We Need a Scale on ‘Soft Sciences’

By SAM URETSKY

There really should be a Mohs Scale of the sciences. Like the scale used to classify minerals based on their hardness, at one end you would have the hard sciences, chemistry, physics, stuff that can be studied with a high level of accuracy, with results expressed in numbers. At the other end are the soft sciences, psychology, sociology, anthropology, or political science, the ones that describe behavior, at least some of the time. Then, as you get to the extreme end of the soft sciences, there’s behavioral psychology, which specializes in describing things that we should have known all along, but nobody wrote it down before.

Conspicuous consumption is one example of squishy psychology. The pyramid of Giza dates from about 2500 BCE but Thorstein Veblen didn’t describe conspicuous consumption until 1899. As for the Dunning Kruger Effect, which has been described as a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability to recognize their [own] ineptitude,” that was probably present since the dawn of mankind, but wasn’t described until 1899.

The fact that these observations may be considered self evident increases rather than decreases their importance. Understanding our errors of judgement, whether of ourselves or others, can save us from tragic consequences.

Now, the May 20, 2019, issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology has published a study that seems like an extension of Dunning Kruger: “The Social Advantage of Miscalibrated Individuals: The Relationship Between Social Class and Overconfidence and Its Implications for Class-Based Inequality.” The authors are Peter Belmi, Margaret A. Neale, David Reiff and Rosemary Ulfe. Professor Belmi teaches at the University of Virginia where he has developed an elective course called “Paths to Power.” On his web site he writes “Power is a topic that makes many people uncomfortable, but it is a fundamental reality in much of organizational life and the primary mechanism by which things get done.”

The Belmi-Neale paper begins, “Advantages beget advantages. Those who are born in the upperclass echelons are likely to remain in the upper class … The majority of individuals who work at elite and prestigious firms tend to come from elite educational institutions … And high-earning entrepreneurs disproportionately originate from highly educated and well-to-do families ...” The long term benefits of an elite education have been disputed, by, among others, although these were often a matter of degree.. In one study, Prof. Kruger compared the lifetime careers of students who were accepted to the University of Pennsylvania (Ivy league, expensive) with students of similar ability who attended Pennsylvania State (state school). This study failed to show a career boost from the more prestigious college. Similarly, Malcolm Gladwell, in his book, “David and Goliath” (Little Brown, 2013), makes the point that the student choosing the more selective college risks having a lower class standing, eliminating the benefits of a more prestigious diploma.

But the point of the Belmi-Neale study evaluated the effects of overconfidence on the part of upper class students. “We first hypothesize that compared with individuals with relatively low social class, individuals with relatively high social class are more overconfident. Then, drawing on research suggesting that overconfidence can confer social advantages, we further hypothesize that the overconfidence of higher class individuals can help perpetuate the existing class hierarchy: It can provide them a path to social advantage by making them appear more competent in the eyes of others.”

First, they conducted a series of experiments designed test whether upper class students, with elite degrees, were overconfident, as they indeed were. Then, they conducted the fourth part of the study: “Study 4, a multiphase study that featured a mock job interview in the laboratory, found that compared with their lower-class counterparts, higher-class individuals were more overconfident; overconfidence, in turn, made them appear more competent and more likely to attain social rank.” In other words, these students, from well off families, able to obtain education at elite schools, were able to fool themselves about their abilities, and in turn were able to fool others. They even appear to have achieved a high level of success before the Peter Principle kicks in: People in a hierarchy tend to rise to their “level of incompetence”.

The timing of Belmi-Neale is impeccable. It follows “I understand the tax laws better than almost anyone, which is why I’m the one who can truly fix them.” “I understand social media. I understand the power of Twitter. I understand the power of Facebook maybe better than almost anybody, based on my results, right?” “I think nobody knows the system better than I do.” “There’s nobody bigger or better at the military than I am.”

There are a lot more similar displays of over-confidence, and yes, they can fool people, particularly people who are desperate for hope. Now the United States is engaged in an escalating trade war with China which is damaging the world economy and threatening a recession within the year. “I understand money better than anybody. I understand it far better than Hillary, and I’m way up on the economy when it comes to questions on the economy.” And yet we give credibility to the overconfident.

Sam Uretsky is a writer and pharmacist living in Louisville, Ky. Email sdu01@outlook.com.

From The Progressive Populist, July 1-15, 2019

Populist.com