Self-delusion and overconfidence are usually thought of as negative character traits, falling under the general umbrella of “douchebagery.” But, like other natural traits of Homo Douchebagis sapiens, such as self-awareness and rationality, overconfidence, like it or not, isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. Well, we’re still waiting on the results concerning rationality.In a research letter published in Nature recently, Dominic Johnson and James Fowler of The University of Edinburgh and UCSD, used population-genetics-based mathematical models to make the claim that overconfidence is so prevalent because it can actually make individuals more fit. Let’s be clear: Johnson and Fowler are not referring to that "insecure bully" brand of fake overconfidence, where any outward representation of cocksureness is concealing inner doubt, worry, et al–they're referring to genuine self-delusion. How could self-delusion be more adaptive than intellectual accuracy?Their story goes like this: In any given contest between two organisms over a single serving of resources, there are two vitally important variables–"r," which is the benefit accrued by attaining the resource, and "c," which is the cost inflicted in fighting for it. And, in most cases, nature is economical; if there seems very little chance of winning "r" (you're opponent is clearly bigger, stronger, faster, and/or smarter than you), it isn't worth paying "c" and you should bow out altogether. However, if it seems like an equal match it may be worth risking "c" in order to get "r."So how do animals resolve these situations? Many actually fight (take, for instance, two bucks competing for a mate). Others use signals to try and scare off their competitors (i.e. dog's bark, lion's growl, etc). Most animals do both, though signaling is more common because both parties can avoid actually fighting and paying a high "c."But how do humans signal? If it's going to be, say, a fist fight between two males, they usually pull what we'll call the "Jersey Shore" – flex their muscles, lower their shoulders, and push out their chests. But if it seems to be an even match physically, or they both have weapons (yikes), they use words to try and convince their opponent that they're the baddest motherfucker around. Now, because humans have a pretty uncanny ability to know when our peers our lying, it seems like a convincing display of confidence wouldn't come from an individual who is unsure of his ability, but one who genuinely believes he's going to win.Bluffing is often argued to be unstable in nature because there would be strong selection on discriminating responses. However, this may be partly why self-deception evolved: ‘hiding the truth from yourself to hide it more deeply from others.’So, self-delusion grants individuals a competitive edge. If you're under the impression that you have the jump on your opponent (or a particularly "stronger" impression, if they're also deluded), you can intimidate and even avoid conflict completely. This goes beyond bar fights in Seaside Heights—competitive overconfidence can be found in corporate offices, classrooms, music lyrics, and backstage of theater auditions.Of course, acts of overconfidence often go horribly wrong. Take foreign policy–the 2003 invasion of Iraq was clearly based on the delusional beliefs of politicians, military officials, and citizens who thought it would be a quick, clean war. Or consider the wall streeters who profited off sub-prime loans–many of them knew they were doing something wrong but had no sense of the economic havoc their actions would wreak. But psychological adaptations often don't serve the species, they serve the individual (I wonder what George W. Bush’s speaking fee is?).It is this fact that highlights the dangers of the politically powerful self-deluded–an overconfident boxer may find that his self-delusion helps him intimidate his opponents, visualize and attain success, but an overconfident wartime general may find his army knee-deep in shit. As Johnson and Fowler point out: “Although overconfidence may have been adaptive in our past, and may still be adaptive in some settings today, it seems that we are likely to become overconfident in precisely the most dangerous of situations.”
Advertisement
Advertisement
