Why do women love confidence in a man?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6
 

Loonyyy:
Fine.

Fine. I'll concede. It's inconceivable why women love confidence in a man. I'm going to write a poem about it, right now. Then cry myself to sleep, because my poem can never ever express my inner beauty, and that makes me very, very sad.

in my experience, insecure people have always tended to try and drag me down to their level. my ex had a birthmark on his face that made him extremely insecure but instead of acknowledging that, he would try to belittle me to make up for his lack of confidence. my best friend has no confidence and i dont know how his wife deals with him, he needs someone there to hold his hand through everything and its really exhausting sometimes.
theres a huge difference between confidence and arrogance though.

Confidence is a matter of perspective, and is subjective. As it stands, I personally don't think it is only confidence that people look for, but rather, that particular quality, or even parts of that quality, in parity with something else.

A person who is confident, yet lacks a skill or trait to be a foundation of that confidence is merely conceited. There was a time in my life when I was conceited. There was a time in my life when I wasn't confident. However, both of those characteristics died as I worked through the basis behind them. So it would be my thought, that rather than being confident, it is the other traits that people internally associate with their reason to be confident.

My confidence comes not only from my physical strength and willingness to attempt something, but it also comes from my mental aptitude (which I have in far more abundance). The fact that my physical strength is genetic is something I cannot control, or fix, and maybe my intellect has a basis in genetics as well, as no one in my family is actually stupid. However, it may be the fact that I have the drive and ability to apply my intellect and knowledge, and to learn quickly from situations.

Ultimately, all things considered, I very much think that different people seek different traits, and as said before, confidence is a flag that maybe, someone has a reason to be confident. As for physical ability, it figures up very little in the grand scheme of things. Yeah, someone might be able to hunt and kill a bear, but ultimately, if they don't know how to dress it down, they can wind up starving.

Finally, I think the reason has been geared toward this whole 'confidence' thing, is because the past few generations have, for the largest majority, been without father figures. A confident person is generally seen as stable, if not successful, and can work as not only a provider, but someone to turn to in the case that you don't have daddy.

OT: Dominance may be associated with physical attributes, generally. However, the guy who is mentally capable of getting inside of a person's head and leading them around, is the true dominant force.

Katatori-kun:

DanDeFool:
Trump may be a bit childish in his public discourse, and is aging less gracefully than one might aspire to, but anyone who's that rich has to be pretty confident in their business acumen, at least.

Do they? What if they inherited their money? What if they got lucky? What if they know they've ripped off countless people to get where they are, that they couldn't make an honest buck if they tried?

As for your friend, people kill themselves for all kinds of reasons. Without wishing to disrespect the dead, even someone who has everything under control has some issues they just can't handle, no matter how confident they are.

It would seem to me that not controlling your issues would be part of the very definition of lacking confidence.

You've also neglected the possibility that a person could be confident but not be successful. The two may influence each other, but they aren't always directly correlated.

Look, buddy, you can sit there splitting hairs until your fingers fall off, but that only demonstrates to me that you've missed my original point. My point being, confident people are usually more successful than people who lack confidence. Yes, you do have to pay attention to the details, because people are usually more confident in some situations than in others, and there is such a thing as being cocky and full of yourself. Still, I believe confidence and success are, indeed, strongly correlated, because you get confidence through having success.

If you try something, and succeed at it more often than not, you'll be confident in your ability to do that specific thing.
If you try something, and fail more often than you succeed, you won't be as confident.

If you try lots of different things, and succeed at many of them, you'll probably be more confident in general. If you fail at a lot of things, you'll probably be less confident in general.

Can we agree on that?

DanDeFool:
Look, buddy, you can sit there splitting hairs until your fingers fall off, but that only demonstrates to me that you've missed my original point. My point being, confident people are usually more successful than people who lack confidence.

Are they? Have you done the study? Have you seen the numbers? Or are you just assuming that because it feels right.

If you try something, and succeed at it more often than not, you'll be confident in your ability to do that specific thing.
If you try something, and fail more often than you succeed, you won't be as confident.

If you try lots of different things, and succeed at many of them, you'll probably be more confident in general. If you fail at a lot of things, you'll probably be less confident in general.

Can we agree on that?

You're not supporting the same claim I took issue with. You originally claimed confidence is evidence of success, and you're now trying to justify that with the claim that success can lead to confidence. Since we know that people can be confident without being successful, then we can't claim that confidence is an indicator of success.

Now if you wanted to argue that successful people should be confident, then you'd have a claim I'd take less issue with. But that would have very little relevance to the thread.

Katatori-kun:

DanDeFool:
Look, buddy, you can sit there splitting hairs until your fingers fall off, but that only demonstrates to me that you've missed my original point. My point being, confident people are usually more successful than people who lack confidence.

Are they? Have you done the study? Have you seen the numbers? Or are you just assuming that because it feels right.

If you try something, and succeed at it more often than not, you'll be confident in your ability to do that specific thing.
If you try something, and fail more often than you succeed, you won't be as confident.

If you try lots of different things, and succeed at many of them, you'll probably be more confident in general. If you fail at a lot of things, you'll probably be less confident in general.

Can we agree on that?

You're not supporting the same claim I took issue with. You originally claimed confidence is evidence of success, and you're now trying to justify that with the claim that success can lead to confidence. Since we know that people can be confident without being successful, then we can't claim that confidence is an indicator of success.

Now if you wanted to argue that successful people should be confident, then you'd have a claim I'd take less issue with. But that would have very little relevance to the thread.

Wanna know what else I believe? Eating too much makes you fat. No I haven't seen the studies that prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that eating too much makes you fat, but since food contains calories, and fat is how the body stores excess calories, I can reasonably infer that most people who eat too much will get fat. Is that always true? NO! People metabolize food at different rates, and some people have glandular problems! And yet, I can still say that eating too much probably makes most people fat, and most people who are fat are that way because they eat too much.

Similarly, I WAS arguing my original point. I infer that confidence implies successfulness because most people become confident in their abilities after they succeed. Am I saying it's a 1-1 correlation? Am I saying that there AREN'T confident people who are unsuccessful, or people who lack confidence but still succeed? No! But just like fatness and overeating, I think there's a casual link between confidence and success that you can use to explain why people like confidence.

Let me ask you a question. If you can't infer successfulness from confidence, then what can you infer from it? What's your explanation for why some people are more confident than others?

DanDeFool:
Wanna know what else I believe?

Not really.

Sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but you made a claim. It's not unreasonable to ask you to back up your claim.

Let me ask you a question. If you can't infer successfulness from confidence, then what can you infer from it?

Nothing. We cannot infer that a thing that can be caused by multiple factors (ex: confidence caused by self-efficacy and/or narcissism) indicates a single one of those factors. At least not without solid evidence as to the general distribution of those factors.

DanDeFool:

Let me ask you a question. If you can't infer successfulness from confidence, then what can you infer from it? What's your explanation for why some people are more confident than others?

The link between calorie intake and body weight is pretty direct and causal, though. Confidence-Success much less so. I wouldn't be inclined to believe that confident people tend to be more successful, because that seems too reductionist to me to be accepted without evidence.

I'd find it just as convincing if somebody told me that confident people tend to be less cautious, and that caution is in fact more beneficial to career success.

Just to be clear, I wouldn't claim the above without evidence either; I'm just demonstrating how we can all draw different conclusions from the assumptions we have. My only point is that we can't be reductionist, and just assume that the confident are particularly more likely to be successful.

((Besides, the most confident at school often tended the less bright and more aggressive ones. Inadmissible as evidence, I know)).

Spinozaad:

Loonyyy:
Fine.

Fine. I'll concede. It's inconceivable why women love confidence in a man. I'm going to write a poem about it, right now. Then cry myself to sleep, because my poem can never ever express my inner beauty, and that makes me very, very sad.

And that in any way represents anything I've said? You want to make the case for confidence being the result of competence, and confidence leading to success. That's not always the case.

Clearly, little snowflake, you're not very interested in serious discussion.

Katatori-kun:

DanDeFool:
Wanna know what else I believe?

Not really.

Sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but you made a claim. It's not unreasonable to ask you to back up your claim.

Let me ask you a question. If you can't infer successfulness from confidence, then what can you infer from it?

Nothing. We cannot infer that a thing that can be caused by multiple factors (ex: confidence caused by self-efficacy and/or narcissism) indicates a single one of those factors. At least not without solid evidence as to the general distribution of those factors.

If you don't care about what I have to say, you should have just told me from the beginning. Would have saved me some time.

If you think confidence means nothing, that's your prerogative, but there is at least some solid evidence to the contrary in that we are having this discussion. If confidence were truly meaningless, nobody would care about confidence. I would hazard a guess that confidence would not exist.

But since you won't even give the time of day to an idea that doesn't have a 500 page doctorate thesis backing it up, I'm just going to let this one go. I am clearly not prepared to discuss this on the level you're interested in.

DanDeFool:
If you think confidence means nothing, that's your prerogative, but there is at least some solid evidence to the contrary in that we are having this discussion. If confidence were truly meaningless, nobody would care about confidence. I would hazard a guess that confidence would not exist.

Again, incorrect.

See Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia. Lots of people care about it, but it means nothing. See the 2012 end-of-the-world phenomenon. It meant nothing (literally, the Maya didn't even predict the end of the world) yet loads of people became obsessed with it. People care about all kinds of things that are meaningless. Because people are emotion-driven creatures who are easily duped.

Silvanus:

DanDeFool:

Let me ask you a question. If you can't infer successfulness from confidence, then what can you infer from it? What's your explanation for why some people are more confident than others?

The link between calorie intake and body weight is pretty direct and causal, though. Confidence-Success much less so. I wouldn't be inclined to believe that confident people tend to be more successful, because that seems too reductionist to me to be accepted without evidence.

I'd find it just as convincing if somebody told me that confident people tend to be less cautious, and that caution is in fact more beneficial to career success.

Just to be clear, I wouldn't claim the above without evidence either; I'm just demonstrating how we can all draw different conclusions from the assumptions we have. My only point is that we can't be reductionist, and just assume that the confident are particularly more likely to be successful.

((Besides, the most confident at school often tended the less bright and more aggressive ones. Inadmissible as evidence, I know)).

Gotta say, I'm too exhausted from debating with that other guy to continue this beyond one last post. You might say, because of my lack of SUCCESS in defending my point, I am no longer CONFIDENT that I can convince anyone that I might be right.

Last point: I think confidence is a sign that someone has been successful in the past. Past performance is, of course, no guarantee of future success, so you've got to take someone's confidence with a grain of salt.

Also, there's a difference between being confident and being a bullheaded dickpiston. Your (not) friends from school are probably in the latter category.

Katatori-kun:

DanDeFool:
If you think confidence means nothing, that's your prerogative, but there is at least some solid evidence to the contrary in that we are having this discussion. If confidence were truly meaningless, nobody would care about confidence. I would hazard a guess that confidence would not exist.

Again, incorrect.

See Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia. Lots of people care about it, but it means nothing. See the 2012 end-of-the-world phenomenon. It meant nothing (literally, the Maya didn't even predict the end of the world) yet loads of people became obsessed with it. People care about all kinds of things that are meaningless. Because people are emotion-driven creatures who are easily duped.

Okay. You seem pretty confident that confidence is one of those meaningless things people inexplicably care about, so I guess I believe you. Clearly you know a lot about this sort of thing; otherwise you wouldn't be so confident that you're correct.

People want somebody who can get stuff done. Plus, the guy with confidence is probably going to be the one approaching girls in the first place.

I don't know if I'm just weird, but I find a lack of confidence/shyness in a girl to be strangely attractive...

If being confident is is accepting who ones self truly is and is accepting/enjoying that then it seams that one who is shy by cannot become confident. By not being happy with ones self, one must alter they're true self and become someone they aren't to be come "confident" which isn't confidence. If one is true shy and empty inside, accepting who they aren't opposes confidence. Does this make confidence an ascribed role one is given in their initial personality? Or does one have to do some series of mental gymnastics to convince themselves that they are indeed confident and not whom they once were? This doesn't imply shyness is the opposite to confidence but if is generally an attribute to lack of confidence.

With this being said I am a young male and would classify myself as lacking confidence and quite shy. I prefer to be introverted and have accepted willing to second guess myself and have a careful calculated outlook on life, I don't have all the answers and could anyone? I have only a fraction of the whole picture in my perspective, how could one know enough about so much to obtain confidence, from my perspective confidence appears as an illusion of one appearing to know more than they actually do. I find it difficult to argue and refute the well thought out points of the many other people who took their time and energy to post here about their personal experiences, how could I be more right than they?

The overwhelming majority in this particular thread state how important confidence is so I stand here bewildered as every one says I should be confident so I must change that to become confident, thus making me in-confident of my true self. But my true self is saying boy I wish i was confident because the overwhelming majority of people I've discussed this topic with say how important confidence is. The very act of me questioning myself and contemplating trying to acquire confidence further backs my claim lacking self confidence. I'll now sit here and read this post confused but at least glad I possibly advanced myself as a person. I can accept I lack confidence and perhaps will have little to no friends or intimate relationships as long as I'm happy just being my lonesome self =D, accepting the probable isn't bad and is somewhat soothing.

Thank you so much to all those who contributed to this discussion thus far. I found it very thought provoking with special notation to the two posters arguing over evolutionary psychology. I try not to have an opinion because I am not nearly as learned as you two (Katatori-kun and DanDefool) in the subject but both your arguments are compelling for and against it that it makes me think twice before mindlessly throwing it out as an argument, and mindlessly arguing against it/ dismissing the idea. Sorry for the wall of text, possible typos and rambling of this argument fallacy but as an impressionable young man such as myself that seeks guidance and wisdom of the crowd, this forum provides it quite well, again thank you.

From what i've gathered in this thread is that all girls want the same thing and cannot deviate from what is socially acceptable for a female to look for in a man.

Because confidence is sexy, as it's exhibited by Alpha Males? it's fairly straightforward

I also don't believe that confidence = successful = self esteem.
I know a lot of not so successful people who are very confident in themselves.
I have no idea where that confidence comes from, but many girls/people will fall for them simply because of the way they present themselves.

On the other hand, many successful people are insecure.(Yes, I have Donald Trump in mind when I say this)

Then there are others that wear a mask of confidence but totally crack when under pressure.

I can also think of many shy people who are actually very confident in themselves but act shy because shyness is seen as an act/ portrayal of humbleness. (I think many women fall into this category because cultural gender biases.)

What ever the combination may be, many people find people who lack self esteem or confidence to be their ideal partners because they can be co-dependent.

I think many people learnt to tell the difference as they get older and become more experienced.

Because confident men talk to women.

DanDeFool:
Okay. You seem pretty confident that confidence is one of those meaningless things people inexplicably care about, so I guess I believe you. Clearly you know a lot about this sort of thing; otherwise you wouldn't be so confident that you're correct.

Tut, don't pout. I'm not trying to win. I'm trying to get people who make claims to back them up. To get people to put some thought in the notions they just accept un-critically.

Tycon:
By not being happy with ones self, one must alter they're true self and become someone they aren't to be come "confident" which isn't confidence.

I don't believe this to be true. As someone who struggled with depression and lack of confidence as a teen and changed himself to get mostly past those problems, I don't believe people have a "true" self that can never be changed. Your self is the sum of your experiences and your thoughts, and those things are always changing. What we think of as personality is many times just thought-patterns and habits, and changing our personality requires us to break those habits- to put ourselves in situations that force us to think differently.

A person who is shy can become confident. My only contention is that they should be very careful in what they think it means to be confident. They can read PUA manuals on the internet and imitate the formulas and scripts that PUAs promise will get you laid, and it probably will get someone laid. But that doesn't mean they will become confident. I actually knew a self-described PUA who started out as a bit of a nerd and then spent years getting every woman he could into bed. And bragging about it on a website. To hear him talk, he was the greatest man on earth. A couple years later though, the old nerdy, insecure self came out again. He didn't actually change, he just wore a different mask for a while.

If you truly change yourself, it can't be something you do for show.

But also, introverted isn't the same thing as lacking confidence. Introverted just means you enjoy being alone, or one-on-one.

I would say that real confidence (as opposed to narcissism or bluster) is in general a good thing. It is not a good thing to never have confidence, and if you think you lack confidence I would strongly encourage you to have experiences that will help you gain confidence. My only argument has revolved around judging other people's confidence. Just because someone looks confident to you, that doesn't say a thing about what they're capable of achieving or what other qualities they may possess.

Katatori-kun:

DanDeFool:
Okay. You seem pretty confident that confidence is one of those meaningless things people inexplicably care about, so I guess I believe you. Clearly you know a lot about this sort of thing; otherwise you wouldn't be so confident that you're correct.

Tut, don't pout. I'm not trying to win. I'm trying to get people who make claims to back them up. To get people to put some thought in the notions they just accept un-critically.

-Snip-

I would say that real confidence (as opposed to narcissism or bluster) is in general a good thing. It is not a good thing to never have confidence, and if you think you lack confidence I would strongly encourage you to have experiences that will help you gain confidence. My only argument has revolved around judging other people's confidence. Just because someone looks confident to you, that doesn't say a thing about what they're capable of achieving or what other qualities they may possess.

First of all, not pouting. Trying to make a point.

You didn't really support your point with hard evidence either. Referring to phenomena you ASSUME to be related to the discussion at hand is NOT proof; it's you making an assumption. Therefore, the only reason I would have to take you at your word is because you're confident that people being afraid of the number of the beast and the Mayan apocalypse, and people believing that confidence is an indicator of a successful person, are analogous behaviors. And you must be confident in that assertion because you have proof that it's real, or you've seen the connection between those things first-hand.

So, basically, by agreeing with you I was trying to demonstrate how assumptions of success based on confidence play a role in these kinds of discussions. And I decided to do it in a snarky way because I was cranky and wanted to get under your skin. It didn't work, and I apologize for being petty.

Second of all, I agree with what you wrote after the snip, but I think you're missing the connection between self-confidence and confidence in general. The cornerstone of my argument is not that it's okay to accept assertions without evidence, it's that using logic to draw parallels between things can give you a baseline understanding of certain phenomena; sometimes enough to form a theory explaining certain observations. The part where you do the studies and codify the evidence comes later, and broad studies of attitudes and lifestyles is not something I'm equipped to do.

Final Thought: I do not believe the idea that self-confidence can be attained by having experiences and being successful is consistent with the idea that projected confidence can never be an indicator of a successful person. Do I have proof that confidence is an indicator of success? Nope. But I'd be surprised if they did the study and found no correlation between confidence and success.

Then again...

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked