rhino
05-03-08, 17:52
I'm curious about something.
Why is it that when people clearly lack true confidence in their position or opinion, they choose to assert information about their background or experience in an attempt to persuade? I'm not referring to someone sharing their background in order to establish context.
It's usually painfully obvious when someone feels the need to type something about their personal history that they will feel will bolster their position, but it comes across to third parties as a strong indication that they are incapable of effectively arguing their point based on their argument and logic. Often the credentials bandied about would be quite impressive under other circumstances, but the timing and the context make them far less persuasive.
I suppose the root of my question is that my curiosity is piqued by the lack of confidence displayed by someone while trying to communicate with others, when it's very likely that the same indivudual is supremely confident (and perhaps rightly so) when actually applying the technique or idea. I wonder why the confidence necessary to be successful in the execution (that is born from practice, success, and perhaps no small matter of deliberate mental conditioning) is virtually nonexistent when trying to communicate ideas about those techniques and practices to others such as messages on online forums.
Is it a manifestation of one of the many skills that separate a skilled practitioner from a skilled practitioner who is also a skilled teacher?
Or, is it an actual confidence problem that is deeper? If one truly believes his own words, why feel the need to throw "credentials" like a hand grenade into the conversation? It seems incongruently desperate to me.
Why is it that when people clearly lack true confidence in their position or opinion, they choose to assert information about their background or experience in an attempt to persuade? I'm not referring to someone sharing their background in order to establish context.
It's usually painfully obvious when someone feels the need to type something about their personal history that they will feel will bolster their position, but it comes across to third parties as a strong indication that they are incapable of effectively arguing their point based on their argument and logic. Often the credentials bandied about would be quite impressive under other circumstances, but the timing and the context make them far less persuasive.
I suppose the root of my question is that my curiosity is piqued by the lack of confidence displayed by someone while trying to communicate with others, when it's very likely that the same indivudual is supremely confident (and perhaps rightly so) when actually applying the technique or idea. I wonder why the confidence necessary to be successful in the execution (that is born from practice, success, and perhaps no small matter of deliberate mental conditioning) is virtually nonexistent when trying to communicate ideas about those techniques and practices to others such as messages on online forums.
Is it a manifestation of one of the many skills that separate a skilled practitioner from a skilled practitioner who is also a skilled teacher?
Or, is it an actual confidence problem that is deeper? If one truly believes his own words, why feel the need to throw "credentials" like a hand grenade into the conversation? It seems incongruently desperate to me.