“Inspired” by recent political debates and elections, I was motivated to investigate what appears to be a trend in electing “leaders” who are anything but leaders. The following article proposes why mediocrity may be more than just the norm.
March 1, 2012–With just days to go until Super Tuesday and the race for the Republican nomination continuing to grind along without a clear leader, many Americans are questioning whether there will be any real change in leadership or policies come November.
Although Mitt Romney continues to limp along toward the GOP nomination, a clear leader still has not emerged among the pack of GOP hopefuls. And Romney’s “win” in his former home state of Michigan was anything but impressive, doing little to assuage concerns within his own party that he can win the American electorate in November, especially when the only income group he won in Michigan was among voters earning more than $100,000 per year.
So where are the strong, competent leaders and why does there seem to be so much mediocrity in our political system? A recent article in Life’s Little Mysteries by Natalie Wolchover considers the possibility that “People aren’t smart enough for democracy to flourish. The democratic process relies on the assumption that citizens (the majority of them, at least) can recognize the best political candidate, or best policy idea, when they see it. But a growing body of research has revealed an unfortunate aspect of the human psyche that would seem to disprove this notion, and imply instead that democratic elections produce mediocre leadership and policies.”
Wolchover’s premise is based mainly on the research of David Dunning, a psychologist at Cornell University, and Justin Kruger, formerly of Cornell and now with New York University. Dunning and Kruger’s research, for which they were awarded the Nobel Prize in Psychology in 2000, is based on whether there is an actual cognitive bias in which the unskilled rate their abilities much higher than average, thus, biasing their perception of everything from themselves to potential political candidates and policies.
Dunning and Kruger proposed that incompetent people tend to overestimate their own skill levels, fail to recognize genuine skill and competence in others, and fail to recognize the depth of their own inadequacies. They tested their hypotheses on undergraduates at Cornell University in various psychology courses, examining logic, grammar, and humor. What Dunning and Kruger found was that people who scored highest on the tests tended to underestimate their own relative competence, while those scoring the lowest overestimated their abilities and competence. As Kruger and Dunning concluded, “The miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others.”
So how could this cognitive bias affect the democratic process? As Thomas Jefferson said, “He who knows best knows how little he knows.” According to Wolchover, many people appear to be unable to either judge the competence of the candidates or the merit of those people’s ideas. “As a result, no amount of information or facts about political candidates can override the inherent inability of many voters to accurately evaluate them.” Additionally, according to Dunning, “very smart ideas are going to be hard for people to adopt, because most people don’t have the sophistication to recognize how good an idea is.”
Unfortunately, even the most competent people may lack the expertise to judge the candidates and their “worthiness” for leadership. To that extent, mediocrity reigns. As Dunning points out “If you have gaps in your knowledge in a given area, then you’re not in a position to assess your own gaps or the gaps of others. People tend to readily and accurately agree on who the worst performers are, while failing to recognize the best performers.”
It would appear that our democracy will continue to grind along—rarely electing the best or strongest leaders. But if you factor in the continuing “dumbing down” of both the American people and the American political system, then indeed this dangerous trend poses a serious threat to democracy. As we approach the November presidential election, perhaps the words of George Bernard Shaw ring more true now than when spoken, “Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few.”
http://www.gcnlive.com/wp/2012/03/02/barb-adams-mediocrity-reigns/
Share this post...
