Dunning-Kruger Effect
The less you know about something, the more confident you feel about it. The more you know, the more you realise how much you're missing.
This is the Dunning-Kruger effect, and it creates a world where the loudest voices in any debate are often the least informed. Someone reads one article about economics and feels ready to explain how the whole system works. An actual economist, who understands the complexity, hesitates and qualifies every statement. The confident amateur sounds more convincing — not because they're right, but because certainty is persuasive.
The effect has two sides. Beginners overestimate themselves because they don't know enough to see what they're missing. Experts underestimate themselves because they're painfully aware of everything they still don't understand. The result is a gap — a space where uninformed confidence drowns out informed caution.
Social media has supercharged this. Everyone has a platform. There's no filter between "I just heard about this" and "here's my opinion for ten thousand followers." The algorithm doesn't reward accuracy — it rewards confidence and emotion. So the people who know the least, and feel the most certain, dominate the conversation.
When you feel absolutely sure about something, ask yourself: is this certainty coming from deep knowledge, or from not knowing enough to see the holes?
References
- Daniel Kahneman — Thinking, Fast and Slow (2011)
- Dan Ariely — Predictably Irrational (2008)