Abstract

According to the overconfidence hypothesis (OH), physician overconfidence is a major factor contributing to diagnostic error in medicine. This article argues that OH can be read as offering a personal, a sub-personal or a systemic explanation of diagnostic error. It is argued that personal level overconfidence is an “epistemic vice”. The hypothesis that diagnostic errors due to overconfidence can be remedied by increasing physician self-knowledge is shown to be questionable. Some epistemic vices or cognitive biases, including overconfidence, are “stealthy” in the sense that they obstruct their own detection. Even if the barriers to self-knowledge can be overcome, some problematic traits are so deeply entrenched that even well-informed and motivated individuals might be unable to correct them. One such trait is overconfidence. Alternative approaches to “debiasing” are considered and it is argued that overconfidence is blameworthy only if it is understood as a personal level epistemic vice rather than a sub-personal cognitive bias. This paper is published as part of a collection on self-knowledge in and outside of illness.

Highlights

  • According to the overconfidence hypothesis (OH) physician overconfidence “is a major factor contributing to diagnostic error” (Berner and Graber, 2008: S6)

  • The interpretation of (OH) as offering an explanation of diagnostic error in personal terms is arguably the most intuitive since overconfidence, arrogance and complacency have a strong prima facie claim to be classified as epistemic vices

  • The reason is not just that (OH) only identifies overconfidence as a major factor contributing to diagnostic error and so leaves room for other explanations

Read more

Summary

Introduction

According to the overconfidence hypothesis (OH), physician overconfidence is a major factor contributing to diagnostic error in medicine. It might seem that (OH) subscribes to the person approach but only if overconfidence is an epistemic vice rather than a sub-personal cognitive bias. The interpretation of (OH) as offering an explanation of diagnostic error in personal terms is arguably the most intuitive since overconfidence, arrogance and complacency have a strong prima facie claim to be classified as epistemic vices.

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call