Why Do Some People Speak So Confidently When They Have No Clue?(alternet.org)
alternet.org
Why Do Some People Speak So Confidently When They Have No Clue?
http://www.alternet.org/corporate-accountability-and-workplace/leadership-training-or-bullshit-training-harvard-price-pseudo
26 comments
We unconsciously read body language or nonverbal cues and listen to how they are speaking and give more weight to that than the words they speak. There are many ways of saying this such as"it's 80% how you say it & 20% what you say." and "it's not what you say but how you make people feel."
Watch the change in Mark Zuckerberg - https://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/watch-mark-zuckerberg-evolv...
“The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.” ― Charles Bukowski
"Arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand." ― Metallica
"Don't ever mistake my silence for ignorance, my calmness for acceptance, or my kindness for weakness." ― Unknown
Personal experience: Granted I was a new hire but this was ridiculous. My supervisor's prior work at a beauty salon. Sample preparation virtually ensured cross contamination. Crushing tools wipe with fingers between wells, flying debris into neighboring wells, and multi-channel pressed crusher with rusty metal ends was brushed off between trays. No understanding of the difference between a true negative and a blank well.
Every laboratory I've worked in has the same basic unwritten rules of etiquette. The most obvious is don't touch what isn't yours. Another is one person, and only that one, does the work from start to finish. I couldn't just sit down and pick-up where my supervisor left off or get used to not knowing what steps may or may not have been done when I came back from break. The lack of an SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) meant I had to mentally work through the process which took a few minutes. To the ignorant it's just a simple sequence of mixing solutions, rinse, add another and done while I appear to be completely confused by a simple process. To me each step builds off the previous and my mental image of the process at the molecular level gets jammed up. I've spent years working research laboratories, have a college degree, and lots of graduate work. My supervisor thinks I'm mentally challenged and just will not stop asking the most obvious questions. When I pointed out the cross contamination it was taken as a personal insult. When I went to demonstrate she just turned and left the room.
Watch the change in Mark Zuckerberg - https://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/watch-mark-zuckerberg-evolv...
“The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.” ― Charles Bukowski
"Arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand." ― Metallica
"Don't ever mistake my silence for ignorance, my calmness for acceptance, or my kindness for weakness." ― Unknown
Personal experience: Granted I was a new hire but this was ridiculous. My supervisor's prior work at a beauty salon. Sample preparation virtually ensured cross contamination. Crushing tools wipe with fingers between wells, flying debris into neighboring wells, and multi-channel pressed crusher with rusty metal ends was brushed off between trays. No understanding of the difference between a true negative and a blank well.
Every laboratory I've worked in has the same basic unwritten rules of etiquette. The most obvious is don't touch what isn't yours. Another is one person, and only that one, does the work from start to finish. I couldn't just sit down and pick-up where my supervisor left off or get used to not knowing what steps may or may not have been done when I came back from break. The lack of an SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) meant I had to mentally work through the process which took a few minutes. To the ignorant it's just a simple sequence of mixing solutions, rinse, add another and done while I appear to be completely confused by a simple process. To me each step builds off the previous and my mental image of the process at the molecular level gets jammed up. I've spent years working research laboratories, have a college degree, and lots of graduate work. My supervisor thinks I'm mentally challenged and just will not stop asking the most obvious questions. When I pointed out the cross contamination it was taken as a personal insult. When I went to demonstrate she just turned and left the room.
Sounds like you should just quit and let that lab flounder.
'If you can't dazzle them with dexterity baffle the with bullshit.'
Something you should remind yourself to avoid when talking with people.
Also 'people have a habit of believing their own bullshit'.
Also good to remind yourself to keep yourself in-check.
The risk is how do you keep up with people who will happily do both.
Something you should remind yourself to avoid when talking with people.
Also 'people have a habit of believing their own bullshit'.
Also good to remind yourself to keep yourself in-check.
The risk is how do you keep up with people who will happily do both.
Terrific article. My company is full of these people.
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.”
― W.C. Fields
― W.C. Fields
[deleted]
Because ignorance is shamed and those who speak with confidence and like they know what they are talking about are more likely to get what they wsnt... like this comment.
Yep. In business, in dating, in life, we use the level of confidence someone projects to assess his quality as a human being. We openly acknowledge this, and most don't think there's anything wrong it.
Hedging, weasel words, caveats, etc. that accurately reflect the complexities of situations and the uncertainty inherent in understanding them ("most," "usually," "seem to,") are seen as slimy, and the people who use them are considered weak and dishonest.
I'd say the man speaking confidently in absolutes deserves more skepticism by default, but instinct doesn't seem to work that way.
Hedging, weasel words, caveats, etc. that accurately reflect the complexities of situations and the uncertainty inherent in understanding them ("most," "usually," "seem to,") are seen as slimy, and the people who use them are considered weak and dishonest.
I'd say the man speaking confidently in absolutes deserves more skepticism by default, but instinct doesn't seem to work that way.
I would be very careful with using the word "instinct" here. This could very well be learned, and I would say promotion of confidence over ability is more common in the US than in some other places where it skews in the other direction and false modesty is preferred.
I've upvoted your comment, because you speak so authoritatively.
Read the article and I can very much resonate with the "hedge fund mode" quip, its because the consequences are more favorable.
Because we have the right to vote at age 18! And since politicians decide who goes to jail, who fights in wars and where bombs dropped, deciding on the right person to vote for is hugely important. Normally we would take years to formulate opinions on what the right policies are. But the fact is we can vote at 18 when we are still in college with no life experience. So we spend four years voting on things we likely don’t understand. We are expected to know who to vote for, yet don’t really have the life understanding to make good choices. So we get used to making decisions and defending them even if we don’t really understand the subject matter. At least that’s what I think.
The least liked president in american history's election win was made possible by an older demographic. The common mistake that young people make instead is not voting for the wrong person, but rather not voting at all. I suppose they haven't in their life seen the power of collective action, and don't think their vote matters very much. Individually they're totally right, but collectively their vote really has a lot of power.
How is this relevant? The article includes a discussion of "McNamara and Kissinger’s capacity to convey confidence about the rightness of America’s Vietnam policies are major reasons for the tragic deaths of nearly 60,000 Americans and approximately 2 to 3 million Vietnamese."
This took place before the 26th amendment, in 1971.
The new voting rights for 18-20 year olds also does not affect Spitzer's role in DSM-3.
Biederman got his MD in Argentina in 1971, so he too wasn't affected by the change in the US voting age.
This took place before the 26th amendment, in 1971.
The new voting rights for 18-20 year olds also does not affect Spitzer's role in DSM-3.
Biederman got his MD in Argentina in 1971, so he too wasn't affected by the change in the US voting age.
Voting age in the USA is not unusual, not even remotely so:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_age
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_age
As a serial offender, I can say from personal experience I do this unconsciously, (and regret exists only in arrears).
It is terribly hard not to want to engage, and faking it works better than "I'm sorry, I haven't a clue" for the immediate social responsiveness.
It gets scary when you begin to see signs actions are being taken on your fakery. I hate this.
It is terribly hard not to want to engage, and faking it works better than "I'm sorry, I haven't a clue" for the immediate social responsiveness.
It gets scary when you begin to see signs actions are being taken on your fakery. I hate this.
This is refreshingly honest. I'd love to read more comments like yours.
Great article. I have two anecdotes.
I tend to think out loud and express a lot of complexity and nuance in my answers before settling on a conclusion. I have been interviewing recently, and in one interview I did this, resulting in a mixed review from someone who mistook thoughtful consideration for uncertainty and inexperience. I quickly diagnosed the problem upon hearing this and in subsequent interviews exuded confident, almost belligerent certainty in my answers. Naturally, this was very well-received.
Some in my previous organization rewarded certainty in the short term so long as it was borne out by the long term. There was a certain individual who was confident of everything he said. He was initiatially very successful in the organzatiom before eventually being isolated as a result of failure to produce long-term results. His bullshit eventually caught up with him.
People like to think of themselves as rational, but we've evolved to respond to leadership, and we equate leadership with confidence. If there's a lesson here, I suppose it's that it's important to learn when to exude confidence—and when not to.
I tend to think out loud and express a lot of complexity and nuance in my answers before settling on a conclusion. I have been interviewing recently, and in one interview I did this, resulting in a mixed review from someone who mistook thoughtful consideration for uncertainty and inexperience. I quickly diagnosed the problem upon hearing this and in subsequent interviews exuded confident, almost belligerent certainty in my answers. Naturally, this was very well-received.
Some in my previous organization rewarded certainty in the short term so long as it was borne out by the long term. There was a certain individual who was confident of everything he said. He was initiatially very successful in the organzatiom before eventually being isolated as a result of failure to produce long-term results. His bullshit eventually caught up with him.
People like to think of themselves as rational, but we've evolved to respond to leadership, and we equate leadership with confidence. If there's a lesson here, I suppose it's that it's important to learn when to exude confidence—and when not to.
Thanks for the reminder. I suffer from the same habit and cannot be reminded enough to exude more bullshit.
Please excuse me, I meant to say that you seem to be inexperienced and just making excuses. ;)
Please excuse me, I meant to say that you seem to be inexperienced and just making excuses. ;)
Related to this topic, I HIGHLY recommend everyone read Harry's Frankfurt's "On Bullshit": https://www.stoa.org.uk/topics/bullshit/pdf/on-bullshit.pdf
https://vimeo.com/167796382
https://vimeo.com/167796382
Especially in Silicon Valley, where people tend to take the "fake it till you make it" to the next level because of pressure.
[deleted]
A great real-world (if Los Angeles is a real world) example of this is the periodic "Liewitness News" segment on Jimmy Kimmel's show, where people are asked their opinions on current events... that never happened.
Interviewee after interviewee will give detailed accounts about seeing or reading about a given event that was totally made up by the producers.
Interviewee after interviewee will give detailed accounts about seeing or reading about a given event that was totally made up by the producers.
The difference lies in how the leader 1. Recognizes a need for change in direction/vision and 2. Accepts ownership if the vision needs correction.
It takes a leader to confidently provide a vision and execute towards it. It also takes a leader to quickly notice a need to change course, own it, and keep momentum going.