[UP 022] - What people really mean when they say 'be more confident'

Hello old friend.

Welcome back to UP. Edition #022.

Hope this week’s been good for you whatever you’ve been doing.

Here’s what we’ve got for you this week:

🧠 Building Blocks of Belief: We'll look at the pillars that shape our self-belief and how self-confidence and self-efficacy work together.

🍽 The Taste-Hunger Matrix: Why do we overeat ice cream but not broccoli? We’ll explore what’s going on when it comes to being satisfied vs. being stuffed.

🤝 The Truth Paradox: Can we really trust our instincts when we judge others? We’ll delve into the double-edged sword of trust.

Let’s jump right in.

Building Blocks of Belief

Just be more confident may be up there for the worst advice you can receive.

‘Ok thanks Steve, I’ll try.’ 😐

People mean well when they say that but that message often misses the mark. Their sentiment isn’t that far off though.

Confidence is an overused term.

I like the idea that confidence that lasts ought to be built around your competence.

Meaning you shouldn’t BS yourself that you can do something. You ought to be able to look back and see evidence that you can.

But that’s not the actual definition you’ll see used by your favourite dictionary.

At its core, confidence (or self-confidence) is the belief in one's abilities to achieve a particular outcome.

Basically, it's that inner voice that says, "I can do this."

Doesn’t have to be based on anything, (though it’d be likely be stronger if it did). Just has to be there.

A type of faith and trust in yourself if you will.

(That’s what your friend Steve is referring to when he says be more confident.)

But now where we’re perhaps misinterpreting Steve’s advice is in the mixing of the definition for self-confidence with self-efficacy.

Self-efficacy, a term popularized by psychologist Albert Bandura, goes beyond general confidence.

It's the belief in one's capabilities to organize and execute the actions required for specific situations.

In other words, while self-confidence is a broad belief in one's abilities, self-efficacy is situation-specific. 

It answers the question: "Do I believe I can succeed in this particular task or challenge?"

Now, Bandura identified four primary sources of self-efficacy:

Mastery Experiences: Successfully handling a task or challenge lifts our belief in our abilities.

Every time you overcome an obstacle or achieve a goal, it reinforces the idea that you can handle similar situations in the future.

Vicarious Experiences: Observing someone similar to you succeed can lift your belief that you, too, can master a similar challenge.

It's the idea that "if they can do it, so can I."

Social Persuasion: Positive feedback and encouragement from others can solidify your belief in your capabilities.

When someone you respect believes in you, it can strengthen your own belief in yourself. It’s that warm nod from your coach ‘You got this.’

Emotional & Physiological States: Your mood, emotional state, and physical reactions can influence your self-efficacy beliefs.

Recognizing and managing stress, anxiety, or other negative emotions can help maintain a strong sense of efficacy.

So in essence, while self-confidence gives us a general assurance in our abilities, self-efficacy provides the framework for understanding and building that confidence in specific situations.

So when we next face a new or difficult challenge, we can look at ourselves across Bandura's four sources, in order to cultivate a robust sense of self-efficacy, allowing us to take that baseline confidence and apply it specifically.

So thanks Steve, I will ‘be more confident’, but I really know you meant ‘have more self-efficacy.’

Let’s move on now and look at an area that I could do with some self-efficacy around: Hunger.

The Taste to Hunger Matrix

Ever wondered why, despite our best intentions, we sometimes (or often) slip up in our food choices and end up having a day or weekend to forget feeling like we’ll never eat again?

At the heart of our food failures is a simple culprit: hunger.

But it's not just about being ravenous or overly full; it's about navigating the spectrum between the two.

Imagine a scale: at one end, you're starving, and at the other, you're stuffed.

Our goal? To float comfortably in the middle, in a state of satisfaction.

But the big question: why do we often find ourselves reaching for that extra cookie even when we're full?

It's because we're surrounded by hyper-palatable foods, those that taste a 9 or 10/10 on the taste scale.

They're designed (or engineered!) to be irresistible.

(Think Pringles’ tagline; ‘Once you pop you can’t stop.’ Yeh, pretty accurate actually.)

When we're on a diet or program of some sorts, we often swing to the other extreme.

We opt for foods that might be low in calories but also rank low on the taste scale.

The result? We're perpetually hungry, always on the edge of that 'starving' mark.

And for those trying to gain weight? The pendulum swings the other way.

We consume high-calorie, delicious foods that quickly push us towards feeling 'stuffed.'

So, what's the middle ground?

Enter the Circle Diet by Greg Doucette.

(Here’s the full ten-minute video where he explains this whole idea in detail. Well worth a watch.)

He introduces a hunger-taste matrix, a guide to help us choose foods that are both satisfying and delicious by focusing on keeping our food choices within this balanced circle.

The idea is simple: make tempting foods healthier and make healthy foods more tempting.

Maybe you'll tweak a cookie recipe to be less sugary, more protein-packed. Or perhaps you'll spice up a bland salad with some zesty flavors. It’s all about being conscious and taking back control of what you eat whilst not being a slave to taste.

Initially, depending on your goals, you might lean towards foods with a slightly higher or lower taste score.

But once you hit that sweet spot – easily maintaining your goal weight – it's all about sticking with foods that rank 7-9 on the taste scale.

Greg refers to this approach as 'Minimizing Suffering,' one of the spokes of his Circle Diet, a book he launched last year.

If you're seeking a sustainable, everyday approach to eating, I can't recommend the book enough.

Remember, this isn't a strict rule but a fresh framework to manage your food choices. Why adopt it?

Because it offers a balanced, sustainable path to achieving and maintaining your ideal body composition.

And given the choices, when it comes to infinite games like our health, the sustainable path is the path we ought to choose.

Right, let’s finish by talking about your trust issues.

Defaulting to Truth

This week, I finished Malcolm Gladwell's "Talking to Strangers."

(I think he makes my top five authors list right now.)

It's Gladwell’s latest exploration into how we, as humans, interact with people we don't know.

One of the main takeaways? We're wired to trust.

We default to believing people are telling the truth, even when we feel doubt whether from our own judgments or from others telling us. We’ll usually tend to give others the benefit of the doubt.

Sounds harmless, right? But sometimes, this instinct can lead us astray.

Take financial fraud Bernie Madoff, or sex offenders Larry Nassar, and Jerry Sandusky.

(If you don’t know the latter two like I didn’t before the book, I advise to explore with caution. Sickening people.)

Many close colleagues and associates were duped by their despicable lies and criminal behavior for years.

Why? Because our natural inclination is to trust, to believe that what we're being told is the truth. It's a part of our human nature.

But here's the twist: while defaulting to truth can be costly, the alternative might be even worse. We end up living in a world where we're always suspicious, always doubting.

Disgraced Police Officer Brian Encinia's tragic misjudgment of harmless civilian Sandra Bland, and Harry Markopolos's life of paranoia around his life after exposing Madoff, give us a glimpse into this reality.

Living without trust can lead to a life filled with anxiety, doubt, and isolation.

So, while our instinct to trust can sometimes blind us to deception, it's also what binds our society together.

Yes it's absolutely a delicate balance, and I do believe in ‘trust but verify’, but we have to always bear in mind the consequences of our actions on both sides.

This means understanding that if we follow up on our doubts with others, we potentially damage our relationships with them by doubting them, looking for ‘needles in haystacks.’

Or alternatively, we must understand we can accept our fate that there may be a ‘needle in a haystack’, and that it could change life as we know it if it’s found.

Trusting too easily can be dangerous, but a world without trust?

That's a world I'm not sure we'd want to live in.

***

That’s a wrap for this week. A big thanks as always for reading this far, truly appreciate your attention.

If you wanna help in any small way, it’s super easy: Just share this their way.

I’m off to eat some celery sticks and hummus and reflect on how trusting I am.

I’ll see you next week.

Always Forward,
Utkarsh