The Power of Confidence

[PierreGringoire]

Good one, sir. Good one, indeed.



If you've gotten to this last step and can control your own happiness at will, Good God! That would be something. That's more can control than most of us can claim to have, I think, (or perhaps I speak for myself.) More importantly, it's more control than I think most of us would want to have. Where would the value of happiness be if it was as simply attained as turning on a switch? Humans make such a show about how we adore Happiness, how Happiness is the substance of life, how all we ever want is to be Happy. But really, what would life be without struggle? We have to have SOMETHING to do down here by ourselves, after all. So we chase madly after that illusive and addictive phenomenon we call Happiness, and the pursuit occupies us for some 80 or so years.

Confidence shows how weak humans are in their individual resolutions. This is the sheep-trait in humans. Each of us is more likely to trust the other, providing that the other is confident, or at least projects that they are. Someone can be the most barbaric, selfish, dim-witted fool on the face of the planet. So long as they are extreme and have an abundant supply of blind, unyielding confidence, they will be adored, respected. They will get a standing ovation from the world, and what more could one want? The people I admire most are not noble. They are arrogant, dashing, passionate, and blindly confident. THAT is the Power of Confidence. It's akin to stubbornness. It's forcing a certain image of yourself on the world. If you do it completely, you will win every time. They will give in gladly. You will bend their perception of you to whatever you wish.

Now, of course, there is a different breed of confidence that we call "self-assurance," which is having confidence in your own abilities. This is a quiet confidence that isn't insistent on projecting your image in a certain way. But it is also a more ignorant confidence. Anyone who genuinely has confidence in their ability to successfully navigate through life hasn't considered the broader options. We know nothing. We speculate. We speculate well, I think, but we speculate, we grope in the dark, occasionally we guess. But we know virtually nothing.

Conscious confidence is the loud, powerful, arrogant kind.
Genuine confidence is the quiet, sincere kind.
The former tends to be more effective. Let's face it, some of the people we love most as a nation, (be it the US, Europe, wherever) are people pumped full of confidence #1. Why? I do not know. I don't make the rules.

That was really well put! I think that "genuine confidence" comes from "putting in the time." Which is equivalent to Being CONSISTENT with the right things. The "barbaric confidence" comes from being CONSISTENT with the wrong things (drinking and partying hard). I think if you have both you can excel (materialistically/monintarlly/general influence over people) and succeed in life. But if you have GENUINE confidence you will succeed and if the Great Depression hits the economy you won't go off and kill yourself--And you will know when to "stop." Even Stephen Nash (from A Beautiful Mind) says that money (we can generalize to power) leads to irrational decisions. And both kinds of confidence will get you POWER/Influence. In my opinion you can be a very effective leader if you have genuine confidence. The rub is, is the quest to leadership of a large group of people a rational decision in which a genuinely confident individual would seek to attain?
BTW-- I loved your writing style, sometimes I just slop things on here and hit submit. I do the people in these forums a disservice for that and will consider changing it to more professional prose.

[Lumiere]

That was really well put! I think that "genuine confidence" comes from "putting in the time." Which is equivalent to Being CONSISTENT with the right things. The "barbaric confidence" comes from being CONSISTENT with the wrong things (drinking and partying hard).

I'm not sure it's as black and white as being consistent with the right things vs. the wrong things. Let me provide an analogy: here we have two moderately good ice-skaters. They're not professionals by any means, but they're skilled.

Skater #1
Because of their blind confidence, which propels them in every aspect of life including skating, they feel that they posses they skills of a good skater. There is little or no thought involved in the process for them. Instead, they respond to instinct, (and let me here point out: when you do something out of complete trust in instinct, you will usually come out on top. Instinct is the most raw and honest of forces that guides our decisions, if we let it. That's why it's instinctive). Not even a whisper of doubt has surfaced in their minds. It's too suppressed by such and excess of confidence to even make an appearance, and so they step out onto the ice and are confident. Because of this confidence, they are successful on ice. Even our physical responses and abilities respond to confidence. There's virtually nothing that will not give in to Almighty Confidence at some point.

Skater #2
They have arrived at that level of skating through careful consideration and attention to detail and form. When they step onto the ice, they feel confident because they have, as you said, "put in the time." They've drilled themselves on the techniques of skating until they became natural, and therefore feel assured that, because of their discipline and practice, they will be successful on ice. If they aren't, they know they simply need to apply more focus to their art.

Now, if Skater #1 steps out onto the ice and fails....they somehow pull it off anyway. I'm not quite sure how that's done. I'll have to give that one some thought. How is it that type 1 still comes out on top even amidst failure? They bend it to suit them somehow. It becomes a joke, and we all laugh because their confidence compels us to.

I think if you have both you can excel (materialistically/monintarlly/general influence over people) and succeed in life. But if you have GENUINE confidence you will succeed and if the Great Depression hits the economy you won't go off and kill yourself--And you will know when to "stop." Even Stephen Nash (from A Beautiful Mind) says that money (we can generalize to power) leads to irrational decisions. And both kinds of confidence will get you POWER/Influence. In my opinion you can be a very effective leader if you have genuine confidence. The rub is, is the quest to leadership of a large group of people a rational decision in which a genuinely confident individual would seek to attain?
BTW-- I loved your writing style, sometimes I just slop things on here and hit submit. I do the people in these forums a disservice for that and will consider changing it to more professional prose.

Yes, both types of confidence can make you successful, give you power, but genuine confidence is conditional. It depends on past experience and performance. Blind confidence, however, acts as a filter through which all experience is perceived and measured. It is a foundation for everything you do.

I agree with you that genuine confidence produces good leaders. But blind confidence causes people to irrationally, unconditionally love, even worship you. Take God for example. At least from our perspective, you might say he's blindly confident, (that's not to necessarily say we shouldn't follow blind confidence. In fact, such confidence often hits the mark, even in its blindness). That's why so many people love him. It's irresistible, that barbaric confidence. Ah, but here I delve into new and deeper waters. ANYWAY, we come back to the age old question: is it better to be feared or loved? As Michael Scott would say: "I would rather have people be afraid of how much they love me." Sorry, I DIGRESS NO MORE!

I find your last question simply fascinating. I have always wondered at those confident people who maintain a very strong sense of moral duty. Then again, I understand how a genuinely confident individual would pursue something irrational. Just because they choose to base their confidence on something solid does not mean they are incapable of being irrational. All humans are at least somewhat irrational. That's why we're not gods. They're made of rational. Animals are made of instinct. We're the hybrid of the two. As for moral duty, could that be some sort of rational instinct? Animals don't have it; gods don't adhere to it. Whatever it is, moral duty is uniquely human and irrational.

And I thank you for your complement. On the contrary, you have done us a service by the quality of your content.

[PierreGringoire]

Nice follow up! Therefore, blind (barbaric) confidence is sort of like instinct. It is the "dark side" of the force if you will People who are dominated by this breed of confidence are dangerous people in my opinion because they don't know where their power originates. They are unrestrained beasts and lack structure.

And conditioned (genuine) confidence is good because it explains (communicates) to the one who practices it what the "power" is made of. (I'm taking a leap here). The essence of "power" (I really don't want to refer to it as the force) if you will. Since you arrive at it from hard work. Its as if you earned it-- the one who has conditioned confidence has treated the "power" as if it were a benchmark instead of an easy whore.

And the mixing of the two kinds of confidence is always the case in human beings because we are imperfect. That is true. But, like I learn in economics-- there are both short run and long run gains. In the short run at least one variable IS held constant in order for progress to be made. Why? Because its not realistic to be able to sustain substantial labor, capital, and technological growth in the short run. Therefore, normally, technology is held constant. And the production function becomes reduced to two variables.

Our minds are not perfectly effecient so it too will always show attributes of "blind confidence" or "reactive-like personality." However "conditoned confidence" is always a work in progress. But it can be mastered (I think). Can genuine (conditioned) confidence be mastered so well that it becomes second nature (like "blind confidence)? I suppose if that were the case you would be able to learn things before even practicing them But in all seriousness, maybe "blind confidence" can become EVEN MORE POTENT if you can learn treat it like a more respectable woman (as opposed to whore) right from the onset. You have enough humility to know that you are always second to it.
Which begs the question: Is instinct (power) god?
Again this is a little brainstormy. I don't mean to offend anyone or preach-- just trying to arrive at a truth.

[billl]

I think Lumiere was talking about the "conditional" nature of "genuine" confidence. "Conditional" is maybe an odd word for actually describing confidence, but "conditioned" is a bit risky to use for a replacement of "genuine."

Conditioned confidence makes me think of Pavlov's dog--it all depends on who's calling the shots. If one can choose one's goals, and find one's way to them, then one can be genuinely proud, I think. Unfortunately, the sort of confidence that comes from "controlled" activity has sometimes, throughout history, ended up being "good" in a certain sense, while also serving causes run through with less-than-admirable ends and means.

[PierreGringoire]

I think Lumiere was talking about the "conditional" nature of "genuine" confidence. "Conditional" is maybe an odd word for actually describing confidence, but "conditioned" is a bit risky to use for a replacement of "genuine."

Conditioned confidence makes me think of Pavlov's dog--it all depends on who's calling the shots. If one can choose one's goals, and find one's way to them, then one can be genuinely proud, I think. Unfortunately, the sort of confidence that comes from "controlled" activity has sometimes, throughout history, ended up being "good" in a certain sense, while also serving causes run through with less-than-admirable ends and means.

By conditioned confidence. I meant "It depends on past experience and performance." In a way, when you "practice" you are "conditioning yourself."
"Controlled" activity or doing things from orders or from "classical conditioning" like soldiers is indeed dangerous. Their kind of confidence is strange-- it is admirable because of its devoutness but contemptible because of its extreme degree of blindness.

[billl]

By conditioned confidence. I meant "It depends on past experience and performance." In a way, when you "practice" you are "conditioning yourself."
"Controlled" activity or doing things from orders or from "classical conditioning" like soldiers is indeed dangerous. Their kind of confidence is strange-- it is admirable because of its devoutness but contemptible because of its extreme degree of blindness.

Yes, you just summed it up MUCH MORE succinctly than I did! Sorry for the probably-unnecessary digression, I just felt that some of the discussion could maybe seem to mean something that it really didn't, if someone was just checking in.

I've enjoyed this recent burst of posts, and I'll get out of the way again.

[Lumiere]

Your reference to The Force is spot on! Thank goodness for Star Wars to provide us with common metaphors.

I think blind confidence is certainly more potent than genuine confidence, both for the person who it exists in, and for those who observe it. This is partly because it is unjustified and unconditional. It's a mysterious "force" of power, similar to instict. There is no reason or logic to it. It's pure energy, pure dangerous energy. Anyone can have access to genuine confidence by broadening their scope of experience. But blind confidence has no such foundation. It is a foundation in itself, and that's what makes it so potent.

Speaking of instinct: I think it is one of the most underrated "forces" in our universe. It has kept the entire animal and plant kingdom functioning in order and harmony for how many years now? The fact that part of this instinct remains in humans still is something to be treasured. Too often we discard instinct as being a vulgar, unrefined thing for beasts, that humans, being endowed with reason, should have nothing to do with. Objection, your honor! Not so! To the contrary! Some think that instinct is the source of all our problems, and if we could only be completely rational creatures, we would live in peace and happiness. Instinct is not the source. Rational thought is not the source, either. It is the duality of these two forces simultaneously working in us that causes conflict. Instinct cannot be rationalized or justified. Reason cannot interfere with instinct. When you cram the two together inside one body, you get a beautiful mess of a creature. Instinct makes the world go 'round. It is a force to be reckoned with. Let us not take it lightly.

[PierreGringoire]

Your reference to The Force is spot on! Thank goodness for Star Wars to provide us with common metaphors.

I think blind confidence is certainly more potent than genuine confidence, both for the person who it exists in, and for those who observe it. This is partly because it is unjustified and unconditional. It's a mysterious "force" of power, similar to instict. There is no reason or logic to it. It's pure energy, pure dangerous energy. Anyone can have access to genuine confidence by broadening their scope of experience. But blind confidence has no such foundation. It is a foundation in itself, and that's what makes it so potent.

Speaking of instinct: I think it is one of the most underrated "forces" in our universe. It has kept the entire animal and plant kingdom functioning in order and harmony for how many years now? The fact that part of this instinct remains in humans still is something to be treasured. Too often we discard instinct as being a vulgar, unrefined thing for beasts, that humans, being endowed with reason, should have nothing to do with. Objection, your honor! Not so! To the contrary! Some think that instinct is the source of all our problems, and if we could only be completely rational creatures, we would live in peace and happiness. Instinct is not the source. Rational thought is not the source, either. It is the duality of these two forces simultaneously working in us that causes conflict. Instinct cannot be rationalized or justified. Reason cannot interfere with instinct. When you cram the two together inside one body, you get a beautiful mess of a creature. Instinct makes the world go 'round. It is a force to be reckoned with. Let us not take it lightly.

LOL- I appreciate that Bill!
We said that blind confidence is LIKE instinct. But its social in nature since an animal cannot have "confidence." I don't know if you can say that instinct is to animal as "blind confidence" is to human beings.

I would say the only instinct humans have are sexual drives and the like kind of impulses (ie fear, hunger). It could be argued that even altruism is an "impulse" since that trait probably helped keep us alive as a species. The collection of these "impulses" perhaps mix and make up "blind confidence" and create the many layered motives that work with and against each other to make our "Dazzling" blind confident "product."

Therefore, I stand corrected. Instinct is to animals as what we have been calling "blind confidence" is to humans. But "god" cannot be a collection impulses--that would be kind of weird. I need to make another post in this thread again soon!

At least we have categorized the two kinds of confidence rather well. And have concluded that blind confidence will always be a bit more effective in getting attention and "glory." Wheras genuine confidence will at best match the self assurance one gets from blind confidence. But can genuine be more useful? And-- can the one who has genuine confidence utilize certain impulses more than others?

[caddy_caddy]

Anyways, confidence is the egg of consistency. Consistency breeds confidence. Confidence reduces stress. Stress reduction increases mind utilization.

Mind utilization gives a more flexibile platform for emotional management--which in turn can make you trigger your own happiness on and off at will.


Completely agree!!

[PierreGringoire]

I think "the force" can be substituted with the neurochemical dopamine. No matter what side of the equation your on--whether it be the "dark side" or "bright side" we still are serving dopamine. Because at the end of the day we wish to feel gratified, righteous, loved. Therefore, confidence can be said to be the product of dopamine. Perhaps certain ways of getting at the dopamine are more gratifying than others. Like with consistency, you don't get rewarded right away--but the long term effects are lasting. Wheras, unstructured compulsions of the flesh are fleeting and never satiable (taken in the extreme). Dopamine is not a bad thing, its not a good thing. I know this much is true-- the dopamine reaction with your mind WILL find a way. Its up to us to actively think about how and when to trigger it. So let us bottleneck our fate so we (instead of compulsions) decide where we want to go in life.

So, at the end of the day we are all hedonists? Can that be? Must we see that word in a negative connotation as we were taught?

Or perhaps I'm missing puzzle pieces. Which I unquestionably am.

[blazeofglory]

In fact all I feel is we need a combination of both, instincts and reasons in point of fact. Life cannot be complete without the two simultaneously, in fact com-mixture of both things in life.
When I see a beautiful object in the middle of a river I like to have it but the depth of it fears me and I refrain from the idea of owning the beautiful object and in fact that is rationalization. All have this in fair proportion.

Even animal beings make use of the rationale they innately have to decide between things.