"Does confidence really breed success?"

[philnotfil]

bbc.co.uk

About nine million young people have filled out the American Freshman Survey, since it began in 1966.

It asks students to rate how they measure up to their peers in a number of basic skills areas - and over the past four decades, there has been a dramatic rise in the number of students who describe themselves as being "above average" for academic ability, drive to achieve, mathematical ability and self-confidence.

Self-appraisals of traits that are less individualistic - such as co-operativeness, understanding others and spirituality - saw little change, or a decrease, over the same period.

Twenge adds that while the Freshman Survey shows that students are increasingly likely to label themselves as gifted in writing ability, objective test scores indicate that actual writing ability has gone down since the 1960s.

The article goes on to cover some of the actual research on the link between self-esteem and achievement which shows that there isn't any link, different from what the self help books try to sell.

[wgbgator]

I think asking people to self-report or rate those qualities is not going to produce a clear picture of how confident or competent they are. I remember taking the foreign service exam, and them asking questions like that. You "knew" what qualities they were looking for and were obviously going to inflate them based on what other people found desirable. Now, they said they had questions built in to determine if you were doing that, but it didnt seem obvious to me.

[WESGATORS]

There's a big difference between "confidence" and "self-esteem." One can be confident and have low self-esteem (think of the many successful people who have depression issues). One can also have high self-esteem and not be very confident. Self-esteem is typically more geared towards how one feels about oneself in a more general sense, whereas confidence is typically geared towards ones ability to accomplish a specific task or goal.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Dreamliner]

I'd say 'self-esteem' is a misnomer. People esteem themselves highly, which is one reason they become indignant when you don't ascribe proper esteem to them.

[JerseyGator01]

I read a Dilbert cartoon recently which summed up this issue quite well. It opened with Dilbert asking a co-worker why the test phase was skipped for a new product that went straight to production. The co-worker responded, "We are confident" that we won't have any problems. Dilbert responded something to the effect of "Too bad 'smart' doesn't have a warm, fuzzy feeling with it."

Confidence is so overrated and based on a superficial evaluation of someone. I've often found that so-called confident people are not very hard on themselves. I'd rather have a real problem solver eight days a week and not just someone who looks good in a suit.

[Minister_of_Information]

Confidence is the residue of demonstrated ability (i.e., "achievement"). Anything else calling itself confidence is simply bluster.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

I think asking people to self-report or rate those qualities is not going to produce a clear picture of how confident or competent they are. I remember taking the foreign service exam, and them asking questions like that. You "knew" what qualities they were looking for and were obviously going to inflate them based on what other people found desirable. Now, they said they had questions built in to determine if you were doing that, but it didnt seem obvious to me.

I would have to agree 100% with your assessment

[bluelang]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Confidence is the residue of demonstrated ability (i.e., "achievement"). Anything else calling itself confidence is simply bluster.

you have been making some fine points on this particular internets lately.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by bluelang

you have been making some fine points on this particular internets lately.

I stole that one from Patton, I just couldn't find the exact quote. But thanks.

[gatordowneast]

We have a whole generation of young people who have "high self esteem" because they are given trophies for participation and accolades for existence and have been told they are special. They then construct "temples" (facebook) for themselves where their admirers come leave them fawning remarks.

Real confidence, as another poster mentioned, comes from achievement and accomplishment. When I interview people, I can tell the difference when I ask about their achievements.

[JerseyGator01]

Interesting, so few interviewers in Jersey even ask about achievement nowadays.

[gatordowneast]

Originally Posted by JerseyGator01

Interesting, so few interviewers in Jersey even ask about achievement nowadays.

Unions probably have outlawed it due to discrimination...though it is not.

[Lawdog88]

Is had been proven that people not awarded participation trophies tend to be less confident and envious of those who were.

I mean, I can see that.

[T3goalie]

I have been a principal owner in my law firm since 1992. I never hire anyone who did not work themselves through college or law school.

My experience is that those who go through on the mommy/daddy ticket or subsidize and burden themselves entirely with loans are worthless employees who have not bothered to develop any skill set that are marketable, billable or useful.

I don't give a rats rear end about so called confidence or self esteem. Motivated people who know how to work, show up on time, meet deadlines, develop skills, pay their bills, complete tasks, follow up, and take pride in doing the best job for the client are what i look for. It is mind numbing how many resumes i get filled with fluff. MOI hit it right on the head with his quote from Patton, "demonstrated achievement". Note- Pedigree is also not important to me. The worst hire I ever made was an Ivy league grad. The kid was a professional student.

[gatordowneast]

Originally Posted by T3goalie

I have been a principal owner in my law firm since 1992. I never hire anyone who did not work themselves through college or law school.

My experience is that those who go through on the mommy/daddy ticket or subsidize and burden themselves entirely with loans are worthless employees who have not bothered to develop any skill set that are marketable, billable or useful.

I don't give a rats rear end about so called confidence or self esteem. Motivated people who know how to work, show up on time, meet deadlines, develop skills, pay their bills, complete tasks, follow up, and take pride in doing the best job for the client are what i look for. It is mind numbing how many resumes i get filled with fluff. MOI hit it right on the head with his quote from Patton, "demonstrated achievement". Note- Pedigree is also not important to me. The worst hire I ever made was an Ivy league grad. The kid was a professional student.

T3, totally with you on the above post. I look for fight in a person. If they've never had to scrap, sacrifice, work there a$$ off, how do you know how they will react to adversity? You don't. I like the old saying that "it is not the size of the dog in the fight but the amount of fight in the dog."

[northgagator]

I look at confidence as motivation.

There is positive motivation and there is negative motivation.

Example, pick any person in a room and tell them to imagine that he/she is on first base. Then tell them that that no matter what the results are in the next pitch that they have to run towards second base. The next question to ask is why are you running?

The answer that shows negative motivation refers to the avoidance of being put out.

The answer that shows positive motivation that refers getting to home plate (winning, scoring).

In other words if you are playing not to loose your chances of success are less then when you are playing to win.

[JerseyGator01]

I've been quite the gambler in my career. For the most part, outside of a couple of years, it has paid off. But those couple of years look like dirt on my resume despite the accomplishments of the near 20 other years. Most HR people focus like a hawk on the 2 weird years and couldn't care less about the positive 20. I call it interrogating rather than interviewing.

[T3goalie]

Originally Posted by JerseyGator01

I've been quite the gambler in my career. For the most part, outside of a couple of years, it has paid off. But those couple of years look like dirt on my resume despite the accomplishments of the near 20 other years. Most HR people focus like a hawk on the 2 weird years and couldn't care less about the positive 20. I call it interrogating rather than interviewing.

Not to me. If you were a gambler, assumed the risk for you own losses and were willing to live with nothing then you are responsible for yourself. The folks that bug me are ones who want to be bailed out and spread the loses for their bad choices.

[northgagator]

Originally Posted by T3goalie

Not to me. If you were a gambler, assumed the risk for you own losses and were willing to live with nothing then you are responsible for yourself. The folks that bug me are ones who want to be bailed out and spread the loses for their bad choices.

In your scenario the culprit is not risking their own assets, thus they are not gambling. In reality the are mooching or stealing.