I think you already disarm your own argument when you say:
"things like actually being able to talk to that girl, ask for that raise, close that sale, take down that oppressor...these things benefit tremendously from irrational confidence".
Exactly. You don't need to be overconfident to "talk down (sic!) to a girl" or ask for a raise, but about "just" confidence. Case closed.
Not trying to argue either way -- it comes down to defining "over" in this context. If asking a girl/boy out when she/he is going to reject you (but you don't know it) is overconfidence, then we need overconfidence. (We would need to be psychic or we'd never do anything.) If it means assuming every piece of contrary advice you receive is idiotic (eg invasion of Iraq) then no, we don't need it, and this is precisely the kind of definition the article uses.
The article defines the overconfidence as a belief in an outcome despite what reasonable past statistics tell us.
"the kind of optimism that leads governments to believe that wars are quickly winnable and capital projects will come in on budget despite statistics predicting exactly the opposite."
On a second thought, project planning and making plans in general that involve duration, cost, etc, and "asking a girl out" or "asking for a pay rise" are very different things and I'd prefer not to conflate the two.
You might be able to generate some stats on what % of girls that are asked out (in some particular circumstantce e.g. at a bar in Kentucky, etc) agree or how many pay rises are approved.
You can then talk about over- or under- confidence if expectations of the outcome deviate largely from these stats. How much is too little or much? Who knows.
> The article defines the overconfidence as a belief in an outcome despite what reasonable past statistics tell us.
Following this same logic, a nerdy guy who has 100% rejection rate should accept it and do nothing. However from all the self-help/marketing literature we know this is a doomed philosophy.
