Insert "not that shocked" Fry meme here There are two axes here, each with two options: Axis 1 = "I understand" or "I don't understand". Axis 2 = "I think I un

Insert "not that shocked" Fry meme here There are two axes here, each with two options: Axis 1 = "I understand" or "I don't understand". Axis 2 = "I think I understand" or "I think I don't understand". That leaves 4 options. (Obviously, these can be thought of as two continuous axes as well, and I'll address that later.) Option 1: "I understand and I think I understand" -- good, you understand, you'll probably come to the same conclusion of the experts who also understand, since you're working with the same data they are. Option 2: "I understand, but I'm not sure how well" -- good, you understand, see option #1 with the added benefit that you'll look for more evidence to increase your confidence. Option 3: "I don't understand, and I don't think I do" -- good, so you at least won't form opinions because you know you aren't informed, and maybe even will be motivated to look for evidence to move yourself into categories 1 or 2. Option 4: "I don't understand, but I think I do" -- i.e. overconfidence. Your conclusions will likely be wrong, since you don't understand the data you're basing those conclusions on, but since you think you do, you will stick to those conclusions in the face of contradictory evidence or expert advice. So, yes, I would fully expect the result this study found, from a purely logical analysis. Now, as I said, both confidence and understanding can be thought of as spectra rather than discretized categories. In that case, you get a continuous transition between those resultant options, but generally you still get three discrete classifications in that space: "I act like I know but am wrong", "I refrain from forming an opinion", and "I act like I know and am correct."