The Illusion of Understanding:
Why We Think We Know Everything Automatic translate

Cognitive science identifies a specific mental bias in which people systematically overestimate their understanding of how the world works. This phenomenon is called the "illusion of explanatory depth" (IOED). People believe they understand the cause-and-effect relationships in mechanisms or natural phenomena in detail. However, when attempting to reproduce these relationships step by step, a critical knowledge deficit is revealed. Confidence in competence collides with the reality of fragmented understanding.

Most people use complex devices every day. We flush the toilet, zip up a jacket, use a ballpoint pen. The brain mistakenly interprets a sense of familiarity with an object as an understanding of its operating principles. This is a fundamental error of metacognition. We confuse the ability to use an object with knowledge of its internal structure. The depth of our understanding turns out to be illusory.

Experimental confirmation of Rosenblit and Keil

In 2002, Leonid Rozenblit and Frank Keil of Yale University conducted a series of fundamental experiments documenting this effect. Participants were asked to rate their understanding of simple machines on a seven-point scale. The list included a sewing machine, a crossbow, a zipper, and a bicycle. The subjects demonstrated high confidence in their knowledge.

The next stage of the experiment required participants to write a detailed step-by-step explanation of how each mechanism works. They were required to describe how exactly turning the handle affects the movement of the parts, how the teeth mesh, or how force is transmitted. After writing their explanation, participants were asked to re-evaluate their knowledge.

The results showed a sharp drop in self-esteem. Faced with the need to verbalize causal relationships, people recognized gaps in their mental models. The third stage involved demonstrating a correct description of the mechanism’s operation. Participants acknowledged that their initial understanding was extremely superficial. The experiment revealed a gap between the subjective sense of knowledge and the actual ability to explain the phenomenon.

Psychological mechanisms of illusion formation

The brain strives to conserve resources. Maintaining complete, detailed mental models for every object in the environment is energetically disadvantageous. Evolution has rewarded the ability to quickly respond to stimuli rather than deeply analyze their structure. Knowing that turning the key starts the car is sufficient for survival. Knowing how an internal combustion engine works doesn’t provide an immediate evolutionary advantage.

The cognitive system uses heuristics and shortcuts. We form "schematic" representations of objects. These schemas contain information about the object’s function and how to interact with it, but omit the details of its internal structure. The illusion occurs when the brain mistakenly interprets the presence of a label or name as knowledge. If we know the name of a part (for example, "carburetor"), we think we know how it works.

Visualization and a sense of understanding

The visual nature of many mechanisms enhances the illusion. We see the parts of a bicycle — the chain, the pedals, the wheels. All the components are in plain sight. The openness of the design creates a false sense of transparency about the operating principle. Hidden mechanisms (such as a microchip) create a lesser illusion of understanding because their complexity is obvious. Mechanical devices appear simple because their parts are visible, and the observer assumes the connections between them are intuitive.

When tested on drawing bicycles, people often make serious errors. They connect the chain to the front wheel or draw a frame that prevents the handlebars from turning. Visual memory retains the general image of an object, but not its functional diagram. We remember the "bicycle-ness" of an object, but not the engineering solution.

The collective nature of knowledge

Steven Sloman and Philip Fernbach proposed the "knowledge community" hypothesis. Human intelligence is not limited to the individual’s cranium. Knowledge is distributed socially. We rely on the expertise of others. We know that a mechanic understands the mechanics of a car, and a doctor understands the anatomy of the body. The brain does not draw a clear line between the information we personally possess and the information available in our environment. The availability of knowledge creates the illusion of possession. If the answer is easily found (by asking an expert, looking it up online), the brain perceives this as knowledge. We confuse "access to information" with "understanding information."

Difference from the Dunning-Kruger effect

The illusion of explanatory depth is often confused with the Dunning-Kruger effect, but these are different cognitive biases. The Dunning-Kruger effect concerns general competence and the inability of unskilled people to recognize their own low level. It affects skills such as driving, grammar, and logic.

The illusion of explanatory depth is specific to causal relationships. It manifests itself even in people with high intelligence and a good education. A person can be an expert in literature but experience an illusion of understanding regarding the workings of a refrigerator or climate change. The IOED focuses on the structure of explanation: "how it works," not "how good I am at it."

The role of introspection and metacognition

Introspection (self-observation) is unreliable when assessing functional knowledge. When we "look within ourselves" to check whether we understand a topic, we encounter a sense of familiarity. The brain quickly suggests associations, images, and keywords. This set of mental artifacts is perceived as a holistic understanding.

Reality testing only occurs when attempting to simulate a process. When it comes to explaining a sequence of events (A causes B, which causes C), the associative network fails. Metacognition — the ability to evaluate one’s own thinking — often errs, mistaking the ease of retrieving information for its depth.

Levels of Explanation: Teleology vs. Mechanism

People tend to favor teleological explanations — explaining things in terms of purpose or function. When asked, "Why do earthworms exist?" many will answer, "To loosen the soil." This is a function explanation. A scientific or mechanistic explanation requires a description of evolutionary processes and biological mechanisms.

The brain’s penchant for functional explanations masks ignorance of mechanisms. We know what an object is for, and this satisfies our curiosity. The need for a mechanistic explanation arises rarely. This allows the illusion of understanding to persist for years. We live in a world of functions, not mechanisms.

Digital Amnesia and the Google Effect

The development of search engines has transformed memory architecture. Betsy Sparrow’s research demonstrates the so-called "Google effect." People remember information less well if they know it’s stored on their computer and accessible at any time. It’s not the fact itself that’s remembered, but the path to it (the file location or search query).

This expands the boundaries of the illusion of understanding. A smartphone in your pocket is perceived as an extension of your own cognitive system. The line between "I know" and "I can find out in a second" is completely erased. Instant access to facts creates a false sense of erudition. People feel smarter than they actually are, appropriating the knowledge of the entire network.

Political consequences of illusion

The illusion of understanding has serious implications for the political sphere. People often have strong convictions regarding complex economic or social policies (tax reform, healthcare, international relations). Confidence in one’s own rightness often correlates with extreme views.

Experiments show that asking supporters of radical measures to explain in detail how their proposed policy will achieve their desired results reduces their confidence. The need to construct a causal chain from the adoption of a law to its economic impact reveals gaps in logic. This often leads to a softening of positions. People become less radical after understanding the complexity of the system.

Thinking Economy and Predictive Coding

Neuroscience views the brain as a prediction machine. According to predictive coding theory, the brain constantly generates models of expected sensory input. If the prediction matches reality (we press the switch and the light comes on), the model is considered correct. Prediction errors are signals for learning.

As long as actions produce the expected result, the brain has no need to delve into the details of the process. We don’t think about the operation of the power plant or the wiring as long as the lights turn on. The illusion of understanding is a byproduct of successful macro-level prediction. Deep understanding requires energy and time, resources the brain reserves for solving pressing problems.

The "black box" problem in technology

Modern technology exacerbates the problem. Devices are becoming increasingly complex on the inside and simple on the outside. Interfaces are designed to be intuitive, hiding the complexity of algorithms and hardware. This phenomenon is called "blackboxing."

The user interacts with a touchscreen without any understanding of capacitive sensors, transistors, or logic gates. The interface’s simplicity creates a false sense of control and understanding. We believe we’ve mastered the technology, when in fact, we’ve only mastered the protocol for interacting with it. This leaves society vulnerable to technical failure, as repair or diagnostic skills are completely lacking.

Knowledge by acquaintance versus knowledge by description

The philosopher Bertrand Russell distinguished between "knowledge by acquaintance" and "knowledge by description." The illusion of understanding often arises from confusing these categories. We are familiar with an object (we’ve seen it, handled it), and this direct familiarity replaces a conceptual description of its functioning.

Sensory experience (sight, touch) is very powerful. It creates a strong subjective sense of reality and comprehensibility. Abstract concepts needed to explain work (electric current, aerodynamics, economic forces) are not given to us in sensory experience. The brain prioritizes the sensory, ignoring the lack of an abstract framework.

Category error in teaching

The education system often unwittingly fosters illusions. Multiple-choice tests test fact recognition rather than the ability to construct explanatory models. A student may select the correct answer from four options, using associative memory or the process of elimination, but without truly understanding the phenomenon. True understanding requires the ability to transfer knowledge to a new context or solve a non-standard problem. Memorizing definitions creates a façade of knowledge. A student knows the words "photosynthesis" and "chlorophyll," but cannot explain the process of converting light energy into chemical bonds. Assessments should include tasks that explain "how" and "why," not just "what."

The influence of professional jargon

The use of complex terminology can mask a lack of understanding, even among experts. This phenomenon is called the "jargon illusion." People use technical terms as labels for "black boxes." If a phenomenon is named, it seems understood.

In corporate environments and academia, this leads to situations where entire teams use terms whose meanings each person understands differently or doesn’t understand at all. Communication becomes an exchange of "I’m in" signals rather than a shared understanding of meaning. Asking for a simple explanation of a term often leads to confusion and reveals the emptiness behind the complex vocabulary.

The fractal nature of knowledge

Knowledge has a fractal structure: the deeper we delve into a subject, the more details are revealed. Each level of explanation has its own lower level. Biology is explained by chemistry, chemistry by physics, physics by quantum mechanics.

The illusion of understanding arises when we arbitrarily stop at a certain level and consider it finite. A person may know that a car moves due to the combustion of gasoline. But why does gasoline burn? Why does the expansion of gases push the piston? Recognizing the endlessness of the chain of questions helps overcome the arrogance of supposed knowledge. An expert differs from an amateur not only in the scope of their knowledge but also in their awareness of the limits of that knowledge.

Overconfidence effect

Psychologists Barkhoff and Fischhoff studied the hindsight bias effect in hindsight and prediction. The illusion of a profound explanation fuels overconfidence. If we believe we understand the past (why a crisis occurred), we are confident we can predict the future.

Models of the world built on the illusion of understanding are simplified and deterministic. They fail to account for stochastic (random) factors and hidden variables. Therefore, predictions made by those who hold this illusion are often wrong. However, memory is malleable: after an event, we adjust our past assessments to the outcome ("I knew it"), maintaining the illusion of competence.

Social validation

When people around us nod and agree, our confidence in understanding grows. Social consensus often replaces factual verification. In the echo chambers of social media, people repeat the same simplified statements. Repeating a statement over and over again makes it seem more "true" to the brain (the illusion of truth effect).

A group can collectively maintain the illusion of understanding a complex issue. No one asks clarifying questions, lest they appear stupid or disrupt the group’s harmony. This leads to groupthink, where decisions are made based on shared misconceptions rather than factual analysis.

Implications for decision making

Decision-makers (managers, politicians, judges) are just as susceptible to IOED as anyone else. The danger lies in the scale of the consequences. Reform based on a superficial understanding of the system will lead to disaster. Effective leaders intuitively or consciously employ methods to combat this illusion. They demand detailed scenarios from advisors, conduct pre-mortems (analyses of possible causes of failure before the project begins), and seek out "devil’s advocates." Admitting one’s own ignorance of the details is a strength, not a weakness, as it encourages the involvement of true subject-matter experts.

Deconstruction of objects as a method

One way to combat illusion is physical or mental deconstruction. Disassembling a broken device provides more insight than years of use. In pedagogy, "discovery learning" methods are used, where students are asked to recreate the operating principle themselves.

Mental deconstruction involves a thought experiment: "What will happen if I remove this part?" If we can’t predict the consequences of removing a component, we don’t understand its function. This method allows us to localize blind spots in our mental model.

The emotional component of understanding

The feeling of knowing is precisely that — a feeling, an emotional state. It’s akin to recognizing a face. Neuroscientists associate this sensation with activity in the limbic system. It signals the body: "The situation is under control, it’s time to relax."

This feeling can be a false positive. One can experience a flash of insight ("Aha!") despite a completely incorrect explanation. The pleasant feeling that arises when the puzzle pieces fit together (even incorrectly) reinforces the misconception. Critical thinking requires the ability to separate the emotional satisfaction of an explanation from the logical verification of that explanation.

Cultural differences

Research shows some variability in the manifestation of IOED across cultures. In cultures that encourage individualism and self-expression (Western countries), people tend to overestimate their knowledge more strongly. In cultures that value collectivism and modesty (East Asia), the effect may be less pronounced, although it does not disappear completely.

Attitudes toward knowledge also play a role. Where knowledge is perceived as a fixed set of truths, the illusion is stronger. Where education emphasizes inquiry and questioning, people are more cautious in their assessments.

Feynman technique

Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, proposed a method that works perfectly against the illusion of explanatory depth. The essence of the method is to try to explain a concept in simple language, so that a child or someone without specialized training could understand it. As soon as we encounter the impossibility of replacing a term with a simple description, we find a gap in our knowledge. Using complex words is a way to hide ignorance. Feynman asserted, "If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it." This practice forces us to translate declarative knowledge (facts) into procedural and causal knowledge (connections).

Impact on personal relationships

The illusion of understanding also extends to human psychology. We think we understand the motives behind the actions of loved ones, friends, or colleagues. We construct models of their psyches, confidently predicting their reactions. When someone acts contrary to our model, we experience shock or offense.

We mistakenly believe we know the inner person as well as the outer one. In fact, our perceptions of others are as schematic as our perceptions of a bicycle. We see the "interface" (words, facial expressions), but we don’t have access to the "code" (thoughts, hidden motives). Recognizing this fact improves communication, forcing us to ask and clarify, rather than guess.

The expert’s paradox

Experts in narrow fields often suffer from the opposite effect: they underestimate the complexity of their topic to others, but may overestimate their competence in related fields. A Nobel laureate in chemistry can express amateurish opinions on politics or medicine with great aplomb.

Authority in one field creates a "halo effect" that carries over to the individual as a whole. The expert begins to believe in their own universal insight. The illusion of understanding is more dangerous in intelligent people, as they are better able to rationalize their misconceptions and construct complex but fallacious arguments.

The role of narrative

The human brain loves stories. Narrative is a way to bring order to chaos. We create stories about how the world works. A good story should be logical, coherent, and have a beginning, middle, and end. Reality, however, is often chaotic and incoherent.

The illusion of understanding is often based on a beautiful narrative. Historical events are explained by the will of great men, ignoring economic assumptions and chance. A simple linear explanation defeats a complex networked one. We prefer a comprehensible lie to an incomprehensible truth because comprehensibility reduces anxiety.

Epistemic modesty

Awareness of IOED leads to epistemic humility — the recognition of the limitations of one’s own knowledge. This doesn’t mean abandoning knowledge, but rather changing one’s approach to it. Humility requires constant verification of one’s beliefs.

Socrates’s "I know that I know nothing" is an early formulation of the struggle against the illusion of explanatory depth. Philosophical skepticism is a tool for clearing the mental space of false constructs. A person who doubts their knowledge is more open to new information and less prone to dogmatism.

The problem of specialization

The modern world demands hyperspecialization. No single person can build a smartphone from scratch: mine ore, make plastic, grow silicon crystals, write code, and assemble the device. We are forced to rely on chains of specialists.

The illusion of understanding serves as social glue. If we were constantly horrified by how little we understand about the world around us, society would be paralyzed. The illusion gives us the confidence to act. The problem arises only when this confidence is misused — where the cost of error is high.

Experiments with natural phenomena

In addition to mechanisms, researchers tested their understanding of natural phenomena: rainbows, tides, and the changing phases of the moon. The results were identical. People know that the tides are related to the moon, but they cannot explain the physics of gravitational interaction, often assuming that the moon simply "pulls water" (ignoring centrifugal forces and tides on the far side of the Earth).

In the case of the lunar phases, a common myth is that they are the Earth’s shadow (a confusion with a lunar eclipse). This illusion is supported by the fact that the phenomenon is observed regularly and predictably. Regularity is perceived as understandability.

Causal maps

To overcome this illusion, systems analysis uses the method of constructing causal maps (causal loop diagrams). This is a graphical representation of variables and the relationships between them (whether they reinforce or balance). Attempting to draw such a map for a problem (for example, traffic jams) immediately reveals the system’s complexity.

It turns out that a simple solution ("build more roads") can backfire due to induced demand. Visualizing connections breaks linear thinking and the illusion of a simple solution. It’s a tool that translates intuitive guesses into testable models.

Children’s "why"

Children are natural destroyers of the illusion of understanding. Their endless chains of "Why?" questions quickly confuse adults. An adult explains, "It’s raining because there are clouds." A child: "Why clouds?" An adult: "Condensation." A child: "Why condensation?"

Usually, at the third or fourth level, an adult gives in and replies, "That’s just the way it is," or "When you grow up, you’ll understand." This moment of capitulation marks the boundary of illusion. Children instinctively seek the causal bottom, while adults have learned to settle at a comfortable depth.

The role of language in the formation of illusion

Language is a double-edged sword. It allows us to convey knowledge, but it also creates the illusion of conveying meaning. Abstract nouns ("democracy," "justice," "energy") create the sense of the existence of concrete, understandable entities.

Ludwig Wittgenstein pointed out that many philosophical problems arise from the "bewitchment of reason by language." We manipulate words according to grammatical rules and think we are manipulating reality. But syntax is not the same as semantics. Smooth speech can conceal the absence of thought.

Overcoming Illusion in Organizations

Companies are implementing postmortems and "5 Whys" (Toyota methodology) to combat superficial understanding of problems. When a failure occurs, you can’t simply replace a part. You need to ask, "Why did it break?", then "Why didn’t the protection work?", and "Why wasn’t there a procedure?"

This deep dive into causality is often painful, as it reveals systemic management errors, not just those of the performers. However, it is the only path to truly improving reliability. Organizations that ignore this remain trapped in the illusion of control until the first serious accident.

Evolution of interfaces and alienation

The more convenient the world becomes, the less we understand it. User experience (UX) aims to minimize cognitive load. This is comfortable, but it leads to alienation from the material world. We become "users" rather than "creators" or "masters."

Craftsmanship is the antithesis of illusion. A craftsperson knows the material, the tool, and the process thoroughly. The resurgence of interest in handcraft, DIY, and makercraft can be seen as an unconscious attempt by people to regain a sense of real, grounded control over matter and an understanding of the essence of things.

Cognitive dissonance when confronted with reality

The moment of illusion shattering is often accompanied by cognitive dissonance. People find it unpleasant to admit their own incompetence. Defense mechanisms kick in: "These are unimportant details," "I just forgot," "That’s a bad question." The ability to maintain a state of ignorance without resorting to defensiveness is a sign of mature intelligence. John Keats called this "negative capacity" — the ability to dwell in uncertainty, mystery, and doubt without frantically searching for facts and reasons. This state is essential for creativity and deep inquiry.

Relationship with self-confidence

Paradoxically, a moderate illusion of understanding can be beneficial to mental health. A completely accurate assessment of one’s ignorance could lead to paralyzing anxiety. A certain amount of self-deception serves as a buffer against the chaos of the world.

The problem arises when there’s an imbalance. Excessive illusion leads to risk and mistakes. A complete lack of illusion (depressive realism) leads to passivity. The challenge is calibration: knowing where to rely on intuition and where rigorous analysis is needed.

Practical steps for knowledge testing

To independently test your understanding, you can use the prediction method. Before reading an article or watching a lecture, write down what you already know about the topic and what you expect to learn. Then, compare.

Another method is active recall. After reading a paragraph, close the book and explain the meaning in your own words. If you have to peek, it means you’ve mistaken the illusion of understanding for memorization. Only what can be recalled without prompting is truly learned knowledge.

Impact on scientific progress

The history of science is the history of the shattering of illusions of understanding. For centuries, people thought they understood the movement of celestial bodies (geocentrism) or the nature of heat (caloric). These theories were intuitive and explained many facts.

A breakthrough occurred when anomalies accumulated that the old model couldn’t explain. Newton, Einstein, and Darwin didn’t simply add facts; they changed the structure of explanation. The scientific method is an institutionalized struggle against IOED through the requirement for reproducibility and falsifiability of hypotheses.

Understanding isn’t a binary state (know/don’t know), but a spectrum. We move from a vague sense of familiarity to the ability to use, then to the ability to fix, create, and finally teach. Understanding our place on this spectrum allows us to avoid the traps of overconfidence. The world is infinitely more complex than any model our brain can create. Recognizing the illusion of explanatory depth makes us not weaker, but more cautious and wiser. We learn to appreciate complexity, respect expertise, and constantly ask "how exactly?", discovering the astonishing mechanisms of reality behind the familiar facades of things.