The X-Factor / self-delusion

[Crispy Duck]

Hello all, I'm new. I've been lurking for a few months though.

Here's something that occurred to me while watching (against my will, I might add) the UK version of The X-Factor on Saturday.

For those who've been spared The X-Factor, it's a version of the currently-popular no-talent-show format in which random Members of the Public (MOTPs) audition as pop stars. The "entertainment" value comes largely from how embarassingly awful most of the auditionees are.

Now, this show forms an extremely well-known and very popular demonstration of exactly how powerful self-delusion can be. Some of the MOTPs who appear are absolutely 100% convinced that they are pop-star material, regardless of their actual talent, looks, age or any other attribute that might qualify them, and this is largely what the popularity of the program is based on.

Might it be possible to find a way to build on this public knowledge to expose other forms of self-delusion? Maybe the auditionees should be given a questionnaire to see how many other dubious things they're "certain" of, besides their own cruelly-unrecognised genius?

:)

cbl.

[tsg]

Originally posted by Crispy Duck
Might it be possible to find a way to build on this public knowledge to expose other forms of self-delusion? Maybe the auditionees should be given a questionnaire to see how many other dubious things they're "certain" of, besides their own cruelly-unrecognised genius?

Some people at Cornell University conducted a study (http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf) about incompetence. Various people were asked questions on logic, grammar and humor (which I found very insightful) and asked to evaluate how well they thought they did in relation to the other subjects. They were then asked to review other subjects' responses and re-evaluate their own performance.

People who did well on the exam tended to underestimate their performance as average believing that others would have done about as well as they did. After reviewing the other responses, their re-evaluation tended to increase (correctly).

People who did poorly on the exam tended to grossly overestimate their performance. But, and this is the interesting part, having reviewed the other responses, tended to judge their performance as higher (quite incorrectly) than their first evaluation.

It seems that the incompetent cannot only not recognize their own incompetence, but they can't recognize competence in other people. Not being able to correctly judge one's own performance against others would certainly seem to encourage self-delusion about one's abilities.

The study quotes Charles Darwin: "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than it does knowledge".

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Crispy Duck
Might it be possible to find a way to build on this public knowledge to expose other forms of self-delusion? Maybe the auditionees should be given a questionnaire to see how many other dubious things they're "certain" of, besides their own cruelly-unrecognised genius?
Welcome to the forums.

I was watching the X-Factor repeat last night and ironically one of the singers gave his profession as a psychic. (Obviously the producers love that because they can play spooky music and have an intereting hook for his segment.)

I was in and out of the room so I didn't see if he actually made it through to the next round, but I do remember that they asked him which of the three judges would win and he thought about it for a moment then said either Louis or Sharon would win.

Now, even for a psychic, giving yourself a 2/3 chance is taking the mickey.

[MoonDragn]

Originally posted by tsg

It seems that the incompetent cannot only not recognize their own incompetence, but they can't recognize competence in other people.


Ouch is that a double negative?

Seriously, Its not so much as self delusion as it is ignorance. Many skeptics who claim a certain thing can't be a certain way often fall under the category of under-informed.

Some examples :

The earth is flat
The earth is the center of the universe

etc you get the idea...

I think one must temper skepticism with a healthy dose of open mindedness and label those subjects that we don't know too much about with a hefty maybe and those that we think we know alot about as something that maybe we need to learn more about.

Someone once said : The foolish man thinks he knows everything but it is the wiseman that knows he knows nothing.

[tsg]

Originally posted by MoonDragn
Ouch is that a double negative?

Seriously, Its not so much as self delusion as it is ignorance.

The point is that ignorance breeds self-delusion. The bad singer believes he is a good singer because he doesn't know what a good singer is. The dowser believes he can find water with two bent coat hangers because he doesn't know about ideomotor effect and how to track his success rate objectively. They are both self-deluded because they don't know any better.

I think one must temper skepticism with a healthy dose of open mindedness and label those subjects that we don't know too much about with a hefty maybe and those that we think we know alot about as something that maybe we need to learn more about.

It is one thing to say "there are forces we do not yet understand" and quite another to attribute unknown forces to events which have quite mundane explanations if one only looks. The open-mindedness in skepticism comes from the willingness to be shown otherwise given sufficient evidence. But "sufficient" is the operative word. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence must be to be considered sufficient.