1

One common theme whenever the voting public are asked about the on-going Brexit process is that they were mislead during the campaign and are now desperate for basic information. They seem fully aware of their own ignorance on the subject.

Yet, when asked for opinions on Brexit, they have many strong feelings.

The recent BBC programme is a great example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09xyjcm

"For the build up going to Brexit, on both sides we were told different things... How do we know what's going to happen?"

"They tampered with the figures."

"No one actually seems to know what is gonna happen. Or what the outcome's going to be."

"I just thought it was a straight out. You know. Goodbye."

"Who are going to be the winners and who are going to be the losers out of this? No-one knows!"

Why do people who clearly know that they know almost nothing have strong opinions on political matters? Why don't they just say "I don't know" or "I was lied to", why insist on making bold statements and casting a vote?

user
  • 17,667
  • 3
  • 41
  • 65
  • 1
    You haven't established either that people are knowingly ignorant or that they have strong opinions much less both together. – Brythan Mar 29 '18 at 13:21
  • Watch the video. The first guy says that everyone was mislead and that they need basic information. He then goes on to give extremely strong opinions. I'm stating that in the question and the video is an example of it to establish what I am saying is indeed something that happens. – user Mar 29 '18 at 13:50
  • 3
    No, I am not going to watch the video. If you think it demonstrates something, then quote it here. In their words, not your summary. – Brythan Mar 29 '18 at 13:51
  • I'll see if I can transcribe a bit when I get home. If you don't want to look at the evidence though you can't really claim I didn't establish the premise, because you simply refused to read it. – user Mar 29 '18 at 13:54
  • @user The onus is on you to provide the evidence here if you want us to take our time to answer your question. There are other reasons besides just being pedantic, such as improving the quality of the content on this site. Questions should stand on their own without relying on off-site resources. –  Mar 29 '18 at 14:02
  • I provided evidence. You can lead a horse to water, as they say. But for a question like this, for which you demand proof of the premise, how else can that be done except by citing other sources? – user Mar 29 '18 at 14:09
  • @user As you say, transcribe the relevant portions. I think you have an interesting question here, but I agree with Brythan that you need more framing around it. –  Mar 29 '18 at 14:11
  • Give me a few hours, I'll amend it. – user Mar 29 '18 at 14:16
  • It is an interesting core question (especially if you strip politically biased rhethoric that makes it seem that this is specific to only Brexit proponents). *But it would take a book to answer, making it "VTC as too broad"* - in fact, it already did, several books in behavioral psychology and motivated reasoning, especially judgment and decision-making (starting with Kahneman and Tversky) – user4012 Mar 29 '18 at 14:35
  • 1
    I was thinking about making it more specific to Brexit, as a kind of case study of how this sort of manipulation works. I'm reminded of Gove's famous "people have had enough of experts", except that clearly they haven't because they are crying out for information and clarity, but at the same time seem to have taken on-board his message that their own ignorant opinions are somehow more important than expert ones. – user Mar 29 '18 at 14:39
  • 2
    This might be better at one of the study of mind sites, philosophy.se or psychology.se. It certainly effects governments, but the cause isn't politics. –  Mar 29 '18 at 15:41
  • You might find this interesting: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-three-hardest-words-in-the-english-language-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/ – Chloe Mar 29 '18 at 17:57
  • 1
    I don't think there is a contradiction here at all. Britons expressed their opinion on whether or not they wanted to remain in the EU, which really doesn't require any specific knowledge. Now they're asking about the process of leaving, which is apparently quite complicated. – jamesqf Mar 29 '18 at 19:21

2 Answers2

0

A possible explanation is the Dunning-Kruger effect coupled with the fact that most people have trouble changing their beliefs once they form.

Essentially, the Dunning-Kruger effect states that as a person's competence in a subject increases at some rate, their confidence grows at a much faster rate, leading them to overestimate their knowledge and ability. Eventually, they reach a point where they realize they are very overconfident, leading to a sharp decline in confidence and an underestimation of their knowledge and ability.

In short: a sharp increase of basic knowledge leads people to form strong beliefs and overestimate their knowledge. A continuing increase in knowledge shows them how little they actually know, but it is not a strong enough realization for them to change their beliefs.

Relating this to Brexit: before the events leading to deciding on a vote, many people would have lacked strong opinions since they had no good reason to think about the process of leaving the EU. As the chance of a vote happening became realistic, knowledgeable groups supporting one side or the other started spreading their message. These messages had to be relatively simple in order to appeal to the common voter, and any person with little prior opinion saw a sharp increase in their basic knowledge as a result.

Because of the Dunning-Kruger effect, these people quickly overestimated their knowledge, and felt that they learned enough to know that any opinions they formed on the subject were correct, leading them to vote in support of their beliefs. However, as the years went on and the complexity and ramifications of leaving the EU became apparent, voters who thought they knew a lot realized how little they knew. However, their beliefs are now set, and most people are unwilling to go through the effort of changing a belief.

Giter
  • 10,204
  • 3
  • 40
  • 49
0

Because in a Democracy even ignorance is a legitimate basis for expressing a preference. It's not a legitimate basis for expressing an opinion, but voting is not exactly an opinion. Voting is a decision on a choice of action. And since action will be decided on, one way or another, being uninformed is not enough to convince anyone to surrender control of actions which will effect them.

grovkin
  • 6,958
  • 3
  • 22
  • 54