7 ms·

The interesting thing is that society really strongly rewards confidence, even when you are wrong... but having a certain amount of self-doubt, I think, is fund

by lsc 9y ago

The interesting thing is that society really strongly rewards confidence, even when you are wrong... but having a certain amount of self-doubt, I think, is fundamental to sanity for all the reasons in the article; sometimes, even when I'm really sure, it turns out that I'm just... wrong.

sametmax 9y ago
Not just society, institutions and groups. But individuals as well. It's probably hardwired in our brain.
- lsc 9y ago
  Maybe? I find I have a "dangerous other" type reaction to people who seem too confident. I mean, I can get over it, but my initial reaction to a confident person tends to be quite negative; I pretty much immediately switch to "defense against salesmen" mode and only slowly start to consider that they might actually be competent after they have proven themselves, which is quite different, I think, from how I try to treat people in general.
  - sametmax 9y ago
    I found out that your reaction mainly rise among intellectuals, which are not the majority. Also it's only triggered with certain kind of display of confidence (like aggressive confidence, or confidence mixed with poor vocabulary/skill, etc). E.G: the confidence of a humble but strong expert does not trigger the reaction.
    - projektir 9y ago
      > I found out that your reaction mainly rise among intellectuals, which are not the majority. That very much implies it's not hardwired, though, just that it requires unlearning.
      - sametmax 9y ago
        I think it's more that you have an additional layer canceling the initial reaction.
  - lastofus 9y ago
    > I pretty much immediately switch to "defense against salesmen" mode I have the same reaction, which is a result of working in and around sales for years. Before that though I think I was just as susceptible.
  - gowld 9y ago
    > reaction to people who seem too confident but people who seem merely reasonably confident slip under your radar, even if they are faking it.
    - lsc 9y ago
      why would I care if someone is faking confidence any more than I would care about it if someone is faking feeling energetic or silly? I mean, I guess I would feel a little weird if I thought you felt you needed to fake confidence around me, so there is that. Is there an optimal level of confidence you can project to get the optimal social response from me, and is that optimal level other than the lowest level possible? Yeah, sure. My main point was just that my reaction to people who are too confident is immediate, negative and extremely strong. I do my best to ignore it like all other bits of personality that aren't relevant to the role, of course, if it's a role where confidence doesn't matter... but I am human, and these things leak. I was just bringing this up as a counterpoint to the "humans are hard wired to favor displays of confidence" because, as I mentioned before, I am human, and have a significantly negative (and difficult to consciously suppress) response to levels of confidence that seem to be normal in the marketing professions.
- StanislavPetrov 9y ago
  Its always a struggle to tease apart what is hard-wired into our brains and how our brains are socialized to operate.
B-Con 9y ago
People like certainty. It's why someone who is 100% reliable is generally perceived as far more valuable than someone who is merely very reliable. People are far happier to follow a leader that has 95% chance of succeeding than someone who has a 75% chance. Confidence is basically just a word for "projecting one's own certainty". People like certainty, so they favor the person who knows what they're talking about over the person who's not quite sure. But unfortunately, confidence isn't a perfect signal. Some people actively exploit the general human bias to find certainty to their own advantage by falsely projecting confidence. This is a topic I find interesting. And to be fair, not everyone who projects false confidence is doing so maliciously, some (it seems to me) simply have a hard time holding things that aren't absolutes in their head and they tend to round certainty on things to 100% or 0%.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- jamesrcole 9y ago
  > unfortunately, confidence isn't a perfect signal. I think that's a major understatement. There's the Dunning–Kruger effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect and the world is complex and it's very difficult to get a clear and definitive picture of it. The better your understanding, the more hedged and less definitive it will tend to be, and that does not tend to come across as confidence in your understanding.
  - gowld 9y ago
    You should read the link you shared, since it contradicts your claims. Your post is an illustration of the false Dunning-Kruger effect that is astoundingly commonly seen in forum posts citing the Dunning-Kruger effect. "The group of competent students underestimated their class ranks, while the group of incompetent students overestimated their ranks; yet the incompetent group did not estimate their class ranks as higher than the ranks estimated by the competent group."
    - 9y ago
lordnacho 9y ago
I've noticed the same. I put it down to our evolutionary past. In the past when we were all living in little groups in the wild, it mattered to the person who was making a statement whether he really knew that this new plant you'd come across was edible and not poisonous. He'd have seen someone eat it, personally tried it, or had some firsthand knowledge of whatever the situation was. So if a guy said "let's eat this thing, I'm sure it's good" he'd both have skin in the game AND actually have evidence. Nowadays almost all knowledge is second hand. Trust me, quantum tunnelling is a thing, and the earth is flat. But we're still wired to believe in the confident guy.
- hutzlibu 9y ago
  You're plant example is not really convincing. It would make much more sense, that only one tries it, in small amounts, and than later everyone. And this is what indigenous people also do. Just "all go for it" would be evolutionary very hindering as there are many, many poisonous plants out there. It makes sense in other scenarios, though. Or just in general, should we take path A or B. Doing a "maybe" decision won't get you anywhere in many situations. Like when you either have to go far in that direction, or in the other direction. Staying means starving, but finally reaching A or B could mean food. So it is better to go choose and be determined, even when you don't know for sure whether the prey really will be there and not the stronger enemy tribe. Still true today. Just not in all the scenarios, our "leaders" wants us to believe...
SkyMarshal 9y ago
Yup, even Richard Feinman agrees: https://twitter.com/ProfFeynman/status/959057032698458112 https://twitter.com/ProfFeynman/status/959057032698458112

by lsc 9y ago

sametmax 9y ago

Not just society, institutions and groups. But individuals as well. It's probably hardwired in our brain.

lsc 9y ago
Maybe? I find I have a "dangerous other" type reaction to people who seem too confident. I mean, I can get over it, but my initial reaction to a confident person tends to be quite negative; I pretty much immediately switch to "defense against salesmen" mode and only slowly start to consider that they might actually be competent after they have proven themselves, which is quite different, I think, from how I try to treat people in general.
- sametmax 9y ago
  I found out that your reaction mainly rise among intellectuals, which are not the majority. Also it's only triggered with certain kind of display of confidence (like aggressive confidence, or confidence mixed with poor vocabulary/skill, etc). E.G: the confidence of a humble but strong expert does not trigger the reaction.
  - projektir 9y ago
    > I found out that your reaction mainly rise among intellectuals, which are not the majority. That very much implies it's not hardwired, though, just that it requires unlearning.
    - sametmax 9y ago
      I think it's more that you have an additional layer canceling the initial reaction.
- lastofus 9y ago
  > I pretty much immediately switch to "defense against salesmen" mode I have the same reaction, which is a result of working in and around sales for years. Before that though I think I was just as susceptible.
- gowld 9y ago
  > reaction to people who seem too confident but people who seem merely reasonably confident slip under your radar, even if they are faking it.
  - lsc 9y ago
    why would I care if someone is faking confidence any more than I would care about it if someone is faking feeling energetic or silly? I mean, I guess I would feel a little weird if I thought you felt you needed to fake confidence around me, so there is that. Is there an optimal level of confidence you can project to get the optimal social response from me, and is that optimal level other than the lowest level possible? Yeah, sure. My main point was just that my reaction to people who are too confident is immediate, negative and extremely strong. I do my best to ignore it like all other bits of personality that aren't relevant to the role, of course, if it's a role where confidence doesn't matter... but I am human, and these things leak. I was just bringing this up as a counterpoint to the "humans are hard wired to favor displays of confidence" because, as I mentioned before, I am human, and have a significantly negative (and difficult to consciously suppress) response to levels of confidence that seem to be normal in the marketing professions.
StanislavPetrov 9y ago
Its always a struggle to tease apart what is hard-wired into our brains and how our brains are socialized to operate.

B-Con 9y ago

People like certainty. It's why someone who is 100% reliable is generally perceived as far more valuable than someone who is merely very reliable. People are far happier to follow a leader that has 95% chance of succeeding than someone who has a 75% chance. Confidence is basically just a word for "projecting one's own certainty". People like certainty, so they favor the person who knows what they're talking about over the person who's not quite sure. But unfortunately, confidence isn't a perfect signal. Some people actively exploit the general human bias to find certainty to their own advantage by falsely projecting confidence. This is a topic I find interesting. And to be fair, not everyone who projects false confidence is doing so maliciously, some (it seems to me) simply have a hard time holding things that aren't absolutes in their head and they tend to round certainty on things to 100% or 0%.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jamesrcole 9y ago
> unfortunately, confidence isn't a perfect signal. I think that's a major understatement. There's the Dunning–Kruger effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect and the world is complex and it's very difficult to get a clear and definitive picture of it. The better your understanding, the more hedged and less definitive it will tend to be, and that does not tend to come across as confidence in your understanding.
- gowld 9y ago
  You should read the link you shared, since it contradicts your claims. Your post is an illustration of the false Dunning-Kruger effect that is astoundingly commonly seen in forum posts citing the Dunning-Kruger effect. "The group of competent students underestimated their class ranks, while the group of incompetent students overestimated their ranks; yet the incompetent group did not estimate their class ranks as higher than the ranks estimated by the competent group."
  - 9y ago

lordnacho 9y ago

I've noticed the same. I put it down to our evolutionary past. In the past when we were all living in little groups in the wild, it mattered to the person who was making a statement whether he really knew that this new plant you'd come across was edible and not poisonous. He'd have seen someone eat it, personally tried it, or had some firsthand knowledge of whatever the situation was. So if a guy said "let's eat this thing, I'm sure it's good" he'd both have skin in the game AND actually have evidence. Nowadays almost all knowledge is second hand. Trust me, quantum tunnelling is a thing, and the earth is flat. But we're still wired to believe in the confident guy.

hutzlibu 9y ago
You're plant example is not really convincing. It would make much more sense, that only one tries it, in small amounts, and than later everyone. And this is what indigenous people also do. Just "all go for it" would be evolutionary very hindering as there are many, many poisonous plants out there. It makes sense in other scenarios, though. Or just in general, should we take path A or B. Doing a "maybe" decision won't get you anywhere in many situations. Like when you either have to go far in that direction, or in the other direction. Staying means starving, but finally reaching A or B could mean food. So it is better to go choose and be determined, even when you don't know for sure whether the prey really will be there and not the stronger enemy tribe. Still true today. Just not in all the scenarios, our "leaders" wants us to believe...

SkyMarshal 9y ago

Yup, even Richard Feinman agrees: https://twitter.com/ProfFeynman/status/959057032698458112 https://twitter.com/ProfFeynman/status/959057032698458112