Slashdot Mirror


Overconfidence May Be a Result of Social Politeness

An anonymous reader writes "Joyce Ehrlinger from Florida State University has researched this very phenomenon, and has led her to present a paper called 'Polite But Not Honest: How an Absence of Negative Social Feedback Contributes to Overconfidence' at the American Psychological Association's annual conference in Orlando on Friday. Social norms, Ehrlinger says, are the reason that we are averse to giving negative feedback. Her research recreated everyday social situations in which we hold back from giving our own negative views."

24 of 263 comments (clear)

  1. spoonful of sugar by iamnobody2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    negative feedback is acceptable if given constructively and pleasantly

    --
    nobody's perfect
    1. Re:spoonful of sugar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Look there is a difference between being an A-hole and just saying it like it is. But sugar coating and wrapping criticism in a shroud of BS is counter productive and often leads people to 'not get it'. If one does something wrong, say it, and say it straight forward, no sugar, no BS.

    2. Re:spoonful of sugar by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 5, Informative

      negative feedback is acceptable if given constructively and pleasantly

      Not always. When I was a kid, I was a real brat and a complete nuisance at school, both for my schoolmates and for teachers, and didn't realize it. School officials tried time and time again to talk to me "about my future", call my parents in to have a chat about my latest antics in a pleasant, non-hurtful, Mr. Mackey sort of way, to no avail.

      And one day, 20 kids ganged up on me and beat the shit out of me outside school. I got the message. It was one of the most important lessons of my life.

      So no, being pleasant isn't always constructive.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    3. Re:spoonful of sugar by steelfood · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Depends on the person. Some people take negative feedback hard, and become discouraged. Some people take it well, and become driven to do better.

      Same with positive feedback, actually. Some people take it poorly and become overconfident. Some see it only as an affirmation of their progress.

      The only difference is, the person giving feedback would feel worse for giving negative feedback and having the person take it badly, than giving positive feedback with the negative reaction. This kind of feedback is ultimately not about the person receiving it, it's about the person giving it. It's about feeling good for that person, rather than doing good.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    4. Re:spoonful of sugar by EzInKy · · Score: 4, Funny

      So humans evolved manners so they could avoid getting the shit kicked out of them by their peers! Who would have thought?

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    5. Re:spoonful of sugar by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      negative feedback is acceptable if given constructively and pleasantly

       
      That's a nice notion, but unfortunately it only works some of the time, as different people react differently to different stimuli
       
      Some takes direct criticism well, others may not.
       
      Some are enlightened by the hinted enclosed within the sweet-coating, but others do not
       
       

      Look there is a difference between being an A-hole and just saying it like it is. But sugar coating and wrapping criticism in a shroud of BS is counter productive and often leads people to 'not get it'.

      Not all "not getting it, some do
       
      As different people react differently to different stimuli, you do have to tailor-made (or customized) the criticism / sarcasm / suggestion to suit the personality of the intended target
       

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    6. Re:spoonful of sugar by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Informative

      ... people who can't take criticism are known as artists ...

       
      ... and architects

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    7. Re:spoonful of sugar by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's why GP is asking for more capitalism.

  2. Not news by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's been just about impossible to criticize the religious beliefs of anyone for decades, and it's almost impossible to curb inappropriate and in-your-face religious behaviors because of the sacrosanct rule that religion is somehow immune to interference from the secular world, and that's why religious craziness around the world is on the rise.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Not news by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So irrationality does not occur in just religion... it happens in politics and probably every other human endevor...

      Yes, but you can have political debates. You can't have true religious debates: when people run out of argument, they pull the "faith" card and the discussion is over. And we're all supposed to respect faith as if it was unattackable by definition.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:Not news by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Informative
      I tend to believe rather like Thomas Jefferson, I think, on this matter.

      "I never told my own religion nor scrutinized that of another. I never attempted to make a convert, nor wished to change another's creed. I am satisfied that yours must be an excellent religion to have produced a life of such exemplary virtue and correctness. For it is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be judged." -- Thomas Jefferson

      "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." -- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

      (But of course we have the objection that certain "religions" have done those very things, even today. In which case we might rightly oppose them.)

      "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear." -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

    3. Re:Not news by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ever try to tell a Libertarian that has drunk the kool-aide that their free market liberty is swapping big government inefficiency [ineffectiveness which protects all of us -- read Heinlein] for a Darwinian construct that has no moral or ethical foundation?

      Ever try to argue rather than just tell people stuff? In a legitimate argument, you'd be corrected in that government, especially "big" government, is also a construct, possibly Darwinian as well, which has no moral or ethical foundation either. That's the case for most of human endeavors and tools. The hammer can be used to build a house or cave in someone's face. The hammer doesn't care which.

      Libertarian Religion [sorry the political party and their weak sister Tea Baggers] is bad for the present and worse for the future...

      Use of the excessively insulting term, "tea baggers" is not a sign of a serious argument. Calling a belief a "religion" merely because you disagree with it is not a sign of a serious argument.

      Don't they realize the "death panels" of "free market health care insurance" is already sitting-- they're called actuaries?

      No, and you don't either. The actuary just reports actual rates of some occurrence, here, death, illness, etc in a population. They make no decision over how much treatment is enough.

      When treatment is not a function of the wallet of the patient, then someone has to decide when too much treatment has been given. It almost never will be the patient and family who isn't paying the cost of their treatment directly. That's when the so-called "death panels" come in. Someone has to control costs or the medical system in question ceases to function.

  3. Counterpoint by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anonymous Coward: FROST PIST

    What the Moderators do: -5 Off Topic
    What the Anonymous Coward sees: +5 Attention.

    This is not how negative feedback was supposed to work.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
    1. Re:Counterpoint by TrekkieGod · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Anonymous Coward: FROST PIST

      What the Moderators do: -5 Off Topic What the Anonymous Coward sees: +5 Attention.

      This is not how negative feedback was supposed to work.

      The goal of the moderation here isn't to teach the dude the error of his ways. It wasn't meant to punish him. I don't care if he was gratified by the "attention" he got. If he did, more power to him, let him keep posting it.

      The point is that I don't browse at -1, so I didn't see his comment. Slashdot was therefore a better experience for me, and the moderation worked exceedingly well.

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

  4. Overconfidence may be a weakness by pegasustonans · · Score: 4, Funny

    But what's the alternative when you're running an empire? Faith in your friends?

    I don't think so.

    --
    And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
  5. Re:Please tell that to Hillary Clinton by CheshireDragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, I think it means that people are going to generally be nice and say good job when you did actually suck. Therefore making you overconfident.
    This is why i always speak the truth, no matter how blunt.

    That is where the phrase, "Honesty doesn't always win friends, but it influences people." comes from.....I think

    --
    "That's right...I said it."
  6. Re:Please tell that to Hillary Clinton by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 5, Funny

    You mean if no one tells me I suck, I won't think I suck?

    Please tell that to Hillary Clinton

    No, Hillary was his wife. You're thinking about Monica...

  7. Re:Please tell that to Hillary Clinton by mrgiles · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I agree with always being honest, but disagree with the need to be blunt. I have learned over the years that it is better to work with people than against them.

  8. "You didn't lose, you were the last winner" by manwargi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    George Carlin totally warned us.

  9. true especially in the workplace by sick_soul · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In my experience this overconfidence as a result of politeness is true in my workplace, and in past workplaces as well.

    Being generally polite, and not giving explicit negative feedback to annoying, unfunny, awkward, disrupting people finds justification in a kind of tacit, unconscious consent to be accepting and tolerant of everyone.
    This works kinda all right, and makes it for a peaceful, sometimes even happy environment, and reduces the chances for conflict.

    I have witnessed two scenarios where this politeness strategy fails utterly to both create a pleasant environment and to avoid conflict.

    One scenario is that of a massively disrupting individual, who is not aware of the consequences of his words and actions.
    Sometimes, like a current temporary colleague of mine, the guy is actually not a bad person at all, he is just not very perceptive of subtle signals (like awkward silences etc), looks very much emotionally vulnerable and unstable, which makes it undesirable to confront him about the issue, and has probably never been explicitly and seriously criticized for his disruptive behavior, resulting in a combination of fragility and overconfidence.
    Responding to such an individual seems to cause problems whichever strategy is employed (honesty, politeness, etc).

    The other scenario is that of a smart, socially-aware, perceptive, self-serving truly evil person.
    These people analyze these social situations carefully and are able to detect these weaknesses in the social construct, and take advantage of them. They are therefore able to belittle, disrupt, take advantage of, subvert, out-compete their co-workers, because they know that if they are subtle enough, if they target their attacks carefully enough, nobody will directly accuse them of anything.

    Note that I know that I myself have issues with detecting more subtle messages, and I know that my ego is vulnerable to lack of negative feedback as well. I try to ask people around me for truthful advice when in doubt, but in general I profit from this tolerant, polite social construct as well.

    I am not sure about how to organize a better social construct that is both honest and peaceful and tolerant, and I am not sure it is possible to do it in a perfect way for all situations and for all compositions of individuals.
    It seems to be a long standing problem with establishing and enforcing norms in societies.

  10. Re:Why Muslims think they're the religion of peace by gorgonymus+gorgward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In every office, standing by the water cooler, there is a person. Let's call him Joe. Joe tells stories about his weekend, followed by jokes about his in-laws, and everyone politely laughs as they shuffle around him to get their cup of water. "Why does Joe continue telling these jokes?" everyone wonders.

    That's the first few lines of TFA.
    Later:

    Since society has taught us not to hurt other people's feelings, we rarely hear the truth about ourselves, even when we really deserve it. And sometimes that politesse can have negative ramifications.

    Now, let's translate them to other people who do not share your understanding of Islam:

    In every office, standing by the water cooler, there is a person. Let's call him Achmed. Achmed tells stories about his religion, followed by assumptions about how it is a religion of peace, and everyone politely agrees as they shuffle around him to get their cup of water. "Will he cut my head off if I tell him I think that is total BS?" everyone wonders.

    [...]

    Since society has taught us to expect our head to be cut off by any muslim we disagree with, we rarely hear the truth about ourselves, even when we really deserve it. And sometimes that fear can have negative ramifications.

    Except that you didn't read TFA and just shat a comment out of your hate filled mouth (keyboard).

    Why should I care (and why am I feeding the troll)?

    I'm not a muslim/theist anymore, but I was born muslim and have some family and friends who still are.

    None of them have ever cut my head off or that of any other person who disagreed with them. Nevertheless everyday I see scum such as you spewing hate left and right about shit you don't even care to try to understand and getting ignored (at best) or modded +1 I-too-hate/fear-muslims.

    (Yea I'm new here, I expect people to RTFA)

  11. This is very much an American cultural thing by ricky-road-flats · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I hate to bring up something like Americal Idol (and its predecessor Pop Idol) in somewhere like Slashdot, but I think it's relevant.

    In the UK Pop Idol, the judges were always honest - if they found someone who couldn't sing, they told them they couldn't sing. They told them to not give up the day job, to abandon their dream of being a pop star. On the flip side, if they were good, the judges said so - and because of that it really meant something.

    In the few bits of American Idol I've seen, it's totally different. The judges (I seem to remember Paula Abdul and Randy Jackson in particular) when presented with someone who clearly didn't have a hope in hell of becoming a star of any kind, tied themselves in knots trying to say something positive. They just didn't ahve it in them to say "You're not a singer, forget about it". They'd say "You need to work hard to improve your rhythm" or " You're great but you're just not what we're looking for", and so on. Simon Cowell gave much more honest opinions and built a huge business out of doing it - but he was seen as Captain Negativity, the joke one, with the other two encouraging the no-hopers to keep their dream.

    The result? People in the UK who got that negative feedback accept (sometimes reluctantly) that they won't ever be a star and go back to singing in the shower and leading a normal life. People in the US don't have that reality check, so keep on trying, making themselves look more and more ridiculous, desperate and above all untalented.

  12. Re:Please tell that to Hillary Clinton by obarthelemy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This may be US specific. As a French student in the US, I was amazed at how much attention was paid to feelings, and how little was paid to, you know, tangible reality, such as who was right or wrong in clear-cut cases where there *was* a right and wrong answer.

    Constant praise and tip-toeing around issues not only inspires overconfidence, it also deprives people from a chance to correct their mistake, and to learn to handle failure. And since people are not *that* stupid, it also gives them a strong sense that everything is fake. Constant praise is very much like no praise.

    --
    The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
  13. Re:Please tell that to Hillary Clinton by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When I first started learning Japanese (not my current language of study) and was traveling in Japan, I was taught an important rule by another person learning the language: you know you're getting good at the language when people *stop* complimenting you on how well you speak it.

    Over here, the rule is a bit different: you know you're getting good based on how often strangers try to switch the language of the conversation to English.

    --
    The chloride owes the sodium money.