Since the answer would seem to be obvious (Someone who believes what is true and makes judgments based on those beliefs) and since there would be little point in asking a question with a very obvious answer, I assume there is something lurking that is not obvious.

Who is more likely to make a bad judgement call would seem to depend on the relationship between what is believed (whether it be true or not true) and the nature of the judgement call. One could believe in both a flat earth and an earth-centric cosmos, but make perfectly good judgements about when to sell property. One could be an astrophysicist, fully understand the true nature of the solar system, and make a bad judgement call about whether to continue to support the Hubble Telescope.

Now, if the judgement call is directly related to what is believed, then I would suppose that the best person to make a judgement call about Hubble would be the astrophysicist rather than the flat earther. But that person might still make a bad call.

Ceteris paribus, people make bad judgement calls all the time regardless of what they know for sure, and whether what they know is true or not sure.

So what was I supposed to derive from your question that I didn't get?

Since the answer would seem to be obvious (Someone who believes what is true and makes judgments based on those beliefs) and since there would be little point in asking a question with a very obvious answer, I assume there is something lurking that is not obvious. — Bitter Crank

There is nothing lurking, and that is the issue. It is a simple straight forward truth that is too often over looked because we work hard to convince ourselves there are no consequence to being wrong.

Ceteris paribus, people make bad judgement calls all the time regardless of what they know for sure, and whether what they know is true or not sure. — Bitter Crank

That is why it says "more likely."

There is nothing lurking, and that is the issue. It is a simple straight forward truth that is too often over looked because we work hard to convince ourselves there are no consequence to being wrong. — Jeremiah

True enough, there are often major negative consequences resulting from being wrong. And there are (at least) two additional problems:

a) We can't always tell whether we have latched on to truth or non-truth.
b) Even if we think we have the truth, it may not be clear what "good judgement" would therefore be.

Take Syria:

T or F Assad is worse than "the rebels"
T or F At least some of the rebels are worse than Assad
T or F Regardless of who is better or worse, continued combat will kill a lot of non-combatants
T or F Russia is inherently evil for assisting Assad.
T or F US is inherently evil for not assisting the rebels.
T or F It would have been possible to evacuate non-combatants from Aleppo if "we" had tried.

And so on. Lots of people believe they know what is true and false about Syria. Knowing what is true, if it is true, doesn't seem to have helped everyone make good judgements. Even if they made good judgements, the resulting actions (or inaction, as the case might be) haven't always worked out well.

Syria is very complicated, but truth and good judgement may be difficult to determine in simpler situations.

Ceteris paribus, who is more likely to make a poor judgment call?

Someone who believes what is not true and makes judgments based on those beliefs.

Or

Someone who believe what is true and makes judgments based on those beliefs. — Jeremiah

Not enough information in my opinion. There are way too many variables that factor into this.

Not enough information in my opinion. There are way too many variables that factor into this. — Terrapin Station

All other variables are being held at a constant and/or are equal.

People always want to add context that simply is not there, but what you need to keep in mind is that this is not an end all be all statement about truth, and I am not asking what is always the case but what is more likely to happen.

It seems like such a simple question, but you get a lot of different reactions from people. I typically get about a half and half response to this question, half of the people see it clear as day, while the other half have problems accepting it.

For example, it depends on just what the judgment is about. Just what beliefs are we talking about? There are certainly beliefs where someone who believes something that isn't true might make a better judgment (in my opinion--and that's another variable here) than someone who believes something that is true.

That is a possibility, but the question is what is more likely to happen.

I don't believe there's any plausible way to estimate likelihood for this.

Peer pressure, politics etc. might increase the likelihood that people make judgements based on false beliefs (or opportunism regardless of the belief).

I don't believe there's any plausible way to estimate likelihood for this — Terrapin Station

Do you think it is important to be well informed before you make a decision?

Peer pressure, politics etc. might increase the likelihood that people make judgements based on false beliefs (or opportunism regardless of the belief). — jkop

All other variables are being held at a constant and/or are equal.

If it's some major decision--career, where to live, whether/who to marry, etc., sure. I prefer to be informed about the aspects that are important to me.

For other sorts of decisions, sometimes I prefer to have as little information as possible or even to make them randomly.

So it depends on the decision .

Jerry, would you mind responding to my post?

If it's some major decision--career, where to live, whether/who to marry, etc., sure. I prefer to be informed about the aspects that are important to me. — Terrapin Station

And for these decisions why do you prefer to be informed?

Jerry, would you mind responding to my post? — Bitter Crank

Well, for the premise of the OP we don't need to worry about a) as we are assuming one believes what is true and one believe what is not true.

As for b) once again I have to point out we are talking about what is more likely.

Simply because you have ascertained the truth of something, that does not mean you will necessarily make a good judgement call or even be able to find a good solution. But your judgment is likely to be better than if you don't understand the truth, or if you believed something other than the truth.

Personally I believe truth and good decisions are linked, and it is one of the reasons I strive so hard to be as accurate as I can. Is it possible for me to reach a poor conclusion while being well informed? Yes, but I am far more likely to reach a poor conclusion when I am poorly informed, or when I believe what is not true.

Personally I believe truth and good decisions are linked, and it is one of the reasons I strive so hard to be as accurate as I can. Is it possible for me to reach a poor conclusion while being well informed? Yes, but I am far more likely to reach a poor conclusion when I am poorly informed, or when I believe what is not true. — Jeremiah

Seems reasonable. Because, "garbage in, garbage out" as they say in data processing.

Now, how much more likely are good decisions based on good information, when we are paying attention and when we are trying to make a good decision?

I'm not a futilitarian. Futility doesn't universally apply, but it is possible.

Now, how much more likely are good decisions based on good information, when we are paying attention and when we are trying to make a good decision? — Bitter Crank

Well, when you ask "how much" we would be getting into a quantitative measurement of probability, which I would need some data to to figure out. I don't think it is outside the realm of possibility to reasonably figure out, but it is beyond my resources.

And for these decisions why do you prefer to be informed? — Jeremiah

I'm not sure how to answer that. Preferring something is just being in a state where you have more positive feelings towards one option rather than another.

Right. . . . because there is no clear advantage to being well informed.

At this point I have to believe you are just being stubborn.

Well, I see the advantage here as being about preferences though (and probably I always see advantage as being about that).

For example, for the things where I prefer to not be well-informed--say when I'm picking out films to watch for example, where I prefer to know as little as possible prior to watching a film (I just need a couple small facts--sometimes just the genre and an idea of the budget/studio is enough, or just the genre and an actor, or sometimes even just one actor, etc.), someone with different preferences could say that an advantage arrives with being better informed, so that they'd know quite a bit about the plot, they've maybe read reviews, etc.. But I don't like that experience as well. I prefer watching films relatively "blind."

So it seems to be the same sort of thing to me for things where I prefer to have more information prior to making a decision. Someone might prefer making those decisions with less information. I don't think that one is inherently better than another. And of course, I don't think that anything is inherently better than anything else in any non-conditional context (where the conditions on my view are always limited to what people desire).

picking out films — Terrapin Station

For picking out paperbacks and films, I find that a reasonable amount of information improves my selection success, which given the gravity of choosing a paperback or movie rental, isn't exactly a life-and-death matter.

Oddly, I have made choices that were a good deal more likely to have had life-and-death implications with a good deal less information than I had for deciding to watch XYZ movie or reading XYZ paperback.

I always find the news, and the hard copy, and on the computer and the television, relevant to me. But with a caution that a lot of it is just propaganda.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum.

Sometimes it is important to know what the propaganda is, even if it is 85% false.

Oh yes, it takes a lot of discernment and common sense. Thank you for your comment. Most appreciated.

Oddly, I have made choices that were a good deal more likely to have had life-and-death implications with a good deal less information than I had for deciding to watch XYZ movie or reading XYZ paperback. — Bitter Crank

For a lot of things, I prefer to be surprised or have it be like an adventure where I'm heading off into uncharted waters. I'll do that often when I'm bike-riding somewhere, and sometimes I'll even do it when I'm driving--I'll head down a path/take a road where I haven't the faintest idea where it goes, simply because I like the experience of that. And while I haven't done it for awhile, sometimes driving I used to intentionally try to get myself lost for adventure/exploration's sake.