> Our default human response could have been wired to be "i can't possibly feel bad when criticized, because i know i'm not a master" and "i love having people examine my work, because it's a shortcut to getting better even faster", but instead we take all the wrong lessons.
This would not be practical nor evolutionary advantage in practice. Saying that as someone who used to believe the above is something to strive for.
It makes you super vulnerable the moment politics appear or when you work and are judged among peers. Among other things, if you welcome and accept criticism while others dont, you will appear less capable to third parties because your mistakes are constantly pointed out and theirs are not. Impression matters. You will be more likely to be convinced you are wrong when you are right or when difference is matter of opinion. You wont be perceived as potential leader.
You will also be getting a lot of bad advice from overly confident people. They will be perceived as more capable then you, even if you realize the advice was wrong. People with hardwired do end up nitpicked and favorite target of those who like dominate others. Which is why such trait is not evolutionary advantage, even if it would be collectively helpful.
Hmm, I kind of see that as a completely separate category -- how I manage my perception within the organization, how I manage relationships and influence, how I present myself, what I say in what situations.
Accepting criticism to me seems like a more internal thing. There's of course the external response to criticism. People will always say whatever they want, so then, do you dismiss it? do you get angry and lash out? do you try to turn it into a teaching moment? do you try to spin it into something else to make people feel like they contributed?
I don't know if accepting criticism means I would be convinced that I am "wrong" when I am "right". Let's say, in some meeting where we're trying to come to some solution, I generally try to frame it as "let's work together to solve this problem". Certainly you have your own thoughts on what the solution would be, or at the very least some instinct on the direction, based on your experience. So then everyone is laying out their thoughts and opinions, and you try to build upon the facts, try to get consensus on points, until you reach the end goal. Of course, it's up to your own skill to metagame the conversation to get people to come to your own solution by their own, usually by enumerating all the approaches, enumerating their strengths and weaknesses, and letting others tally up the points in your favor. Or maybe through the process the group ends up with a better solution than you had originally come in with, which will almost always be the case on some level. It's not a matter of "the expert is correct and we do whatever they say".
Of course, with things like opinions, if it doesn't matter, it's often not worth arguing about, and if it does, there should be concrete evidence in its favor. You might also choose to allow for suboptimal solutions. Let's say we all agree on the overall approach in the meeting, but the person who's going to be implementing the project has a particular opinion on a detail of the approach. Your experience says it's not quite the perfect approach, but not that bad and still meets the bar, you might let them go with that, because it gives them more motivation, lets them feel more ownership, it's something they're more familiar with, etc. The people and team aspect is often more important to optimize than the "technically optimal" solution.
I would also treat the confidence aspect as something else entirely. You present your confidence by having strong well-thought-out and evidence-backed ideas. You make sure that you've always thought more deeply about the issue and are more prepared than anyone else in every meeting. And that you are always sharp to understand, incorporate, and build upon everyone else's ideas. Actually, I might say that this confidence is what allows you to learn and improve from other's criticism, without feeling attacked and beat down by it.
This would not be practical nor evolutionary advantage in practice. Saying that as someone who used to believe the above is something to strive for.
It makes you super vulnerable the moment politics appear or when you work and are judged among peers. Among other things, if you welcome and accept criticism while others dont, you will appear less capable to third parties because your mistakes are constantly pointed out and theirs are not. Impression matters. You will be more likely to be convinced you are wrong when you are right or when difference is matter of opinion. You wont be perceived as potential leader.
You will also be getting a lot of bad advice from overly confident people. They will be perceived as more capable then you, even if you realize the advice was wrong. People with hardwired do end up nitpicked and favorite target of those who like dominate others. Which is why such trait is not evolutionary advantage, even if it would be collectively helpful.