Common use of labels leads to accepting explanations even if others can’t provide any information

What is it about?

We often use labels (Democrat, for example) to explain why things are the way they are (for instance, how people vote). We show that how commonly people in one's community use a label affects how well it seems to explain associated properties. This is the case even when the label provides no relevant information and the community cannot possibly contribute any relevant knowledge either.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

We often use labels, even though we do not know their exact meaning. For example, have you ever thought about how the concept of "race" can (or cannot) be accurately defined? Our decisions to use these labels in our thinking hinge on the belief that if a label is commonly used, there must be others that would know the relevant details about it and can provide them if need be. Our results show that this attitude can lead us to use concepts that are vacuous, accept explanations that are circular, and infer information that doesn't exist. This leads to widespread adoption of ideas that are not appropriately vetted by the collective wisdom of our communities. Pseudo-therapeutic methods and health fads are examples of ideas that spread in this way, with significant health and economic costs.

Perspectives