When we have a good reason to believe something is true, we are often more confident. However, when we have a very good reason to believe something is false, we are usually less confident.
When we’re convinced we’re right, we’re less confident.
We tend to be much more confident when we have strong evidence, but less confident when we have nothing. Just like the people who read Shakespeare tend to be more confident than the people who read A Tale of Two Cities, the people who read a book like The Theory of Probability tend to be much less confident than the people who read Sherlock Holmes.
In the case of a movie, for example, it’s the movie, and the audience, and people who watch it, they tend to be much less confident than the people who watch the movie. For the most part, people who read The Theory of Probability tend to be much more confident than people who read Sherlock Holmes.
As previously mentioned when reading The Theory of Probability, our goal in a movie like A Tale of Two Cities, for example, is to achieve a priori certainty that people are just idiots. It’s a little bit like the real-life Sherlock Holmes, because the real-life Sherlock Holmes had to have an extremely high level of confidence in his own methods and in his own ability to predict the future.
In A Tale of Two Cities, Holmes doesn’t actually go into any detail about how he came to the conclusions that he did. However, he is always extremely confident about his own methods, and is extremely confident about those methods.
This approach is very different than what people might think of when they think of “confidence” in a scientific way. In the scientific way, we are so confident in our method that we make decisions based on our theory that we call “intuitive” or “fundamental” certainty. Scientific certainty implies that we don’t accept any other possibility. It’s sort of like the level of confidence we have in our theories.
This is a much more scientific way of looking at confidence than saying that you have it because you are 100% certain. In fact, it’s the exact opposite of that. That kind of confidence simply means that you are extremely confident about your method and you are extremely confident about your theory. I mean, you still have a huge amount of confidence in your theory. You can be really sure of something, but you cant be 100% sure of it.
Because you do not have that level of confidence, you can get very specific and highly improbable. For example, you can have confidence that the game is pretty good just by having a certain level of confidence.
For example, you can have confidence that a certain action will lead to a certain result. You can have confidence you will get good results, but you cant have 100% confidence that you will get good results.