<p>Your question relates a bit to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-efficacy" rel="nofollow noreferrer">self-efficacy</a> literature.</p>

<p>Underlying ability is one cause of self-efficacy. And presumably, there are many mechanisms by which people can form an accurate opinion of their ability.</p>

<p>That said, there are various known ways of increasing or decreasing self-efficacy without changing actual efficacy.</p>

<p>For example, there is the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big-fish%E2%80%93little-pond_effect" rel="nofollow noreferrer">big-fish-little-pond effect</a>. Basically, you can increase self-efficacy by putting people in an environment with others who are less capable. </p>

<p>Similarly, giving people feedback that they are good or giving people tasks suited to their ability will increase a sense of self-efficacy.
Some of these strategies are considered effective teaching especially if it helps overcome obstacles related to students even trying. But it can also be problematic if people allocate resources based on an inaccurate belief about their strengths and weaknesses.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-14T17:34:24.433Z
Thank you for your answer, I think I've missed it (or forgot to reply). Are there any glaring examples having been studied?
rod
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-19T06:54:06.147Z
2020-05-19T06:54:06.147Z
Jeromy Anglim
<p>I would say this is a matter of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasion#Authority" rel="nofollow noreferrer">authority</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>We have the tendency to believe that if an expert says something, then it must be true. People like to listen to those who are knowledgeable and trustworthy, so if you can be those two things, then you are already on your way to getting people to believe and listen to you. </p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-21T14:29:09.280Z
This is a [link only answer](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/8231/349643) which is discouraged on StackExchange.
Chris Rogers
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-21T15:41:33.727Z
I disagree. Link-only answer is like [this](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/8234/260800). You can say that this answer is a quote-only answer, yes, but it is better than a link-only answer. If I see that there is nothing more to tailor the source to the question, then why should I reinvent the wheel?
Ooker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-19T07:13:47.700Z
2020-05-19T07:13:47.700Z
Ooker
<p>Is it possible to prove that a bunch of individuals were (or could be) convinced to be good at something (even really difficult), but it was in fact their illusion of knowledge?</p>

<p>Here's a bit more detail: let's take an average class at school. Let's give them a math teacher, whose way of teaching math is extremely mnemonic, still facing hard subjects. They'll be asked exactly what they were told at lesson, without any reworking demanded. The teacher will assign the highest marks to those students who are able to repeat the better. Will some of them eventually get to believe they are good at math, when in fact they can scarcely ever apply what they're studying or explain the ideas behind?</p>

<p>I did not find what I was looking for in the Wikipedia <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasion" rel="nofollow noreferrer">persuasion</a> though. </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-17T20:00:27.977Z
Your question basically asks about [persuasion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasion "Persuasion - Wikipedia"). Take a look at the method section
Ooker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-18T09:53:00.013Z
Thank you for your answer. I did not find what I was looking for though. Here's a bit more detail: let's take an average class at school. Let's give them a math teacher, whose way of teaching math is extremely mnemonic, still facing hard subjects. They'll be asked exactly what they were told at lesson, without any reworking demanded. The teacher will assign the highest marks to those students who are able to repeat the better. Will some of them eventually get to believe they are good at math, when in fact they can scarcely ever apply what they're studying or explain the ideas behind?
rod
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-18T10:02:26.190Z
It looks something like a social proof. I am asking this because I am pretty sure I have seen this on a large scale. So I was wandering if such phenomena has already been studied (I did not study psychology).
rod
<learning><persuasion>
Is it possible to convince a group of people that they master something, when they in fact don't?
rod
# Is it possible to convince a group of people that they master something, when they in fact don't?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-05-17)

Is it possible to prove that a bunch of individuals were (or could be) convinced to be good at something (even really difficult), but it was in fact their illusion of knowledge?

Here's a bit more detail: let's take an average class at school. Let's give them a math teacher, whose way of teaching math is extremely mnemonic, still facing hard subjects. They'll be asked exactly what they were told at lesson, without any reworking demanded. The teacher will assign the highest marks to those students who are able to repeat the better. Will some of them eventually get to believe they are good at math, when in fact they can scarcely ever apply what they're studying or explain the ideas behind?

I did not find what I was looking for in the Wikipedia [persuasion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasion) though.

**Tags:** learning, persuasion

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Your question basically asks about [persuasion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasion "Persuasion - Wikipedia"). Take a look at the method section  
> **username_0**: Thank you for your answer. I did not find what I was looking for though. Here's a bit more detail: let's take an average class at school. Let's give them a math teacher, whose way of teaching math is extremely mnemonic, still facing hard subjects. They'll be asked exactly what they were told at lesson, without any reworking demanded. The teacher will assign the highest marks to those students who are able to repeat the better. Will some of them eventually get to believe they are good at math, when in fact they can scarcely ever apply what they're studying or explain the ideas behind?  
> **username_0**: It looks something like a social proof. I am asking this because I am pretty sure I have seen this on a large scale. So I was wandering if such phenomena has already been studied (I did not study psychology).  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2020-05-19. Score: 1

Your question relates a bit to the [self-efficacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-efficacy) literature.

Underlying ability is one cause of self-efficacy. And presumably, there are many mechanisms by which people can form an accurate opinion of their ability.

That said, there are various known ways of increasing or decreasing self-efficacy without changing actual efficacy.

For example, there is the [big-fish-little-pond effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big-fish%E2%80%93little-pond_effect). Basically, you can increase self-efficacy by putting people in an environment with others who are less capable.

Similarly, giving people feedback that they are good or giving people tasks suited to their ability will increase a sense of self-efficacy.
Some of these strategies are considered effective teaching especially if it helps overcome obstacles related to students even trying. But it can also be problematic if people allocate resources based on an inaccurate belief about their strengths and weaknesses.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thank you for your answer, I think I've missed it (or forgot to reply). Are there any glaring examples having been studied?  

---

### Answer by username_1 on 2020-05-19. Score: 0

I would say this is a matter of [authority](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasion#Authority):

> We have the tendency to believe that if an expert says something, then it must be true. People like to listen to those who are knowledgeable and trustworthy, so if you can be those two things, then you are already on your way to getting people to believe and listen to you.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: This is a [link only answer](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/8231/349643) which is discouraged on StackExchange.  
> **username_1**: I disagree. Link-only answer is like [this](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/8234/260800). You can say that this answer is a quote-only answer, yes, but it is better than a link-only answer. If I see that there is nothing more to tailor the source to the question, then why should I reinvent the wheel?  

---

