Chapter 1: Understanding Knowledge Overconfidence

During the COVID-19 pandemic, individuals with credentials who opposed mainstream scientific consensus played a notable role in the spread of misinformation and disinformation.

Caveat: I am neither a psychiatrist nor the healthcare professional responsible for the individuals mentioned here. My observations are based solely on behaviors that align with traits identified in the DSM-V, and I do not intend to make personal diagnoses.

Many who perceive themselves as exceptional, independent thinkers are often compensating for a significant gap between their actual and perceived knowledge. In essence, those who reject consensus views tend to lack a solid understanding of specific subjects while simultaneously holding an inflated sense of their own expertise. The more pronounced this discrepancy between their genuine knowledge and self-assessment, the more vehemently they cling to anti-consensus views. Interestingly, those who vehemently oppose established consensus often overestimate their knowledge, which, in reality, is among the lowest.

A 2022 article published in Science Advances revealed that “greater opposition to consensus correlates with heightened confidence in knowledge about various scientific topics, yet lower actual knowledge.”

The authors note: “While our findings echo the Dunning-Kruger effect and other studies on knowledge miscalibration, they highlight a relationship pattern that extends beyond mere overconfidence among the least knowledgeable.”

Can these findings be applied to the current generation of contrarians and skeptics who promote anti-scientific beliefs regarding COVID and its vaccines? The authors directly state: “As opposition to COVID-19 vaccination rises, objective knowledge—both general and specific to COVID—declines.”

This aligns with the observable narcissistic tendencies prevalent within this group. We will delve deeper into this topic later. Let’s further analyze the article and its findings.

The article’s opening statement succinctly establishes its core argument:

“Uncertainty is an inherent characteristic of science. The relentless pursuit of a deeper understanding of the world necessitates a readiness to revise or discard previous truths, leading to frequent disagreements among scientists. However, in some cases, evidence is so compelling, overwhelming, or clear that a scientific consensus emerges.”

Individuals who espouse anti-consensus beliefs often resemble those who propagate conspiracy theories and logical fallacies, using a partial truth—namely, the uncertainty inherent in science—to support misleading claims. When credentialed individuals succumb to this anti-scientific mindset, they exploit their qualifications to legitimize these stances. The general public observes credentialed experts in disagreement, fostering a belief in a significant controversy when, in reality, consensus prevails over uncertainty. This creates a false equivalence that does not exist, as they utilize their credentials to “launder” disinformation, inadvertently validating the views of those without similar qualifications and thus perpetuating the spread of misinformation.

Understanding why even well-qualified individuals maintain these viewpoints can aid in combating the misinformation that undermines scientific inquiry and public discourse. The authors emphasize that the implications of perpetuating such misinformation stemming from these anti-consensus beliefs are severe, leading to property damage, health issues, financial struggles, and even loss of life.

What insights does this article provide regarding misinformation and disinformation?

Traditional models linking opposition to scientific consensus to a lack of scientific knowledge, often termed the “deficit model,” suggest that educational interventions should enhance objective scientific understanding and foster acceptance of scientific consensus. However, these approaches have yielded minimal success, indicating that such models are inadequate.

An alternative perspective posits that beliefs are more influenced by cultural values or affiliations, resulting in selective acceptance of information that aligns with one’s worldview—a phenomenon referred to as “cultural cognition.” Yet, evidence suggests this model also falls short, especially considering the role of objective knowledge in accepting scientific consensus.

Recent studies indicate that individuals with the most extreme anti-consensus beliefs may be the least aware of their knowledge gaps and the most overconfident about their understanding. The researchers conducted five different studies to evaluate this hypothesis. In one study, participants’ self-assessments of their knowledge were not directly tied to their beliefs about their understanding concerning cultural cognition or alternative viewpoints; participants were even asked to wager money based on their knowledge of scientific evidence.

“When uninformed individuals assert they comprehend an issue, it’s not mere superficiality; they’re willing to bet on their ability to perform well on a knowledge test.”

In another study, participants were asked to evaluate how much they believed scientists understood about COVID, followed by self-assessing their knowledge compared to scientists. Those who believed their knowledge exceeded that of scientists were more likely to oppose virus mitigation strategies and less compliant with recommended COVID safety measures while scoring lower on objective knowledge assessments.

The authors conclude: “Our findings imply that knowledge may correlate with pro-science attitudes, but subjective knowledge—individuals’ self-assessments—may be linked to anti-science perspectives. This poses a challenge if inflated subjective knowledge hampers individuals’ readiness to accept new information.” The tendency to reject integrating new information into one’s knowledge base is crucial, and while directly tied to their overconfidence and insufficient knowledge, it may also relate to underlying personality traits.

While these studies demonstrate correlational findings, and the limitations of such conclusions apply, the authors highlight an intriguing notion: “Factors like heightened media attention or the perceived severity of scientific issues may influence how individuals assess their own knowledge.”

This point is significant as it intersects cultural cognition with findings of mismatched objective and subjective knowledge while emphasizing the importance of empathy and understanding the experiences of others.

Notably, many prominent COVID contrarians have had little to no firsthand experience treating COVID patients, especially during the pandemic’s early stages and the initial Omicron wave. Simultaneously, their overconfidence in their subjective knowledge, combined with a fundamental lack of empathy, restricts their capacity or willingness to absorb new information beyond their experiences.

The authors discuss previous models of anti-consensus beliefs, enhancing them with the perspective of the mismatch between objective and subjective knowledge. However, none of these models alone suffices, and all should be considered collectively. The deficit model fails to account for the knowledge deficit compounded by overconfidence, which strengthens the correlation with anti-science views while neglecting personal and cultural factors. Conversely, the cultural cognition model does not sufficiently explain knowledge gaps and the discrepancy between subjective and objective knowledge. What personal factors might bridge these models?

I have previously addressed the contrarian inclination to adopt the Galileo Gambit, believing they possess the correct information contrary to widely accepted scientific consensus, much like Galileo’s heliocentric model. This mindset reveals a grandiose sense of self-importance. When coupled with a public platform, it fosters a need for admiration. These individuals often accuse others making evidence-based claims on social media of adhering to the prevailing “narrative” for likes or attention while claiming censorship, despite their anti-consensus viewpoints often receiving more attention, perpetuating this negative cycle.

The combination of an inability to incorporate new information from others’ experiences and a lack of empathy closely aligns with narcissistic traits as defined by the DSM-V criteria.

Recognizing the connection between individuals exhibiting a mismatch in subjective and objective knowledge and a corresponding lack of empathy rooted in narcissism is essential for addressing misinformation. By actively managing the most prominent anti-science and anti-consensus figures who exploit their credentials on large platforms or allow their qualifications to be manipulated to spread disinformation, we can mitigate the negative effects of misinformation.

Chapter 2: Videos That Illuminate the Discussion

The first video, titled I Accept Scientific Consensus — And You Probably Should Too, discusses the importance of aligning with scientific consensus and the dangers of misinformation.

The second video, What Scientific Consensus REALLY Means, delves into the nuances of scientific consensus and its implications for public understanding.