"Confidence"--Does it Matter?

[AuntShecky]

This morning this incorrigible packrat was searching through a box of two-decade old magazines. (I don't know why I stubbornly cling to space-devouring printed matter when a great deal of the same information can be accessed online, but that's neither here nor there.) Instead of finding the copy of Esquire I was looking for, I came across an ancient issue of Writer's Digest.

The February 1991 issue featured a cover article called "Stuck?" The lengthy piece offered advice from scores of published authors, from the famous to the obscure.

Most of the advice targets (or targeted) struggling writers, but some of it can be adapted to Life in general. For instance, Susan Dodd's contribution explains how she was afraid she didn't have what it takes to be a writer. Although she hadn't published anything, she decided she would be become one anyway, adding "But of course some degree of success or acknowledgement was almost bound to follow." Susan Dodd ends the short piece with this statement:

"Belief in oneself, I suspect, is something fate finds almost irresistible."

And that, dear LitNutters, is the topic which I'd like you to chew upon.

How significant is assurance? (In the non-British sense of the word, assurance
means confidence or freedom of self-doubt.) Is it possible to believe in oneself even though no one else in the world shares that opinion? Does success eventually follow self-confidence? (Note that Susan Dodd qualifies her statement with two uses of "almost.")

Tell me what you think. Let me know what you think about self-assurance, either from a writer's perspective or in general. Please give me as many specific examples as possible.

[Darcy88]

I think confidence definitely matters. Its vital to any endeavour. You won't succeed at something if you aren't confident enough to even attempt it. The same man approaching a woman with confidence or without it will have two entirely different outcomes depending on which. Confidence does not guarantee success, but I would argue that it is required for success. People lacking confidence often simply do not try.

[Annamariah]

I agree with Darcy88. Without confidence you won't get anywhere no matter how talented you were, because you're probably too afraid to even try or even if you do, your second-guessing yourself will show and keep you from performing well.

Then again, you do need something more than just confidence to succeed. There are always people who are super-confident but lack the talent, and therefore only end up embarrassing themselves in public. Usually they don't really even realise it, though, since they are so confident that they are talented and the people who can't see it are simply idiots.

[cafolini]

Those who try are about to not do, and those who do seldom try. Confidence has little to do with it. Confidence is a judgment of the uninformed spectator, similiar to the supposition of spontaneity in anything. Inside the doer, there is knowhow more than anything else. And then, risk, always risk.

[Darcy88]

"Those who try are about to not do, and those who do seldom try."

What do you mean Cafolini?

[Alexander III]

"Those who try are about to not do, and those who do seldom try."

What do you mean Cafolini?

He states that all people with confidence are those without talent. Representing his side of those without confidence.

Much like only someone with aristocratic blood, would say having aristocratic blood makes one superior to the common people.

[Buh4Bee]

I say if you don't have it fake it. If you are in a leadership position those looking up to you need to see confidence, or they will lose moral. Make the call and ride the waters, because it'll work out in the end. The talent is there or you'd never be in the leadership position in the first place.

Well, I have little confidence, but apparently my colleagues around me do. I was given a job because the staff refused to higher anyone else. The whole special ed. staff said I was the only one for the job. So with this, I say fake it! I have to supervise people and I have supervised one of my staff before. Without confidence, I made several good decisions and got the staff and students through the year. Your staff look for confidence in your face and want to know what to do. You have got to act!

I know I have the talent, BUT just hangs there! Fake it! Look confident and fall apart later. There will always be time for the breakdown later.

Aunty- Great thread! Throw out those old magazines! Go paperless!

[Delta40]

I think confidence will help you ride those waves a bit further and make your fall far more entertaining to the crowds watching you. somebody will be more likely to swim in and help you out of the surf, pat you on the back and say 'man that was a great show. Lets see you do it again!' and you will probably turn round and wade against the tide and see what you can do....

[ftil]

Those who try are about to not do, and those who do seldom try. Confidence has little to do with it

It is so true. I have heard a nice proverb that says, “ God is fair…….he gives some people confidence and others get intelligence”

I would argue that confidence is not important. We may use different words such as self esteem, for example. It is necessary to have self esteem or confidence to take a risk. But having confidence without intelligence .....well, it is not good enough to be a good comedian. :D

[Buh4Bee]

Thank you FTIL, that's the part I left out. If you can't think, than how can you act? You need the brain behind the confidence. Otherwise, no one is going to respect you or the decisions you make.

[AuntShecky]

Even though she qualifies her statements with a hedging "almost," I think that Susan Dodd, the originator of that twenty-year-old quote, may be misleading, and I'll tell you why.

We have, in our hyperpublic culture, what can be termed "the American Idol syndrome in which would-be performers (and by extension writers, poets, etc.) are adamantly convinced of their own intrinisic talent. Never mind that very little empirical evidence from the outside world (such as recording contracts, movie roles, published works, etc.) testifies to this steadfast belief.

The problem with having an abundance of assurance, or freedom from self-doubt is that more times than not, there is no corroborating evidence to validate such a position or "mind set." Not only that, even if a person starts out with a a certain level of confidence, it is difficult to sustain a positive outlook as the years go by, each one more barren of success than the last.

And what does the "wanna be" do in such a situation? Quit while he (or she) realizes he'll never get ahead, or refuse to give up after investing a lifetime of hard work toward his "dream"? If he indeed perserveres, at what point should he throw in the towel? Those who adhere to the premise of the best-selling Outliers --which maintains that it takes 20,000 hours of practice in order to realize one's goals--forget the other side of Malcolm Gladwell 's formula: the requirement that that the person had been allowed to thrive and pursue his interest, as well as happening to be in the right place at the right point in history in order to achieve the hoped-for success.

What if you've faithfully put in your 20,000 hours of writing, practicing the violin, whatever and--zilch! Should you continue "following your bliss", and if so, for how many more hours should you put in--20,001, 20,500? 300,000? At what point, when should you allow sanity to kick in so that you can cut your losses.

The other theory about finally achieving success is that it is dependent on chance, on that elusive "lucky break." Some extemely successful people believe--or profess to believe- that they an make their own luck" just by believing in themselves. On a recent 60 Minutes segment, Walter Isaacson (who himself might be the greatest biographer of our generation), talked about how he wrote his latest work about Stephen Jobs. (The timing of the publication almost coincided with the death of Jobs, of course not a fortunate outcome, but evidence of the power of random chance.) Isaacson's portrait of Stephen Jobs apparently highlighted Jobs's extremely high level of confidence, almost to the point of "magical thinking." That Jobs achieved so much by creating and marketing the tools of the technological age, forever changing the ways in which we learn, socialize, do business, and entertain ourselves was a world-changing concept which would have flown regardless of how well Steven Jobs thought about it (or himself.)

The old adage "Nothing succeeds like success" is true. One's self-doubt would inevitably diminish with each success (either financial or critical or both.) It's counter-intuitive to think that self-confidence would increase with failure!

If I had a dollar for every time somebody told me, "It's who you know" that determines how successful you may be. I guess if you don't know anyone or if you're stuck in the wrong social circle, you're spit out of luck.

Still, deep down, I want to believe that writing success is not really a matter of having influential friends and acquaintances. I do want to believe the cliché bout the "cream rising to the top." Sometimes, though, it sits there so long it starts curdling.

[Ecurb]

Self-confidence is often delusional. Think of the stock cartoon character. He's in an insane asylum, and he thinks he's Napoleon. His family tells him he's not Napoleon; his doctor tells him he's not Napoleon; every stranger on the street tells him he's not Napolean. But he believes in himself, instead of in others! His confidence in his own beliefs is unshakable!

Of course this is an extreme example -- but there are dozens of less extreme examples. The inventers of Laetril (the cancer treatment that didn't work) probably believed in themselves. The double-blind, placebo-controlled trials failed to shake their faith in their cancer treatment. They were brimming with self-confidence -- what they lacked is a cure for cancer.

Self confidence should (it seems to me) be tempered by a belief in other people. Of course the quality of artistic performance cannot be scientifically assessed in the same way as a cancer treatment. However, if every editor rejects one's submissions, perhaps the editors (who are, after all, professionals) are onto something. There are artists who are ahead of their times, and whose genius goes unrecognized. But there are few of those, and many who think they are Napoleon, but are really Joe Smith.

[ftil]

Self-confidence is often delusional. Think of the stock cartoon character. He's in an insane asylum, and he thinks he's Napoleon. His family tells him he's not Napoleon; his doctor tells him he's not Napoleon; every stranger on the street tells him he's not Napolean. But he believes in himself, instead of in others! His confidence in his own beliefs is unshakable!

Of course this is an extreme example -- but there are dozens of less extreme examples. The inventers of Laetril (the cancer treatment that didn't work) probably believed in themselves. The double-blind, placebo-controlled trials failed to shake their faith in their cancer treatment. They were brimming with self-confidence -- what they lacked is a cure for cancer.

Self confidence should (it seems to me) be tempered by a belief in other people. Of course the quality of artistic performance cannot be scientifically assessed in the same way as a cancer treatment. However, if every editor rejects one's submissions, perhaps the editors (who are, after all, professionals) are onto something. There are artists who are ahead of their times, and whose genius goes unrecognized. But there are few of those, and many who think they are Napoleon, but are really Joe Smith.

You have a unique approach to self confidence. I would argue that self confidence should be tempered by other people. Well, if they want to become conformists or people pleasers. But if they are conformists preoccupied with others opinion, they will kill their creativity faster than they say Robert Redford. :biggrinjester: I am not talking only about artists.

Secondly, if they want to view themselves as a genius….they are free to do so. We have a physicist who calls himself a genius. Physicists are laughing but he is happy and it doesn’t stop him….to act like a genius. The only problem is when people will accept his distorted perception...

Life is more funny and challenging when we let others be and let ourselves become whatever we want.
Those who succeeded failed many times but failure didn’t stop them. Confidence and self trust is a must to do so. :smile5:

[MarkBastable]

The question is the wrong way round, I think.

Confidence leavens talent. Lack of it defeats talent. Confidence actually will also leaven lack of talent. So confidence will tend to increase your chances of success, talented or not.

But being confident doesn't make you any better at what you do, though it may make you more successful at it.

[Alexander III]

The question is the wrong way round, I think.

Confidence leavens talent. Lack of it defeats talent. Confidence actually will also leaven lack of talent. So confidence will tend to increase your chances of success, talented or not.

But being confident doesn't make you any better at what you do, though it make you more successful at it.

I think mark hit the nail on this one

[ftil]

The question is the wrong way round, I think.

Confidence leavens talent. Lack of it defeats talent. Confidence actually will also leaven lack of talent. So confidence will tend to increase your chances of success, talented or not.

But being confident doesn't make you any better at what you do, though it may make you more successful at it.

Well, those who have confidence but they are not creative will not succeed. Of course, we need to define what we mean by being successful. Nonconformists have own definition of success.

I agree that being confident doesn’t affect one’s abilities. But it is necessary to have confidence to take a risk and not to stop after a failure.

[Jack of Hearts]

The Dunning-Kruger Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)

But what are we talking about when we say 'believe in yourself' or 'self confidence'?

'Believe in yourself' is a stupid phrase when taken at face value. You can't help what you believe- you cannot will yourself to believe something. Most of the time you won't even believe good logic unless these there's another dynamic force at play (it's a game of human interest, not flawless rationality).

If confidence is belief in one's competence, the Dunning-Kruger effect is a real heartbreaker for smart people.

If self-confidence means the same thing as self-esteem, then it's a question of how you value yourself, probably in comparison to others (some social way).

Susan Dodd probably didn't think she was inherently a subpar writer. She probably thought she was subpar compared to the millions of other people trying to be writers, that they'd be picked over her.








J

[ftil]

The Dunning-Kruger Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)

But what are we talking about when we say 'believe in yourself' or 'self confidence'?

'Believe in yourself' is a stupid phrase when taken at face value. You can't help what you believe- you cannot will yourself to believe something. Most of the time you won't even believe good logic unless these there's another dynamic force at play (it's a game of human interest, not flawless rationality).

If confidence is belief in one's competence, the Dunning-Kruger effect is a real heartbreaker for smart people.

If self-confidence means the same thing as self-esteem, then it's a question of how you value yourself, probably in comparison to others (some social way).

Susan Dodd probably didn't think she was inherently a subpar writer. She probably thought she was subpar compared to the millions of other people trying to be writers, that they'd be picked over her.



I guess you misunderstand what self trust and confidence means. Believe is nothing else than BELIEve. :biggrinjester:

BTW, an innovative definition of self esteem. Do you value yourself in comparisons to others?
Don’t you think that self esteem and comparison with others is in contradiction? :lol:

[JuniperWoolf]

Well, those who have confidence but they are not creative will not succeed.

One word: critics.

Is creativity a requirement? Not really.

[ftil]

One word: critics.

Is creativity a requirement? Not really.


Hmm…you may be correct. Creative thought is useless…….mental activity can be a burden. :rofl:

[Buh4Bee]

If you can't do it, teach... teachers are the worst kind of critics.

And I personally agree with Ecurb's response.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqlJl1LfDP4
keep on keeping on... what else is there to do?

[JuniperWoolf]

Hmm…you may be correct. Creative thought is useless…….mental activity can be a burden. :rofl:

I was speaking tongue-in-cheek.

[jajdude]

Thought of a statement by Mark Twain: "With ignorance and arrogance, success is assured."

And another:

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are so confident while the intelligent are full of doubt.

- Bertrand Russell

[Ecurb]

Thought of a statement by Mark Twain: "With ignorance and arrogance, success is assured."

And another:

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are so confident while the intelligent are full of doubt.

- Bertrand Russell

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity." W.B. Yeats, The Second Coming

Aren't cult members, Fundamentalists, and Dawkins-esque neo atheists more confident of their positions than more sophisticated philosophers?

The propensity of many people to delude themselves astounds me. I was a college athlete (and coached sports in college, briefly). Athletics is an artificial meritocracy. Sports are designed to clearly show who is better than whom. Yet, today, I play golf with people who think they could be pro golfers if only they practiced more (these are people with mediocre talents, who, I'm quite sure, could never rise to that level of skill). On the Golf Channel there's a show called "The Big Break", in which a lucky winner gets a chance to play on a pro tour. But if you're not good enough to qualify for a pro tour through normal qualification procedures, why would you possibly think that such a "break" will help you?

Of course writing is different. It's not designed as a "competition", and there is no winner. Nonetheless, many people are deluded about their talents. A good illustration of this is that many people think they are better cooks than they actually are. Why? People season their dishes to their own taste. So, of course, they like the way they cook. Similarly, writers often write stories or poems that have emotional resonance for themselves. So, just as the cook loves the way he seasons his own food, the writer loves the emotional resonance of his owns stories or poems. But the mark of a good writer is that his work has emotional resonance for other people. That's why an over abundance of self-confidence can be delusional. The overly confident writer lacks respect for his readers. Just as the self-confident cook thinks those who don't like garlic have bad taste in food, the self-confident writer may blame his disapproving readers for having bad taste in literature.

[Jack of Hearts]

Delusion and endeavors of ego go hand in hand. But not all writing is done for ego. Maybe a lot is. Recently, this reader dropped a quote on somebody in the General Writing forum:


"If you write to impress it will always be bad, but if you write to express it will be good."

- Thornton Wilder

Maybe it's all about escaping the ego game.







J

[Buh4Bee]

I think you are on to something there Jack. Humility has to be present, at least, in some kind of small form.

[Ecurb]

The question is the wrong way round, I think.

Confidence leavens talent. Lack of it defeats talent. Confidence actually will also leaven lack of talent. So confidence will tend to increase your chances of success, talented or not.

But being confident doesn't make you any better at what you do, though it may make you more successful at it.

Over-confidence not only fails to make you better at what you do, it can also make you worse. To go back to the sports analogy (since, in the artificial meritocracy of sports, it's easy to see who is better and who is worse), the player who thinks he is better than he is may never work on his weaknesses and try to improve. It seems to me that a REALISTIC confidence is essential in athletics -- the athlete has to know what he does well and be confident enough to do it well under pressure. But the athlete who thinks he is better than he is will hurt the team by taking low percentage shots (in basketball) that he incorrectly thinks are high percentage shots.

The extent to which this analogy transfers to the arts is arguable -- but I certainly think there is some truth in it.

[Darcy88]

To go back to the sports analogy (since, in the artificial meritocracy of sports, it's easy to see who is better and who is worse), the player who thinks he is better than he is may never work on his weaknesses and try to improve.

That's interesting. And the opposite would hold true as well, that the one who lacks confidence will work harder in practice and do all he or she can to improve their skills. I never thought if it like that. A lot of the writers I admire suffered from depression and lack of confidence. Perhaps this played a role in making them perfectionists and putting all the effort they could into creating their art.

[JuniperWoolf]

There's a somewhat decent episode of Bull**** (http://www.tv-links.eu/tv-shows/Penn--and--Teller--Bull****-_523/season_8/episode_9/) which deals with self-esteem. Apparently, it's (suprise!) bull****, and causes people to develop into self-centered losers, because they believe that there aren't any losers as a result of the "everyone gets a ribbon" trend that's been going on since the hippie movement. If people don't experience the agony of defeat, they won't try harder to win and they won't get any better.

I think that as long as you're not lacking confidence to the degree that you're vomiting and shaking before a challenge, the only thing that critical self-evaluation will do is make you better at whatever it is you're trying to accomplish because you'll be unsatisfied with where you are.

[ftil]

Delusion and endeavors of ego go hand in hand. But not all writing is done for ego. Maybe a lot is. Recently, this reader dropped a quote on somebody in the General Writing forum:


"If you write to impress it will always be bad, but if you write to express it will be good."

- Thornton Wilder
Maybe it's all about escaping the ego game.

J

Definitely. If people do anything to get approval or acceptance, they always are insincere and they never bring the best in them. The same applies to those who need to impress others. It is inner insecurity that drives their actions.

[MarkBastable]

Definitely. If people do anything to get approval or acceptance, they always are insincere and they never bring the best in them. The same applies to those who need to impress others. It is inner insecurity that drives their actions.


I think this is completely wrong. Many hugely creative people are massively insecure. It's precisely that insecurity, that belief that nothing they do is good enough, that presses them to greater effort and achievement.

[ftil]

I think you are on to something there Jack. Humility has to be present, at least, in some kind of small form.

I wouldn’t say that humility has to be present is a small form. :wink5:The most confident people I met are kind, caring, and humble. It is a pure joy to be around them.

[ftil]

I think this is completely wrong. Many hugely creative people are massively insecure. It's precisely that insecurity, that belief that nothing they do is good enough, that presses them to greater effort and achievement.

Well, it is not what Maslov found out in his life long study of creative people.