Confidence vs. Smugness

[Overthinker]

I have a lot of loud, confident, extrovert friends. Quite often one of these friends named David will say something mind-blowingly ridiculous, something he probably spent .001 of a second thinking about before he bluntly blurted it out of his lips. So I'll calmly turn to him and attempt to explain why I think he hasn't properly thought through this issue. If you looked at his face, you'd think he's paying his full attention to my every word, but the SECOND I finish my thought, he'll go right back to his ridiculous assertion. I wait patiently, listening to his reasoning, carefully considering the implications (even though I know he's absolutely wrong). Five minutes later (while he pauses to gasp some air into his neglected lungs) I'll tell him, "Dave, you're not listening to what I'm saying. Let me ask you this: does not your assertion imply X? And X is obviously incorrect. So how can you continue to believe this?" At this point I figure I have him cornered, 'cause there's no possible response that actually makes any sense, but he's extremely illogical. He is not "restricted" by the process of thought. So he jumps back into his dumb argument, once again completely ignoring the fact that I just disproved it.

Clearly I'm not approaching the situation strongly enough. As a kid, I was always told to listen to people and consider their words before I spoke (which is a very important), but I keep finding myself being torn to shreds by someone who's stupid enough to think we live in the 20th century because it's 2014! Once I realized my problem with not stating my opinion strongly enough, I started talking louder and not taking "no" for an answer (Just like Dave does all the time). But when I try to be "strong and confident," I come across as a prideful jerk. When Dave does it, he comes across as confident but also (somehow!) nice. No one thinks Dave's a jerk, even though he hardly listens, and barely thinks.

To summarize, it seems like there's some balance of confidence and niceness. I want to be confident without looking smug, but no matter how hard I try, no matter how hard I think, no matter how many angles I approach the situation... it's all or nothing. Either I'm nice and people walk all over me, or I'm a jerk and people hate me.

Anyway, sorry for rambling. Anyone else know people like this?

 

[Sci-Fi]

You can't always change peoples minds, especially those who think they are always right no matter what, even if you can show them otherwise. They never see another side except their own. So why even bother arguing it? Sure, say your piece if you want but after that it's best to let it go. That's what I do. I had a friend who believed he was always right even if he was wrong. I don't know why he was like that, I think mostly because no one ever corrected him cause maybe it made him feel stupid or something. I dunno.

 

[MTrip]

Sci-Fi makes good points. I might also add that perhaps you should start looking for better friends. If you can't communicate with Dave because he's a closed-minded *******, then what basis is there for friendship? Relationships of any kind are based on communication first & foremost.

 

[Groucho]

I have a lot of loud, confident, extrovert friends. Quite often one of these friends named David will say something mind-blowingly ridiculous, something he probably spent .001 of a second thinking about before he bluntly blurted it out of his lips. So I'll calmly turn to him and attempt to explain why I think he hasn't properly thought through this issue. If you looked at his face, you'd think he's paying his full attention to my every word, but the SECOND I finish my thought, he'll go right back to his ridiculous assertion. I wait patiently, listening to his reasoning, carefully considering the implications (even though I know he's absolutely wrong). Five minutes later (while he pauses to gasp some air into his neglected lungs) I'll tell him, "Dave, you're not listening to what I'm saying. Let me ask you this: does not your assertion imply X? And X is obviously incorrect. So how can you continue to believe this?" At this point I figure I have him cornered, 'cause there's no possible response that actually makes any sense, but he's extremely illogical. He is not "restricted" by the process of thought. So he jumps back into his dumb argument, once again completely ignoring the fact that I just disproved it.

Clearly I'm not approaching the situation strongly enough. As a kid, I was always told to listen to people and consider their words before I spoke (which is a very important), but I keep finding myself being torn to shreds by someone who's stupid enough to think we live in the 20th century because it's 2014! Once I realized my problem with not stating my opinion strongly enough, I started talking louder and not taking "no" for an answer (Just like Dave does all the time). But when I try to be "strong and confident," I come across as a prideful jerk. When Dave does it, he comes across as confident but also (somehow!) nice. No one thinks Dave's a jerk, even though he hardly listens, and barely thinks.

To summarize, it seems like there's some balance of confidence and niceness. I want to be confident without looking smug, but no matter how hard I try, no matter how hard I think, no matter how many angles I approach the situation... it's all or nothing. Either I'm nice and people walk all over me, or I'm a jerk and people hate me.

Anyway, sorry for rambling. Anyone else know people like this?

Yes. But half of an argument is actually PR. The most influencial speakers have the ability to sway people's minds with, not just logical, but well-thought out rhetoric. It's not sufficient to have the most facts, or the most logical argument, but it also has to be the most convincing and influencial.

Do you prefer text books or youtube videos? Music or talking? Delivery of content in some forms is more interesting than others (I couldn't tell you how to be convincing, that's another matter entirely).


In a sense, part of it involves charm, and perhaps an ever so slight amount of ham. So when you're correcting Dave, you can't do like Brains out of thunderbirds where you go "But the squareroot of Pi is X!", you've gotta deliver it like Russell Crowe out of a beautiful mind "there's a mathematical algorithm for how bad your tie is!".

Examples of punchy factual delivery are vsauce on youtube, who delivers pieces not like 'this is how much I know' but 'I find this fascinating'.

I think the Greek call it 'Pathos' (or 'passion' as it's more commonly known). You can't just deliver an algorithm: it has to be the best algorithm you've ever delivered.


'Do you know what you're saying would imply X, which if true would cause Y to collapse, cats to rain down on our heads and dogs to start freaking out and pooping up lampposts. And nobody sure as hell wants dog poop on lampposts, so you better stop there.'

 

[SofiasMami]

As you age, you'll learn to pick your battles. Some things, no, strike that - most things are simply not worth arguing over.
95% of life is about how you treat other people, not necessarily about how much you know.

-Teresa

 

[Overthinker]

Yes. But half of an argument is actually PR. The most influencial speakers have the ability to sway people's minds with, not just logical, but well-thought out rhetoric. It's not sufficient to have the most facts, or the most logical argument, but it also has to be the most convincing and influencial.

So when you're correcting Dave, you can't do like Brains out of thunderbirds where you go "But the squareroot of Pi is X!", you've gotta deliver it like Russell Crowe out of a beautiful mind "there's a mathematical algorithm for how bad your tie is!".

I can agree with part of what you're saying. But I think 90% of the argument should be logic, and 10% should be PR (maybe not those exact nunbers, but you get the point). Think about it, if the world were filled with people who were primarily concerned with the LOGIC of their reasoning, rather than the way it SOUNDS, life would be much simpler. I know so many people who are as dumb as a rock, but they sound like a rocket scientist. And there are plenty of geniuses that no one listens to because they stammer, or don't make eye contact.

People with amazing debating skills are extremely dangerous. They are so good at convincing people, that they no longer question their own preconceptions. They "know" the way the world is, and so don't feel the need to listen to others' point of view.

Basically, in a perfect world, SOUNDING good would be a nice plus to your argument, but it seems that to most people, sounding good IS the argument. It's a battle of charm, not a battle of ideas, and that is seriously messed up.

As you age, you'll learn to pick your battles. Some things, no, strike that - most things are simply not worth arguing over.
95% of life is about how you treat other people, not necessarily about how much you know.

-Teresa

Trust me, I do pick my battles. Most of the time when I disagree with someone, I'll just shrug it off. Only when the person is seriously wrong about an issue do I stand up and explain my view. I'm not the kind of person who gets into a debate about whether red or blue is a better color.

 

[WildernessWildChild]

Dave's on another forum saying "My friend Overthinker is a know-it-all pain in the ass who always thinks he has to correct me...."

 

[Overthinker]

Dave's on another forum saying "My friend Overthinker is a know-it-all pain in the ass who always thinks he has to correct me...."

As I said in my previous post...

Most of the time when I disagree with someone, I'll just shrug it off. Only when the person is seriously wrong about an issue do I stand up and explain my view.

I rarely correct people, and when I do, I never suggest I'm smarter than the other person... But thanks for the encouragement.

 

[Unbinilium]

Smug people look down on others. Confident people look well on themselves.