E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSHuman beings – and no, not just Americans – are an overconfident bunch. That’s why most men will say they are more attractive than average, most doctors say they are better doctors than average, and a hilarious 70 percent of high school students say they are better leaders than average high school students, none of which is possible, of course.
You’d think this bias in favor of ourselves would always be a bad idea, but read the Declaration of Independence. Those guys took on the most powerful nation the world had ever seen. Sometimes being a little cocky pays off.
That potential for payoff is why Dominic Johnson, of the University of Edinburgh, and James Fowler of the University of California San Diego, write in the journal Nature that human society evolved to contain overconfident people. “There can be material rewards for holding incorrect beliefs about one’s own capability,” they argue in presenting a model of overconfidence.
As a commentary that accompanied the article explained, if two parties want something, they can fight for it, which comes at a cost. If only one claims the prize, he gets it without a fight. If both parties are gifted with perfect judgment about each other’s strength, then there’ll never be a fight because the weaker party will know to back off.
But contrary to what advocates of “rational markets” argue, there is almost always uncertainty. In that knowledge gap, you can talk yourself into thinking that your reach does not actually exceed your grasp. So deluded, you may try for what you want and sometimes the real stronger party won’t compete. If you are, say, skinny, goofy, lisping Roger Rabbit, you can make a play for Jessica (va-va-voom!) and wind up with the sexiest babe in Toon Town. Hooray for you.
But there is a dark side. That’s where Las Vegas casinos make their money. And recall all those blustering house flippers and bragging Wall Street quants ordering Petrus back in 2005?
Whether or not overconfidence is positive or negative depends on costs. Back in evolutionary time, costs were usually contained to yourself if Gork the caveman beat you up over a chunk of meat. In the modern world the costs can be slight -- if Jessica turns you down for a date you might be a little embarrassed, but so what? You stand to gain Jessica Rabbit!
They can also be earth shaking. So if your smug shock-and-awe jingoism could cost a national fortune and kill tens of thousands of people, and your mondo clever financial wizardry could wreck the world economy, please think about checking that cocksure attitude, O.K.?
Want more weird health news? Find The Body Odd on Facebook.
Leave a Comment:
Hey, it's an article about Barack Obama :-)
I have other adjectives than "COCKY" for Mr. Obama.
"...your smug shock-and-awe jingoism could cost a national fortune and kill tens of thousands of people..."
Hey Mikey - that's a not so subtle reference to the great "Decider" Shrub Jr. You know, the guy who could feel the "truthiness" of a situation without having to actually think about it.
So many dingleballs single-mindedly obsessed with Obama! I would lay money that even an article about prize-winning Best Cupcakes would trigger shrieks and howls about Darth Obama wanting to deprive us of life, liberty, and cupcakes.
What would you be doing right now if McCain and Screamy McHamster had won? Think things would be all happy unicorns and sparkly rainbows? Grow up. This whole mess was decades in coming, with a whole cast of blame-worthy characters. No one could have cleaned it up overnight, and any person or party claiming to have the big magic spell is selling you a big load of Lucky Charms.
George W thought he was smarter than the average bear!
Turns out he was right! Also, he's smarter than the average person. He certainly knew more than all the loonies who thought Obama was, not only smarter, but the second coming. Turns out, all those who thought Obama was smart either have been proven to be morons, or agree with Obama's success of destroying the country.
It's good that people think Obama is doing a bad job and the economy is so terrible. Most don't try in the face of thoughts like that, making for less competition in the workforce. In the meantime, confident people (as in this article) are still doing well and making money, and in many cases, a lot of it. Younger couples in their mid-30s are moving into homes in my neighborhood where the low entry-level price is close to a million dollars. You won't find them here griping about Obama, that's for sure.
So witchrunner thinks that
1) being in a war in the Middle East that we didn't need to be in,
2) that the excuse of WMD that didn't exist (and they knew didn't exist) was good
3) that spending Billions of dollars of surplus and creating the largest deficits in history,
4) that taking a nation with the lowest unemployment rates in history and turning it into a nation with the highest unemployment rates in history
5) killing thousands of American servicemen and women in the aforementioned unnecessary war
6) letting the big oil companies gouge us at the pump for eight years by taking $1.90 a gallon gas and inflating the price up to $5.00 a gallon in less than 5 years
7) giving Corporate America the biggest tax breaks in history, while not helping the average American
and
8) running what used to be the greatest nation on earth into the ground is good?
Witchrunner thinks that the president who did all this is smart?
God help us from people like witchrunner.
And God help us against the obstructionists in the right wing who only want to feather their own pockets at the expense of us poor peons down here at the bottom. Why, it's obvious, if you don't think for yourself, like the GOP wants you to. Geez, and all this time I thought it was because... No, I know who caused all of this. Dubya did.
Obama isn't destroying the country. The GOP, with its obstructionist manipulation is. And anyone with any brains can see it. If you don't see it, its because you're choosing not to look. The GOP Kool-Aid machine is running overtime.
Well I would have to say that (1) he is a multi-millionaire and (2) he was President of the United States for 8 years..............SO, he is certainly more accomplished, if not smarter, than anyone posting here!!
W has an IQ of around 112, he sure did not hit it out of the park in that regard. Multi-millionaire sure so is Bill Clinton who did more good in office and is doing more after his presidency...remember a country with a balanced budget...that is what W inherited and he cut enough deals for the wealthy and big business that he pushed us into a recession...and he had a majority in both houses his first 6 years in office!
I think this describes a typical American CEO, and we've seen the damage they can do. Sorry, there I go with the class warfare. I hope I didn't hurt their (crocodile) feelings.
mf, just because someone is more successful than you doesn't mean they are cocky. It just means they are more successful than you.
Dasvet: Or it might mean that they love themselves and money more than most. Success is more than power & position.
Dasvet - First of all don't assume they're more successful. I'm doing quite well thank you. Second, I've had the unfortunate pleasure to work closely with several CEO's, CIO's, General Managers, CFO's, and CTO's (Chief Technology Officers). I won't extrapolate to all managers everywhere but my observations are CFO's and CTO's are generally pretty bright. CEO's, CIO's, and General Managers are included in some of the most over-confident, short-sighted, greedy, insensitive, and moronic people ever to not deserve their paychecks that I've ever met.
You sound bitter. Are you really qualified to determine if someone is over confident? Some one or some group decided for a reason to place them in those jobs. But you know better?
mf-3735877 is right I am married to someone at that level and yes I would like to say they have really 'bad attitudes' that appear to be 'cockiness' sort of like 'Eric Cantor'. Real butt-heads..
ethel, your marriage problems have nothing to do with the issue.
Dasvet - Not bitter in the least. I don't think it takes any special qualifications to determine if someone is over confident, it's usually pretty obvious. Yes someone put someone else is a job they're not qualified for. That just means both someones can be incompetent relative to what they're doing.
I admit my posts on this subject are a bit snarky but I'm really not all that extreme on the issue. I've done well and never really been personally hurt by corporate mismanagement. What makes me upset is seeing what they've done to others, to the environment, and to society. Cocky people don't bother me in general (they better not since I'm one of them).
You better be able to back it up when you're cocky. Just ask Obama.
I can't believe Brian wrote this and it got published.
What an odd closing paragraph.
I love his closing paragraph! Great advice never to be heeded.
And then of course there were those cocky guys in the Light Brigade.
Just what we need - more fuel for the already over-arrogant!
OK, tell me something we didn't know. How about some statistics on gender differences and then correlate that to the actual cost in blood, treasure, and heartbreak to the rest of the world -- rather than some glib, "Look at ME! I got published!" display of that of which he writes.
Enough with the evolutionary bullcrap!
Hahaha...funniest article I've read in a long time. The last paragraph says it all. Look at all the posts on this and other boards. Seriously, most people (read: average) seem to consider themselves the sole source of intelligence in this world with the pentultimate answer for anything. The problem is, there are always exceptions and there are always fallicies in any complex, multi-faceted argument. It seems as if there is no one who has the ability to truly see and comprehensively understand every side of the argument; especially arguments with more than 2 or 3 sides such as our current political and fiscal morass that is constantly filled with vitriolic and hateful statements. Makes one think of just how many of you are truly idiots.... Oops, I just overstated my confidence. LOL.
Have a great day =)
"Pentultimate?" LMAO! Somebody should buy you a dictionary.
Not really because CEO's have the same traits as serial killers, thats' been noted. They are just really weird people who make excessive amounts of money.
Dang JB, it's tragic that one misspelled (and awkwardly placed) word can ruin every ounce of one's credibility... Also, I would love to know how long it took you to meticulously type up that response.
P.S. Someone of your grandeur should know that 2 and 3 need to be written out.
For example: At least you only had THREE grammar mistakes!
Have a great day =)
Ah, thank you for you fine observations on my typos, Mark and Mark. I did mean to type "penultimate" not "pentultimate", meaning non other than the second to the last word on what's really going on. Maybe it is awkwardly placed; however, it's also allowing said ego booster one last reprive. Personally, I'm very humble and don't believe in having an over inflated ego. Hardly tragic. As well, you are correct. Spelling out the numbers I used would be grammatically consistent. Unfortunately, I typed the previous response in a little more than 1 (haha!) minute. With my fingers typing as furiously as possible, I was bound to incur errors in grammar and typos. C'est la vie, right?
Have a great day =)
Markutk, dabit deushis quoque finem.
Latin, French, and English all in one thread! We are just sophisticated people!
JB... You put the comma after your quotation mark!!! What were you thinking? Also, your joke about the number one was rather amusing, however, you put an exclamation mark inside the parenthesis; which is incorrect in this format!
Nick, all I got from your sentence is that God will do something... Care to elaborate?
Have a great day =)
Concise writing > "vocabulatory masturbation". JB could have gotten his point across by saying, "I am a hypocrite who is desperate for respect, I like when people hear me using large words, and those who polarize arguments are often narrowminded." At first I was going to say that his little tirade was irrelevant to the article, but it's actually a perfect example of someone who is overconfident in their ability - in this case, the ability to come off as intelligent.
As a side note, I think it's interesting that JB's overconfident tirade contains a shrouded critique on anybody who would question overconfident GW Bush policies (in this case, Iraq and deregulating Wall St). It speaks to a political culture that will play loose with the facts if that's what's necessary to save face.
For example: didn't his explanation of his use of "pentultimate" [sic] smack of the same flavor of bullsh*t we heard when Sarah Palin claimed that, in fact, Paul Revere WAS firing warning shots and ringing bells to warn British soldiers in the Colonies that they'd better think twice before attacking us?
Silly us, we just assumed they didn't know what they were talking about. If we weren't morons we would have picked up on the subtlety that ego-driven polarizers deliberately leave the last word open in case the other person wants to shower them with praise. Or something. I think he just thought "penultimate" was a smarter-sounding way to say "final" and came up with that bizarre explanation after grabbing a dictionary.
We've got lots of interesting psych stuff playing out here. JB, thank you for stimulating my noggin for the day. Feel free to let everyone know that my prediction of your political leanings is wrong - you strike me as the type of opportunistic arguer who will take advantage of the fact that nobody knows your political leanings to score a point here.
I like this. A lot. Penultimate doesn't even mean final though...I bet JB thought it did though.
Ouch. That entertaining burn earned you a spot on my watchlist, Trev. You're still on there markutk, so worry not.
In an article about being overly confident and cocky, the author makes an ironic error.
The author states: "most men will say they are more attractive than average, most doctors say they are better doctors than average, and a hilarious 70 percent of high school students say they are better leaders than average high school students, none of which is possible, of course."
It is incorrect that "none" of these scenarios are possible. And concluding that erroneous statement with "of course" just screams of unjustified cockiness.
It certainly IS POSSIBLE that most men will are more attractive than average, most doctors are better doctors than average, and a 70% of high school students are better leaders than average high school students.
Let me explain.
Let's say you rate attractiveness, doctor's skill level, and/or high schooler's leadership abilities on a scale of 1 to 10. And, let's assume that an a representative sample of the group consists of 10 people. And, let's say that group has following "scores": 1, 1, 2, 4, 7, 7, 8, 9, 10, 10. The average score of that group is 5.9.
Under that sampling, 60% (or "most") of men/doctors/students are better than average. Put another way, statistically speaking, it is very possible for "most" men, doctors, or students to be better than average.
In order for the statement to be correct, you have to assume that attractiveness/skill level/leadership abilities of the entire group corresponds to a normal curve, that is, they have a "normal distribution." The accuracy of that assumption has not been proven. And until it is, I would caution the author to not "of course" conclude as he did.
And yes, I am cocky.
If you knew some actual statistics, instead of using your small made up sample, then you would know that the impossible, and the of course, are both warranted. See the Central Limit Theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem). Essentially any random sample with more than 30 observations is bound to have a very nearly equal split (50% above, 50% below) and as the samples get larger, the approximation to 50/50 gets better and better. Cocky is one thing... ignorant is another.
Ed Hubbard, New York, NY, that only works for symmetric distributions. If the distribution has any significant skewness, then the mean will never equal the median.
I'm cocky, the author meant the median even though he said the average. Even though you are cocky, being "right" is not always right.
Average is the 50th percentile...the author is simply stating that most cannot be above average since most would imply more than 50%...it doesn't need to be more complicated than that. "I'm cocky" just proved the author right by thinking that he is above average when in fact he clearly isn't.
Being cocky is okay in matters of the cock. But the more people it applies to, the more potential for disaster.
Reminds me of the true story of a group of Indian Ghurkas who were so over confident in their toughness that when they were told they would be jumping from a moving aircraft at 300 feet they had no problem with the idea even though they weren't even aware they would be using parachutes. Over confidence is a killer. Just like the judgement of a teenager.
@ I'm Cocky:
Yes, I see your math and raise you... hmm, let's see
For argument's sake, we'll take a pretend sample of people who think, "I'm Cocky", versus, "I'm not Cocky".
Number of people polled: 100
Let's say only 50% of those polled stated, "I'm Cocky".
25% declined to answer and another 25% answered, "I'm not Cocky".
Yes, I know, the numbers are simple enough for an elementary student; however, that's the easiest way to illustrate this. Should you wish to have a more elaborate numerical argument, I will be glad to oblige.
With those percentages, it is easy to infer that the majority of people thought, "I'm cocky". This majority would then represent the average because of the sheer number of respondents. See, the falicy with your example is that you are using the actual integer description of average, which infers the use of multiple if not infinite "points" or scores with wich to derive an average from. However, we are not dealing with points or scores, we are dealing with gross numbers of constants and only two variables, "Cocky" and "Not Cocky".
See?
Therefore, the author had a logical argument and the studies represented by the University of Edinburgh and UCSD are valid.
Maybe Ed will be able to better describe this than I can. Hey, I just limited my cockiness! Yay for the silent minority. LOL
Have a great day =)
Damn... just found a typo! It should be "with which", not "with wich". Hahaha.
They also say "pride goes before a fall". I think some of the wisest, smartest people are also the most humble... To me, cockiness is a sure give-away that somebody is probably not that smart. Some of the stupidest people in the world think they're geniuses (until they are FORCED to concede that they made a mistake. Then it's somebody elses fault...)
Yes! and we have to work with them ;)
That's the same thing I was thinking!!!
I could have written a much better article than this!
Personally, I tend to call it 'moxy', though a better and more accurate one might be audacity. Human beings naturally (in general) respond to audacity, though authority generally decries it. Audacity is absolutely essential to one who will rise from their 'assigned' station in life. No one ever accomplishes great things without it. It may not be obvious, and this is not the same thing as being arrogant. Tesla was utterly audacious, but then so was Napoleon. Steve Jobs has moxy .. Bill Gates at 19 had supreme audacity ... but so did Michael Milkin and Bernard Madoff. What one does with this gift is up to them, and it can be used for great good or great evil, like any other talent. When confronted with someone with such an attitude, it is good to hold them to their promises, but in life, these are the ones who generally get the chances ... they get the attention. They ask for the chance. Most never do. Of course some folks are just jerks, too.
Hubris?
Yes! :c) ... though it is hard to know if this is the same characteristic which herein is referred to as 'cockiness'. Hubris, audacity ... often are perceived as 'cocky' by those with ;'authority' ... for they validly perceive those persons as being a threat to the established order (they are, too) ... thusly it is a trait I often admire (unless misused). Things regularly need to be shaken up a bit less those in authority get a wee bit too comfortable ... I believe it was Franklin who said 'It is the duty of every citizen to challenge authority.'
Cocky only gets you so far. To succeed in earnest, you need to be a bona fide a-hole.
Direct hit. And we probably all know some real successful people!
I used to know the late founder of a very famous motel chain ... brilliant .. cocky ... and a bona-fide a**, too ... but he accomplished a lot. In the same venue I knew another man, who had in his life given away more money than most will ever dream of making .. a softly spoken, gentle soul who truly liked people and never once appeared arrogant. A truly nice gentleman .. self made ... started with nothing, but he had moxy ... he had been audacious .. and made many a life the better for it. (His kids, on the other hand were another story, sadly.) To succeed .. to really succeed ... you need some talent and some luck and a very great deal of ... perseverance (something the first mentioned man was famous for having said)
.
what do you think bin laden has to say about that?
George W was on the "Short Bus" with the "Special Bears"!
George W was on the "Short Bus" with the "Special Bears"...
George W said the president of Mexico was "the cockiest guy I ever met. Speak for yourself, George. And where did that get us? He removed that cocky guy Saddam Hussein for no obvious reason and at great cost in U.S. treasure and lives, and now we're no closer to a Mideast hegemony--which must have been his real reason--and we're in a no-win situation. And the cocky president of Mexico didn't do so well, either. Charlie Sheen is pretty cocky; and he's been having a little trouble. Rick Perky--I mean Perry--is cocky in stupidity-celebrating way. And Sarah Palin, who probably doesn't know she's stupid. And God. God is pretty cocky, especially in ( Chickweed Lane, and has not done such a great job. And his in-your-face son, may have been a little cocky-I'm not sure--and seems to be somewhat in decline. Bob Newhart was cocky in his early career, and then when he got humble he did better. We have feral chickens in our neighborhood, and the roosters are pretty cocky and crow a lot; but our next door neighbor--who is between tours in Afghanistan and is a little bit cock--goes on search-and-destroy mission, and then the cocky cocks get humbled. I can't really think of anyone else whom (see, I went to fifth grade too, where the teacher, Mrs. Gibson, being a woman, was not cocky) I would call cocky, but you get the idea; to wit: I'm not sure it IS better to be cocky, except in matters of the cock. There, cocky is probably better. Having said all that, I, myself, would not mind being a little cockier.
I had a cocky coworker/friend when I was younger. I remember the day he came back to work with his jaw wired shut.
I thought of two more cocky guys. Senator Beauregard Claghorn, "He was too short. Short, that is." And Foghorn Leghorn, "That's a joke, boy--ya missed it, went right past you." I believe Leghorn, being an actual rooster, was a little cockier. They both did exceedingly well, though, and Rooster Cogburn didn't do so badly (is that "bad"or "badly"?), either, although John Wayne isn't doing so hot. So I may have to revise my conclusion.