The confidence paradox Mid-summer thought: the more I learn, the less convinced I am that certainty is something intelligent people eventually reach. It seems to work the other way around. Every answer exposes another assumption, every assumption opens another question, and every question reveals a larger territory that I had not even realised was there. That is what keeps pulling me back to the Dunning–Kruger effect and not the internet-meme version where stupid people are confident and clever people are tortured by self-doubt, because the science is far more nuanced than that, but the much more interesting human problem underneath it: we are remarkably bad at knowing how much we know. I keep wondering whether that blind spot is really a defect at all. Evolution did not need us to possess perfect self-awareness; it needed us to survive, act, reproduce, build alliances and occasionally do something wildly ambitious before we had enough information to prove it was sensible. A species that understood every risk with perfect clarity might still be sitting in a cave discussing the downside scenarios of fire. Some degree of unjustified confidence may therefore have been incredibly useful. You need it to lead, to fight, to start a company, to fall in love, to invent something, or simply to say, “I think we should go this way,” when nobody can possibly know the outcome. Human progress probably owes quite a lot to people who were more certain than the evidence justified. The problem is that self-awareness seems to pull us in the opposite direction: the more seriously we examine what we know, the more obvious it becomes that there is always another layer. Are we therefore coded for infinite curiosity rather than final understanding? Is there even an endgame to intelligence, or is consciousness simply a machine that turns answers into better questions forever?
...