Title: The Origin of Confidence
Created: 2022-05-22
Author: zlg

(Publishing this on the zaibatsu first, any comments or corrections please reach 
out.)

"Just believe in yourself." One of the most common sentences you'll hear from 
people regarding the subject of confidence. It suggests that believing in 
yourself is easy, or is something that one *just does*. The word "just" is 
abused in many situations to make light of what is being suggested or done. 
You may as well take them at their word, and see this advice as low-effort and 
ignorant.

If it were that simple, I'm sure we'd have gone to the confidence store, bought
some, and moved on with life. Unlike buying merchandise in a store to fix a
practical physical problem, dealing with issues of self-realization and belief
isn't something fixed by a single, one-size-fits-all, works-everytime solution.
It's that blatant disregard of complexity and internal struggle which reveals
the advice here is not given in good faith, nor does it come from a place of
introspection, wisdom, or compassion. It's dismissive.

"If *you* don't believe in you, who will?" is another! This one at least makes 
sense, though. It points to the idea that *you need a reason* to believe in 
yourself. Okay, I can get behind that. It's applicable to both the group and the 
individual, and invites analysis.

This leads to: "Why should I believe in myself?" We ask this, because that's the 
angle others will be judging us from. They come into it (somewhat) neutral, and 
need a reason to believe in us. If we cannot answer this question, do we really 
believe in ourselves?

How does one answer the "why" question? There is a method of learning that
focuses on the base of knowledge rather than the tip. A focus on "first
principles" allows a philosophy or understanding to come from the bottom of
cognition to the top, by building on statements or observations that are
so clearly apparent, it would be folly to question. In computing, this is
understood as "bottom-up" learning. The first principles approach builds a
more solid base of understanding and certainty, but for something internal and
subjective -- like confidence or trust -- it seems like the approach only goes
so far.

I'm not sure it has to be that way. Where does confidence come from? It's
described as "having the knowledge of one's capabilities and weaknesses, being
secure in that knowledge, and one's perceived ability to face challenges or take
risks for opportunities." At some point in our mental journey to confidence,
there must be some way to *prove worth to one's self*. Many people are judged
based on how valuable they are to others, whether that value is in service,
labor, support, etc. But it still needs to be discovered *in the person* to
form a sincere belief. How can one believe in something they do not comprehend?
Comprehension will lead to *an* answer, even if it's not *the* answer.

If we follow a logical standard, we should be able to break down the "why" into
its individual criteria, then address each of them. Each point addressed can
be quantified to form an aggregate verdict. Such an opinion is much harder to
fight cognitively, because it's not just one answer to refute, it's *many*.
The nature of the points also needs to be broad and multifaceted, forcing the
low-confidence person to see themselves at multiple angles. Whatever
mechanisms in the brain that inhibit the mind's ability to see itself as a
good creature need overwhelming evidence and proof in order to overcome the
confidence deficit.

The task has become more complex now. Instead of just asking one high level
question, we're now trying to figure out what a self-convincing answer
would look like. People are confident, or not, for a variety of reasons.
While a lot of it comes to perceived value like social standing, monetary
value, and prestige, other measuring sticks are also used, like skill level,
attractiveness, competition history, notoriety, attention, life satisfaction,
and so on.

I've put together a set of questions that may help one to understand where
they sit in regards to their own self confidence. I am not a psychologist, nor
am I particularly well-read on psychology or philosophy. I am a self-skeptic,
however, and have struggled with confidence and self esteem for most of my life.
I've sought therapy, participated in CBT, and taken 4 different medicines.
Sought more sunlight, supplemented 5-HTP to help produce seratonin, taken more
Vitamin D, etc. Some of the questions I have asked myself and tried to challenge
my bias. Questions in this style, and their answers, do more to illustrate the
real problem in confidence than any of the CBT or talk therapy I've participated
in. CBT therapy is mostly focused around accepting things passively and trying
to not let it bother you when you get upset. I find that disappointing and it
lacks an investigative spirit to find an actual solution. Many problems of
ego and emotion can be fixed through social knowledge, and you don't get that
without asking questions.

Much of the reason, I think, people without confidence have doubt is their
inability to see what others see in them, because they haven't answered the
founding questions or don't see themselves the same way as an observer. These
questions have answers in the minds of people who like or believe in the
low-confidence person. So, where else can the disconnect come from, if not
because the low-confidence person simply didn't know the answer (i.e. why others
believe in them), or didn't know to ask themselves? Confidence is mostly learned
through life experience; though genetic disposition to depression, or trauma,
can disrupt it.

That means we should be able to *teach* or rather, help people *discover*
confidence. A lot of the advice I've seen concerning confidence is really
generic and not very actionable. It doesn't address issues of self-worth,
perceived worth of one's self, or perceived worth by others. It doesn't
address low trust or poor social or home experiences as possible confounding variables.
Much advice boils down to "fake it until you make it", which is really just
"shut up and act confident and it'll just happen". Very dismissive and unhelpful
advice. A non-answer. Were this a developmental psychology problem, or something
simple like behavior reinforcement, mimickry might be appropriate. Social and
internal worth systems -- the foundation of confidence -- are far beyond the
complexity at which mimickry is effective as a teaching or therapy tool.

Let's try this on for size:

* Do you believe in others? What reasons do you believe in them? Can you apply 
  them to yourself?
* Have you done things people needed you for?
* Were those tasks appreciated by them? How did they show appreciation? Did that 
  treatment feel like appreciation?
* Have you taken time to be with someone because they wanted your company?
* Did you enjoy that time? Was it time well spent? Did they act thankful for 
  your presence?
* Have you put together something other people liked, like an art project?
* Are you there for others? Do you provide for or protect others?
* Do you feel like what you do has a positive effect on the world?
* If not, what is more valuable to you, that you wish you could do?
* What would make you a person worth believing in?
* Have you taken any projects to completion or pulled off something difficult?
* Has anyone admired your work? How did you feel about it?
* Have you overcome anything that was difficult or scary?
* What do you do in life that brings you joy?
* Do others see your joy and admire it? Are they supportive of your interests?
* Do you see value in the thing(s) that others claim you are valuable for?
* How do you feel about daily life? Is it a challenge?
* In those challenging things, which affects you most? What thing, if fixed, 
  would make it easier for you to believe in yourself?

There are, obviously, variations on these questions depending on the person, but
the core goal at hand is: has the person made *any* positive impact to *anyone*?
Most people have; but low-confidence people don't see its value, or don't see it
as a reason to believe in themselves. It's important to approach from as many
angles as possible to help the person better see themselves as a whole. It also 
helps discover where there is overlap in worth systems between the individual 
and the group. Those similarities are key to finding common understanding.

A surprising amount of self-assuredness comes from how the individual relates to 
the greater group. A self-assured person who is never admired, thanked, or 
respected will lose confidence over time because reality is repeatedly defying 
their inner perspective. This points to a strong social component of confidence. 
It's not something that you just build inside. It's formed through your own 
action, but tempered by the *reactions* of others. Confidence should be 
realistic in order to be strong and stable.

If the goal is to get someone to believe in themselves, you have to establish
what they value. Then you need to compare and contrast those values with
the values of those closest to that person. Is there a way to adequately
explain to a low-confidence person that the perspectives of others aren't
just contradicting, but have reasoning behind them? Better communication and
mutual understanding would create benefit here, but confidence is, in the West,
something considered almost mandatory to have, so there isn't a lot of candid
and insightful discourse on the subject. "You should believe in yourself because
you should" is not valid or useful philosophy.

The bitter pill that society needs to swallow on self-esteem and confidence
is it takes more than clichés to change one's internal mental alignment. The
social component is just as important as the internal component, because they
interact and affect each other. To that end, we must also accept that social
interactions can negatively affect confidence as well. Individuals are not
solely responsible for their confidence.

This means that, in order to correctly fight low-confidence, the person needs
to be presented with their personal view of themselves contrasted with real,
honest views from others, and reasoning. A thorough showing of the discrepancy
will open the mind to considering other perspectives, due to the difference
alone. Self-critical minds do not hate themselves indiscriminately. They are
desperately searching for proof, evidence, and reassurance. A foundation of
self. Something they can point to so that believing in themselves feels natural
and correct.

In doing this, we should acknowledge that some don't have much to feel good 
about in their lives. That's where efforts from the individual and the group can 
combine, to *create* good experiences that can build undeniable positives for 
such a person. Everyone is motivated differently, but it boils down to setting 
someone up for challenging, but *realistic* and *attainable* goals. Then, you 
track the person as they proceed through, noting every success, and showing the 
*value* of that success to the low-confidence person. This creates a self-record 
that really can't be argued with, but only if the failures or missteps are both 
adequately acknowledged, and positioned as learning experiences and practicing 
effort.

The hardest part of the ordeal of getting someone to believe in themselves,
I think, is aligning the perspectives of the low-confidence person with
positive outside opinions. Proving their sincerity is of utmost importance if
you want any positive change. If you can accomplish this, however, confidence 
has space to form.

In short, low-confidence people don't need a pep talk or petty truisms. They
need gentle refutations and a sincere, candid look at how others perceive them.
Many who don't believe in themselves simply never had anybody else treat them
with respect, or don't share or believe the perspectives that those around them
express. That is a fixable problem. In the absence of achievement, helping to
set goals to create an undeniable success record can form the first footprints
to confidence.

I hope the set of questions can at least start a conversation between people 
looking for help and people who want to help someone believe in themselves. I'm 
not an expert; just a guy who's had tons of shitty advice come from well-meaning 
but ultimately clueless people. People who haven't spent enough time thinking 
about *why* they believe in themselves to begin thinking about why someone else 
might not. It's not solely about value, it's about *validation*. People who do 
not feel valid will *also* not feel confident.

Thanks for reading.

-z