While I agree that we're fortunate that society is set up so that
things more or less work despite widespread ignorance and
overconfidence ("I know I'm a million times as humble as thou art",
Peter Principle, etc.) there's a different issue which (at least my
skimming of) the article didn't bring up:
There are two differing forms of communication: phatic and
deliberative; these forms have opposite tendencies, and it is very
rare for any given conversation to explicitly state to which it belongs.
In deliberative communication, we are attempting to examine an issue,
and so it is more helpful than not to say "I have no idea" (or even
better, hold one's tongue), or, if pressed, even ask "what the hell
are you talking about?".
In phatic communication, tone ("Nation's Dog Owners Demand To Know
Who's a Good Boy") and turn-taking are more important than
information, and so saying "I have no idea" (or even worse, holding
one's tongue), or asking "what the hell are you talking about?" are
all considered unhelpful compared with blathering on with, if not a
meaningful connection, at least a tone which more or less matches the
previous speaker.
Some of the examples cited in the article seemed to me to be less an
example of "we're all bozos" (News at 11!), than that the researchers
(or at least the writers) were somehow surprised to not find
deliberative communication in situations where the interviewees had
been (consciously or unconsciously) intending phatic communication.
-Dave
(is there anywhere, outside the Onion, where one might expect man-in-
the-street interviews to be coherent?)
