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

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.

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.

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.

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

Communicate your arguments in written form, through email.

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.

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.

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").

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?