What exactly is "confidence"? According to Dictionary.com, it is the "belief in oneself and one's powers or abilities." But really, it is a useless word. It's a word that is unnecessary, misused, and falsely praised. It's nothing but a illusory euphemism for arrogance. In nearly every case, a simple substitution of the word "confidence" with "arrogance" can be made. Arrogance provides a justification for all the scenarios mentioned above. An arrogant man views himself so highly that he believes himself to be worthy of the reward in each scenario listed above; he believes himself worthy of a girl's affection, of being hired, of his argument in a trial being undeniably correct, of being recognized as the world's best athlete. He cannot possibly fathom the possibility of failure and he will never admit inadequacy. This is the real driving force of confidence with its euphemistic shield deprived. Confidence is nothing but arrogance, though it may come in smaller and more subtle doses at times, and arrogance derives from ignorance, from the inability to foresee or accept potential failure. Our ignorance causes us to see this as a good trait; we hail the "confident" person as the epitome of success and we ignore the fact that confidence is nothing more than a sugar-coated form of arrogance, an evil figure covered by a cloak of unjust praise. And for this reason, we must open our eyes. Confidence does not, and should not, exist as a separate entity from arrogance. They are completely intertwined - they are one and the same.
But what about the good aspects of confidence? What about the rookie that has the "confidence" to pinch-hit in the bottom of the 9th inning with the game on the line? What about the lawyer with enough "confidence" to deliver his argument in a way that convinces the jury? What about the new worker who has the "confidence" to stay calm during the interview and answer all the questions properly? What about the nerdy average-looking kid that is "confident" enough to ask out the love of his life? If confidence is arrogance, then does societal success depend entirely on arrogance?
The answer to that is, simply, no. The issue here is that confidence is a misused word. A rookie does not have to believe in himself in order to hit a home run; he must simply focus on his fundamentals. A lawyer only has to appear self-assured in his argument; deep down, he knows there are always counterarguments. A prospective employee does not have to believe he is undeniably the best applicant out there; he only has to answer the questions presented to him to the best of his abilities. The average guy knows he won't always succeed, but he knows that he has to try. When it all boils down, the good in society depends not on arrogance or confidence, but on courage and determination. It depends on one's courage to attempt a task to the best of his or her ability regardless of the odds or the situation. It depends on one's determination to persist and endure even if the situation appears destined toward failure. These are the values that society must value - not confidence, but courage and determination.
The world today is plagued by an evil in the form of ignorance; we deceive ourselves by seeking "confidence" in those we depend on. If we continue to do so, our world will begin to become overrun with arrogant, ignorant people. The forces of evil will slowly weed out the forces of good; arrogance will supplant courage and determination as the foundational values of society. Thus, we must abolish the notion of confidence. We must strip off its illusory coat, the misleading positive connotations that perpetuate our own ignorance in a vicious cycle. When we see an arrogant person in a position of power, we bring ourselves to believe that arrogance, or "confidence" as one might say, is a force of good, one that gets us where we want to go in life. Ignorance breeds confidence and confidence fuels ignorance. For the sake of humanity, and for the sake of the world, we must delete this word from our vocabulary or, at the very least, shed light on its evil, hateful nature.
The answer to that is, simply, no. The issue here is that confidence is a misused word. A rookie does not have to believe in himself in order to hit a home run; he must simply focus on his fundamentals. A lawyer only has to appear self-assured in his argument; deep down, he knows there are always counterarguments. A prospective employee does not have to believe he is undeniably the best applicant out there; he only has to answer the questions presented to him to the best of his abilities. The average guy knows he won't always succeed, but he knows that he has to try. When it all boils down, the good in society depends not on arrogance or confidence, but on courage and determination. It depends on one's courage to attempt a task to the best of his or her ability regardless of the odds or the situation. It depends on one's determination to persist and endure even if the situation appears destined toward failure. These are the values that society must value - not confidence, but courage and determination.
The world today is plagued by an evil in the form of ignorance; we deceive ourselves by seeking "confidence" in those we depend on. If we continue to do so, our world will begin to become overrun with arrogant, ignorant people. The forces of evil will slowly weed out the forces of good; arrogance will supplant courage and determination as the foundational values of society. Thus, we must abolish the notion of confidence. We must strip off its illusory coat, the misleading positive connotations that perpetuate our own ignorance in a vicious cycle. When we see an arrogant person in a position of power, we bring ourselves to believe that arrogance, or "confidence" as one might say, is a force of good, one that gets us where we want to go in life. Ignorance breeds confidence and confidence fuels ignorance. For the sake of humanity, and for the sake of the world, we must delete this word from our vocabulary or, at the very least, shed light on its evil, hateful nature.
You have a point there. But I always thought that arrogance was associated with being over confident, and confidence was believing that people had (sort of) worked hard enough and could apply their abilities in hopes of getting success. But you definitely had a good counterpoint to that, yet courageous seems like much more of a spontaneous thing...
ReplyDeleteWhat about when people make decisions believing they are right? Shouldn't people have confidence in the decisions they make?
Props!!
ReplyDeleteI agree with the person above... I always thought of arrogance as being EXCESSIVELY "confident."
ReplyDeleteConfidence I think of as being that dictionary definition... It's different in the sense that it is moderate. Like pride vs. hubris. Which.. is pretty in line with this actually.
I mean... as a girl, I would like to be confident in how I look at myself, to not be overly self-conscious, but I don't think I will ever get to the point where I think I'm the hottest girl anywhere.
Courage and determination are wonderful and should definitely be championed, but I think that confidence factors in too. If I don't believe in myself at least a little, I probably won't have much courage or determination to do what I really want to do.
I agree with the first and third comments here. To me there's a bit of a distinction between the two that lets someone feel confident without being arrogant.
ReplyDeleteI kind of agree with what 1, 3, and 4 thought about arrogance in its relation to overconfidence. 2 is a noob, regardless of what was said. I usually consider arrogance extreme confidence, but without basis. Confidence, however, seems like it has a connotation which includes a reason to believe something, like probability, statistics, past experience.
ReplyDeleteBecause it's the easiest for me, I'm going to use exam questions as an example. What if you walk out, think about a question on the test, and wonder about if you got it right or wrong? What if you see a similarly-worded problem straight out of the textbook, would I be arrogant in thinking that I might be right? If I discuss the question with two to three other people, and we get the same answer, do I say I feel a little bit more arrogant, and that in having the same answer, these other people share my arrogance? Or is it that each of us having the same answer gives us a sigh of relief and peace of mind?
And think actor-observer bias. I would say the observer is arrogant if he knows nothing about the actor, but would have a reason to be confident if the observer actually knew the actor and his predispositions.
Argue me on this, man. I want to see what you gotta say.