron-Cohen Precursors to a theory of mind: Understanding attention in others. , 1991 .

[16]  Matthew Fisher,et al.  The Curse of Expertise: When More Knowledge Leads to Miscalibrated Explanatory Insight , 2016, Cogn. Sci..

[17]  Henry M. Wellman,et al.  Young children's reasoning about beliefs , 1988, Cognition.

[18]  Jordan B. Peterson The Meaning of Meaning , 2007 .

[19]  Aner Tal,et al.  Blinded with science: Trivial graphs and formulas increase ad persuasiveness and belief in product efficacy , 2016, Public understanding of science.

[20]  Ian A. Apperly,et al.  The cost of thinking about false beliefs: Evidence from adults’ performance on a non-inferential theory of mind task , 2008, Cognition.

[21]  D. Pritchard Edinburgh Research Explorer Epistemic dependence , 2015 .

[22]  George Loewenstein,et al.  The Curse of Knowledge in Economic Settings: An Experimental Analysis , 1989, Journal of Political Economy.

[23]  Diego Fernandez-Duque,et al.  Superfluous Neuroscience Information Makes Explanations of Psychological Phenomena More Appealing , 2015, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[24]  Adrian F. Ward People mistake the internet’s knowledge for their own , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[25]  Michael D. Slater,et al.  Scientese and Ambiguous Citations in the Selling of Unproven Medical Treatments , 2004, Health communication.

[26]  Martha J. Farah,et al.  Look Again: Effects of Brain Images and Mind–Brain Dualism on Lay Evaluations of Research , 2013, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[27]  Leonid Rozenblit,et al.  The misunderstood limits of folk science: an illusion of explanatory depth , 2002, Cogn. Sci..

[28]  Frank C Keil,et al.  Searching for explanations: How the Internet inflates estimates of internal knowledge. , 2015, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[29]  Alan D. Castel,et al.  Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning , 2008, Cognition.

[30]  D. Wegner A Computer Network Model of Human Transactive Memory , 1995 .

[31]  J. Altham Naming and necessity. , 1981 .

[32]  Paul Bloom,et al.  The Curse of Knowledge in Reasoning About False Beliefs , 2007, Psychological science.

[33]  D. Medin,et al.  Comments on part I: psychological essentialism , 1989 .

[34]  M. H. Fischer,et al.  Different clues from different views: The role of image format in public perceptions of neuroimaging results , 2011, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[35]  S. Gelman,et al.  The Essential Child : Origins of Essentialism in Everyday Thought , 2003 .

[36]  A. Gopnik,et al.  Natural theories of mind: Evolution, development and simulation of everyday mindreading , 2015 .

[37]  Frank C. Keil,et al.  The Shadows and Shallows of Explanation , 1998, Minds and Machines.

[38]  Evan F. Risko,et al.  Fooled by the brain: Re-examining the influence of neuroimages , 2013, Cognition.

[39]  Margaret Wilson,et al.  Six views of embodied cognition , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[40]  Steven A. Sloman,et al.  Political Extremism Is Supported by an Illusion of Understanding , 2013, Psychological science.