Amy Cuddy gives a presentation
discussing her research on body language and how it not only changes how people
look at you but how you look at yourself.
Through examples from the animal kingdom, politics, and her research,
she shows how “power posing” can increase confidence. She argues that we are able to alter the conception of
ourselves, that we can “fake it until we make it”. However, what are the consequences of falsely presenting
ourselves in situations such as lectures, debates, and job interviews. Is it morally wrong? Who is held responsible if a person is
placed in a position that they cannot handle, the one ‘faking it’ or the one
that did not identify the ‘faker’?
Amy begins her presentation by
showing examples of animals ‘power posing’. Power posing refers to presenting yourself in a position of
confidence, a person with their arms spread, an animal spreading their wings,
etc. She shows how this is done by
most species and is an effective way to show dominance. The opposite is done as well; people
who lack confidence commonly cross their arms or slouch, which makes them look
smaller and weaker. Having noticed
this, Amy performed research to see if there are hormonal changes in a person
when in a ‘power pose’ compared to a smaller pose. What she found is that those in confident poses had
increased testosterone levels as well as decreased cortisol levels, cortisol
relates to how one deals with stress.
Those in smaller poses showed decreased levels of testosterone while
corisol levels increased. These
results show that a person’s pose has almost immediate influence on their
internal chemistry and can effect how people feel about themselves. Amy argues that by consciously putting
yourself in a ‘power pose’ you can change your level of self-confidence and
‘fake it until you make it’.
Although Amy does not discuss it, a
new trend in ‘power posing’ has evolved from the increased levels of
technology. Emails, blogs, and
articles have given people the opportunity to voice opinions that many would
not do face to face. An example I
witnessed was during the Pisces game performed in class. Discussion between the ASU class and
RIT class was left strictly to an online forum. When a situation got heated, RIT students posted comments
saying things such as “Yes I sarcastically called you a “class act”
because unlike you I am neither arrogant, pompous, nor condescending” as well
as “you acted like a group of spoiled children”. I believe language like this would not have been used had
the two sides discussed the situation face to face. Instead, since they were able to hide behind the Internet, RIT
students presented themselves in a more threatening manor then they actually
act in attempt to obtain a better outcome for themselves. Technology has given us another means
of ‘power posing’, this makes it even more difficult to decide if people are
being themselves or are pretending to be someone they are not.
I believe that this
tool of ‘power posing’ is something that many should take advantage of and it could
quite possibly improve a person’s chance of success. However, falsely presenting yourself can lead to negative consequences. Although this technique can be argued
that it means no harm, it can still be viewed as lying. Falsely identifying oneself could put a
person into a situation that they cannot handle. What if an engineer or a doctor ‘faked it’ through
interviews and found themselves in a job they could not complete. They could potentially create
life-threatening situations for many people. How will a person react when truly tested if they used
different tools to boost their self-confidence but were not actually a person
that can handle the pressure?
Perhaps it is morally wrong for people to present themselves in a false
manor but who is responsible for any potential damages that come from this
person. Should the liar be
responsible since they placed themselves in a position they could not
confidently handle? Or should the
interviewer, voter, or audience who is analyzing the person be responsible for not
identifying a person that is ‘faking’ their confidence. I believe both parties should be held
somewhat responsible for any negative consequences. The person lying should not place themselves in a situation
they cannot handle but the other side must also not allow themselves to be
fooled by false confidence and should take time to fully know a person before giving
them to a position of power.
This video has made
me ask the question is it morally wrong to ‘fake it until you make it’. There are a lot of benefits from
presenting yourself in a more powerful way. It builds self-confidence and improves self-esteem. It can help people break out of their shells
that have kept them from achieving goals.
However, there are dangers with presenting yourself in a way that is different
from what they can handle. I
believe that this tool is one that can benefit many people including myself but
it must be done in reasonable steps.
Slowly building up your confidence and testing it will help a person
make improvements. Amy discusses
this at the end of her presentation. She concludes by offering the suggestion to take this
tool and not only ‘fake it until you make it’ but to ‘fake it until you become
it’. I think this is a great tool
that can help many improve self-confidence and increase the chance of success
in many different opportunities.
However, it must be done appropriately and in a way that you’re not
fooling others but instead coming to a personal realization that you can
achieve more then you ever thought.
