
Ask HN: How do you deal with overly confident people? - gxs
I studied math in college. I&#x27;ve been working in Tech ever since. I am always careful not to argue for&#x2F;against something unless I am absolutely certain.<p>Most of my career has been spent in developing software for Sales Ops departments of large companies and start ups. Personalities in this space (sales) tend to be the boisterous, loud, outspoken type. Even when they aren&#x27;t sure, they speak so assertively that they easily sway other people&#x27;s opinion, sometimes even my own.<p>Often, however, it turns out they were wrong, and without coming across as boastful that I was actually right or at least on the right path.<p>The problem is I never know this at the moment the conversation is taking place, it&#x27;s usually after I take more time to think about it. How do you deal with this? Do I just have to turn it up a notch? Do I call them out and tell them to revisit the subject?<p>Curious to see how other engineer&#x2F;tech peeps deal with this situation.
======
TheBiv
What I typically do is start "leading the witness" by asking genuinely
objective questions.

Genuine is the key there. You can never beat a boisterous person by being a
prick with belittling or subjective questions. However, if you stick with
concrete questions and examples then I have found it tends to disarm overly
confident people!

This typically does two things: it exposes any subjective thoughts that have
led them to being overconfident about the issue at hand and it actually helps
to foster a relationship between them and myself bc it shows that I am
legitimately trying to understand where they are coming from.

~~~
baldfat
I am a loud persuasive person. I have something that works to keep myself
checked and also stop people making false arguements.

I proclaim "What does the Interwebs say?" Seriously in our pockets we have the
answers to any question that has one. I look it up and proclaim the actual
fact, if there is one. Sometimes I proclaim, "I'm a complete idiot" (Happens
on IRC the most for me) or hmm seems like we have a different answer. Then it
is up to them to argue against what you looked up and it takes it off of you.

Funny thing is my kids growing up groaned when I did that to them. Now they do
it all the time now that they are in their 20s.

~~~
ismail
This works for facts and general knowledge. However I would say that for
really difficult questions there is no option to Google. In my experience
these come up in business. There are no right or wrong answers just heuristics
and past experience.

------
silverbax88
I can only tell you what I did. I studied them and learned to be better at
their game than they were, and I also had the fact that I actually know what
I'm talking about. It took years.

See, the idea is that sales is about people wanting you on their side - they
want you in their corner, and want to believe your going to fix everything
with magic. Nobody wants to be responsible for anything, nobody wants to
really work or actually have knowledge, they just want to relax and make money
- and have everyone think they are the smartest guy in the room. A good
salesman makes everyone believe they have the answer to every question...a
_great_ salesman actually does have the answer to every question.

I can be funny, I can be authoritative, I can be sarcastic. Throw me into a
room of guys who think they are sharks and I'll turn them into minnows. Throw
me into a room full of Fortune 50 CEOs and I'll make them know they need my
advice because I build bullets, not blanks. Always know that business is about
one thing: money. Either making more or losing less.

It's all about communicating.

Turns out it pays well, too.

~~~
dmvaldman
Hmm.. could you be the overly confident person the OP is talking about? Nice
to meet you.

~~~
silverbax88
I seriously doubt it. I work in code so every day is a humbling experience in
how much I don't know, and should.

The point is understanding people don't want truth, they want magic. Your job
is to make truth and sell it like magic.

See, the other guys just have magic, and it's most likely fake magic. Your
magic works.

This is why I always say IT guys should focus on being much better
communicators. It doesn't matter if you're right when nobody believes you. But
if you're right and everybody believes you? Then you can get a _lot_ done in a
company.

~~~
vorador
How did you get better at it? Did you move to a sales role?

~~~
silverbax88
Nope. I did it the same way I worked to be a better programmer. A lot of
study, a lot of reading, and 'throwing myself to the wolves' until I got it
right. I'm definitely not a sales guy.

Think about this...when you first started learning about connecting to a
database or how to write 'Hello World', you don't go into it with the mindset
of 'well, I really need to be in a job that allows me to learn this so I can
succeed'. No, you sat down and threw yourself into it and learned it. Then you
moved up from there, taking on harder and harder problems. No matter what it
was in programming, no matter how many many times you failed or blew up your
application (or even your OS), you still kept battling until you got it right.

Most of us go from being someone who writes 'Hello World' on day one (whenever
'day one' is for you) to a person who is in a meeting articulately arguing
with other developers over whether your companies' app code should make
another round trip to the server or not. You go from being a person who knows
zero, or close to zero, to a person who can dive into a room full of seasoned
devs or lan admins and hold your own.

When you first started coding or hacking you started with _no_ preconceived
notions of what was 'acceptable' practice. Within a few years you have a
truckload of concepts which you adhere to.

The process is no different for understanding sales - start with no
preconceived notions, study the landscape, make mistakes and don't give up.
Watch the best and learn. Read a _lot_ of sales material just as you would
tech material. The main difference between sales and technology is that people
who work in tech are used to a meritocracy - generally, you try to make
decisions on fact and truth. Sales is not like that. Sales is about emotion.
Sales is about making the customer feel safe, making them feel good about
their decision to buy, even if that decision isn't really the best choice. IT
guys are always at a disadvantage because they value truth over deceit; in
sales, deceit means nothing if it gets money in the door. But how do you turn
this disadvantage into leverage? If you build the best product _and_ you're
the best salesman. Then no one can beat you.

There's a lot more depth to this - it took me years to learn. But consider
that even in IT, you should be considered a 'trusted adviser' to whoever your
client is - even if that client is "Sue from Customer Service". Even if 'Sue'
is difficult and bratty and thinks she is a genius while being an incessant
whiner. You want 'Sue' to think you have all the answers - which you actually
_have_ because you work in IT and we work on facts, right? So you want that
customer service rep or vice president or head of HR to know that every time
they need an answer, they want to come directly to you, because you will hold
their hand and make them feel good and safe, and they will trust you. This may
sound like a horrible method of viewing it, but consider that you are actually
trying to help them make the best choice, while sales people all over the
world are doing exactly the things I'm describing without a care in the world
what's best for their customers.

I'm long winded on this, and I apologize. I do passionately believe in IT
being better communicators.

------
jdavis703
You have to alter the rules of the game to match your playing style. If you
need to slowly deliberate over an issue for example, then don't agree to
anything just because you feel outwitted in the moment. You can always buy
time by saying something like: "that's a great a point, give me an hour to
think about its broader implications."

~~~
solutionyogi
This. One thing which seems obvious to me now but wasn't earlier that we are
software professionals and not fire fighters or professional athletes. When
you are a fire fighter or an athlete in a high pressure game, you need to make
a decision there and then. This is not true of a while collar workplace. If
you are not sure, buy time. No one is going to object to that. Even better,
move conversation to email where you can share links to facts supporting your
argument. In fact, senior people appreciate that you do proper due diligence
before making a decision.

------
moron4hire
>> I am always careful not to argue for/against something unless I am
absolutely certain.

You have _got_ to stop doing that. Argue for something _then_ make it certain.
If it's wrong, admit it and move on. Get better about estimating the rightness
of things. But if you ever want to be in control, you really need to drive
conversations, and you don't do that by arguing from a standpoint of
certainty.

~~~
BurningFrog
Yeah, being silent when you're only 99% sure is not helping your organization.
It's mostly a way to cover your ass.

If you're not 100% sure, don't pretend to be, but for gods sake, help out my
stating your thoughts.

------
waffle_ss
The best way to deal with these types is Socratic questioning. When they make
a dubious claim, you continually ask "why?" until you uncover the leaps of
logic that they've made without backing evidence.

This worked extremely well on a coworker who genuinely was a nice guy and
meant well, but was prone to making these unfounded assumptions. He was the
type that would get a production error report and rather than calmly follow
the stacktrace, would jump to a guess as to what triggered it. Simply by
saying "why do you think X caused the error?" and suggesting "why couldn't it
be <other part of system mentioned in stacktrace> causing it?" would force him
to confront the evidence and rethink his process.

Sadly he also had a habit of blustering on higher-level things to management,
which eventually caught up to him when risky guesses didn't pan out enough
times and management labeled him as a bullshitter.

------
bakhy
Maybe not look at it like who was right or who was wrong, but rather who is
responsible for what. Your responsibility is definitely to disclose any issues
you believe may impede a project. If it's their responsibility, however, to
reach a final decision, then, after you have voiced the new information,
remember to respect whatever they decide. It's their ass on the line if it
fails. You did your part. So, in general, never focus on who was right and who
was wrong, rather focus on the common goal.

PS Overly confident people are in reality typically really scared of being
wrong. Be gentle ;)

------
stray
I ask them to walk me through it to make sure I fully understand the issue --
because I'm clearly missing something important.

Sometimes I _am_ missing something important.

But either way, framing it as if they know something you don't will usually
lead to the right answer without an overt confrontation.

------
bhsiao
I tend to find that in good environments it's not at all weird to call people
out on things that happened a few weeks or even months ago if they were wrong.
Anyone who cares about truth should welcome it. If people around you are the
obnoxious kind who win arguments through charisma and aren't willing to
revisit things in light of truth, it might be time to switch people.

------
suttree
Dealing with overly confident people = learning how to clean up the mess when
it goes wrong, because it's hard to to win once things turn into a persuade-
off.

Do anything and everything you can to slow the conversation down, to give
yourself time to think, to delay decisions, and never be afraid to change your
mind once the dust settles.

Sure, it pisses people off, but at the same time it takes guts to go back and
say "no, we got it wrong". Decisions don't have to be final until you're happy
with them.

------
lgunsch
I have this issue too. You explained it fairly well. I don't know if this is
the right solution or not, but I have just tried to be a little more
assertive. Obviously not to the extent that your coworkers are.

I have heard that you can get people to challenge their own viewpoint (at
least on technical matters) by carefully asking questions. This will also help
you to figure things out for yourself too.

------
squigs25
On a tangent, why is this problem soooo pervasive? I would say the large
majority of people I work with fall into the over-confidence bucket.

Perhaps it's that people in tech are smart, and usually right when they find
themselves in an argument. Perhaps it's that the hiring process at many
companies favors those who display egregious confidence.

~~~
j_baker
I think a lot of tech workers are used to being the smartest person in class.
When they come to SV and work with lots of other smartest people in class, it
can cause egos to clash.

------
serve_yay
People are always dumber than they think they are, remember that. It's best if
you can keep your cool and ask questions that dismantle the premise without
seeming like you have an agenda. (Yes, it's unfair that you have to do this.
Deal.)

Questions that others are suggesting like "what's your evidence for that?" are
way too pointed to say directly in a business setting. Sadly, it's better to
be less direct than that. Frame your questions as if you were learning rather
than challenging a viewpoint (which is what you're actually doing).

A book like "Games People Play" (Eric Berne) may help with this.

------
BurningFrog
Depends on the situation. If it's just social talk, enjoy their energy and
life force. These people can be truly magnetic personalities.

If it's about making real important decisions, questions like "How do you
know?", "What's the evidence for that?" can be useful. "I'll have to look into
X/think about Y before deciding" is another good line to have ready.

Is the problem that you are actually swayed by their confidence, or that you
don't know how to formulate a response in a live meeting?

------
dataker
With these individuals, I'd avoid being blatantly honest and objective. Even
if you helped them, they tend to take it personally and undermine your
relationships.

So, whenever they're wrong, I show them I have a completely different
background/side("the guy who knows math") and make them conclude something
without directly saying it( using indirect questions maybe).

With that, they "were not wrong" (their nightmare) and you just helped them
come to the right conclusion("like always").

------
maratd
I think your entire post is a fine example of why you're having difficulty
dealing with "sales guys".

How to deal with "overly confident" people? You mean assholes?

Because when a person is "overly confident" about something they know very
little about, that's the definition of an asshole. And there are a lot of
assholes in sales. Being an asshole in sales makes you successful. Nobody
wants to sign a contract with someone who's not sure of what they're doing.

The key characteristic of an asshole is "fake it til you make it". In other
words, act confident in a field even if you know absolutely nothing about it
until you do know something about it.

The best way to deal with someone who's faking it is to simply call them out
on it. But doing that is a bit of an art. Rather than simply pissing them off,
guide them to the right conclusion. Even though they're "faking it", they
still do want to learn how to do it right, even if they will never admit it.

Him: "This button should be over here." You: "Ok, I like your idea, but what
if X and X happens. We should add what you said, but do it here."

Compliment them. Tear them down. Suggest a better alternative, incorporating
some minor insignificant part of their original idea. Keep repeating until you
get the desired outcome.

------
wrd
I'm a similar way in that I don't like to say something unless I'm pretty sure
of it. When the loud, boisterous, assertive types try to push something on me
I'll either question them a lot to test the depth of their knowledge or I'll
just flat out tell them, "I'm not able to evaluate what you're saying since I
don't know anything about it." When said with a bit of edge it's a great
conversation stopper ;)

------
return0
Typical dunning-kruger effect at work.

Communicate your arguments in written form, through email.

------
geoffbrown
You wont change them or their behavior. So, learn to protect yourself from
their failure as much as possible. Then as soon as you can, find a work
environment that is better suited to your temperament and personality. Also it
can help to take note of the justice of karma acting on their lives.

------
onthedole
Learn to draw.

As you said you need more time to think about it. You need to do it during the
meeting as the opportunity to argue your point may be lost afterwards. I think
the best thing is to help you understand and clearly see the points you can
argue and provide a good cost/benefit analysis. By drawing/sketching you make
it easier for you to visualise all the points and then make a solid counter
argument. You also gain some time to think about the problem.

You should be then able to articulate your position in a few short clear
statements that everyone in the meeting can remember and even the note take
can easily jot down an email everyone later

I would then use a whiteboard if available or even a marker and an A3 sheet
will do.

------
Kluny
Just keep on asking questions - "Maybe I've missed something - can you run
that by me one more time? No, I'm still not getting it, are you sure you're
not leaving anything out? Well that doesn't exactly make sense, what about
xyz? Whoa, back up, I'm a little slow buddy, you're going way too fast for me.
One more time?"

You do have to be pretty loud when doing this, because people will get
frustrated with you and be like "Nevermind, everyone else gets it, lets go".
At that point you really have to insist. But logical flaws will quickly become
obvious.

------
tvm
There are better things to do than arguing or trying change opinion of people
that are confident in their ignorance. It's like arguing on the internet.

If that's not your thing, I would try to change workplace.

~~~
davemel37
This. Unless it impacts a major decision. The mind is like wet cement...once
it forms an opinion it is almost impossible to change it. Especially because
the folks you are referring to don't sound very open minded.

You have to realize that Changing your mind takes energy and effort...you need
them to want to exert effort or you will be talking to a wall.

Save yourself the trouble unless it impact something really important...in
which case the first guys advice (ask questions) with an emphasis on genuine
is your best bet.

------
harkyns_castle
You sound hesitant and not confident of your own ability.

Personally, the first thing I'd do is remove myself from people like that.
What a painful way to live - there are a hundred other different environments.

If you feel like you need to be there, you probably have already realized it -
they are full of shit - that is sales. Most sales people are confidence
tricksters, they spin bullshit. You have a potent weapon, a brain. Use it,
whip them down. They're generally morons, with confidence.

But, I would say get out of the environment.

------
ratsimihah
The truth tends to always come out, so make your point, make sure the people
who needs to hear it hear it, and let the others believe what they want. Just
keep quiet and humble, and when the truth comes out and they realize it, watch
and savor. No "I told you so" and such, just watch and savor.

On the one hand, it's hard to keep quiet when you think you're right, but on
the other hand, it actually takes less effort than trying to convince a fool.

------
mgrassotti
My way of dealing with overconfident people is the best ever. In fact, I am
awesome at dealing with every kind person that is or ever was. If dealing with
people was an olympic event I would win gold silver and bronze every 4 years.

I can't tell you about my way of dealing overconfident people because I don't
want to brag. I'm the most modest person you'll ever f-ing meet. Way more
modest than you or anyone else on this forum.

~~~
drewnichols1974
Fuck that. I'm way fucking more modest than you are.

------
j_baker
With very confident people, flattery will get you everywhere. They have to see
things your way because they're _so_ smart.

Even better is to convince them that what you're trying to tell them is really
_their_ idea. If it comes from them, it can't be wrong, can it?

Though if you find yourself working with enough of this type of person for it
to be a problem, I would question whether you're working in the right place.

------
damoncali
Don't be so afraid of being wrong. You'll never get anything done being right
all the time.

------
jcroll
Well if you always end up being right are you not becoming more _confident_ in
your assertions?

~~~
arsenide
The distinction lies in the difference between being confident and acting
confident.

~~~
jcroll
You can _act_ confident without being confident but if you _are_ confident you
will _be_ confident.

~~~
arsenide
Hm? Though I am confident about a choice few of my political beliefs I don't
often act as such, and experience tells me it is also not received that way.

------
CPLX
I have no idea what the answer to your question is but I am certain that it's
not a big deal and that I could handle it if I were in your position.

------
ashleyp
Sounds like they have a lack of awareness rather than being overconfident. Can
a person be too confident?

------
mpdehaan2
It might not entirely help, but ... be ok with it.

I wouldn't hold it against people that think faster in some situations, as
they may actually be right. Calling them "wrong" is difficult, and wrong is
often a gray area. Communication is vital and it needs to happen fast in a lot
of scenarios. Those that overcommunicate and lead probably will get ahead even
if they are wrong sometimes. But everybody's wrong from time to time, even
someone's carefully-deliberated points have holes.

In fact, it's probably true that nothing is ever 100% correct. So many debates
in tech circles come from these mathematical constructions set out to prove
someone's idea isn't perfect or they are doing it wrong. The truth is, nothing
is ever perfect, and is bounded by compromise, ideals, lots of intangibles,
and available inputs.

Basically, tech is easiest when everyone drops their ego about being wrong and
just seeks to find the best answer. Voice questions when you have them, ask
for clarification when you need to, find compromises when you can. This is
also very hard if you're jockeying for status, wanting more control of
something, wanting a new architecture or project to succeed. Kind of in the
"desire leads to suffering" vein, you have to sort of drop that desire and
focus on the actual present at that very instant.

This can be a problem when you have inexperienced people making decisions, or
when, say, a product side of the house doesn't do good homework and can't
achieve good product/market fit. From the tech side, trying to fix the
business side and seeing gaps in it is incredibly rough.

If they are clearly incorrect in your eyes, this is a point where you need to
debate merits, not speaking styles, and genuinely want to compromise and help
both sides of the equation (Nash Equilibrium) versus trying to win the
argument. That's something that gets immediately picked up on by the other
side of the table.

If you have a question later, raising it later is ok. Often better if you can
ask someone directly than attempt to argue it over email, in many cases, as
that can create a us-vs-them scenario.

It's important to make sure you're both in it to choose the right answer. Much
of the conflict of tech is when two parties have conflicting goals, i.e.
someone wants to make a good architecture, someone else wants to win some key
accounts and improve something later, and then build up walls where they don't
like talking to each other.

The problem occurs when someone is unwilling to accept new data and reform
conclusions, or when folks are unable to compromise, more so than if someone
is, per se, acting confident.

It's also a lot easier to be confident when you can admit what you don't know,
and only really go to the mat for the parts you really believe in. Having to
defend a losing side of a decision is incredibly hard, so it's best to not
play that game.

If faced with conflicting priorities or ideas, sometimes it's best if you can
just list out the tradeoffs and then raise the question "which one of these
things/aspects is most important?" or trying to get an outside party to set
priorities.

Tech is hard because there's so much art/craftsmanship/opinion mixed in versus
just getting the work done, and few standards. And lots of different ways to
solve the same problems, and limited time so not all problems can be solved
immediately.

As the folks on the other side of the table are human, be careful of walls
forming. Once you get into a situation where you don't like talking to them,
and you or them are woried about being "wrong" and vice versa, it's very
difficult to repair.

------
naturalethic
If you find yourself in a defensive posture when dealing with people with huge
egos, look inward and deal with your own.

------
wcummings
>Ask HN: How do I talk to people?

