Decoding Self-Confidence

I have always intuitively known that a person’s confidence – and more generally personality – depended on their hormonal mix.

Confidence can broadly be defined as what propels you to action: a lack of debilitating self-doubt and paralysing anxiety, a sufficient level of optimism as to the success of your actions, and a positive self-assessment that leads you to believe you CAN do something.

Confidence obviously depends on a wide range of environmental factors, in particular education. US students are on average more confident than French students, which is why Yann Algan and Pierre Cahuc refer to the French school system as La Fabrique de la défiance (“the factory/system that destroys confidence”). To a large extent one can be taught to think positively about oneself, which is why the role of parents can never be understated.

However, education cannot explain everything. Why does one person’s level of confidence fluctuate so much over time sometimes without any apparent reason? Why are there such dramatically different personalities among sibs who receive roughly the same education? (Yes, of course birth order is critical too). I’ve often noticed my own level of confidence was radically different depending on how much I had slept, what I had eaten, the events of the day, how much sports I had practised during the day, etc. And it naturally led me to become interested in the role of hormones. There are numerous hormones that can be said to affect confidence: dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin, endorphines, testosterone (?)… and it appears there are a number of neurotransmitters that play a critical role in working as positive messengers in our brain.

Womenomics authors Katty Kay and Claire Shipman chose to tackle exactly that subject in their excellent new book, The Confidence Code. They investigated not only the importance of confidence in our professional lives (“Confidence trumps IQ in predicting success”), but also the science behind confidence (“Countless breakthroughs in the field of behavioural genetics and biology over the past decade have created ever more sophisticated ways to examine the mind in action”).

What they have found is that this essential trait of our personalities is at least partly determined by our DNA:

• The OXTR gene controls the delivery of oxytocin. This “cuddle hormone” that women are bathed in when they give birth is apparently one key component of self-confidence. One version of the gene can lead to low optimism and low self-esteem. (The good news is we can generate new supplies of oxytocin by hugging more and by having sex).
• The COMT gene that regulates dopamine levels. Dopamine is said to inspire action, curiosity and risk-taking. An absence of dopamine is associated to passivity, apathy and depression.
• The SLC6A4 gene is the serotonin transporter gene. Serotonin is also critical in confidence. Our mood and behaviour are strongly affected by it. The more of it we have, the happier we feel. Prozac was invented to boost our serotonin levels. The gene regulates our serotonin levels by recycling it through our system.

A number of other genes could play a role in confidence, but as few as three or four could really determine a large chunk of it. “When dopamine, which gets us moving, is commingled with serotonin, which induces calm thought, and oxytocin, which generates warm and positive attitudes toward others, confidence can much more easily take hold.” (The Confidence Code)

The idea that biology determines our personality should not lead us to think we can do nothing about it. Knowing you are genetically more likely to develop Alzheimer should lead you to pay more attention to risk factors and create the suitable environment to fight biological determination. And let’s not forget that our genetics is affected by the environment, by our very lives. We can modify our genetics over time! (That’s called epigenetics.)

Silicon Valley’s quantified-self gurus and science geeks have quite obviously taken an interest in the field of genetics for self empowerment.

• 23andMe (the company is named for the 23 pairs of chromosomes in a normal human cell) is a California-based startup that sells DNA tests for 99 dollars. Its saliva-based direct-to-consumer personal genome test was named Invention of the Year by Time magazine in 2008.
• Genomind targets clinics and physicians. The company offers specific DNA tests to help doctors (in particular psychiatrists) better personalise the drugs they prescribe their patients.

In 2013 the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ordered 23andMe to discontinue marketing its personal genome service as it had not obtained the legally required regulatory approval. The FDA banned the 99-dollar tests that people could do without their physicians because it believes patients are not best equipped to interpret the results wisely (and could misbehave). They could overinterpret something and feel too much anxiety. One should always be accompanied by their physician, according to the FDA. That is the reason why Genomind addresses doctors directly. It has no regulatory issue with the FDA.

I can see the dangers of a complete liberalisation of DNA testing, how the predatory behaviour of some companies could affect vulnerable individuals, how some institutions could prey on people and bring about a “brave new” Gattaca-like world. Yes, there is a need for strong state regulation to prevent predatory behaviour.

But I disagree with the basic idea that knowledge and wisdom are in the hands of doctors only. The idea is somewhat anachronistic. Google has become everyone’s number-one doctor. Knowledge is more spread and easily accessible than ever before together with the keys critical to analysing the data. Why couldn’t a startup like 23andMe play exactly the same role as a doctor (warn about misinterpretations, provide the keys, personalise)? Why couldn’t startups be perfectly equipped to convince their users to be cautious? Large database and well designed user experience allow them to provide a service that can exceed in quality that of an individual (not necessarily highly informed) doctor… The idea of doctors as middlemen and gatekeepers reminds of the priests of the Catholic Church. Reading the Bible directly was sinful. It had to be in Latin…

But it could be my genes speaking here… Do my hormones conduce me to see the opportunities before the dangers?

Paradoxically, in today’s (not-so-brave) new world, risk-taking may be the safest best. Not taking risks could prove riskier. Can we afford to let US and UK-based companies conquer the global market of DNA testing and personalised medicine?

Looking into what confidence is made of and better knowing ourselves can only help the economy too.