
Ask HN: How do you deal with overconfident and mediocre individuals? - kevintb
I have a high bar for expressing absolute confidence for something (ie knowledge in a field or proficiency in a language) and am continuously surprised by people who claim mastery of something&#x2F;that they are a natural at something, but in reality are quite mediocre, or above average at best. Furthermore, the same individuals tend to put down others who are more humble&#x2F;less confident in their skills, directly or subtly.<p>It infuriates me when these individuals subtly bring down others, but I am unsure how to approach it - directly, indirectly, or just ignore it and focus on my own work and goals.<p>I also anticipate that I’ll be told the only way is for me to be more vocally confident in myself, but that is not my natures and I have little appetite in continuing the status quo.
======
peterhi
There are two issues here. Firstly is your perception that they are 'quite
mediocre, or above average at best' \- this is your problem. Looking down on
people for being less than yourself is not an admirable trait, something you
seem to share with them.

The second issue is the other person 'tend to put down others who are more
humble/less confident in their skills'. This is a what you would call a jerk
(or arsehole in UK parlance). This is the issue that needs fixing. Are you in
a position to call them out on this? Not necessarily official manager type
position but pull them up each time they do it.

Someone like this could be seen as a bully and making the workplace unpleasant
for the quieter / more humble members.

Their skills are irrelevant, if they were the most brilliant programmer in the
world this would not excuse such behaviour.

~~~
icebraining
_Firstly is your perception that they are 'quite mediocre, or above average at
best' \- this is your problem. Looking down on people for being less than
yourself is not an admirable trait, something you seem to share with them._

Why are you assuming the comparison is with oneself?

~~~
havetocharge
It may be a reasonable assumption, since the author lead with the "I".

------
muzani
It's natural. It's Dunning Kruger effect. People become very confident when
they first learn a little and consider themselves experts.

It is rather hypocritical to put someone down for lacking knowledge; doing so
implies that you are judging them as lacking knowledge. You end up doing the
exact same thing. I have never seen this done in a way that doesn't backfire.

I just treat people like that as children or teenagers. You don't have to be
mean. You just entertain and enjoy their illusion. They might grow out of it
and realize what fools they were.

Be tolerant, similar to religious tolerance. They believe what they do. If you
have enough evidence to convince them, you can do so.

You might end up in a closed circle of smarter people, but that's fine. The
competent ones tend to float to the top.

~~~
rootlocus
> It is rather hypocritical to put someone down for lacking knowledge; doing
> so implies that you are judging them as lacking knowledge. You end up doing
> the exact same thing. I have never seen this done in a way that doesn't
> backfire.

No, it's not. OP doesn't put anyone down because he doesn't communicate his
attitude towards the other person. When someone tells you "Wow, you really
don't know what AABB stands for? How did you pass the interview? It's like
DUUH, basic knowledge." with a smug or contempt face, he's putting you down.
I've met people like this and they were very very hard to work with. Other
remarks I've heard are "How the fk should I know, ask the idiot who
implemented that piece of shit, I would've made it so it didn't have <random
bug>", or "A bunch of losers who can't code without memory leaks decided smart
pointers were a good idea, so now everything is slow". I can safely say,
without a doubt, these people had the worst effect on me. I avoid them at any
cost. It's not my place, nor my responsibility to suffer their attitudes or
help them grow out of it. I'm not their manager and I'm not their parent.
They're toxic and they consume my energy and self confidence.

On the other hand, when someone counters someone else's bold claims of
confidence or idiotic remarks with a puzzled look like "I'm wondering if you
really know what you're talking about", he's not putting the other person
down.

~~~
monk_e_boy
I worked with a guy who thought all my code was shite.

Now. I'm pretty tolerant. So I did what anyone in my situation would do. I
installed a debugger and stepped through his code until I found some pretty
glaring security flaws (escaping POST input should be pretty high on your
priority list) and fixed them for him. Quietly. I explained what the problem
was and why I fixed it.

So I thought we were on the same team... but no. He insisted that I was
incompetent.

It took me a couple of days to think of something and then to implement it. I
took some of his code, renamed a couple of variables and then pretended it was
mine and asked him for his opinion. He emailed me back telling me exactly how
shit it was and how I was beyond help as a coder.

I took this evidence to his manager.

The three of us sat down and I showed the code I wrote. My boss explained how
it was wrong, the bugs, the mistakes. He went to town. Then I did my pathetic
grand reveal. Yeah. It's your code, cut and paste from the codebase. I changed
these variable names (HeLovedCamelCase i_prefer_underscores) could you accept
that you have a problem with me, not with my code. This is simply a vendetta
against me ... respond now please. The look on his face.

He didn't work there the next day. Although there was a big hole in the wall
where his fist entered and exited.

The business didn't exist the next month. Turns out that someone who would
employ someone like that isn't the best person to run a business.

Life is full of surprises. Or lessons. Or something.

If you haven't watched the detectorists. You should. It's the most beautiful
nerdy show about something that isn't coding.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgN7z0SD8v8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgN7z0SD8v8)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwWv6UphTWM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwWv6UphTWM)

~~~
monk_e_boy
Newcomers to the show will not only be treated to the finest, most beautifully
understated sitcom of recent years, but also to the best depiction of male
friendship anywhere in contemporary popular culture.

------
brazzy
Well, you're not going to be able to change the status quo that confidence is
largely admired and taken at face value. That's the world you live in and have
to deal with.

But if your specific goal is to prevent overconfident people from "bringing
down" those who are less confident (presumably mainly you), your best bet is
to move the discussion concrete, measurable past successes and failures, and
resist attempts to change the topic away from those.

If the discussion is inherently about plans for the future and there is no
past record of achievements (how do you know they're overconfident then?),
insist on a process that produces concrete, meaningful process in reasonably
short increments so that unrealistic promises will be exposed early on.

~~~
nnq
> insist on a process that produces concrete, meaningful process in reasonably
> short increments so that unrealistic promises will be exposed early on

This is _gold_. Might print it and frame it :)

~~~
rootlocus
I feel a bit stupid, but I don't understand what it means. "insist on a
process that produces concrete, meaningful process" is it insisting on a
process that produces another process?

~~~
brazzy
Oops. Replace the second "process" with "progress".

------
mmjaa
>>How to deal with 'overconfident' and 'mediocre' individuals?

Realise that the source of your problem is your own hubris.

"Overconfident" just means "un-tested and un-proven".

"Mediocre" just means "un-developed".

No man is an island, if you feel that your social perspective is coming from a
place of moral authority, it is incumbent on you to place that altitude in
perspective - push these people forward. The "overconfident" need testing -
real application. The "mediocre" need training - you have an opportunity to
push these _key_ members of your team forward.

And, you should. Anything less would be a manifestation of your own
'overconfidence' \- and the fact you're asking, means you are, actually, also
'mediocre'.

Thus, hubris is your real bug. Fix it.

~~~
rootlocus
> "Overconfident" just means "un-tested and un-proven".

That's not what it means. It means excessive, over the top, confidence. You're
focusing on the object of confidence, instead of the attitude. It's the bad
attitude that's the real problem.

> Realise that the source of your problem is your own hubris.

Bullshit. You're completely missing the issue OP is having: "It infuriates me
when these individuals subtly bring down others". Toxic people are toxic
irrelevant of the OP's hubris.

~~~
kevintb
Thank you. It’s interesting some people are ignoring the heart of the issue
completely.

~~~
mmjaa
I don't doubt toxic people bring others down - but I do doubt that toxicity is
one-way. I think this person is really the toxic one, with their prejudice
against others.

------
slamdance
Remember, we're ALL learning all the time, always progressing in knowledge and
ability. Or at least we SHOULD be.

So lets take something simple. tying your shoelaces. when a 5 year old does it
while singing the bunny song, they feel they have it down pat. SO when a 3
year old sees it, the 5 year old MUST be a master, right? the 5 year old
thinks they're awesome at tying their shoes when the bunny goes around the
tree and through the hole, etc.... so it must be true, until they see the NBA
ballers do it without missing a step or 3 seconds off the clock.

The point is that being a "master" actually depends on the viewpoint of the
person(s) they're interacting with. In this case, you or the person you feel
they are subtly bringing down. IMO, the best way to handle these situations is
to humbly remind everyone that we're all still learning. There is always
someone better out there, there is always a better or more efficient way to do
things. Correcting someone while teaching them (and without insults) is
optimal (especially if _you 're_ not the expert you thought you were, either).
Doing it this way brings both the braggadocios and the meek to the same plane
and does it without bruising egos. It works even better when these two
personalities are on the same team - But this is just my experience.

~~~
Insanity
+1. That seems to be my general way of thinking as well. When you are going to
work in a team, it's best to leave your ego at the door and realise that we
all suck at something.

What does the NBA ballers thing refer to? They tie their shoelaces whilst
walking? Is that actually a thing? (I'm European and Basketball is not as big
here, I've never actually watched a game.)

~~~
slamdance
comparing it to a 5 year old, Basketball players have to good and fast at
tying shoe laces. that's all. maybe a lame comparison...

------
maxxxxx
There was an article posted here a while ago that described how people from
elite schools always talk with confidence even if they have no clue and how
this is a recipe for success.

If you are soft spoken I think the only way to get peace is to get in a
position where you can control your part and can ignore louder people. I have
done this at previous companies and in the long run you get noticed by your
results. If you can't find that place it's probably better to look for another
job.

~~~
internetman55
The famous educator John Taylor Gatto thinks one of the keys of elite
education is the ability to speak extemporaneously and intelligently for a few
minutes on topics you know nothing about.

~~~
rootlocus
> to speak [...] intelligently for a few minutes on topics you know nothing
> about.

Is this even possible? Or is it just an appearance?

~~~
maxxxxx
It's an appearance but most people never notice. My favorite enemy at work is
a guy from corporate who can speak eloquently at any meeting but never
delivers anything. He sits in meetings, attaches himself to other people's
ideas and makes them his. Very smooth and it works for him perfectly. Because
he speaks so well it took me a long time to convince myself that he is just
full of shit and can be ignored.

------
saint_abroad
> Talk is cheap. Show me the code. -
> [https://lkml.org/lkml/2000/8/25/132](https://lkml.org/lkml/2000/8/25/132)

Insist on implementation to back theory.

------
combatentropy
One way is to ask questions.

The first way that most of us think to confront someone is to make statements:
"You're wrong." Even impersonal facts, like "Solar is now cheaper per watt
than coal" is unlikely to persuade your opponent, partially because they can
tune you out as you ramble on.

But if you ask a question, they have to listen closely, to avoid looking
foolish when it's their turn to talk. A direct question is also more likely to
lead them to think. Furthermore, a question is more polite.

A question can still be devastating, "If you think x is better than y, then
how do you account for (insert hard fact here)."

~~~
rootlocus
> A question can still be devastating, "If you think x is better than y, then
> how do you account for (insert hard fact here)."

I've met people who can't be devastated by anything. They always have an
answer, and it's always someone else's fault. They can invent "hard facts" out
of thin air or dismiss real facts just as easily.

They're actually really easy to find. One such person is president now.

------
jokoon
Maybe tell them that it can be hurtful, even when said with humor, or tell
them it's not really funny.

If they are that much overconfident, just remind them of what they did wrong
to make them realize they are not so perfect.

Also just try to tell them without being judgemental. Try to use the "maybe"
word or "I might be wrong but", try to make the person doubt a little so that
he/she can take a step back.

You can also try to joke about that person's overconfidence.

~~~
kevintb
This is useful. It is hard to interact with someone so persistent in reminding
you how superior they consider themselves to be.

~~~
jokoon
Humility is a hard thing to learn. I really think we should teach children to
admit they re wrong.

------
willart4food
I believe that most anyone who has been in a managerial position has
experienced some of what you have described, some people handle it better than
others.

I don't know the specifics of your situation but I will attempt to point you
toward some resources that might help.

The fundamentals lay within the issue of Dominance hierarchy
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_hierarchy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_hierarchy))
whereas if you are placed in a position of Dominance, these people will at
least challenge, if not wanting to replace you.

They might be insecure about their capabilities/knowledge so with time they
have developed a "fake it till you make it" survival techniques.

One of the solutions is for you to become more assertive and therefore have
more/better skills to maintain your deserved Dominance within the hierarchy.

It might have to do with your Personality Traits
([https://www.verywell.com/the-big-five-personality-
dimensions...](https://www.verywell.com/the-big-five-personality-
dimensions-2795422)), scoring too high in Agreeableness (higher than the
people you're talking about).

Prog. Jordan B Peterson talks often about this issues, you might want to go on
YouTube and search "big 5 personality traits Jordan Peterson" and watch some
of his videos for some highly interesting material on the matter.

------
rootlocus
I've met such people, and they were very hard to work with. Fortunately, I
don't work there anymore and my current team is comprised of very good people
(both technically and socially). This is due to the fact that the team leader
simply doesn't hire people with toxic attitudes, no matter their skill level.
And personally, I would simply refuse to work with someone toxic either by
filing a complaint with the team leader, requesting a transfer or leaving the
company.

I see no problem with filing a complaint because the most likely results are
fine by me:

* Either he has a talk with the manager and hopefully tones down

* or he accumulates enough complaints that he's removed from the team

* or the management doesn't respond well to complaints, which signals it's not a team / company I would want to work with.

------
dhoulb
There may be a place for those people — i.e. where a fast confident decision
is actually better than a thoroughly discussed ‘correct’ decision.

Those people, in my experience, are usually pretty comfortable taking big
risks (on their spotty information), which can be useful.

But if you’re the second kind of person, working with the first kind would be
infuriating. So if long term happiness was your goal you’d probably want to
work for organisations that encourage careful collaborative decision making.

Basically, if you’ve recognised in yourself that you don’t like these people,
avoid them (and places they’d be drawn to).

I can’t think of any way you could ‘bring them down to size’, etc, that
wouldn’t just bring more pain.

~~~
nnq
> I can’t think of any way you could ‘bring them down to size’, etc, that
> wouldn’t just bring more pain.

That's horrible advice. OP should be encourage to be _on the offensive_
regardless of position. Fighting for what you believe is true is the good
fight, and it's ok to even fight it with more subversive/undeground tactics if
you're not the extroverted type. And "more pain" can be a good thing
regardless who experiences it. Just remember to fight back harder if things
turn against you, and keep fighting until something/someone breaks (and if
it's you that breaks, that's ok too, it means you needed the breaking and re-
building). Pain helps people and organizations grow healthy.

It's the person who's leading the discussion and asking people about their
skills who should _adequately select for people either 'fast and confident' or
'deep and thorough' or 'collaborative and thorough'"._

Also "careful collaborative decision making"... you can have "careful decision
making" or "collaborative decision making" as very _very_ separate kinds of
doing things. One is the introvert loading up ideas and facts into his/her
mind and letting them brew for a while until a solution is ready to be
distilled and shared. The other is a group of amiable people thoroughly
talking through the possibilities. If you prefer the former process, you might
make better team with "fast and confident" people by completing their "lack of
depth", than with the "never ending chatter" of a team of amiable group-
thinkers.

------
athrowaway3z
> I also anticipate that I’ll be told the only way is for me to be more
> vocally confident in myself

If you know better you should be more vocally confident in yourself.

The world is full of people who bullshit. You should not hide from it, and you
should not deny it.

>the same individuals tend to put down others who are more humble/less
confident in their skills, directly or subtly.

They also need to learn that the world is full of these kind of people. If you
wan't to help build their confidence , you can explain how the 'master' is
overestimating his/her skills.

------
EZ-E
In which context ? In personal life I would simply avoid them.

In any case trying to confront them and get them to "change" is bound to lead
to disastrous results.

Just focus on yourself unless it personally affect you.

------
dennis_jeeves
If it's any consolation, I'm in the same boat as you. I suspect the solution
if any, would be group up with similar minded people and run an profit making
enterprise. But I speculate that this is unlikely to happen as most profit
making enterprises tend to overstate what they will deliver in their marketing
of products or services. But if the enterprise is made of individuals who do
not oversell their services or product often their business never really takes
off.

------
skmurphy
Easiest way to raise the level of discussion in a team is to model the
behavior you would like others to adopt. In the situation you describe you
could do the following: when you express your opinion briefly summarize the
basis for it and when you see others doing good work or providing useful
insights praise them both privately and in front of the team.

------
bitL
If you are managing them, give them a solvable but challenging task. When they
succeed, remove them from your mediocre individual pool. When they fail,
repeat once. When they fail again, you have 2 examples in your favor when
arguing with them. Use wisely.

------
teekert
Imho the entire problem is -and should be- yours. If you feel that such people
take jobs/fame/complements away from you, you should work on your expression
of confidence. Because logically, these what you call "over confident" people
get stuff done and get praise (or you wouldn't be jealous of them!) Yes, you
are jealous of the success which you think is undeserved. But that is an
opinion. Nobody needs a smart person that never opens their mouth at the right
time or that doesn't offer their services or is unclear about what they can
do.

You are obviously an introvert, so this will be hard for you, at first. But
you are going to have to grow a pair and either offer your skills to people
looking for them and prove you are better than the other person or learn to
not feel annoyed by it. As you say, you ignore the situation and you focus on
your work, ask yourself: Why? What will this behavior bring you? How could you
alter that behavior to feel less frustration in such situations?

You want change. You are going to have to deeply realize that the only factor
you can change in this world, is yourself. Change your behaviour and you
change the status quo. Keep being frustrated and you end up with the status
quo: frustration... until it breaks you.

Start by seeing (and naming, writing down even!) the merits of the behaviors
that you seem to hate so much. It is also (mainly?) your metal connection
between this behavior and the value you give it (you call it negative, it _is_
not negative, it _is_ nothing but a behaviour). You are going to have to
unlearn this connection before you can start to apply it yourself (and receive
the merits that come with the behaviour). This takes time and requires energy
and constant awareness and honest reflection.

What works for me is mantras. Short things I tell myself before entering a
situation. For me it's things like: "Everybody here makes money, I'm not here
for fun, be clear on the fact that you are going to want your hours paid if
this negotiation turns into a set of tasks that you can pick up." Because I
feel like the things I do are not worth a lot of money because I convince
myself they are easy. But they usually are not, I'm just good at them (and I
have to tell myself that as it doesn't come naturally to me.) And man, it took
me 35 years to realize this ;). Don't underestimate these processes.

Yes you are going to have to learn the subtle art of not giving a F (which -if
you read the book- translates to giving a F* about only the right/useful
things). I think that book is very valuable to people like you and me.

~~~
kevintb
Read the description please

> Furthermore, the same individuals tend to put down others who are more
> humble/less confident in their skills, directly or subtly.

> It infuriates me when these individuals subtly bring down others, but I am
> unsure how to approach it - directly, indirectly, or just ignore it and
> focus on my own work and goals.

~~~
teekert
"Subtly bringing down others" is also an opinion (it's probably not how they
see it or how the person they communicate with sees it). But I don't care,
blame it on others, try to change others, try to change the system. See how
far you get, maybe it works for you. It doesn't work in my experience.

Telling me to "read the description please" and focusing on the blaming part
tells me you are only looking for solutions that suit you and your current
feelings and current behaviour. Good luck with that. My words to you remain:
You'll fail and you'll feel worse after trying. Look inside yourself.

You use a lots of descriptive words and present them as truth, humble: maybe
someone else would call it introverted, silent, diminished, weak? Why judge?
Why put an emotional value on these behaviors at all? See them, think about
them, adapt to them, learn, develop, overcome.

 _Edit: I never care so much but I do wonder now who is voting me down while I
'm taking the time to share insights I've gathered over the course of my life.
If I'm wrong I would really like to know. The subject is very close and
important to me._

~~~
rootlocus
> "Subtly bringing down others" is also an opinion (it's probably not how they
> see it or how the person they communicate with sees it).

You're telling the OP you understand his situation better than he does and
that everything is just his opinion. That's some blatant hypocrisy.

To quote your original comment:

> Because logically, these what you call "over confident" people get stuff
> done and get praise (or you wouldn't be jealous of them!) Yes, you are
> jealous of the success which you think is undeserved.

There's nothing that supports that fact. How do you know they get stuff done?
How do you know they get praise? And how in the world did you come to the
conclusion that he's jealous of their success? You're simply masquerading
false assumptions as psychological advice.

At best you're attacking a straw man. You've build this fictive world in which
the real, toxic, people are actually successful and worthy, but it's the OP
who is too petty to acknowledge their true worth. But you're not talking about
the reality. Worse, you're blaming the OP for not seeing the reality how your
fiction is.

At worst, you might be so absorbed in your fiction where everything wrong is
just someone's opinion or useless emotion, that you might be toxic yourself.

Just to be clear why I'm so aggressive with you, I have met toxic people, and
I have felt being drained and put down by them. If you think these people do
not exist, or don't mean harm, you're sorely mistaken. I can agree that
they're being defensive, that they're actually afraid of being attacked so
they attack first, but I can't agree with the fact that they don't exist or
that it's my jealousness that hinders me from appreciating their worth.

~~~
teekert
Thank you for your response, it is highly appreciated. Ok, perhaps I'm
extrapolating from the situations I've been in too much. I admit I have never
worked with truly toxic people before. I have worked with very confident,
boastful people however. But such behavior I have always seen as "Ok this
person takes my intelligence seriously and sees me as someone who can take on
this attitude." I have often enjoyed resulting, hard, conversations but indeed
heard more introverted colleagues label such persons as toxic or indeed
draining.

I am assuming (yes you are right) that these people get praise of some sort,
otherwise why would you ever be annoyed? I mean if such people were ignored,
demoted etc why would you be annoyed by that? The problem would solve itself.
This is also where my assumption of success comes from. Why be annoyed by
self-destructive people without success? Is this too much assumption? If they
were truly unworthy of their own confidence, wouldn't they be exposed
immediately? How do these people manage? How can they keep faking if results
are required? It's not sustainable, there must be something there, they would
be to easy to expose otherwise. On the other hand, if they'd fake it till they
made it, they have a valid strategy and the confidence was not "over
confidence", but justified.

So, if you ask me how to speed up said exposure? Ask them questions in public,
don't help them on subjects they claim mastery in, ask them for help on the
subject they claim mastery in? Assign them difficult tasks in the area they
claim mastery in, tell your pl that a task is better suited for person X, who
is a master in Y. I wonder why this does not seem to happen. (Again, because
if this did happen, the toxics would be exposed immediately.) What kind of
environment is OP in? I find this environment very hard to imagine, unless OP
is misinterpreting (which can be entirely on me and my lack of imagination of
course).

~~~
rootlocus
People don't need to be very skilled in order to talk BS and pick fights with
others. And not all companies have a proper hierarchical structure where
managers give a fk. Sometimes even "mediocre" knowledge of something is enough
to keep the person employed because it's a niche technology or there aren't
enough people applying. I've met a toxic person who never explained anything
he did (always responding to "how did you fix it" with "dunno, just did some
shit"), and I was too busy to check his commits. There was no code review.
That same person used to answer people who asked him about X or Y with "dunno,
don't care, it's not my problem". He bashed the people who used C++ smart
pointers for being idiots who can't code without memory leaks.

We were working on legacy code mostly fixing bugs. There were no tests and a
team of ~100 QAs (it was a gamedev company). There was almost no way to tell
if the bugs he fixed didn't introduce additional bugs that nobody knew about.
And everyone was working overtime to get the damn game shipped. This was the
sort of company where the number of fixed bugs was an evaluation metric.
Didn't matter that someone solved 20 bugs by adding a missing texture, while
someone else fixed a very hard AI bug or a race condition. Team leads were not
involved in employee evaluations and managers only looked at the numbers. They
fired people on a whim to "teach a lesson". They shut down an entire office
with no prior notice and asked the employees to sign a letter saying they were
leaving instead of being fired.

Granted, the problem was mostly with the company, which is why the solution
was to leave.

------
Dowwie
When you work as a team, being right is important but so is getting along with
others. Try to turn your fury and intolerance into a constructive experience
by developing an important skill of diplomacy.

------
gadders
Point them to this page:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)

:-)

------
mattdeboard
Bitch about them to friends who don't work there.

------
nortiero
"Hell is other people"

------
monk_e_boy
Follow up question: How do you deal with this when it is your boss?

------
rasengan
The age-old adage:

1 delete Facebook 2 hit the gym 3 ???? 4 profit.

Who cares what others do. Focus on what you do.

People still think I don't know how to code for example lol.

I don't give a flying f. :)

------
lostmsu
I shave one every morning. Works well.

------
singularity2001
Fire them

------
nnq
It's easy if you're the one putting forward the task for which mastery of X is
needed: _(1) add clear bad consequences for failure; make it sure that the job
is "so easy" for "someone master at X"; make it obvious that failing can only
occur through their fault; add that "this is a crucial task" and its bad
execution could threaten the future of all; hint at ways of future public
shaming in case of failure, preferably in a humorous way :), (2) add an
expected performance quotation "someone knowing X should be able to do it in N
days easily" and (3) add some VERY desirable reward for task completion, that
includes social status increases, but it's also conditioned on a performance
metric like time/budget spent, not just 'task completion'"._

The above will discourage anyone faking competence. The high reward that
includes peer recognition will attract the truly competent ones.

Also it may help if you try to understand the problem better. Try and figure
out what are the _motives_ of the persons over-selling themselves.

There are on one side _desperate extroverts_ who really need/want a
job/project that requires them to have mastery of X, or they really want the
client for whose projects mastery of X is required. So they play the "fake it
till you make it". Of course, this is the optimistic perspective, some "just
fake it", some become blocked in ever making it _because they 've faked it_.
I'm an introvert but I've played this game once myself - never again! (The
insane amount of work that I had to do while also learning something I claimed
to know, in a "jump straight in" way that _slowed my learning_ paradoxically
because I did not have the time to sit and learn the fundamentals was
_horrible and nerve wrecking._ ) -- _There 's noting to do about these people
than avoid them, they'll learn their lesson and move on!_

Then there are the "chronic deceivers". They cannot be dishonest in one aspect
alone. -- _So to deal with them just prove to the _others_ that they are
untrustworthy. You can toy them into saying contradictory things if you 're
clever and have the time to waste. Or maybe ask them for help on something in
front of other people in a way that if they say "no" they are either
_assholes_ or they don't really have knowledge of X - both outcomes help._

Then the ones that also falsely believe themselves to have mastery of
something. -- _Just make it obvious to others that they are clueless and
stupid in general._

