When questioning your intentions as arrogant, entitled, immature vs confident, moral right, correctness. Or even questioning if the Duning Kruger effect is at play.
What process do you incorporate to back-up your self-judgement or in identifying your decisions/choices are in-fact “correct” in online discussions and/or personal life with friends/family.
How do you remove “self-doubt”?
There’s a line in Nicholas Roeg’s movie Insignificance that has stayed with me for decades now.
There’s an obvious Einstein expy just called “The Professor.” At one point, he’s asked why he’s so cautious about his claims - why he habitually says things like, “I think that…” or “The theory is that…” or “One might argue that…”
His response is, “If I say ‘I know,’ I stop thinking.”
That, IMO, points to the primary answer to your question - don’t try to remove self-doubt. Nourish it. Revel in it. Because it’s the thing that will keep you thinking, and the more you think, the more likely you are to get to actual truth.
I completely agree, and I try to frame my opinions like this, and be open to me being wrong and accepting better information. I don’t do it perfectly 100% of the time, but I do try, especially in a work setting.
One thing to be wary of: some people will call these humble qualifiers “weasel words” and accuse you of lacking conviction. Most likely to happen if you’re having a political discussion with a person who’s convinced themselves that they have it all figured out and/or they mistake bullying for a good argument. I try to disengage with that type of person, but they’re out there in the wild.
Yes - I’ve had many of those asshats over the years insist that I have to “choose a side.”
That’s generally because they can’t actually argue for their position, and the best they can manage is to find fault with a self-serving characterization of a falsely dichotomous opposing position. So they need to be able to assign me to one or the other team, so they know whether they can ignore me or if they need to hurl some emotive rhetoric and fallacies somewhere in my general direction.
And yes - they’re almost never worth engaging with.
And to go all the way back, it could be said that the exact problem is that they have unfounded confidence.
And it’s sort of ironic really, because they’re generally driven by a psychological need to be right, and clinging desperately to one fixed position pretty much guarantees that right is the one thing they will not be.