Egocentric Pattern Projection

is a term coined by Cayton Critcher of Berkely and David Dunning of Cornel in their work on political thinking.

Which Paul Rosenberg applied to political thinking thus:

“I see this as connected, because I believe that both liberals and conservatives tend to misunderstand one another in various ways, and that one of those ways is via projecting self-derived assumptions onto the other. These projections both feed into and derive strength from beliefs that their cognitive competencies are all that’s needed to win politically, and that their cognitive incompetencies aren’t incompetencies at all.

Now I'll post a link to the article. I really, really dislike the title that was given to this article and as it's not news I don't think I'm required to use the actual title of the article as the thread title.

www.alternet.org...

This is not an easy read and I only recommend it to people who are curious about how people different then them think and that have the patience to work through the concepts in the article because it synthizes a lot of work from a lot of different sources into valuable tools.

Here's where it starts:

a growing body of literature reveals that liberals and conservatives think differently from one another in ways that can even be traced back, in part, to the level of instinctual response, reflecting conservatives’ heightened sensitivity to threat bias. This work is congruent with an integrated multi-factor account offered by John Jost and three co-authors in the 2003 meta-analysis “Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition [4].” In their abstract, they explained, “Analyzing political conservatism as motivated social cognition integrates theories of personality (authoritarianism, dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity), epistemic and existential needs (for closure, regulatory focus, terror management), and ideological rationalization (social dominance, system justification).” Their meta-analysis integrated findings from 88 sample studies in 12 countries, with 22,818 individual subjects—meaning it drew on a substantial body of work by others.

Moves to:

Karen Armstrong illuminates a slightly different, though related, difference, contrasting the modalities of mythos and logos. As Armstrong explains, logos is concerned with the practical understanding of how things work in the world, while mythos is concerned with ultimate meaning. Either modality can be used by liberals and conservatives alike in their everyday lives. But macro-historically, there’s been a distinct bias—and weird twist on top of it—at least since the dawn of the modern era. That’s when logos began becoming so all-pervasive that it seemed destined to dislodge mythos, and some defenders of mythos(now commonly known as fundamentalists) fought back paradoxically by assuming the framework of logos, and arguing that their mythos was literally true—a move that true traditionalists would have found to be deeply in error, because it devalued the essential purpose of mythos.

Goes on to talk about the Dunning-Krueger effect and hypocognition with explainations and examples and concludes with:

Once you’re aware that the Dunning-Kruger effect is involved, it’s anybody’s guess, really, who is more incompetent than whom.

This isn't for everybody, I really hesitate to post because 1) the title is so gd sensationist 2) the material is rather dense. I am posting because their are those on ATS, regardless of inclination, could make use of the information and be interested.

It does support the need for individual and group self-reflection in any case.

Enjoy, if you enjoy this sort of useful systhesis of much analytical work.

a reply to: FyreByrd

*sigh* had a reply typed out and the webpage jumped to another. Rather than retype and requote I'll just summarize.

Dunning Krueger is an interesting thing, I think about it all the time because I recognize my own faults in my work, which means I am likely above average, but due to those faults I don't feel above average I instead associate myself with the lowest quality work.

When other geniuses far more deserving of the title than me present work, the biggest failing I see in them is that they don't present information properly. All too often someone who has worked hard and has some uncommon clarity on a subject will present what they know, but the rest of us don't have their same understanding. This results in those ideas not being conveyed or worse, being ignored. The key is simplicity.