I suppose the acceptance of being fallible is acknowledged as a moral principle . — David Jones

This seems like a strange opening claim to me. The acceptance of fallibility might help make someone not come across as an arrogant asshole, but is that really a moral issue? It seems more like a character or "personability" issue to me. I wouldn't say that someone who comes across as an arrogant asshole is committing moral transgressions in that. At best it might be an etiquette issue, but moral issues are more significant than etiquette in my opinion.

Looking at this issue at first step , as you said , is an etiquette issue .
But committing mistakes in a society that individuals share common interests ,
often breach the rights of others in that society.
So being incapable of accepting one's mistakes ends up in moral issues
and a major cause for developing immoral character .

Having self confidence is not equivalent to denying one's fallibility.

If you never make mistakes, you aren't doing anything. Screwing up is just part of life, and it's one of the ways we learn.

Confidence is like the sail on a sailboat. It can get you into trouble, yes, but you aren't going anywhere without it.

Having self confidence is not equivalent to denying one's fallibility. — frank

I still cannot solve this logical conflict : one cannot trust something that's fallible .

If you never make mistakes, you aren't doing anything. — frank

of course , and that's why we should be capable of accepting our mistakes so that we
would be able to correct our behaviors or strategy in life .

Confidence is like the sail on a sailboat. It can get you into trouble, yes, but you aren't going anywhere without it. — frank

I guess that's true , confidence gives us courage , but does confidence is necessarily equal to
self-confidence ?

If you were to study self-confidence from a perspective that takes into account many eastern philosphies you can find a sort of self-confidence that is the direct result of the loss of ones ego. On the other hand if you were to look at self-confidence as something that is dependent on societal norms, it resembles a sort of stepping stone for the actions of each person you encounter. There isn't much realation between fallibility and confidence, confidence is what starts an individual action, that action is then what should be related to fallibility. Saying someone is egoistic should be based on ones actions, not the amount of confidence they have in themselves.

I still cannot solve this logical conflict : one cannot trust something that's fallible . — David Jones

You can trust that it's fallible. You can trust your own ability to forgive (once you have that ability, of course.)

Try determinism.

you can find a sort of self-confidence that is the direct result of the loss of ones ego — Enki B

How the confidence in something may result in the loss of it ?

confidence is what starts an individual action, that action is then what should be related to fallibility. — Enki B

But the meaning of confidence is a belief in infallibility before the action , otherwise we shouldn't use the word : "confidence" , perhaps we should use the word "courage" instead , but courage is not always
wise .

You can trust that it's fallible — frank

Then we should use the word : "confidence in self-fallibility"

I still cannot solve this logical conflict : one cannot trust something that's fallible . — David Jones

YOu can't trust it to be infallible, but you rarely need infallibility.

Michael Jordan was not infallible, but coaches, fellow players and he himself could be confident that he would help his team win. All of them could trust him, in general, to help his team win.

Trust is not binary, all or nothing, nor is confidence.

But the meaning of confidence is a belief in infallibility before the action — David Jones

This seeming more like the saying of, "What came first, the chicken or the egg." It almost seems impossible to say whether the thought of infallibility is the cause of ones confidence or if one persons confidence is what causes the thought of infallibility . It's difficult to say that confidence is entirely fallible only because even with a complete lack of confidence there would still be fallibility.

"confidence" , perhaps we should use the word "courage" instead — David Jones

. I would agree that there is definitely a better way to word this conflict.

Then we should use the word : "confidence in self-fallibility" — David Jones

Yes. You could do that.

Michael Jordan was not infallible, but coaches, fellow players and he himself could be confident that he would help his team win. — Coben

But if they lose , should they lose their resolutions in doing their best in playing other games ?
So in this case perhaps we should say they are (or were) confident in their trial to perform
their best abilities in the game and not in their selves .
Although I know this attitude usually do not gives us enough incentive to do our best ,
but I think we have to change our attitudes .

Trust is not binary, all or nothing, nor is confidence. — Coben

Our problems in our lives may not be as simple as just wining or losing a game (although even in a game you should observe all the rules) .
Sometime we are encountered with complicated situations that even a single mistake or wrong decision would impair our whole actions .

It almost seems impossible to say whether the thought of infallibility is the cause of ones confidence or if one persons confidence is what causes the thought of infallibility — Enki B

When you trust another person , you may think he may do some mistakes that's not on purpose.
So you trust him or her not because of absolute infallibility but partly or mostly for his or her honesty or loyalty . but when we are talking about trusting ourselves , honesty or loyalty becomes meaningless and the only thing that's left is infallibility .

"confidence" , perhaps we should use the word "courage" instead — David Jones

I would agree that there is definitely a better way to word this conflict. — Enki B

But using incorrect words cause misinterpretations and wrong values .

But if they lose , should they lose their resolutions in doing their best in playing other games ? — David Jones

I don't see why, but I was not sure what you meant in your first paragraph. I think strong players of just about anything learn how not to let the occasional loss undermine their general confidence.

Sometime we are encountered with complicated situations that even a single mistake or wrong decision would impair our whole actions — David Jones

Sure, that happens. But having confidence is still, generally useful there. A cop without well founded confidence in his or her abiilitiies is at a disadvantage in a gunfight in a way another cop would not be, one who was donfident. One can be confident without considering oneself perfect or unable to make mistakes.

A cop without well founded confidence in his or her abilities is at a disadvantage in a gunfight in a way another cop would not be, one who was confident. — Coben

My problem is not with the word "confidence" , but with the objects that we should trust .
I think our abilities , capabilities and judgements should not be the objects for our confidence ,
instead our "efforts" to find the correct manners or our "quests" for truth , are much better objects
for confidence and we would be much more flexible in correcting our mistakes to promote our
abilities , capabilities and judgements .

And just remember those cops who shot too recklessly and killed innocent people and even children or the elderly.
Those who were dubbed trigger-happy . Perhaps they had become too confident about their judgements to the point of disaster .

I think our abilities , capabilities and judgements should not be the objects for our confidence ,
instead our "efforts" — David Jones

I don't see why one should choose, and confidence in both is important. A surgeon needs confidence both in her effort to do all she can for the patient on the table and in her abilities. This does not mean she should presume she is infallible. In fact part of confidence should also come from noting that she checks herself, learns from mistakes, perhaps consults with assistant surgeons at tough choice moments and so on. They can't just go in their confident that they will try really hard, but with no take on their own abilities. Otherwise they should in fact refuse to operate and let someone they do have confidence in operate.

And just remember those cops who shot too recklessly and killed innocent people and even children or the elderly. — David Jones

The argument here is: if some people have confidence and mess up then confidence is bad in general. Of course confidence can be illfounded. Perhaps those cops had little confidence in their own abilities to identify threats and so they shot while overlooking warnings the targets were not what they thought. Perhaps there are other flaws. You would need to demonstrate that those cops were flawed because they were confident, rather than they were impulsive or prone to violence or hadn't got enough sleep or racist or burned out. I see no reason to assume it was confidence that was the problem. And even if their confidence was a problem that does not mean others should not be confident. Perhaps those cops had confidence in their effort making, a quality you see as ok.

A painter is willing to work extremely hard,e ven though it is uncomfortable at times and becomes a good artist. They someone says, this other would be artist worked extremely hard, so working extremely hard is bad and artists should not do it.

Or some is nice and becomes a beloved member of the community while another person is nice and fails to notice warning signals and is raped and killed. So, then, being nice is a bad quality. Actually it's a necesarily quality but it needs to come with other skills and qualities.

Confidence in your work as a police should also come with not being racist, not being jumpy, being cautious and so on. But it is necessary.

They can't just go in their confident that they will try really hard, but with no take on their own abilities. Otherwise they should in fact refuse to operate and let someone they do have confidence in operate. — Coben

In general that's true because to be admired for ones effort is a norm in almost all communities and cultures . and it's in human's nature , and really hard to avoid it , although I think it's a weak point .

I don't expect we should totally ignore admiration , but beside it sometimes we should try to use our abilities or talents just for their benefits and not for other's admiration .

It may seems to be strange , but I think it might be a new idea to relieve humans somewhat from their egoistic behaviors that, I suppose, is the major cause for crimes , inequalities and persecutions that's prevalent in our modern age as before .

You may say there are many celebrities or well known characters who became prominent for loving admiration and being self confident .
And I would reply many of them didn't overcome the conflict between self confidence and egoism , so ran into scandals (sex scandals , sexual harassment or financial corruptions as you may have heard) , Some celebrities overcame that conflict by perseverance and strong family or social ties , but I think are still vulnerable, and finally some celebrities were perished by that conflict and eventually committed
suicide, that there's no need to name .

I don't feel obliged to explain the gap between debilitating self criticism and misplaced certainty in certain things being the case. I am too far up a certain creek to start selling my paddle.

Pretty much any positive attribute can be problematic if other positive attributes are not present or if that attribute is extreme. I just don't see that they are then bad and should be avoided.

I am suggesting viewpoints based on my observations , and I just put them forward to see what would be the critic on those viewpoints and the reasoning the opponents express to falsify each viewpoint based on the relevant observation I mentioned. so that they would be modified or corrected .
And I guess that's how the debates in forums should go on .

But it seems that I drew little attention , perhaps because putting under question globally accepted and attractive norms , such as self-confidence do not raise appetites for debates .