Think of someone who saved the world. Or if not, someone who made it so much better for others that it’s hard to imagine what humanity would look like today if this person had not lived.

Take a moment before reading past this paragraph. Conjure this person in your mind. Think of everything you know about them. Imagine them interacting with others.

On a scale of one to ten, how would you rate this person’s self-confidence?

I think you’ll find that among all the movers and shakers throughout history, as different as they were in personality and beliefs, the one thing they all have in common is that they were 100% certain they had the right to take up space. You might leap to assume that their accomplishments are the cause of their confidence, but if you trace their histories back you’ll see that the cause-effect relationship works the other way around. They could never have gotten started on their path if they had questioned their very right to exist.

This is, in fact, one of the ways in which we perpetuate the underachievement of the marginalized: by structuring society that those we deem “lesser” grow up without the unshakable confidence it takes to navigate obstacles and fulfill potential. The categories of people who have always been in power seem to “naturally” perform better. Correlation of race/gender/et cetera with achievement implies causation, reaffirming our prejudices.

But what this leap of logic fails to take into account is that even if we account for variables of poverty, abuse, or trauma (which further widen the gap between beloved and disdained demographics), those who grow up as part of an assumed-superior category have a leg up in self-respect, which is more crucial to achievement than most people realize.