Ask HN: How do you deal with overly confident people?

[gxs]

I studied math in college. I've been working in Tech ever since. I am always careful not to argue for/against something unless I am absolutely certain.

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't sure, they speak so assertively that they easily sway other people's opinion, sometimes even my own.

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.

The problem is I never know this at the moment the conversation is taking place, it'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?

Curious to see how other engineer/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.

[cykho]

This is great advice - the socratic method is really key. It also helps to drill into the concrete details (aka facts) rather than staying at a higher subjective level.

I've also found it very helpful to write down the conclusion in a follow up email/slack. Writing helps people consider and rethink their commitments. It also helps serve as a record to self-correct in the future.

[squigs25]

Agreed. I would say this answer closely resembles the Socratic method, which is the frame of mind I try to maintain when dealing with the over confident souls out there.

[conductr]

Would agree. I usually try to introduce doubt. Asking questions is the best way. You can do it in a way that makes you sound curious about their approach and forces them to answer(defend) their stance. Question. Question. Then. So if this happens like you say, then this will happen to? Is that the desired outcome?

Edit, just to add. Try to lead them thorough it like its a critical thinking exercise. If you find yourself struggling with the "path" of questions to ask. Just say something like, I'm not convinced that will work. What makes you think it is the best solution? Key is to make them defend their stance and help them see when there is something they haven't considered

[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.

[graedus]

Excellent advice. I've learned to do this over time and it's really been a win-win approach.

[S4M]

Not saying your advice is bad, but someone who is confident and charismatic will speak in a way that the steps he takes are obvious. For example, if I told you "I wrote this code and it's completely bug free.", you might question it with stuff like "even part X? It's generally the weak point in this kind of systems." but a really good talker will say it in a tone that makes people think that his code is really bug free.

It's something I have noticed, sometimes someone told me something in such a confident tone that I couldn't think of doubting it.

[highCs]

It's called the socratic method: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

[AnimalMuppet]

One such question may be "What is your objective evidence for your statement?"

But you're probably going to have to ask it gently rather than confrontationally. And then you're probably going to have to ask it persistently, because they're going to try to brush you off.

[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.

[shostack]

I couldn't help but read this in the voice of Joe, the over-confident sociopathic sales guy in Halt and Catch Fire.

[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.

[_xhok]

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.