JUST because you鈥檙e better educated doesn鈥檛 mean that you鈥檙e any more rational than everyone else, no matter how hard you may try to give that impression.
Take the selection of lottery numbers. A survey in Florida described at this year鈥檚 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (see This Week) shows that better educated people try to use random number systems to pick their lottery numbers.
Despite the apparent logic of choosing random numbers, however, their chances of winning are no better than those of ordinary folk who use birthdays, anniversaries and other 鈥渓ucky鈥� dates. Nor are they better off than those who draw on omens and intuitions, picking numbers seen on car number-plates and in dreams. But no doubt they feel a lot more rational.
Advertisement
That appearance of 鈥渞ationality鈥� may be a dangerous thing. 杏吧原创s are not immune to subtle and subjective influences on their judgments. Take the data from a survey of the public and members of the British Society of Toxicology discussed at the same meeting.
The survey showed that most people agree with the view that animals can be used to help predict how humans will react to chemicals, and that if a chemical causes cancer in an animal we can be 鈥渞easonably sure鈥� it will cause cancer in humans. The toxicologists, however, are more circumspect. They accept the first statement but are less likely to agree that if a chemical causes cancer in an animal, it will do so in a human.
Can this difference be attributed to their expertise? Perhaps. But consider the considerable variation among toxicologists: those who were young, female, working in academia rather than industry or who felt that technology is not always used for the good of all, were more likely to agree that what causes cancer in an animal will cause cancer in a human.
Maybe we need to think more about how who we are affects our 鈥渞ational鈥� decisions.