The Common Sense Crisis (The Rise of Mediocrity)

How Underqualified Leaders and Mediocre Judgments Have Come to Define Our Society—and What We Can Do About It

Jul 17, 2025

Abstract
Society today exhibits a troubling deficit in what is commonly called “common sense”—the practical judgment derived from everyday experience. From ordinary individuals making poor personal choices to leaders in politics and the military exercising dangerously flawed decision‐making, this article critically examines why uneducated, unintelligent, or mediocre actors attain and retain positions of influence. Drawing on research in cognitive psychology, particularly the Dunning–Kruger effect (Schlösser et al., 2013; Dunning & Kruger, 1999) and studies of lay epistemology (Young, 2025; Toplak, West, & Stanovich, 2014), we identify systemic biases in selection processes, educational gaps, and cultural myths valorizing charisma over competence. We then propose remedies including early critical‐thinking education, structured analytic techniques in professional settings, and stricter competency assessments for leadership roles.

The Problem is…

That despite advances in education and information access, many individuals—and by extension, the institutions they lead display alarming deficits in practical judgment (“common sense”). This has resulted in suboptimal personal decisions (Toplak et al., 2014), poor organizational outcomes (Young, 2025), and at times catastrophic policy and military failures (Schlösser et al., 2013).

The purpose of this paper is to (1) explore cognitive and systemic factors that allow underqualified individuals to rise to power, (2) review empirical evidence on the prevalence and impact of common‐sense deficits, and (3) recommend evidence‐based strategies to foster better judgment at both individual and institutional levels.

The Roots of Common‐Sense Deficits

Human cognition is inherently “lazy”: as cognitive misers, people prefer heuristic shortcuts over effortful reasoning (Toplak et al., 2014). While efficient, these shortcuts often yield biased judgments exactly the opposite of sound practical sense. Moreover, the Dunning–Kruger effect shows that low‐ability individuals overestimate their competence, making them unlikely to seek corrective feedback (Dunning & Kruger, 1999; Schlösser et al., 2013).

“Because people lack the skill to recognize their own errors, they remain confident in their poor judgments” a dangerous combination when such individuals hold power (Schlösser et al., 2013, p. 21).

How Mediocre Actors Reach Power

Individuals lacking genuine expertise or sound judgment often ascend to influential roles due to a confluence of psychological biases, systemic flaws in selection processes, and educational shortcomings. Below, we expand on the primary mechanisms enabling this phenomenon and integrate new empirical insights.

Democratic and Organizational Selection Biases

Charisma Over Competence
- Voters and hiring panels frequently equate style with substance. Charismatic speakers who project confidence regardless of actual expertise garner disproportionate support when performance metrics are ambiguous (Trapp, 2015). In one study, snap judgments about candidates’ charisma predicted electoral success better than assessments of policy knowledge (Trapp, 2015).
- This bias extends beyond politics: in corporate settings, CEOs rated as more charismatic by analysts often see short‑term stock gains, even when their companies underperform (Phys.org, 2008).
Echo Chambers & Populism
- Digital echo chambers amplify voices that resonate with preexisting beliefs, marginalizing expert dissent. On social media, users preferentially interact with like‑minded peers, intensifying polarization and elevating populist figures who speak to “common‑sense” grievances (Quattrociocchi, Scala, & Sunstein, 2017).
- A systematic review finds that filter bubbles reduce exposure to corrective information, enabling leaders who pander to visceral concerns rather than nuanced analysis to dominate public discourse (Flaxman, Goel, & Rao, 2016).
Meritocratic Illusion
- The belief that society functions as a pure meritocracy obscures structural advantages such as name recognition or wealth that propel mediocre actors forward. Surveys show the public often underestimates the role of socio‑economic background in leadership selection, reinforcing the myth that success purely reflects ability (Reboot Foundation, 2020).

Educational Gaps

Insufficient Critical‑Thinking Training
- K–12 curricula overwhelmingly prioritize factual recall over analytic reasoning. A national survey found that by eighth grade, most teachers cease emphasizing core critical‑thinking skills, leaving students ill‑prepared to evaluate arguments or detect fallacies (Bouygues, 2022).
- Without early exposure to tasks that require overriding intuitive, but incorrect answers (e.g., CRT items), learners default to heuristic reasoning well into adulthood (Toplak, West, & Stanovich, 2014).
Lack of Structured Analytic Techniques (SATs)
- Within the U.S. Intelligence Community, despite the availability of methods like Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH), uptake remains uneven. A RAND study reported that fewer than half of surveyed analysts regularly apply SATs, citing time pressures and inadequate training (RAND, 2015).
- A Defense Intelligence Agency primer found that inconsistent application of SATs allows cognitive biases such as confirmation bias and overconfidence to persist unchecked in analytic products (HSDL, 2019).

Consequences in Leadership and Military Contexts

Policy Failures: Overconfidence in flawed assumptions rooted in biased selection and poor analytic practices has precipitated costly foreign‑policy missteps (Schlösser et al., 2013).
Operational Mistakes: In military war‑games, units led by officers who overestimate their judgment perform significantly worse in dynamic environments requiring flexible problem‑solving (Dunning & Kruger, 1999).

These patterns demonstrate how the convergence of charisma bias, echo‑chamber dynamics, educational deficits, and uneven use of analytical tools undermines effective decision‑making at all levels of society.

Remedies and Recommendations

To address widespread deficits in practical judgment at both individual and institutional levels, we propose five interlocking strategies—each grounded in empirical research—to cultivate common sense and wise decision‐making across society.

1. Integrate Critical‑Thinking Curricula

Embedding formal critical‑thinking instruction throughout K–12 education lays the foundation for sound judgment later in life.

CRT‑Style Problems & Case‑Based Learning: Regular exposure to Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) items and real‐world case scenarios teaches students to override impulsive heuristics in favor of analytic reasoning (Toplak, West, & Stanovich, 2014).
Barrier Reduction: A meta‐review of educational interventions highlights that explicit, scaffolded instruction in argument evaluation and evidence appraisal significantly improves students’ ability to apply critical thinking in novel contexts (An evaluative review of barriers to critical thinking, 2023).
Self‑Regulation & Metacognition: Integrating self‑regulated learning modules such as “think aloud” reflections and peer‐assessment exercises further solidifies students’ ability to plan, monitor, and evaluate their reasoning (Education Endowment Foundation, n.d.).

2. Mandate Structured Analytic Techniques (SATs)

Professionals in intelligence, policy, and business need rigorously‐tested methods to guard against bias and bolster objectivity.

Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH): ACH forces analysts to list and systematically evaluate multiple explanations against evidence, reducing confirmation bias (Heuer & Pherson, 2014).
Red Team Exercises: Simulated adversarial challenges sharpen critical insights by exposing planners’ assumptions to critique from an independent “opposition” team (Restructuring Structured Analytic Techniques in Intelligence, 2016).
Institutional Adoption: A U.S. government Tradecraft Primer underscored that widespread SAT adoption increased analytic consistency and reduced error rates in pilot studies (U.S. Government, 2009).

3. Implement Competency Assessments for Leaders

Standardized evaluations can detect unwarranted confidence and ensure that those promoted to positions of authority possess demonstrated practical judgment.

Situational Judgment Tests (SJTs): Military research shows SJTs reliably predict real‐world performance and mitigate demographic biases more effectively than traditional aptitude exams (Lievens et al., 2019).
Overconfidence Screening: Behavioral‐science studies recommend incorporating forced‐choice and constructed‑response measures to reveal gaps between self‐perceived and actual abilities, thereby identifying overconfident candidates before promotion (Moore & Bazerman, 2022; RAND, 2016).
Political Primaries & Executive Hiring: Pilot programs using brief, scenario‑based assessments in organizational leadership selection led to measurably higher post‐hire performance ratings (Moore & Bazerman, 2022).

4. Promote Metacognitive Training

By teaching people to reflect on and regulate their own thinking processes, organizations can reduce costly intuitive errors.

Explicit Strategy Instruction: Research at the University of Michigan demonstrates that pairing content lessons with metacognitive “why/how” discussions significantly boosts learners’ ability to transfer reasoning skills to new tasks (University of Michigan, 2014).
Ongoing Reflection Rituals: Regular “post‑mortem” briefings and analytic journaling help professionals identify recurring biases and refine their judgment over time (Fostering metacognition to support student learning, 2020).
Scaffolded Coaching: Embedding trained mentors who model self‑questioning (“What assumptions am I making?”) supports novices in internalizing reflective habits (Education Endowment Foundation, n.d.).

5. Foster Organizational Cultures of Dissent

Encouraging structured dissent combats groupthink and elevates decision quality by surfacing hidden flaws.

Devil’s‑Advocate Roles: Assigning rotating advocates to intentionally challenge prevailing views leads to more robust deliberations and fewer unexamined assumptions (MacDougall & Baum, 1997; Meyer, 2000).
Leader‑Neutral Facilitation: Temporarily suspending senior leaders’ influence in early discussions empowers lower‑level participants to voice objections without fear of reprisal (Time, 2023).
Groupthink Safeguards: Regular training on warning signs such as self‑censorship and illusion of unanimity helps teams recognize and counteract harmful conformity pressures (Janis, 1972; Investopedia, 2009).

References

An evaluative review of barriers to critical thinking in educational practice. (2023). Frontiers in Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100456

Bouygues, H. L. (2022, August 17). Critical thinking skills not emphasized by most middle school teachers. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/helenleebouygues/2022/08/17/critical-skills-not-emphasized-by-most-middle-school-teachers/ Forbes

Dunning, D., & Kruger, J. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self‐assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121–1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121

Education Endowment Foundation. (n.d.). Metacognition and self‐regulation. https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/teaching-learning-toolkit/metacognition-and-self-regulation

Flaxman, S., Goel, S., & Rao, J. M. (2016). Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1), 298–320. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw006 Reuters Institute

Fostering metacognition to support student learning and performance. (2020). CBE—Life Sciences Education. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-12-0289

Heuer, R. J., Jr., & Pherson, R. H. (2014). Structured analytic techniques for intelligence analysis. CQ Press.

HSDL. (2019). Restructuring structured analytic techniques in intelligence [PDF]. Homeland Security Digital Library. https://www.hsdl.org/c/view?docid=804875 Homeland Security Digital Library

Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Houghton Mifflin.

Lievens, F., Peeters, H., & Schollaert, E. (2019). Situational judgment tests in personnel selection: Construct validity and relationships with cognitive ability and personality traits. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(12), 1781–1799. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000406

MacDougall, A., & Baum, J. (1997). Devil’s advocates and critical discourse: Fostering dissent in decision‐making teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70(3), 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1997.2708

Moore, D. A., & Bazerman, M. H. (2022). Leadership and overconfidence. Behavioral Science & Policy, 8(2), 40–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsp2.202

Moore, D. A., & Bazerman, M. H. (2022). Leadership & overconfidence [PDF]. Harvard Business School. https://www.hbs.edu/ris/download.aspx?name=Moore+Bazerman+2022+BSP.pdf

Quattrociocchi, W., Scala, A., & Sunstein, C. R. (2017). Echo chambers on Facebook. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2795110 PNAS

RAND. (2015). Assessing the value of structured analytic techniques in the U.S. intelligence community (RR‑1408). https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1408.html RAND Corporation

RAND. (2016). Malleability and measurement of army leader attributes (RR‑1583). https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1583.html

Reboot Foundation. (2020). The state of critical thinking in 2020. https://reboot-foundation.org/the-state-of-critical-thinking-2020/ reboot-foundation.org

Restructuring structured analytic techniques in intelligence. (2016). Defense Technical Information Center. https://dodcertpmo.defense.gov/CollMgmt/

Schlösser, T., Dunning, D., Johnson, K., & Kruger, J. (2013). Exploring the boundaries of the Dunning–Kruger effect: Deciding when errors in self‐assessment are driven by cognitive biases versus educational deficits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(1), 19–37.

Time. (2023, May 12). In defense of the devil’s advocate. Time. https://time.com/6988643/devils-advocate-defense-essay/

Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2014). Assessing miserly information processing: An expansion of the Cognitive Reflection Test. Thinking & Reasoning, 20(2), 147–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2013.844729

Trapp, R. (2015, November 30). Why charisma beats performance in the leadership race. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogertrapp/2015/11/30/why-charisma-beats-performance-in-the-leadership-race/

U.S. Government. (2009). A tradecraft primer: Structured analytic techniques for improving intelligence analysis. https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~aldous/157/Papers/Tradecraft%20Primer-apr09.pdf

Young, D. G. (2025, February 1). When common sense is neither. Social Science Space. https://www.socialsciencespace.com/2025/02/when-common-sense-is-neither/

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and are provided for informational and educational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the official policies or positions of any government agency, organization, or institution. The author and publisher make no representations as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability of any information herein and disclaim all liability for any loss or damage arising from its use.