Weighing mainstream and alternative accounts…
Two lenses on the same evidence. Source weight and the primary source ratio show what each rests on.
Deeper threads worth pulling on next.
Investigated
Image: frontiersin.org
Explanations do not reliably improve decisions: they can clarify advice and calibrate reliance, but can also shift attention toward misleading features or create an illusion of understanding. Their effects depend on users’ expertise, uncertainty, and the explanation’s design, so transparency is better understood as a context-sensitive intervention than a universal benefit.
Two lenses on the same evidence. Source weight and the primary source ratio show what each rests on.
Lens adapted to this topic: Evidence for explanation harms and limits
A skeptical reading emphasizes that explanations can persuade without genuinely improving understanding. They may create false confidence, distract users with unstable or misleading features, reduce acceptance of useful advice, or worsen performance; transparency therefore needs empirical validation rather than being assumed beneficial.
Deeper threads worth pulling on next.