The thing that I discovered through my engineering studies and through life in general is that every problem has a cause. Discover the cause and eliminate it and all the symptoms of the cause disappear. If you can't eliminate it then understand it, contain it and manage it.
This relates to human personality as much as it does to engineering. It's the basis of all effective (i.e. predictable and repeatable) problem solving. The mysteries of the mind and of personality are understandable (and hence controllable) through understanding the cause and effect mechanisms at work.
You might be right that I have portrayed a very absolute standpoint. I have been burned so many times by peddlers of false hope and by my own delusions that I cannot bear to go back to that kind of thinking. It simply doesn't work consistently. It relies too much upon the capriciousness of chance. I have really had a gut-full of wishful thinking.
Some of this argument centers around a definition of confidence. The dictionary states defines confidence as: the feeling or belief that one can rely on someone or something; firm trust : we had every confidence in the staff | he had gained the young man's confidence.
If it is only ever a feeling or belief then, according to this definition, I am wrong. My definition of confidence is the certainty of achieving a result and hence my proposal that confidence comes from competence, i.e. why leave it as a feeling or belief when it can be changed into a known certainty (or as far as is reasonably possible)? I would always opt for that and engender it in my life rather than for depending upon a feeling or belief.
With most of the other arguments that you make you mix one level of ability with a separate level of ability in order to prove your point. Competence in one ability does not read across to all abilities and so confidence in abilities will differ. I never stated that outstanding competence (and hence confidence) in one field will make a person confident in all fields.
The competence to weather a potentially embarrassing event and to know that it can be easily dealt with is very different to the competence to sing well.
A kid that jumps into the pool confidently might also drown without real ability to swim. Confidence alone will not save the child. Enthusiasm might help the child learn to swim faster - that's generally true.
A lack of confidence in one's abilities normally comes from a recognition that the abilities are not up to delivering the desired result. Developing more ability develops more confidence. I really don't see how a great surplus of confidence can overcome the very real deficit in ability needed to deliver a result? In my experience life doesn't work that way (although books and movies often like to portray this).
In my opinion basic social interaction is a competence acquired through years of extensive training and skill. Because you have so much competence in this you discount it as easy. The things that are easy in life are the things that we have great competence in doing. There was a time when you couldn't speak, couldn't walk, couldn't interpret a facial expression. You had to learn all of these skills through daily training and interaction. Now they are easy because you have full competence. You never even question your competence to do these simple things.
You haven't convinced me or caused me to cast any doubt upon my hypothesis. I don't discount the value of confidence but I do dispute the foundation of confidence. If someone lacks in confidence then it is because they don't know how to solve a problem or they don't have the capability to solve a problem or it is because they face uncertainties for which no level of preparation can guarantee the desired result.
Other than building competence to deliver desired results, what is your solution for people who don't feel confident to do something? And by this I mean a reliable and dependable solution with a very high likelihood of success and without relying upon luck?
 |