Mark: A massive, twenty-year study of 15,000 twins found that the single biggest predictor of success wasn't IQ. It was confidence. In fact, having high self-belief was more important than being a genius. Michelle: Hold on. More important than being a genius? That flips everything we're taught about achievement on its head. We're told to get the grades, get the qualifications, be the most competent person in the room. Mark: Exactly. And that's the central mystery explored in The Confidence Code: The Science and Art of Self-Assurance by journalists Katty Kay and Claire Shipman. Michelle: Ah, I know their work. They're both incredibly accomplished journalists. Mark: They are. And what's fascinating is that they're not psychologists. They came at this from a place of personal confusion. They were interviewing some of the most powerful women in the world—and they noticed that even these hyper-successful leaders, and even they themselves, were plagued by self-doubt. The book became their investigation into why. It became a massive bestseller, really hitting a nerve in the cultural conversation about women and leadership. Michelle: Okay, so if it's not about competence, what is this 'confidence gap' they're talking about? I always assumed successful people were just naturally confident.

Mark: That’s the first major myth they bust. Confidence isn't a reward for achievement; it's the fuel. To understand the gap, they went to a pretty unexpected place: a practice session for the Washington Mystics, a WNBA team. Michelle: Professional athletes. You’d think if anyone has confidence, it’s them. Mark: You would. On the court, these women were forces of nature—powerful, skilled, precise. But when the authors interviewed them afterwards, a completely different picture emerged. They met two star players, Monique Currie and Crystal Langhorne. Both talked about how much they struggled with their confidence. Michelle: Really? After making it to the top of their sport? Mark: Yes. Crystal Langhorne had this incredible insight. She said, "Let’s say I have a bad game. I’ll think, ‘Oh my gosh, we lost’ and I’ll feel like I really wanted to help the team win... With guys, if they had a bad game, they’re thinkin g, ‘I had a bad game.’ They shrug off the loss more quickly." Michelle: Oh, I know that feeling. That is so painfully relatable. I will replay a minor mistake in a meeting for days, while my male colleagues seem to have forgotten it before they even leave the room. Mark: It’s a classic example of what the authors found again and again. Women tend to internalize failure and ruminate on it, while men are better at externalizing it and moving on. The women on the team were overthinking, they were people-pleasing, and they couldn't let go of defeats. These are what the authors call 'confidence killers'. Michelle: And it’s not just in sports, is it? They talked to women in other fields too. Mark: All over. They tell the story of Christine Lagarde, who was the head of the International Monetary Fund. One of the most powerful economic figures on the planet. And she admitted to them that she still got nervous, still had moments of self-doubt, and compensated by zealously over-preparing for everything. She said she and German Chancellor Angela Merkel shared this trait—this feeling that they had to be completely on top of everything, assuming they didn't have the natural expertise. Michelle: Wow. The head of the IMF feels like she has to overcompensate. That’s a stunning admission. So it's a clear pattern. The competence is there, the achievements are there, but the deep-seated belief in that competence isn't. Mark: Precisely. And that's why they land on a crucial definition. A psychologist they worked with, Richard Petty, defined confidence as "the stuff that turns thoughts into action." It’s not a feeling. It’s the bridge that lets you cross from 'I think I can' to 'I am doing it.' The confidence gap is really an action gap. Michelle: An action gap. I like that. It’s much more tangible than just a feeling. But that leads to the obvious next question... why? Why does this gap exist?

Mark: And that is the million-dollar question. Is this something we're born with, or something we learn? Kay and Shipman found that the answer is a complex, and fascinating, mix of both. The science here is incredible. They dive into the work of a neuropsychologist named Steve Suomi, who has been studying a colony of rhesus monkeys for over forty years. Michelle: You're telling me we can see the roots of our office anxiety in a monkey playground? Mark: In a way, yes. Suomi found that about 20 percent of the monkeys were naturally anxious. They were timid, hesitant, and easily stressed. The other 80 percent were more confident, adventurous, and resilient. Through DNA testing, he traced this back to a specific gene—the serotonin transporter gene, which regulates mood. Michelle: So some of us are just genetically wired to be 'worrywarts'. Mark: It seems so. Some people, and some monkeys, have a version of the gene that is less efficient at processing serotonin, making them more prone to anxiety and depression. But here is where it gets truly mind-blowing. Suomi ran a cross-fostering experiment. He took the genetically anxious baby monkeys and had them raised by exceptionally nurturing, confident 'super-moms'. Michelle: And what happened? Mark: They completely overcame their genetic blueprint. Not only did they become confident, but they often rose to the top of the monkey hierarchy. They became leaders. Their supportive upbringing didn't just fix their anxiety; it turned their genetic sensitivity into a superpower. Michelle: A superpower? How? Mark: This led to the 'orchid and dandelion' theory. Most of us are like dandelions—genetically hardy, able to thrive in almost any environment. But some of us are orchids—more sensitive and fragile. In a harsh environment, an orchid withers. But in a supportive, nurturing environment, it can produce something exceptionally beautiful, even more so than the dandelion. That sensitivity, when nurtured, becomes a source of strength. Michelle: That’s a beautiful way to reframe it. So genetics is the hardware. What about the software? The book talks a lot about how girls are conditioned, right? Mark: Absolutely. This is the nurture part of the equation. From a very young age, girls are often praised for being 'good'—for being quiet, compliant, and getting things perfect. Boys are given more leeway to be messy, to take risks, to fail and get back up. Michelle: Oh, I’ve been there. The gold star for the perfectly colored-in drawing, while the boys are out on the playground skinning their knees and learning to be resilient. Mark: Exactly. And this creates a perfectionism trap. Women feel they need to be 100% qualified before they apply for a job, while a man will apply with 60% of the qualifications. Women wait to be recognized; men ask for the promotion. The authors quote the psychologist Carol Dweck, who said, "If Life Were One Long Grade School, Women Would Rule the World." Michelle: That stings because it’s so true. But it's also a bit depressing. We're genetically predisposed and socially conditioned to be less confident. So what's the fix? How do we actually build it? Is there a code we can crack?

Mark: There is. And the solution is surprisingly straightforward, though not necessarily easy. It’s not about affirmations or just thinking positively. It’s about action. They call it 'The New Nurture'—a way of building resilience in ourselves and our daughters that runs counter to a lot of modern parenting. Michelle: 'The New Nurture'. What does that look like in practice? Mark: One of the most powerful stories in the book is about Jane Wurwand, the founder of the skincare company Dermalogica. When she was just four and a half years old, on her first day of school, her mother walked her to the school gate, gave her the key to their apartment on a string, and told her she was expected to walk home alone and let herself in. Michelle: At four and a half? I can’t even imagine. I would have been terrified. Mark: She was! But she did it. And she did it the next day, and the day after that. She said, "By six, I was in Girl Scouts and I knew I’d be a leader because I’d already done the tough stuff... You’re not born with it. You build and you build. I built that confidence myself." Her mother gave her the gift of managed risk and the experience of mastery. Michelle: That’s a world away from helicopter parenting, where we try to smooth every bump in the road for our kids. So the lesson is to embrace struggle? Mark: Yes, and to 'fail fast'. This is a concept from the tech world. Instead of spending a year perfecting a product, you roll out a quick prototype, see if it works, and if it doesn't, you learn from the failure and pivot quickly. Failure isn't the end; it's data. It's forward progress. Michelle: That sounds great for a tech startup in Silicon Valley, but how does a regular person 'fail fast' without, you know, getting fired? Mark: It starts small. The authors advise us to kill what they call NATs—Negative Automatic Thoughts. That little voice that says "You're going to sound stupid if you ask that question." You have to recognize it, challenge it, and then act anyway. Ask the question. The more you act, the more you rewire your brain to believe you can. It's about building a habit of action. Michelle: This is all great advice for the individual, but I can see how some critics might say this puts all the pressure on women to 'fix' themselves, rather than fixing the biased systems they're in. The book did get some pushback for that, right? Mark: It did, and that's a valid point. The authors acknowledge the systemic biases. But their argument is that while we work to change the system, which is a long and slow process, we can't afford to wait. Building individual confidence is a form of agency. It's something you can start doing right now, today, that will have a tangible impact on your life and career. It's about taking back power where you can. Michelle: That makes sense. It's a 'both/and' situation. Work on the system, but also work on yourself. So for someone listening right now, what's one small habit they can start today? Mark: The simplest one is to stop ruminating. When you find yourself replaying a mistake, consciously interrupt the thought. Get up, walk around, focus on three things you did well that day. And another is to watch your language. Stop using 'upspeak'—that questioning tone at the end of a declarative sentence. State your ideas with conviction. It's a small change that signals confidence to others and, more importantly, to yourself.

Mark: Ultimately, the 'code' isn't a secret password. It's the realization that confidence isn't the result of success; it's the engine. It’s not a magical feeling you wait for. It's earned through hard work, through practice, through the willingness to be imperfect and to act anyway. Michelle: And the most powerful, and maybe scariest, piece of advice is simply: when in doubt, act. Even a small, imperfect action is better than perfect, safe inaction. That’s the real takeaway for me. Mark: It's a profound shift in thinking. It’s about choosing action over anxiety. And it's a message that feels more relevant than ever. Michelle: It really is. It’s about daring to take up space, to have your voice heard, and to believe that what you have to contribute matters. Mark: And that's a code worth passing on. We'd love to hear what small actions our listeners are taking to build their own confidence. Share your stories with the Aibrary community. Michelle: This is Aibrary, signing off.