Confidence and Honesty

Post Reply New Topic

My father and others has asked me why I lack confidence. This is my reasoning or apologia.

In order for me to display confidence in areas I would have to know the areas with absolute certainty. I can’t know all with absolute certainty even though I can know some things with reasonable certainty. To help prove my point I will refute this quote by Socrates, I know nothing and I know that I know nothing. This means I cannot know anything with absolute certainty which I will name statement a. If statement a is true then how can I know statement a with absolute certainty as well. This means there are certain things I can be absolutely certain on and there are things I can only be reasonably certain on. If one can be absolutely certain of something then one doesn’t have to have skepticism or doubt.

There are things that one can claim with absolute certainty. This means I know for 100% sure without any tinge of doubt. For example, one can know that 2 + 2 = 4 in the base 10 number system. Can anyone ever show an example in which this is not the case? A person can say with confidence and absolute certainty that he can add two numbers together in the base 10 number system and obtain the same answer every time. I can claim with confidence that I know what 2 + 2 is in the base 10 number system and be honest.

There are things that one can claim with only reasonably certainty. This means there is some doubt in the answer. Even if it 1% doubt there is still doubt about the answer given. Based upon my experiences there are a lot more things I can be reasonably certain about then I can be absolutely certain about. For example, people will want to know when I will fix their computer by. This is an answer that I can only give a reasonable answer. This means the reasonable answer may be way off base and may have an error in it. I may have not factored in something as I do not have all of the variables and I can be reasonably certain that it is impossible to obtain all variables in all given instances.

The reason I lack confidence in most areas is based upon reasoning, critical thinking, rationality and logic. To summarize, confidence means that I think I know something or can do something with absolute certainty. Absolute certainty means I can say for 100% sure with no room for doubt that I can do something or know something. Reasonable certainty means I can know or do something with the most certainty which means according to the oxford dictionary is the greatest in amount or degree. This greatest amount or degree that I have is determined by the summit of my knowledge, ability, and other factors I am not aware of.

In addition, my biases and prejudices that I have impact both reasonable and absolute certainty that I am able to ascertain. Since I know with absolute certainty that some things are possible that I can only know with reasonably certainty, by my projecting confidence as though I am absolutely certain about certain means I am being dishonest with those around me. I am making a claim that has the possibility of not being satisfied and I have reasonable certainty that the claim may be unsatisfiable therefore forcing me to be dishonest. It is possible that I am forced to break promises because of these conditions that exist in existence. This is my apologia as to why I lack confidence and why I am incapable and unable to display confidence. It would be illogical as well as immoral for me to display confidence and for me to accept the concept and idea of confidence as logically sound based upon these grounds except for cases of absolute certainty.

OP, how confident are you in your assessment of confidence?

Much of what you said about your thought process applies to me. For NTs, however, they're more concerned about the appearance of confidence, lack of which will make them see the reality that the situation is not 100% guaranteed; and recognition of that reality equates to fear in their eyes. When they get fearful, they tend to get angry and hostile.

In fact, when people say "confidence is key," what they're really saying is "a lack of confidence scares me because it points out realities I don't want to think about unless they actually come up." I'm not condoning this line of thought, just pointing it out.

Of course, this is just a theory, and I'm not absolutely confident about it, but I wanted to share anyway.

This is a problem that I too struggle with. To be an intellectual perfectionist is an incredibly tiring journey. You are right in that the level of confidence displayed by many is highly unwarranted given the possible level of certainty available. I often have difficulty starting projects simply due to uncertainty in my abilities to complete them.

However, I think the standards we give ourselves for confidence are far too high. You say that it would be irresponsible and immoral to display confidence in the absence of absolute certainty, but this is not how we should measure ourselves. We should instead judge an appropriate level of confidence determined by our own prior results compared to those of others. For example, I'm studying in college with the hopes of eventually starting and running a business. However, the very thought of even attempting to do so seems so incredibly daunting given the uncertainty of success, and how much can go wrong. And yet, millions of people every year around the globe, smart and dumb alike, manage to pull it off. I know that, if some random dips**t can manage to successfully run a sporting goods store, operating a business myself is a more than realistic goal. My chances are even further increased by the fact that I am largely aware of my own shortcomings, and am constantly on the lookout for any sign of hubris on my part.

Believe me when I say this, skepticism of the self is an incredibly valuable asset that holds us accountable, and in exchange, makes us better people. And no matter what task you may undertake, you stand a far better chance, as you are now, than the idiot who is 100% sure of himself despite his ignorance. I know that being endlessly filled with doubt can be paralyzing at times, but you must continue to attempt new things. If you don't, all we'll be left with is a bunch of ignorant hotshots running the show. Frankly, you sound like a better fit for the job.

What you are describing is more like "confidence" in a statistical sense. Usually when people remark on someone's "confidence" they are referring to a more "human" trait and less of an absolute "probability" matter. This is probably what your dad is referring to. Not your certainty in how right you are about anything, but your belief in yourself. That you can accomplish things. That you will make the right choices. That you are capable. That you (and others) can rely upon you. The "confidence" your dad is speaking of has little to do with your inner thoughts and more to do with the "you" that you project to others.

Confidence is very important in the world of work. You could be the most reliable person on the planet, for example, but if you constantly second-guess yourself or down-sell yourself to avoid that remote possibility that you will commit to something and then not do it, you will project to others that you are not reliable at all, and they will take your word for it. Furthermore, no one is ever going to trust me with decision-making authority if I convey to them that I am not confident in my abilities. I am confident in my ability to make wise choices. Do I ever make mistakes? Of course. Everyone does. But by and large, whenever I have been in a position to make a decision that was of any importance, I have made a wise one. Why? Because I think things through. I never fly off the cuff. I look at things from more than one angle. So, I portray an air of confidence in my ability to make decisions to my boss and others at work. It is not dishonest. It is the truth. I am perfectly capable of making wise decisions. Even though I may make a mistake on occasion.

If this helps you, even in mathematics (statistics) confidence is not 100%.

http://stattrek.com/estimation/confidence-interval.aspx

[quote]Statisticians use a confidence interval to describe the amount of uncertainty associated with a sample estimate of a population parameter. ... The confidence level describes the uncertainty associated with a sampling method. Suppose we used the same sampling method to select different samples and to compute a different interval estimate for each sample. Some interval estimates would include the true population parameter and some would not. A 90% confidence level means that we would expect 90% of the interval estimates to include the population parameter; A 95% confidence level means that 95% of the intervals would include the parameter; and so on.[quote]

So, I think the notion of confidence having to be 100% is relatively easy to dispel, at least the way I look at it.

As InThisTogether said, it is a whole other thing when talking about confidence as a human characteristic. It is whether not you think you have a "good possibility" of being able to accomplish something. Defining this at 100%, places a burden of proof that no one could meet and would therefore be meaningless.

So how do you define what this burden of proof should be? This will depend a lot on anxiety level and rigidity. One element is of course the actual probability of success inherent with the event in question. This is hard to know, and so most likely you would be using an estimated probability of success, instead. Here's the tough part: The estimated probability is going to be influenced by a lot of subjectivity which will include self esteem issues. The lower your opinion is of yourself, the lower you will tend to skew your estimated probability of success. In addition the more prone you are to feelings of anxiety, the higher probability outcome you will require to put your mind at ease. Lower self confidence tends to correlate with anxiety and so often you might end up with a situation where you require a high confidence level, while at the same time drastically underestimating the probability of success.

Are you able to figure out how long a task will take if absolutely nothing goes wrong? If so, start with that amount of time. Figure out what kinds of situations might slow you down. Assign an amount of time to those situations. Average the number of times one of those situations happens per week, and add that to your "perfect" time estimate.

Alternately, use history. Figure out how much time a similar task took you - add an extra day or two. Give that as your answer.