The Illusion of Depth in Explanation

We think we understand the world in greater detail than we actually do.

We’ve probably all seen how a toilet flush works more than a thousand times… And so, we might believe we’re capable of explaining how it works. But when we try to do so, perhaps very few of us can go beyond the float valve in the reset mechanism.

But this doesn’t just happen with everyday technologies. It also occurs with more complex phenomena, such as migration patterns, for example. Or even regarding a nation’s tax system, vaccines, or even wars and conflicts.

Familiarity with a concept, action, or principle is mistaken for understanding or comprehension.

We hear these words so often in our daily lives that we end up being led to believe that, through this familiarity, closeness, and interaction, we can understand what’s going on. But more often than not, what actually happens is that the more someone knows about a particular subject, the more confident they become. Interesting, don’t you think?

So when we ask someone to explain contingency planning or a specific idea in real detail—rather than simply debating it with someone else—they become less sure of themselves.

They become somewhat more moderate and less certain about a particular topic. And as a result, they’re more open to accepting alternative opinions and explanations about it.

It’s not necessary for anyone to tell them they’re wrong on a particular topic or issue. It’s enough for them to listen to themselves as they try to describe something on their own and come up against a wall that marks the limit of their true knowledge.

If you meet someone who has an idea or an unshakable conviction about a certain issue, there’s no need to debate or argue with them. Just calmly ask them to explain what they think is happening.

This is, in fact, a strategy I’ve seen work in a televised debate, in which two representatives from two different political parties were presenting their ideas for their parties’ election platforms. The representative from the more moderate party questioned the leader of the populist party and asked him to explain how he would lower the retirement age without causing the pension system to collapse.

That was enough.
Nothing else needed to be said.
The person himself ended up revealing that he did not fully understand the true implications of that change—a change that had garnered significant support among voters, but for which they had not even bothered to understand the real consequences and trade-offs of the measure.

This phenomenon was described in 2002 by psychologists Rozenblit and Keil.

^{Image by Tyli Jura from Pixabay
Original text written by @xrayman in Portuguese and translated with DeepL.com (free version)
Source for this post: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_explanatory_depth}