Sure. But that’s in a meta-discussion. When discussion, in general, in the abstract. In Concrete situations it is often good to go in with certainty despite what one knows when discussing things in the abstract.
Doing this is not foolproof of course - just to reintroduce that Word in a slightly different context. But doubting oneself is also hardly foolproof.
and this does not mean it is good to enter all or most situations with strong confidence. One needs good intution and also good reasoning to decide when.
Deciding one can wing it flying an airplane without lessons or having done it shows both poor intution and reasoning.
Walking out on the golf course thinking, I will get great at this game, is probably a good thing. Unless you cannot tolerate errors on the path to Learning. Then a more humble beginning would be wise.
We’re talking about self-determination in this thread. The point I took Dan~ to be making is that we often err on the side of over-confidence in our assessment about how much control we have over ourselves and our surroundings, and that to acknowledge the potential for error in every one of our attempts to control our environment is typically more accurate and realistic. But you seem to be saying that if it’s a matter of self-determination, bringing in self-doubt at every turn can actually reduce our ability to self-determine, for sometimes we need that (blind) self-confidence in order to succeed. Is this right?
That’s part of it.
Though one doesn’t have to weigh in, even, on whether ‘being confident’ is self-determined. One could, and I could imagine Dan might, argue that ‘being confident’ is not necessarily self-determined. But I am saying that when present, it can be a benefit. Even overestimating one’s abilities, and also being Confident when one has no evidence yet that one has the talent, can be positive attitudes when Learning.
It might seem like I am deciding here to advocate for ‘being confident’. But perhaps I am merely riding the wave of my own internal and external forces which compel me to have the position I have. Just as the person who is Confident when about to learn something new or problem solve may be compelled to be that way. Regardless, I Think the presence of self-doubt, especially as a rule, can be detrimental. And that in most low risk Learning situations, over confidence can be a benefit - with the proviso I mentioned above.
You had a confidence that you could just skip the directions and wing it. This time it did not work. That confidence in this situation was a problem.
Though…perhaps in general you can, with such things, manage, and Always going to the instructions first is actually a bad rule for you. You missed this time, but overall, it is positive that you have what might seem like hubris.
Even more so, perhaps you get so much pleasure out of managing without the instructions, when you do, it is Worth it in that way.
These are slightly different issues from self-determination.
In all of those cases perhaps you do what you do because your father or mother wouldn’t have liked it and you are nto aware of this. So in fact there is Little self-determination involved in your choice.
Or one could argue that you are choosing, but the part you identify with is wrong about why - harking back to our other discussion of the unconscious in a nother thread.
Granted, but the fact still remains that over-confidence is over-confidence. It may be beneficial to us but it’s still technically inaccurate (just don’t tell anyone ).
I am usually never too confident in anything I do, - because then it becomes too hard to abandon course and/or improvise when things go unexpectedly and they will.
This doesn’t mean I am filled with uncertainty while doing something, - only before and after the action.
I think the fact that you’re attacking a strawman’s already been sufficiently articulated. A more nuanced conception of self-determination would have to involve the degree to which we determine ourselves, the extent to which the self plays a causal role in its own activities. This is Nietzsche: some wills are stronger than others. Verbal abuse might inflict on one person a trauma capable of deforming the trajectory of the rest of his life; on another, it might simply move him to vengeance, and so on. Some bend quite easily to temptations; others are stronger. This is all we mean when we speak of freedom of the will. Freedom exists on a spectrum. Bacteria move pretty reflexively towards attractants. As bodies become more complicated, they are capable of deferring to greater extents the event of their reactions. The advent of consciousness affords us the capacity to contemplate alternatives, reflect on previous choices, shape our self-images, and so on. The most self-determining are those capable of forcing the conditions of their life to conform to the shape of their self-images. The least self-determining are those that allow external forces to form for them the material of their personalities. This is basically tautological: to self-determine, you have to resist the influence of external forces. Read Spinoza on the affects for a clearer discussion of the way one can retain the vocabulary of freedom, given these constraints.
As for why anyone might hold otherwise: human exceptionalism is an influential attitude. We see clearly the way animals react to their worlds, the way dogs seem to play a larger role in their own development than do ticks. But we refuse to include ourselves in the discussion. No, we think, we humans must be absolutely free. But, as Spinoza already noted with sufficient elegance, if you’re looking for an emancipation from the natural order, you’re not going to find it.
).