Over past few years I've been observing how various folks are convinced on a number of topics and I've come up with a framework I thought I'd share

Boiled down, I think there are 2 techniques people both use to convince and are convinced of things

Competence and confidence

[Note]: My general view is life is much more complex than boiling things down to a numeral set of things, though a numeral set of things is also incredibly useful to frame bounds

Generally speaking, strict adherence to anything is a bad idea.

Nuance matters and the more skilled a practitioner, the more they can use more techniques or a mix of techniques once they learn the basics or have an understanding of why, what, how, who etc.

[/end Note]

So I've observed that people roughly can be convinced through confidence or competence.

The less competent someone is in a topic, the more confidence convinces them.

The more competent someone is in a topic, the more competence works

This will not be universally true though here's how I've seen it manifest which has convinced me that of the scenarios and when to use which (blended) techniques.

If someone is a non-expert in a topic, the more they need to *feel* your confidence in a subject, not competence.

You'll hear words for this played out like "conviction", "passion", "energy", "force of nature", "force of will".

What these are really coded words for is a non-expert getting comfortable with *your confidence* as a proxy for competence since they can't judge the actual competence.

If someone is an expert in a topic, the more they need to *see* you demonstrate deep, broad, and nuanced understanding via competence, not confidence.

This is when you can use "it depends" or "it's not that simple" answers.

The exact opposite is happening with experts. Experts know things are never simple or straight forward and want to know you've thought things through and *deeply* understand the various tasks at hand.

If you use the inverse technique in either scenario, you'll get different feedback but the root is they won't believe you can do something or achieve something.

ie. non-experts will think someone is 'low energy' or 'not a leader' or 'lacking charisma'

experts will think someone is bullshitting them

When you think about this, snake oil salesfolks have mastered the art of the confidence pitch to non-experts, which most people are on a variety of topics.

Hence things like Theranos or SoftBank or WeWork.

And when you think about it, scientists typically lacked understanding that competence won't convince non-experts so folks like Dr. Fauci with nuanced explanations don't go over well.

People want simple answers with enthusiasm and convinction

How to apply this to you?

1. Understand that you yourself are likely subject to both.

I know I have been sold on confidence by folks in my past.

I also know when I'm the expert.

Simply, I been much more aware lately on this topic and understand what his happening

2. Default to competence with confidence

I have found the best approach is to mix the techniques skillfully.

Open with confidence, move to showing mastery (do not overdo this part, just enough), end with confidence.

Do. Not. Hesitate. Hesitation is read as lack of confidence

3. Don't get annoyed

I have gotten annoyed when I was using the wrong technique. The point is not to change someone or wish life wasn't this way, the point is to get things done and this is just another way to move the ball forward.

4. Observe, practice, and iterate

Watch how this is done in various ways in the real world. Sports, politics, buying/selling things (homes, cars, software, etc etc)

Practice it yourself to yourself. Build some frameworks.

Repeat

5. Build models via people you know

Quickly identifying which type of situation you are in with unknown folks is a highly useful skill. You need to develop it and the easiest way to do it is to proxy with people & situations you do know already.

This will be imperfect so you'll need to iterate. And you'll never get to 'perfect' as the unknowable will always be present so you'll constantly be learning and adapting, but it will get easier.

Lastly, what to do with this?

It is *much* easier to see who is absolutely worth listening to and not on topics.

Social media is nothing but a 'confidence' game and it's unfortunate that the broad blast mechanism means low-competence/high-confidence folks get massive followers and influence.

In fact, this is probably the simplest way I have gotten to understand social media and its impact on the world.

And this can be applied to people on social media too and how they post or reply etc.

And also generally in life with business or personal life.

Easiest filter to understand if someone is a subject matter expert is how overly confident they are on a topic. Too much is snakeoil territory (see Gary V, Rich Dad, all the 'do what I did to make it' folks on IG, YouTube etc)

So as you figure out how to navigate life and understand what to do in scenarios, find your blend of confidence-competence when discussing topics.

Many highly technical folks want to rely on competence exclusively and while this would work with other experts, it won't work for the majority.

In fact, the higher up you go, the broader your purview, the wider your reach, the less your expertise will work to convince people and the more your confidence will.

This might feel super yucky to you so I deeply suggest you never exclude some element of competence from your repertoire and instead think of it as a story telling technique called 'competence with confidence' and find your style there.