We Are All Confident Idiots
We Are All Confident Idiots is a 2014 article by David Dunning that discusses how people argue for a position they don't believe in. According to the author, the majority of people use confidence as a useful proxy for competence. They speak authoritatively, as if they know exactly what they're talking about. In other words, David believes that when people are asked a question, they show confidence regardless of their actual ability. He points out that the power of first impressions have been known to disproportionately impact the judgment of the people an individual is talking to which suggest that even when they are not unmasked to be less skilled, they are an ancillary social benefit to overconfidence (Dunning, 2014). Therefore, David's major claim in the article is that people act as if they understand something even when they have no idea about the subject at hand.
Question One
Kind of Evidence Presented in the Article
David presents different kinds of evidence to build his argument. He quotes from research studied he and others performed together like the one about asking college learners about scientific terms that do not exist. Also, he uses studied from other scholars to build his case further (Dunning, 2014). For instance, he tied his argument to studies about the United States foreign policy among others to back his main idea that people misinterpret knowledge they have about the certain subject. For instance, he relied on research performed by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority that asked twenty-five thousand participants to rate their financial knowledge. From this, he quotes a vast number of statistics and percentage to show how many respondents rated their financial knowledge as compared to other parameters measured in the study (Dunning, 2014). As David indicates, the research demonstrated that people adopt a notion that they understand their financial knowledge even when they did not.
Determining if the Evidence used in the Article is Relevant
The studies, facts, and analogies used in the article are relevant as they help to prove the underlying claim. In other words, these have a definite relationship with the main argument. All the example and studied quoted are carefully selected to support the claim. For instance, the example of Jimmy Kimmel and contains evidence that set up a structure to prove his opinion. Even quotes his material that he wrote with other scholar published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology about Dunning-Kruger effect which is relevant to support the article where he shows that students who get Ds and Fs tend to think their effort is worthy far greater grades (Dunning, 2014). Also, David shows how older adults despite their age overestimate their competence when it comes to driving. These are research cases that prove the relevance of primary author argument.
Determination of whether the evidence is Sufficient and Reliable
It is important to indicate that the evidence presented in the article is sufficient and reliable as it completely supports the claim. First, it is sufficient because there are many types of evidence. In other words, David does not rely on one type. As indicated about, he uses an example, statistics from various studies, example, and analogies. It appears that he is careful not to leave any information out. The evidence from Jimmy Kimmel, born wrong, misplaced rules civic for enlightened dummies make the claim flow smoothly, and one point leads directly to the other (Dunning, 2014). The information is reliable because it is drawn from well-known institutions and researcher as well as publishers. Further, David is a professor of psychology at the University of Cornell who has written several articles, for instance, psychology of human wrongness and Dunning-Kruger Effect.
Determining if the Evidence is Accurate
The information David Dunning provide in the article is accurate because it provides data from scientific experiments conducted by other scholars. It also presents statistical examples, logical inferences, and expert opinions. Moreover, according to the article, secrets of confident people published by Journal of Psychology Solution, it is easy to feel believe in the confidence that people feel that they know how to deal with new situation. Clearly, other researchers outside those mentioned in the source have come to the same conclusion that unskilled people suffer from thinking that they are qualified to attend to any question (Dunning, 2014). At the same time, David interestingly relies on experimental information. One such mention is where he teaching people are uninformed about nanotechnology. The author indicates that a good percentage of have popularized belief that they know this subject. Clearly, the inform information is accurate because it is logical and factual as it is based on science.
Question Two
Kind of Organizational Structure does the Author use
It is imperative to understand that David uses analogies to give an explanation why people tend to pretend they know whatever they are asked. These help the audience understand his assertion. For instance, the example of the 2008 economic crisis provides the audience with something stronger to take into account (Dunning, 2014). It makes his claim more real as the reader know that the crisis emerged because of people who thought they understood what they were doing. The pioneers of the predicament made each person believe they could afford a house. From the article, the audience comprehends how this ended up. Also, the most convincing part of this organizational structure used is the example solid examples of confident idiot utilized from entertainment Jimmy Kimmel. Similarly, David uses process coupled with topic listing: born wrong, misplaced rules, motivated reasoning, seeing through the clutter and civic for enlightened dummies which significantly set up the structure to prove his opinion (Dunning, 2014).
Determining whether the Structure is logical Choice and Work for Evidence used
It is imperative to comprehend that flow well and enhance understanding from the beginning to the end. For instance, David starts with Jimmy Kimmel case which shows that people often think they know the next actors to be when they actually do not. Under the section titled Born Wrong, the author indicates how people carry misbelieve about their knowledge from their childhood marked with the falsehood of education which makes them believe a false version they know everything. Next, David moves to deal with Misplace Rules where he shows that it is often hard for one to who is right or wrong by looking at the confidence of people. Further, in the topic Motivated Reasoning, the author demonstrated that people always believe they are capable of responding to any query (Dunning, 2014). However, it is fundamental to indicate that logical part of the structure is sometimes hard to follow throughout the article which means it does not work effectively to support the evidence used. The listing might seem different and confusing because David does not seem to foresee that his readers may have a hard time understanding the content particularly because of the complexity of the various topic and his argument.
Other Considered Perspectives
Text's Purpose, Intended Audience, and Tone used
The purpose of the text is to persuade the audience in understanding that people use confidence to respond to something even when they do not know anything about the subject. He uses a good amount of example; scientific studied and expert opinions to achieve this goal. David targets the public audience as he used the word 'we' which suggest everyone. Moreover, his tone is fairly smooth as well as encouraging. At the same time, it can be said to be comfortable and verbal. It makes the reader wonder what one would do in the situation the author present in the article. They way he says things keep the audience engaged by stating that we all fall in the same circumstance of fooling ourselves.
Interesting use of Language, Author Credibility, whether he makes a Claim
The author heavily uses connotative language which makes it considerably hard for the reader to understand the article. For example, David uses terms such as 'mental gossamer' that are hard for readers to understand and follow the claim quickly fully. It may be imperative for him to offer an explanation for uncommon words or phrases and use more familiar words. However, it is evident that author is credible because he is a professor at the University of Cornell. Also, as identified earlier, together with others, he has written several articles produced by one of the reputable publishers, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Finally, it has been determined that the author makes a claim that people pretend to know about something even when they have no idea what it is they are being asked which he successfully supports using various kinds of evidence.
Identifying whether the evidence is biased and if information is left out
It is safe to state that David is careful to avoid any biases in his writing and no information is left out that could make the reader raise questions. First, he uses credible information known to give factual information. For example, some of the details are drawn from Yale Law School, Washington University Law school, and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. For example, the words 'we' and 'us' are important for the author as they eliminate the biasing of looking down upon the audience or excluding himself from the idea that he is not a confident idiot. Similarly, there is limited over generations of details.
The view from which the author is writing and effectiveness of the argument
David writes from the worldview that people often express significant confidence when responding to an underlying issue regardless of whether they are knowledgeable in the field or not. Additionally, the argument is effective as it properly supported by reasons while at the same time responds to objections that could arise. For example, the claim is precise focused and supported by numerous warrants.
References
Dunning, D. (2014). We Are All Confident Idiots. Pacific Standard Magazine.
