Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Humans rely on more knowledgeable individuals to acquire information. But when we are ignorant, how are we to tell who is knowledgeable? We propose that human knowledge is nested: People who know only a few things tend to know very common pieces of information, whereas rare pieces of information are known only by people who know many things, including common things. This leads to the possibility of reliably inferring knowledgeability from minimal cues. In this study (N = 848 U.S. adults recruited online), we show that individuals can accurately gauge others’ knowledgeability on the basis of very limited information, relying on their ability to estimate the rarity of different pieces of knowledge and on the fact that knowing a rare piece of information indicates a high likelihood of knowing more information in the same theme. Even participants who are largely ignorant of a theme can infer how knowledgeable other individuals are on the basis of the possession of a single piece of knowledge.

Keywords

expertise knowledge attribution nestedness social learning advice taking

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Almeida-Neto

Guimarães

P. R.

Jr. Loyola

R. D.

Ulrich

(2008). A consistent metric for nestedness analysis in ecological systems: Reconciling concept and measurement. Oikos, 117(8), 1227–1239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2008.16644.x

Argyle

McHenry

(1971). Do spectacles really affect judgments of intelligence? British Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 10(1), 27–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1971.tb00709.x

Brennan

S. E.

Williams

(1995). The feeling of another’s knowing: Prosody and filled pauses as cues to listeners about the metacognitive states of speakers. Journal of Memory and Language, 34(3), 383–398. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1995.1017

Buades-Sitjar

Boada

Guasch

Ferré

Hinojosa

J. A.

Duñabeitia

J. A.

(2022). The predictors of general knowledge: Data from a Spanish megastudy. Behavior Research Methods, 54(2), 898–909. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01669-4

Bustos

Gomez

Hausmann

Hidalgo

C. A.

(2012). The dynamics of nestedness predicts the evolution of industrial ecosystems. PLOS ONE, 7(11), Article e49393. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0049393

Danovitch

J. H.

Keil

F. C.

(2004). Should you ask a fisherman or a biologist? Developmental shifts in ways of clustering knowledge. Child Development, 75(3), 918–931. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00714.x

Fastrich

G. M.

Murayama

(2020). Development of interest and role of choice during sequential knowledge acquisition. AERA Open, 6(2), Article 2332858420929981. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420929981

Goldberg

M. H.

van der Linden

Maibach

Leiserowitz

(2019). Discussing global warming leads to greater acceptance of climate science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(30), 14804–14805. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1906589116

Goldstein

D. G.

Gigerenzer

(2002). Models of ecological rationality: The recognition heuristic. Psychological Review, 109(1), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.1.75

10.

Harris

P. L.

Koenig

M. A.

Corriveau

K. H.

Jaswal

V. K.

(2018). Cognitive foundations of learning from testimony. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 251–273. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011710

11.

Henrich

Gil-White

F. J.

(2001). The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22(3), 165–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(00)00071-4

12.

Huckfeldt

(2001). The social communication of political expertise. American Journal of Political Science, 45(2), 425–438. https://doi.org/10.2307/2669350

13.

Jiménez

Á. V.

Mesoudi

. (2019). Prestige-biased social learning: Current evidence and outstanding questions. Palgrave Communications, 5(1), Article 20. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0228-7

14.

Kameda

Toyokawa

Tindale

R. S.

(2022). Information aggregation and collective intelligence beyond the wisdom of crowds. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1(6), 345–357. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00054-y

15.

Kamilar

J. M.

Atkinson

Q. D.

(2014). Cultural assemblages show nested structure in humans and chimpanzees but not orangutans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(1), 111–115. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1313318110

16.

Katz

Lazarsfeld

P. F.

(1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communications. https://www.routledge.com/Personal-Influence-The-Part-Played-by-People-in-the-Flow-of-Mass-Communications/Katz-Lazarsfeld-Roper/p/book/9781412805070

17.

Kinzler

K. D.

Shutts

DeJesus

Spelke

E. S.

(2009). Accent trumps race in guiding children’s social preferences. Social Cognition, 27(4), 623–634. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2009.27.4.623

18.

Larrick

R. P.

Soll

J. B.

(2006). Intuitions about combining opinions: Misappreciation of the averaging principle. Management Science, 52(1), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0459

19.

Lutz

D. J.

Keil

F. C.

(2002). Early understanding of the division of cognitive labor. Child Development, 73(4), 1073–1084. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00458

20.

Mariani

M. S.

Ren

Z.-M.

Bascompte

Tessone

C. J.

(2019). Nestedness in complex networks: Observation, emergence, and implications. Physics Reports, 813, 1–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2019.04.001

21.

Mercier

(2022). Not born yesterday: The science of who we trust and what we believe. Princeton University Press.

22.

Morin

Sobchuk

(2021). The shortlist effect: Nestedness contributions as a tool to explain cultural success. Evolutionary Human Sciences, 3, Article e51. https://doi.org/10.1017/ehs.2021.48

23.

Pillow

B. H.

(1989). Early understanding of perception as a source of knowledge. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 47(1), 116–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(89)90066-0

24.

Richardson

Keil

F. C.

(2022). Thinking takes time: Children use agents’ response times to infer the source, quality, and complexity of their knowledge. Cognition, 224, Article 105073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105073

25.

Sloman

Fernbach

(2017). The knowledge illusion: Why we never think alone. Riverhead Books.

26.

Sperber

Clément

Heintz

Mascaro

Mercier

Origgi

Wilson

(2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language, 25(4), 359–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x

27.

Treffert

D. A.

(2009). The savant syndrome: An extraordinary condition. A synopsis: past, present, future. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1522), 1351–1357. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0326

28.

Wood

L. A.

Kendal

R. L.

Flynn

E. G.

(2012). Context-dependent model-based biases in cultural transmission: Children’s imitation is affected by model age over model knowledge state. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33(4), 387–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2011.11.010

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.05 MB

Using the Nested Structure of Knowledge to Infer What Others Know

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material