Con(fidence)-men would have the world believe that only greedy people fall for their scams. The old "blame the victim" switcheroo or perhaps they are only projecting because every con knows that the easiest mark is another con. Drs. Chabris and Simons offer a much more robust and compelling explanation in their illusion of confidence, one of several human illusions covered in The Invisible Gorilla.
What is compelling to me about the illusion of confidence is how with a little thought, it easily explains political phenomenon such as Palin, the tea-baggers, Obama, and MSM punditocracy. And even why Tony Hayward fell flat on his face a few weeks ago. Will get them, but first take a minute and watch a Simons' Illusion
(No poll on your performance because everybody knows that dKos readers are above average and get perfect scores on tests.)
What Chabris and Simons demonstrate is the role of confidence in the perception of self and others. Generally, we over-estimate, and thus are irrationally confident, in our own abilities, intelligence, attractiveness, etc. Not in areas of demonstrated and earned competencies – those tend to be correctly, or even under, rated. For example, multi-taskers are highly confident that they are excellent at multi-tasking when in fact they are really bad at it. What's very troubling about such over-confidence is that the lower the level of competence, the higher the over-estimation.
A similar dynamic plays out in our perception and evaluation of others. Those that exhibit self-assurance or confidence are assumed to be competent. And that assumed competency is also over-estimated.
Recall if you can when Sarah Palin first burst onto the national scene on August 29, 2008. Physical attractiveness is politics is always a plus, but she also brought an aura of supreme self-confidence. At the end of her first two weeks in the limelight, her approval/disapproval ratings were 52%/35% respectively as reported by Markos. Her slide began the next day after the first part of her interview with the very friendly Charlie Gibson. A week later, her approval/disapproval ratings were 42%/46%, a stunning 21% change. After that until election day, her numbers didn't budge much. (They've since dropped.)
We can speculate that Palin's more objectively disastrous one-on-one with Katie Couric reinforced what Palin revealed the previous week with Gibson -- that absent a script, podium, and large, adoring audience, she is ignorant and lacks confidence. Doubt that observation escaped Palin's minders in the McCain camp because she was well coached to play to her strengths in her debate with Biden. That prep included not answering the questions. As Gwen Ifill discussed in Mother Jones:
When she said to me at the beginning of the debate—which, by the way, she did me a favor by making it clear to everyone watching that she wasn't going to answer the questions. When she said that to me, I had an option. I could say, What? How dare you? Or I could let the viewers at home understand, just let it lie, and let them conclude, which most of them did, that she was playing by her own rules. ...
Ifill may have given viewers too much credit or she underestimated how easily the visual overwhelmed the aural. By asking and answering her own questions, Palin maintained her composure and confidence. That evening and the next day the pundits were talking about how well she did up against a thirty-year pro like Biden. Bush got similar accolades in 2000 after his debates with Bush. (Also recall how Lieberman and Edwards fell flat against Cheney. That tete-a-tete format was Cheney's cup of tea. Both might well have done better with a podium style debate against Cheney, and Biden should have opted for the sit-down with Palin.)
Now Tony Hayward. As the CEO of a large corporation chairing meetings of BP managers, executives and the board of directors, bankers, and brokers or being interviewed by business journalists, he exudes more confidence and competence than most CEOs. Before the general public and in the position of having to explain BP’s disaster, his confidence looked like arrogant indifference. Being confronted by ignorant politicians trying to score points reminded me of what Al Gore was up against in his debates with Bush. Eye-rolling is the natural, human response in such a situation. It also puts one down further; appearing even more arrogant and possibly shifty. (Elena Kagen in her Senate hearing demonstrated what it takes to negotiate this type of minefield.)
As George Lakoff reminded us again today in Disaster Messaging, Democrats still suck at political messaging. While it's true that Republicans often win with good messaging of dreadful policies and records, fooling the people only lasts for so long. Approval ratings for Reagan and the Bushes had tanked before the end of their terms and by then they looked foolish and no amount of bluster could help them. However, their messaging is only good when their policies or records are or can be made to seem as clean and consistent. Messaging mush is as difficult for Republicans as it is Democrats. It's also much easier to message offense than defense.
It's too soon to tell who wins and who loses in November or even if it will matter. However,Obama's Oval Office Speech on Energy is possibly a big fat clue.
