Why Do Some People Speak So Confidently When They Have No Clue?

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.

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.

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.

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

Speaking confidently could also be seen as removing uncertainty and focusing a team to move toward a goal. One of the more interesting things I learned from reading "1776" was the difference between the confidence George Washington projected, and the uncertainty in his letters to friends.

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.

“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.”

― W.C. Fields

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.

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.

'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.

Is it just me or the site name(alternet) and the article content seems to be targeted at Donald Trump and his constant stream of confidence?

Read the article and I can very much resonate with the "hedge fund mode" quip, its because the consequences are more favorable.

Especially in Silicon Valley, where people tend to take the "fake it till you make it" to the next level because of pressure.

Terrific article. My company is full of these people.

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.