Some authors have suggested that not just confidence but overconfidence--believing you are better than you are in reality--is advantageous because it serves to increase ambition, morale, resolve, persistence or the credibility of bluffing, generating a self-fulfilling prophecy in which exaggerated confidence actually increases the probability of success. However, overconfidence also leads to faulty assessments, unrealistic expectations and hazardous decisions, so it remains a puzzle how such a false belief could evolve or remain stable in a population of competing strategies that include accurate, unbiased beliefs. Here we present an evolutionary model showing that, counterintuitively, overconfidence maximizes individual fitness and populations tend to become overconfident, as long as benefits from contested resources are sufficiently large compared with the cost of competition.While I know nothing about the making of models, it seems plausible to me. It's been shown, for instance, that optimistic people have better life outcomes than pessimistic; neither optimism nor pessimism are fully grounded in reality, being mostly in the mind of the beholder, yet depressed (pessimistic) people have been shown to be better grounded in reality, and also by definition they have worse outcomes. It pays to be optimistic and therefore, overconfident.
The same lead author along with coauthors wrote another paper on overconfidence in war: Fortune favours the bold: an agent-based model reveals adaptive advantages of overconfidence in war.
Overconfidence has long been considered a cause of war. Like other decision-making biases, overconfidence seems detrimental because it increases the frequency and costs of fighting. However, evolutionary biologists have proposed that overconfidence may also confer adaptive advantages: increasing ambition, resolve, persistence, bluffing opponents, and winning net payoffs from risky opportunities despite occasional failures. We report the results of an agent-based model of inter-state conflict, which allows us to evaluate the performance of different strategies in competition with each other. Counter-intuitively, we find that overconfident states predominate in the population at the expense of unbiased or underconfident states. Overconfident states win because: (1) they are more likely to accumulate resources from frequent attempts at conquest; (2) they are more likely to gang up on weak states, forcing victims to split their defences; and (3) when the decision threshold for attacking requires an overwhelming asymmetry of power, unbiased and underconfident states shirk many conflicts they are actually likely to win. These "adaptive advantages" of overconfidence may, via selection effects, learning, or evolved psychology, have spread and become entrenched among modern states, organizations and decision-makers. This would help to explain the frequent association of overconfidence and war, even if it no longer brings benefits today.Awhile back I suggested that there exists a certain "zone of arrogance", stretching from roughly Eastern Europe and into the Middle East and Central Asia. Since arrogance is a corollary attribute of overconfidence, maybe the suggestion here is that the peoples of the zone of arrogance are those who precisely have evolved the greatest amount of overconfidence, at least compared to the rest of the world.
If that is the case - and this is of course highly speculative, though supported by some evidence - then teasing out the factors that made for the presence of overconfidence and arrogance in a particular region of the world ought to be a worthwhile task. These factors could conceivably be geographical - a la a Jared Diamond type explanation - as well as genetic, climatic, and/or historical. One thing that occurs to me off the top of my head is that the Middle East has been the area of the world longest occupied by civilized societies, hence perhaps there was a greater competition for resources, which led to greater rewards from overconfidence.
Cervantes provided, 400 years ago, a complete Darwinian explanation:
ReplyDelete"Faint heart ne'er won fair lady."
The reward value of overconfidence, even to the point of arrogance, may have a lot to do with the success of the cultural and political Left in most Western countries. Leftists, particularly if they are NAMs, have such bottomless confidence as to be impervious to fact and argument.
ReplyDeleteThey see themselves as winners; like con (confidence!) men and demagogues, they attract people with their can-do aura. That helps explain why they have such influence over people who don't overtly support or even particularly agree with them.
Conservatives and traditionalists tend to be realists and pessimists. They project a certain negativity that stamps them as losers in the minds of many. It leads to a vicious circle in which they lack influence and become more pessimistic still.
Short-term, the advantage is with the overconfident. For a while, their expectations are self-fulfilling. But Nemesis lies in wait. Overconfidence eventually leads to pushing their luck too far and believing they can get away with anything. Let's hope that scenario plays out soon.
Epic. So much truth in this comment. I feel both psychoanalyzed and emboldened in my point of view.
DeleteThis is why our economy is based on the assumption it will grow exponentially forever.
DeleteThere's a generation of used car salesmen at the controls who've never known anything else.
Perhaps arrogance and over-confidence serve, at the micro level at least, as socially-acceptable forms of bullying. They affect the emotions of the bullied. Hence they may be most effective when used against the most suggestible, who are bent to the will of the bully.
ReplyDeleteThere could also be a survivor bias in analysing the over-confident and arrogant. We tend to notice those who succeeded, not those who failed. For example, anyone who has spent time with the self-made rich will notice how ordinary, even dumb, most of them are. Many simply embraced risks that no rational person would take, and, significantly, risks that they themselves could not see at the time. They then just got lucky.
Thinking about it, the difference between an optimistic realist and a pessimistic realist would be:
ReplyDeleteFormer says, This is the reality of the situation and here's what we can do about it. We can turn this around.
The latter says, This is the reality of the situation and there's nothing we can do about it. Actually, it will only get worse.
Many simply embraced risks that no rational person would take, and, significantly, risks that they themselves could not see at the time.
ReplyDeleteVery well put. This corresponds with my own observations though some got lucky, the majority are persistent due to their self-belief.
Persistence pays off.
Another attribute of the successful in our society is that they dissociate themselves from the wider community. Where there is no connection between the broader community's ethos there will be much scope to profit. As a variation on Game Theory, while the majority comply with unwritten laws and values, the minority who feel no connection, while outwardly they seem to comply, will be advantaged to a great deal.
You can see the scope here for an in-group, who looks and for the most part acts like the out-group, to likewise profit immensely.
Where you and I might say "No, that would not be in the true spirit of things" the entrepreneur only considers what is most beneficial to himself. The entrepreneur lives on the fat of the community whilst not maintaining the community.
This is a variation of Adam Smith's invisible hand idea though in that context the above is broadly beneficial to the broader community. Of course Smith assumed the moral and ethnic underpinnings of the community in question. One one disregards that moral and ethnic underpinning, whether through individualism or being a member of an in-group that does not share the broader community's aspirations, the invisible hand will wreak destruction.
What Smith observed as monopoly behaviour and sought to restrain.
When one, not one one. Genuine typo.
DeleteUnlike, deal deal, which would indicate double dealing.
"while the majority comply with unwritten laws and values"
DeleteAnd in many cases the rules are so engrained they can't even imagine not complying (and in the same way someone from outside who can ignore the unwritten laws of the majority without a moment's thought may not be able to imagine breaking the unwritten rules of their group).
Overconfidence may maximize individual fitness, but I would argue the benefits of which mainly accrue in the social realm and also suffer from diminishing returns, like anything else, the more prevalent it is among societies.
ReplyDeleteBeing a popinjay amidst a flock of pigeons is a great benefit. Being one amidst peacocks is nothing special.
Examples of overconfidence: Bill O'Reilly, Adolph Hitler, Alexander the Great.O'Reilly is a pure narcissist whose basic values are benign enough to produce little more than irritation. Hitler was megalomaniacal and sociopathic. Alexander was smart, brave, and quite literally believed he was a God in an age when such delusions were acceptable.
ReplyDeleteOverconfidence helps win wars if all other factors are about equal. Alexander's supreme overconfidence worked well because of his physical prowess and analytic mind. He was a natural leader like Julius Caesar.Eventually, if you tackle too many enemies, however, your mortality is exposed for all to see.Hitler's overbearing personality led easily to misjudgments that preordained defeat for his army. Delusional leaders may succeed occasionally but sooner or later unforeseen factors win out. Good judgment includes the ability to weigh all relevant factors in reaching sound decisions under pressure.Overconfidence often blinds its owner because some degree of caution may be required and delusions preclude such caution.
Parenting and schooling are also critical factors. American schools made self-esteem their mission and now diversity is sacred. Thus, failure does not exist in the educational vocabulary.America's children will often be bullied by belligerent blacks on the bus, but they are otherwise conditioned to belief in the conceits of an O'Reilly.They are seemingly perfect regardless of the real truth of differential ability. No Child Left Behind is a landmark delusion absorbed by NAMS who now cannot accept failing grades.The Middle East is indeed the incubator for egomania as males are taught a kind of supremacy reinforced by religion.Risk-taking is clearly a genetic condition that will explode in violence if the cultural conditions are right.The mix of superstitions, egomania, and conditioning by religion and family will often lead to much tragedy. Ego is a necessity but grandiose thinking is usually destructive.
Don't forget Churchill, who destroyed his own nation and her empire, all for his own ego.
DeleteDon't forget Pat Hannagan who comments ad infinitum to feed his own ego.
DeleteIn respect of over-confidence, there is a group of people in the world who are fighting with literally, almost everyone else; they are fighting with the blacks in Nigeria and the Sudan, with the Jews in the Middle East, with the Hindus in South Asia, with whites in Afghanistan, and in the West, with the Chinese in western China, with Christians in Egypt and Syria, and with each other in numerous countries.
ReplyDeleteApologies if I have left anyone out.
Anon.
In those cases they're separate racial and ethno-cultural groups. It doesn't seem to inspire over-confidence so much as will for groups to fight for determination.
DeleteYou can also say the same of the Jews. The difference is that they don't tend to use direct, overt physical means, and they're more of an invasive population among their host populations, while many of those groups are native.
Speaking of overconfidence. Facebook is worthless.
ReplyDeleteWell, by switching to being the social web site for the plebs and other people around the world, they seem to have racked up 800M customers, and had $3.7B in revenue last year with $1B in profit, it seems.
DeleteSo, seems that they have been successful, but then social fads are pretty fickle. I wonder if/when the bubble will burst.
Facebook is worthless.
ReplyDeleteIt can only ever be primarily a vehicle for selling advertising. Little more. So this is what America has come to in the 21st century: the big new touted company is something that will sell advertising. Throw in twitter. Pathetic.
Regarding overconfidence as perhaps an advantage: come to think of it, while I've met more than a few overconfident (to the point of arrogance) people who were, to some degree, obnoxious, I don't recall any who were really hurt -- in terms of life outcomes -- by that trait. Whereas of course a lack of self-confidence is a recognized problem that does affect life outcomes, and is written about in book after book.
Dennis, I think that the people on your blog who are claiming that Facebook is worthless are just expressing their own jealousy.
ReplyDeleteFacebook is a substitute for real world entertainment. The millions of people using facebook are being entertained - if they weren't on facebook they would be driving to bowling alleys or amusement parks or video arcades or casinos. All of these activities use up energy, use up natural resources and cost the consumer money.
Facebook is free - it is a way of keeping people happy while they sit at home. Facebook has to benefit the environment. Also note that NYC and Los Angeles crime rates have dropped to levels unheard of for the past 40 years. Steve Sailer attributes some of this to young violent teens staying at home to use things like Facebook instead of being out on the streets.
I think that the jealous people are ones who think of themselves as having high IQs but who do not have the intense focus and drive that the typical up from no where, bootstrapping billionaire has
The USA is a place where a family that has less than a million dollars in liquid savings can give their son encouragement and see that son make billions of dollars. See Mike Dell, or see Zuck, and many other guys who are not from "social register" families who become billionaires
- However many many high IQ people find themselves interested in the world around them, and pay attention to a lot of things. Their minds naturally wander to more interesting questions. So they don't make massively high incomes.
dumber people find it easier to concentrate on one thing, dumber people usually don't have the abillity to make really high incomes.
It is the person that is born with high IQ and also born with the ability to focus like a laser beam on one thing, the ability to apply that high IQ to one and only one thing, that can really make the cash.
Think for a minute about Michael Dell. He was born with a high IQ and he decided to focus his IQ on building computers inexpensively in his dorm room.
At the time there were literally hundreds of other companies trying to build computers cheaply, Dell triumphed because of the combination of high IQ and intense focus on one thing
It is boring as hell using a high IQ to constantly find ways to cut pennies of cost. But Dell did it because he was focused and driven.
The readers of this blog lack the intense focus to channel all of their mental energy in to a narrow boring thing in the interests of becoming rich.
Does everyone with high IQ that focuses the IQ in a specific lucrative area become a billionaire? No of course not. But if you spend your IQ reading blogs and thinking about stuff like HBD you have no chance. You aren't even in right zone
Sometimes I think that the "traditionalists" on this blog want only founding stock Americans, or perhaps only "colonial stock" Americans to become billionaires, they aren't excited to see people whose parents were just normal professionals produce billionaire sons
Both Dell and Zuckerberg were born with silver spoons in their mouths despite your assertion otherwise. Dell also managed his own company from market dominance into a niche, where it will likely eventually tank despite his own personal wealth due to his shekel pinching. He cut every cost he could manage until the actual manufacturers of Dell computers in Taiwan cut the biggest cost; Dell.
DeleteThere's also all of the issues with Dell paying mere millions in "fines" (or more accurately legal bribes) for basically cheating on taxes and general lack of business ethics and duplicity to make his business model work as well as it did while the company was still on top.
Neither Dell nor "Zuck" have done much in the way of actually contributing to society with their ideas, and despite your claim otherwise most actual geniuses of note were multi-talented and didn't just have 'laser focus' on acquiring wealth, nor is acquiring wealth (especially in the parasitic, non-value adding way that Dell and Zuckerberg do) meritorious in itself. That very acquisitiveness is probably a trait that prevents people as smart as Dell and Zuckerberg from contributing meaningfully to society. Despite what exiled soviet yenta rape-fetishists say to the contrary, greed is not good.
they aren't excited to see Jews whose parents were just "normal" millionaire professionals produce billionaire sons who got to the top by slitting throats, who once on top use their wealth and power to parasitically undermine their host population and ensure others can't exploit the same opportunities they did.
There, fixed that for you.
Michael Dell was competing against American hardware integrators, primarily by cutting brick and mortar overhead. Anyone that wants to compete in the same industry now has to do so against Chinese sweatshops; which not even Dell can do anymore. Good luck winning that competition.
But Mike Dell has his billions, and his homes and private jets, and lobbyist organizations to protect his various tax shelters, and to keep him out of prison when he gets caught with tens of millions of dollars of unreported income, and to keep his dividend taxes low, so who cares right?
"Sometimes I think that the "traditionalists" on this blog want only founding stock Americans, or perhaps only "colonial stock" Americans to become billionaires"
DeleteI want a yeoman economy / society built around a solid 60%-ish middle class.
For K(yle):
ReplyDeleteYou have nailed Dell and Zuckerberg very neatly. While nearly always harboring a powerful socialist lust, the Jews arriving on our shores manage to quickly exploit our capitalist incubating system. The pipeline between Hollywood and NYC is a model of Jewish economic fulmination. They explode with entrepreneurial zeal which suits them well because IQ and related talents, including creative thinking, can be implemented. The fact that successful Jews help their ethnic brethren guarantees rapid success for newcomers. Joseph Brodsky, the Nobel laureate poet, was only one of thousands of Jewish immigrants who received first-rate help even before he arrived.
Greed is an offshoot of the will to survive. It is the economic dimension of egocentricity but can be ameliorated by bouts of generosity. Carnegie made a fortune but returned much value to our culture. Ironically, while art, music, and various museums were products of earlier great wealth, today's high flyers, like Gates and Hollywood stars, prefer to "save the world" directly via Opra-like schools, Leftist projects in Africa, and recreating American schools to suit very low IQ blacks and illegals.Their grandiosity can be matched only by their naivete and plain ignorance. Minds come with many dimensions but being well-read or knowledgeable is one component glaringly missing today. Saving lives in Africa may seem noble but natural restraints on population growth, if successfully removed, could lead to a demographic Armageddon.
It is impossible to save both the people and the environment, in the third world, today. This obvious contradiction has only dimly intruded into the minds of modern philanthropists like Gates. Politically, it is impossible for the Left to deny either of these constituencies, and so we end up with a logical inconsistency, one of the many plaguing the Left.
DeleteThe solution, for those on the Left, is mandatory "Family Planning Services", ie co-ercive abortion, and which is totally and utterly unacceptable to another of their favourite constituencies, radical Islam, and also totally and utterly unacceptable to another of their favourite constituencies, Blacks (whether rich or poor).
On the religious Right, the solution appears to be to disregard the environment, defund abortion, and pray to God. This is less logically inconsistent, and requires less systematic mendacity, but will only aggravate the demographic pressures driving third world immigration into the West.
Those in the third world survived because both they and their cultures evolved to produce offspring as fast as the high rate of natural attrition. It is, I'm afraid, hard-wired. Without abortion, which the Right will not permit, and outside authoritarian governance, which the Left will not countenance, the third world, and hence we ourselves, face an inevitable catastrophe.
This is how we're going down.
Anon.
"The model attempts to explain how overconfidence, which would appear on the surface to be by definition nonconforming to reality, could evolve:"
ReplyDeleteThere's also this:
http://thosewhocansee.blogspot.com/2011/11/moralityor-biology.html
'[...] In warm climates, females typically can gather enough food for themselves and their children....In warm climates, such male provisioning was not essential, even if desirable.'
Overconfidence, showing off, boasting and bragging is adaptive male behavior in environments where females don't need male providers.
or, apparently, in environments in which females are allowed to believe they dont need their male providers.
DeleteAlthough having said that...
ReplyDeletealthough OVERconfidence by definition should be a negative trait if most people are such risk minimizers that there's a grey area where they still hold back when it's rational to gamble then overconfident risk minimizers will take that gamble.
This could explain
"For example, anyone who has spent time with the self-made rich will notice how ordinary, even dumb, most of them are."
This would be an example where a certain level of irrationality (overconfidence) was beneficial.
What I find fascinating about this topic is its relation to "self-esteem." I read an excellent opinion piece a number of years ago that pointed out the madness that is the self-esteem movement. Many studies apparently show that many hoodlums have very high (overly high) self-esteem, and that's part of why they cannot brook any blows to their self-image. The worst example I saw in the press was a hoodlum who shot to death a landscape worker in D.C. for blowing cut grass on the former's pants. By any sane calculus, the murderer did not suffer any injury that could justify murder...
ReplyDelete