I Was Told I Was Very Smart(theferrett.livejournal.com)
theferrett.livejournal.com
I Was Told I Was Very Smart
http://theferrett.livejournal.com/1346357.html
116 comments
I was suddenly surrounded by people that were orders of magnitude better at computer science than I was. I had to study for hours to understand something they seemed to understand implicitly.
I think seemed is the key word here. Many people that are good at what they do give the impression that it's a breeze for them. When examining it closer, it isn't: they spend plenty of time studying. I've never really gotten to the bottom of it, but the difference seems to be that they simply talk less about the studying and more about the material itself, which gives the impression they know their stuff very well, even though they studied hard as well.
I think seemed is the key word here. Many people that are good at what they do give the impression that it's a breeze for them. When examining it closer, it isn't: they spend plenty of time studying. I've never really gotten to the bottom of it, but the difference seems to be that they simply talk less about the studying and more about the material itself, which gives the impression they know their stuff very well, even though they studied hard as well.
I bet most people don't talk about their studying, and if you don't see the person studying, what stands out is their ability. So if the person goes home and spends twice as much time studying as you do, you still only see the part where they demonstrate their knowledge. If they studied ahead, they'll look like they know everything when really they are working twice as hard as you.
Basically, we humans are really bad at judging things, particularly abstract things like "intelligence". Heck, we can't even really define it yet.
Just get your results, and be happy with those.
Basically, we humans are really bad at judging things, particularly abstract things like "intelligence". Heck, we can't even really define it yet.
Just get your results, and be happy with those.
> they spend plenty of time studying
A comforting half-truth.
A comforting half-truth.
There will always be those more or less smart than you.
Subject to the (entirely reasonable, I believe) presumption that humanity is finite, a lack of maximal and minimal elements implies that "is smarter than" is not a strict partial ordering. (All finite partially-ordered sets have maximal and minimal elements.)
This seems profoundly counterintuitive to me; both the asymmetry and transitivity of the "is smarter than" relation seem almost axiomatic (and the irreflexivity is indisputable).
It seems to me that there must be thousands of individuals who are maximally smart -- each of them, naturally, incomparable to the others.
Subject to the (entirely reasonable, I believe) presumption that humanity is finite, a lack of maximal and minimal elements implies that "is smarter than" is not a strict partial ordering. (All finite partially-ordered sets have maximal and minimal elements.)
This seems profoundly counterintuitive to me; both the asymmetry and transitivity of the "is smarter than" relation seem almost axiomatic (and the irreflexivity is indisputable).
It seems to me that there must be thousands of individuals who are maximally smart -- each of them, naturally, incomparable to the others.
both the asymmetry and transitivity of the "is smarter than" relation seem almost axiomatic
Hah, you can't be serious! Look around you - asymmetry is so painfully obvious that even pop theories propose to split intelligence into "book smarts", "street smarts", "social smarts", etc.
In reality, I don't think "smart" is a word that makes much sense, outside of the context of signaling social status (pIQ).
Hah, you can't be serious! Look around you - asymmetry is so painfully obvious that even pop theories propose to split intelligence into "book smarts", "street smarts", "social smarts", etc.
In reality, I don't think "smart" is a word that makes much sense, outside of the context of signaling social status (pIQ).
It makes a ton of sense when if you concede that every single time you say it (well, really, say anything) it's done in context. You rarely say someone is "smart, without qualification" and even if you did it really absolutely means something more like "smart in most of the ways I admire and have observed that person performing".
Which is really total agreement with your point. "Smart" is as much a partial ordering as "friendly" is, for a lot of the same reasons.
Which is really total agreement with your point. "Smart" is as much a partial ordering as "friendly" is, for a lot of the same reasons.
Look around you - asymmetry is so painfully obvious that even pop theories propose to split intelligence into "book smarts", "street smarts", "social smarts", etc.
I don't see the connection. Asymmetry in the relation "is smarter than" simply means that it is impossible to have both "X is smarter than Y" and "Y is smarter than X" (for X != Y).
In the context of individuals of incomparable intellect, it is inappropriate to say that either is smarter than the other -- never mind that they are both smarter than each other.
I don't see the connection. Asymmetry in the relation "is smarter than" simply means that it is impossible to have both "X is smarter than Y" and "Y is smarter than X" (for X != Y).
In the context of individuals of incomparable intellect, it is inappropriate to say that either is smarter than the other -- never mind that they are both smarter than each other.
I think I was considering a looser meaning of "smart", in the common language sense of "I'm smarter than you regarding dating, you're smarter than me regrading math". That pop theory removes the intuitive asymmetry by partitioning "smart" into supposedly asymmetric subrelations - "books smarts", etc. Each part of this partition is asymmetric.
Can you elaborate about intelligence in the context of signaling social status please? And provide links to books/reading? I am very interested in this
"...there must be thousands of individuals who are maximally smart..."
I think that's the core truth of "genius". Melville put it, "Genius all over the world stands hand in hand, and one shock of recognition runs the whole circle round".
Joseph Campbell, Isamu Noguchi, Martha Graham, and Rudy Arnheim were all geniuses in very different fields, but they were also drawn to each other in friendship & collaboration. They can't compare to each other on any scale, but somehow shared something in common.
I think that's the core truth of "genius". Melville put it, "Genius all over the world stands hand in hand, and one shock of recognition runs the whole circle round".
Joseph Campbell, Isamu Noguchi, Martha Graham, and Rudy Arnheim were all geniuses in very different fields, but they were also drawn to each other in friendship & collaboration. They can't compare to each other on any scale, but somehow shared something in common.
Compared to six billion people, I don't think you have to worry too much about being, or meeting too many of those people.
Is modeling humanity as finite really the right way to go? There's always a stream of new humanity coming in, and old humanity dying off. Not to mention the way you change as you age- even if you're maximally smart at 16 (which everyone is, of course) eventually you won't be.
First of all... thats not the point. That statement wasn't meant as an absolute truism as much as something most people should keep in mind lest they get too cocky.
Secondly, even for someone X who is maximally smart, the statement "Y is smarter than X" can be true if its in a particular context. E.g. take two people who are maximally smart... there no one smarter than X in math (or whatever) and no one smarter than Y in history. Then X is smarter than Y and Y is smarter than X... depending on how you use the word.
Edit: So long as no one is maximumly smart.
Secondly, even for someone X who is maximally smart, the statement "Y is smarter than X" can be true if its in a particular context. E.g. take two people who are maximally smart... there no one smarter than X in math (or whatever) and no one smarter than Y in history. Then X is smarter than Y and Y is smarter than X... depending on how you use the word.
Edit: So long as no one is maximumly smart.
Smarts, even in one subject, are multi-dimensional. High-school seniors that play football can test-score the same after a season of head-bashing as before, but they take longer to complete the test. Just as smart, but changed too.
Timed intelligence tests look for only fast-smart for instance.
Surely there is only a single individual who is maximally smart - I'd imagine you'd need an identical brain to be identically smart; assuming that (as is normal) even speed of application of knowledge is measured as part of smartness.
Now define "smartness".
Now define "smartness".
[deleted]
The most famous study confirming this is the one where they give two groups of kids relatively easy math problems. The first group they tell "wow, you must be really smart to complete all those!", the second group they tell "wow, you must have worked really hard to complete all those!". They then give them another set of problems far above their skill level. The second group of kids, the 'hard-workers', work much longer at the problems before giving up on them. And when both groups are given another set of relatively easy problems, the first group's performance takes a nosedive.
You can find more on that study at http://nymag.com/news/features/27840/.
But I have a fundamental disagreement with the simplistic message of complimenting effort rather than brains. And that disagreement is that you're training kids to work hard, but not necessarily well. In my childhood the messages we got pushed us to always look for the trick. As an adult I really value the mental habit of always looking for the shortcut that makes things easy.
Another interesting variant I find myself using with my son is to compliment him for showing smarts, but follow it up with a theory that brains need practice to continue working. Thus "smart" becomes a compliment for what he does, and not what he is. For instance I'll say something like, "How did you get so smart? You must have been really using that brain! Just look at what you've learned!"
But I have a fundamental disagreement with the simplistic message of complimenting effort rather than brains. And that disagreement is that you're training kids to work hard, but not necessarily well. In my childhood the messages we got pushed us to always look for the trick. As an adult I really value the mental habit of always looking for the shortcut that makes things easy.
Another interesting variant I find myself using with my son is to compliment him for showing smarts, but follow it up with a theory that brains need practice to continue working. Thus "smart" becomes a compliment for what he does, and not what he is. For instance I'll say something like, "How did you get so smart? You must have been really using that brain! Just look at what you've learned!"
You might be interested in the book "Punished by Rewards" by Alfie Kohn. It goes into detail about why praise can be detrimental, and what to substitute for it. From the description on his site <http://www.alfiekohn.org/books/pbr.htm>, it "[draws] from hundreds of studies, [and] demonstrates that people actually do inferior work when they are enticed with money, grades, or other incentives." The biggest revelation for me was that 'other incentives' includes both praise and punishment.
If anyone is interested in how to motivate employees without resorting to cash -- which doesn't work well -- I would highly recommend "Peak: How Great Companies Get Their Mojo From Maslow" which, of course, is heavily based on Maslow's work. Tony Hsieh said it helped him think about culture at Zappos; it's a good read.
http://www.amazon.com/Peak-Companies-Maslow-non-Franchise-Le...
http://www.amazon.com/Peak-Companies-Maslow-non-Franchise-Le...
"It goes into detail about why praise can be detrimental, and what to substitute for it."
What, then? ;)
"Rewards and punishments are just two sides of the same coin -- and the coin doesn't buy very much. What is needed, Kohn explains, is an alternative to both ways of controlling people. The final chapters offer a practical set of strategies for parents, teachers, and managers that move beyond the use of carrots or sticks."
Has anyone read those final chapters and could tell us whether there are any actionable alternatives in there at all?
What, then? ;)
"Rewards and punishments are just two sides of the same coin -- and the coin doesn't buy very much. What is needed, Kohn explains, is an alternative to both ways of controlling people. The final chapters offer a practical set of strategies for parents, teachers, and managers that move beyond the use of carrots or sticks."
Has anyone read those final chapters and could tell us whether there are any actionable alternatives in there at all?
Accelinova provides chapter 10 for free off of their 'bookshelf': < http://www.accelinnova.com/pdfs/kohn.pdf >. This chapter is focused on motivation in the workplace, and he does have several concrete proposals, organized into sections: 1. Abolish Incentives - While pay is not a motivator, it can be a demotivator. "Pay generously and equitably...Then do everything in your power to put money out of [the employees] minds." 2. Re-evaluate Evaluation - Do away with the regularly scheduled performance review, and instead give employees regular, useful feedback, and in particular, the entire process of giving feedback should be separate from the process that determines compensation. 3. Create the Conditions for Authentic Motiviation - Attend to "the collaboration that defines the context of work, the content of the tasks, and the extent to which people have some choice about what they do and how they do it." He goes on to give more details about these three conditions in the second half of the chapter.
The other 2 chapters in this end section are similar, with one each focusing on raising children and how to structure education.
The other 2 chapters in this end section are similar, with one each focusing on raising children and how to structure education.
Thanks!
OK I've read some Amazon reader reviews and it seems like the alternative strategy is to simply give tasks or set goals and leave rewards or punishments out of the picture.
As one reviewer put it: "I believe Kohn realizes rewards are necessary, just not the rewards/reinforcement that have been in use. Learning is its own reward. If this wasn't true, why would these people who reviewed the book have read it? Were they paid to read it? Love is its own reward. Meaningful debate/discussion is its own reward. Generosity is its own reward. Using these as your reinforcers will bring results."
I know this is true, but it doesn't help. Incentives are a side-effect of competition for talent. If a business owner or manager doesn't offer them, people will find the above intrinsic rewards and enjoy them, but will still leave once the competition comes knocking with carrots.
As one reviewer put it: "I believe Kohn realizes rewards are necessary, just not the rewards/reinforcement that have been in use. Learning is its own reward. If this wasn't true, why would these people who reviewed the book have read it? Were they paid to read it? Love is its own reward. Meaningful debate/discussion is its own reward. Generosity is its own reward. Using these as your reinforcers will bring results."
I know this is true, but it doesn't help. Incentives are a side-effect of competition for talent. If a business owner or manager doesn't offer them, people will find the above intrinsic rewards and enjoy them, but will still leave once the competition comes knocking with carrots.
Kohn says that compensation is perfectly fine, as long as it's not used as a cudgel to mold behavior. You should get high quality employees because they want to be successful and good at what they do, not because you pay them to be. One way of solving the problem you propose is to pay your people well, so competitors have a hard time offering significantly more, and then give them the opportunity to enjoy themselves at work. Why would they leave?
I understand that Netflix does something like this. They pay salaried employees top dollar, give them choices about what to work on, and demonstrate their trust with policies such as the no-vacation-policy policy. < http://www.slideshare.net/reed2001/culture-1798664 >.
I understand that Netflix does something like this. They pay salaried employees top dollar, give them choices about what to work on, and demonstrate their trust with policies such as the no-vacation-policy policy. < http://www.slideshare.net/reed2001/culture-1798664 >.
Great link, thanks!
[deleted]
I had the same question and re-read the end over again looking for the answer. I didn't find it. The whole premise of the book was rewards (including praise) undermines our intrinsic motivation. Compare it to a book on global warming: here's why it's a Bad Thing. So how is everyone going to live without a car? Who knows--that's not the subject of the book; it is trying to raise your awareness of the affect of driving on the planet.
Praise or a reward is the _easy_ solution. There is no motivator that applies to everyone, everywhere for every situation.
Here is a suggestion. Find out what the people you interact with want and tie it into the system. Do they want vacation? Do they want recognition? Money? As you scale up, create a corporate culture that values some set of things and attract people with shared values.
Praise or a reward is the _easy_ solution. There is no motivator that applies to everyone, everywhere for every situation.
Here is a suggestion. Find out what the people you interact with want and tie it into the system. Do they want vacation? Do they want recognition? Money? As you scale up, create a corporate culture that values some set of things and attract people with shared values.
After reading his stuff, it's pretty frustrating to realize how much society depends on this bogus punishment/reward system.
I think that relates to how smart is synonymous with lazy: it's because smart always try find the easy way out.
The hard way to do something would require a lot of effort, but actually very little brain power. An example would be trying to modify a set of data. The hard way would be to do it by hand. That's the most obvious method and thus requires little brain power to arrive at. However the faster way is to write a Python script that does it.
Probably part of the de-emphasis on smarts is society's general attitude towards innate intelligence. We don't like to believe that some people are simply born better than others, so we stress that more effort is better instead.
There's no arguing the fact that not everyone is equally gifted in terms of brain power, so I think it's kind of silly to try to ignore intelligence. Intelligent people are creative, open minded, and flexible. But an intelligent person who's allergic to actual effort is the real problem we want to avoid. Also we're probably more equal in intelligence than we are in our ability to work hard. So in practice, this is probably why effort is a better indicator of ability to succeed than intelligence is.
The hard way to do something would require a lot of effort, but actually very little brain power. An example would be trying to modify a set of data. The hard way would be to do it by hand. That's the most obvious method and thus requires little brain power to arrive at. However the faster way is to write a Python script that does it.
Probably part of the de-emphasis on smarts is society's general attitude towards innate intelligence. We don't like to believe that some people are simply born better than others, so we stress that more effort is better instead.
There's no arguing the fact that not everyone is equally gifted in terms of brain power, so I think it's kind of silly to try to ignore intelligence. Intelligent people are creative, open minded, and flexible. But an intelligent person who's allergic to actual effort is the real problem we want to avoid. Also we're probably more equal in intelligence than we are in our ability to work hard. So in practice, this is probably why effort is a better indicator of ability to succeed than intelligence is.
So to restate: We need to praise intelligence as an applied behavior, not an intrinsic trait.
This mode of reinforcement really should be reapplied to anything "natural" vs practiced: athletics, grace, popularity, ninjitsu...
This mode of reinforcement really should be reapplied to anything "natural" vs practiced: athletics, grace, popularity, ninjitsu...
Do you have a daughter? Since this article is still on the front page I would like to ask HN how does one deal with the similar issue of letting a young girl know she's pretty without suggesting it's of central importance? The problem is physical attractiveness is more inate than intelligence. I think the best course is to suggest innate attractivness is happy chance to be taken advantage of, generally it should be treated with indifference. I don't want my little sister to be swept off her feet by the first boy who gives her flowers, but you don't want her to ignore any advantages she may have. It may also be useful to point out how much attractivness depends on cultural assumptions of beauty.
Interesting question, especially how you've phrased it. I don't have a daughter but I've got two little boys, so I'll try but I may not be the best too comment.
Since this article is still on the front page I would like to ask HN how does one deal with the similar issue of letting a young girl know she's pretty without suggesting it's of central importance
Well, my approach would be not to bother letting her know she's pretty. Let's face it, unless she is unlucky enough to be "ugly" in a way that removes her from the accepted norm, there is a high probability that somebody somewhere will date her and love her when she is older.
Not to discount the effect that our culture places on girls and physical attractiveness, but girls learn much from their parents, especially there fathers. If she can see that what she looks like doesn't matter to you one iota, odds are she will not see any real value in any guy that mentions how pretty she is. You can't be swept off your feet by somebody calling you pretty when being pretty isn't how you define your worth.
In other words, by worrying about her getting the pretty comment from you, you're probably working against your intended objective.
Since this article is still on the front page I would like to ask HN how does one deal with the similar issue of letting a young girl know she's pretty without suggesting it's of central importance
Well, my approach would be not to bother letting her know she's pretty. Let's face it, unless she is unlucky enough to be "ugly" in a way that removes her from the accepted norm, there is a high probability that somebody somewhere will date her and love her when she is older.
Not to discount the effect that our culture places on girls and physical attractiveness, but girls learn much from their parents, especially there fathers. If she can see that what she looks like doesn't matter to you one iota, odds are she will not see any real value in any guy that mentions how pretty she is. You can't be swept off your feet by somebody calling you pretty when being pretty isn't how you define your worth.
In other words, by worrying about her getting the pretty comment from you, you're probably working against your intended objective.
If she can see that what she looks like doesn't matter to you one iota, odds are she will not see any real value in any guy that mentions how pretty she is. You can't be swept off your feet by somebody calling you pretty when being pretty isn't how you define your worth.
Very well said. The next step is that she should see that attractiveness is not the most important trait to me (or her father). With this perspective, the thing to do is not to vaccinate her, but to praise her abilities and values so she never associates her worth with physical appearance. Thus, she can skip the whole trouble altogether.
So, this generalizes not to attractiveness, but what people tie their worth to.
Very well said. The next step is that she should see that attractiveness is not the most important trait to me (or her father). With this perspective, the thing to do is not to vaccinate her, but to praise her abilities and values so she never associates her worth with physical appearance. Thus, she can skip the whole trouble altogether.
So, this generalizes not to attractiveness, but what people tie their worth to.
What makes you think you have to let her know?
I realize you're in the big brother department and would like to protect her. But allow me to ask: would she be any less in need of your protection if she were plain-looking? or homely?
Children are incredibly bright. If she's pretty, she already knows. And I'd be willing to wager that she's already leveraging that knowledge when it suits her.
If you try to prepare her for it, all you're really doing is letting her know how important you think it is. And if she looks up to you, that will reflect on how she values it as a part of her identity. Which I feel is far more risky than calling her 'smart'. Because 'pretty' is transient.
I realize you're in the big brother department and would like to protect her. But allow me to ask: would she be any less in need of your protection if she were plain-looking? or homely?
Children are incredibly bright. If she's pretty, she already knows. And I'd be willing to wager that she's already leveraging that knowledge when it suits her.
If you try to prepare her for it, all you're really doing is letting her know how important you think it is. And if she looks up to you, that will reflect on how she values it as a part of her identity. Which I feel is far more risky than calling her 'smart'. Because 'pretty' is transient.
I realize you're in the big brother department and would like to protect her. But allow me to ask: would she be any less in need of your protection if she were [very]* plain-looking? or homely?*
No, but a helpful response might be more straightforward and wouldn't be helpful until well into adolescence.
You're probably right all around, but family isn't the only influence, and depending on the family, friends are a greater influence on a person. Junior high and high schools have weird social hierarchy that frequently stresses physical appearance. Some girls seem to have a need for male approval. I just want her feel no need for that. And there probably isn't anything I can do better than spending time with her. For some girls, with different families, I doubt this is the case.
And I absolutely agree that it is a risky proposition and probably not worth playing.
No, but a helpful response might be more straightforward and wouldn't be helpful until well into adolescence.
You're probably right all around, but family isn't the only influence, and depending on the family, friends are a greater influence on a person. Junior high and high schools have weird social hierarchy that frequently stresses physical appearance. Some girls seem to have a need for male approval. I just want her feel no need for that. And there probably isn't anything I can do better than spending time with her. For some girls, with different families, I doubt this is the case.
And I absolutely agree that it is a risky proposition and probably not worth playing.
Just praise her for her non-physical qualities, so that that when the twisted high-school value system kicks in, she'll at least be aware of an alternative value system.
The principle is to commend something that is improveable and controllable. That can be refined by adding information: encouraging the best/most-effective activities.
And when both groups are given another set of relatively easy problems, the first group's performance takes a nosedive.
The other part (working longer on hard problems) is important, but this is probably not so bad - there's rarely a point in doing math problems below your skill level.
The other part (working longer on hard problems) is important, but this is probably not so bad - there's rarely a point in doing math problems below your skill level.
Um, I think you missed the point. After encountering a challenge the group that was initially praised for brains saw their performance drop on problems that should have been within their skill level. The group that was initially praised for effort saw their performance improve after that same challenge.
The moral is simple. When you praise children, you motivate them to seek more praise. If your praise is about something that is out of their control, such as innate intelligence, you discourage them from trying to take control of their circumstances. But if it is within their control, such as effort, they apply energy in a useful direction.
If you're a parent, which would you prefer to do?
The moral is simple. When you praise children, you motivate them to seek more praise. If your praise is about something that is out of their control, such as innate intelligence, you discourage them from trying to take control of their circumstances. But if it is within their control, such as effort, they apply energy in a useful direction.
If you're a parent, which would you prefer to do?
A bit of both probably. Balance.
>> "If your praise is about something that is out of their control, such as innate intelligence, you discourage them from trying to take control of their circumstances."
I'm not sure kids really understand or believe the above. The more you learn, the smarter/cleverer you become. So praising them by saying they're really smart/clever, is praising them for learning.
Personally I'm more inclined to say "Wow you're very clever to get that right" and gets a better response from my kids, than saying "Wow you worked really hard".
>> "If your praise is about something that is out of their control, such as innate intelligence, you discourage them from trying to take control of their circumstances."
I'm not sure kids really understand or believe the above. The more you learn, the smarter/cleverer you become. So praising them by saying they're really smart/clever, is praising them for learning.
Personally I'm more inclined to say "Wow you're very clever to get that right" and gets a better response from my kids, than saying "Wow you worked really hard".
When I was growing up I understood the difference. I was told that because I was 'smart' more was expected of me. I don't think I ever quite lived up to those expectations; the bar was somehow always just above the level where I was. But I do think that I ended achieving more than I would have otherwise been inclined.
I think it's important to always have that bar one notch above where you are. Complacent isn't something I'd ever want to be described as.
No the moral is if you lie to children, you can expect them to change their behavior based on your lie.
If you praise a child who is actually smart, for being smart, then things will work a lot better.
I understand the goal of this study was to see if increasing self esteem can help. But don't extrapolate that to also assuming that praising a child for things that really are praise worthy (including being smart) is bad.
The result of the study should be: don't lie in your praise.
If you praise a child who is actually smart, for being smart, then things will work a lot better.
I understand the goal of this study was to see if increasing self esteem can help. But don't extrapolate that to also assuming that praising a child for things that really are praise worthy (including being smart) is bad.
The result of the study should be: don't lie in your praise.
It's not about lying in your praise, it's about setting the expectation that smart people don't have to work hard at things.
This is actually a serious problem among gifted children. They are told they are smart for most of their lives while the work is very easy. Once work gets difficult for them, they start to think "this is different, it's HARD. Crap, maybe I'm not smart after all".
The linked NY Magazine article covers this concept nicely.
This is actually a serious problem among gifted children. They are told they are smart for most of their lives while the work is very easy. Once work gets difficult for them, they start to think "this is different, it's HARD. Crap, maybe I'm not smart after all".
The linked NY Magazine article covers this concept nicely.
I think the problem is largely standardized teaching - you set a syllabus that works for the median pupil, and depending on the deviation in ability most students might be in the range that it is ok. But at least a minority will be bored as they pick up the concept first time, and then have to wait while everyone else is walked through a number of iterations to ensure it sinks in. Meanwhile another minority is out of their depth, and can never keep up no matter how hard they try, and eventually they give up and/or become troublemakers (which can happen at the other end of the spectrum as well).
I remember the only time in school (5-16) I actually enjoyed it - instead of learning from the board, we had a year where the maths lessons were all taught from little booklets each with 10-20 pages, with a number of different subjects - about a third of the books were "core/basic" that everyone had to do by the end of the year, the rest you could move onto if you could pass the mini tests you could ask for once you had read it.
Everyone got to go at their own pace, the teacher just handed out and marked tests and answered questions as needed or helped out those most in need to get the basics covered.
I remember the only time in school (5-16) I actually enjoyed it - instead of learning from the board, we had a year where the maths lessons were all taught from little booklets each with 10-20 pages, with a number of different subjects - about a third of the books were "core/basic" that everyone had to do by the end of the year, the rest you could move onto if you could pass the mini tests you could ask for once you had read it.
Everyone got to go at their own pace, the teacher just handed out and marked tests and answered questions as needed or helped out those most in need to get the basics covered.
Why did they stop?
Well, taking it out of the abstract, these kids were probably given math problems that were boring by the time you got to the second set. There's only so much 254+739=? you can do before you get bored. At that point, they weren't testing motivation, they were testing patience.
Unfortunately if you go back to the actual research, kids who were complimented for being smart when given the choice preferred to be given easy problems for homework, and the ones who were told they were hard working preferred to be given difficult problems.
I take that as evidence from the students that boredom wasn't the cause of their results.
I take that as evidence from the students that boredom wasn't the cause of their results.
That doesn't explain why the other group of kids did well. Presumably they should have been just as bored.
They were praised for being "hard workers" meaning they could expect social approval for chugging through boring tasks.
The first group already got their social approval for being smart. Once labeled "smart", they already "knew" they were smart.
But ones that were labeled "hard workers" needed to keep up "hard work" to retain the (desired positive) label.
Just compare:
"I'm still smart, even if I performed bad on boring task."
vs.
"I'm still hard worker, even if I didn't put much effort into boring task."
The first group already got their social approval for being smart. Once labeled "smart", they already "knew" they were smart.
But ones that were labeled "hard workers" needed to keep up "hard work" to retain the (desired positive) label.
Just compare:
"I'm still smart, even if I performed bad on boring task."
vs.
"I'm still hard worker, even if I didn't put much effort into boring task."
What would be really is interesting is the same study but with the first group being told they're hard-working and the second group not being given any praise at all. That would help test how far the "praise/incentives diminish performance" theory really goes.
I think it depends on what conclusion you draw from being smart.
For me, it became obvious very early in elementry school that I was smart. So my mother told me that my mind was a gift. She also told me that being given such a gift meant I had a special responsibility to develop it to its fullest capacity.
Henceforth, it was not failure in any given project that I feared. On the contrary, I routinely failed and thought that if I didn't, I wasn't taking on sufficiently difficult challenges. What I feared was not pushing myself hard enough. Not living up to my potential.
In elementry school, I set my own intellectual pace, and as a professional, I still do. I sought out challenges and ideas, and still do. I feared complacency, and still do. Being taught that intelligence equated to responsibility has done more for me than raw intelligence ever might have.
For me, it became obvious very early in elementry school that I was smart. So my mother told me that my mind was a gift. She also told me that being given such a gift meant I had a special responsibility to develop it to its fullest capacity.
Henceforth, it was not failure in any given project that I feared. On the contrary, I routinely failed and thought that if I didn't, I wasn't taking on sufficiently difficult challenges. What I feared was not pushing myself hard enough. Not living up to my potential.
In elementry school, I set my own intellectual pace, and as a professional, I still do. I sought out challenges and ideas, and still do. I feared complacency, and still do. Being taught that intelligence equated to responsibility has done more for me than raw intelligence ever might have.
This story illustrates it is all influenced by how your parents and others around you help you build your expectations and convey their expectations.
I skipped second grade (not recommended) and heard a lot about "potential". I wouldn't wish that on anybody.
I skipped second grade (not recommended) and heard a lot about "potential". I wouldn't wish that on anybody.
As a Scout leader I have learned that young people (boys anyway) behave exactly how you expect them to. If you say "We are the best Troop in the district!" then they are. By any measure - leadership, deportment, competition, participation - they do it all if you assume they will, and make that clear by providing support and opportunity.
I think that's exactly it. Age eleven is when I first saw my percentile written down, and before then I had some idea that I was smart; but I also knew about the phenomenon of failed prodigies, like Sidis, and I was terrified of failing to live up to my potential. And yes, the idea of a responsibility to live up to it was also there, very strongly.
The counter-examples of in this thread all share the strong correlation that they were explicitly taught that 'being smart' wasn't an achievement and that praise was withheld until some nebulous 'potential' was fulfilled.
Which is why I don't think they're actually counter examples. The danger described is of teaching children that 'being smart' is, in and of itself, praise-worthy.
Which is why I don't think they're actually counter examples. The danger described is of teaching children that 'being smart' is, in and of itself, praise-worthy.
I agree. There is danger in taking pride in the gift half. But there is merit in taking pride in the achievement half.
I've never heard a clear definition of "smart" and "stupid" that didn't involve huge inconsistencies. If anyone has a consistent definition, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, I propose we drop the words from the language for being too vague.
in dogs, the metric is how many feedback loops it takes to learn a new trick, iirc. e.g., Fluffy takes 50 treats to learn to "sit" on command; Einstein takes 25.
Summary: That's not "smart". That's "experienced", which is an integral of "determined" over time.
Reasoning: Is it intrinsic that Einstein needs 25 tries, or is it because he also knows "fetch", "lay", "roll over", and "play dead"? It's a very important distinction, and most usage of "smart" implies the former - intrinsic ability. That's the difference between "smart" and "experienced".
Among my peers, however, I don't see any intrinsic differences in learning whatsoever. If person A needs less iteration than person B to learn the classwork, she's either more determined or has more related experience (or both). The two go hand-in-hand, because experience is just the integral of determination over time. Intrinsic "smartness" is completely unnecessary in describing learning ability.
Reasoning: Is it intrinsic that Einstein needs 25 tries, or is it because he also knows "fetch", "lay", "roll over", and "play dead"? It's a very important distinction, and most usage of "smart" implies the former - intrinsic ability. That's the difference between "smart" and "experienced".
Among my peers, however, I don't see any intrinsic differences in learning whatsoever. If person A needs less iteration than person B to learn the classwork, she's either more determined or has more related experience (or both). The two go hand-in-hand, because experience is just the integral of determination over time. Intrinsic "smartness" is completely unnecessary in describing learning ability.
I always figured that intelligence was the derivative of knowledge.
I wouldn't be surprised if both determination and related experience correlate highly with intelligence, but I would be surprised if they explain it completely. Have you ever taught one of the lower grades (elementary school, K-5)? There're some students that just "get it", and others that struggle no matter how many different ways you approach the material. Some of that's undoubtedly family background - how much value the family places on education, whether they've been exposed to intellectual concepts early, etc. But I really doubt all of it is, particularly given differences even between siblings. And I doubt that determination factors into it much at that age, given the average willpower of a 6-year-old...
I've also noticed very few intrinsic differences in learning among my peers. But remember that a peer, by definition, is an equal. I can't really place my peers as being smarter or dumber, but that's because they've all made it through elite colleges already and been through the Google hiring process. If I broaden my sample out to "everyone I've known during my lifetime", there're some really stark differences in learning, and some of the people who struggled the most were just as determined or moreso than I was, and they continued to struggle despite approaching the material through several different angles.
I wouldn't be surprised if both determination and related experience correlate highly with intelligence, but I would be surprised if they explain it completely. Have you ever taught one of the lower grades (elementary school, K-5)? There're some students that just "get it", and others that struggle no matter how many different ways you approach the material. Some of that's undoubtedly family background - how much value the family places on education, whether they've been exposed to intellectual concepts early, etc. But I really doubt all of it is, particularly given differences even between siblings. And I doubt that determination factors into it much at that age, given the average willpower of a 6-year-old...
I've also noticed very few intrinsic differences in learning among my peers. But remember that a peer, by definition, is an equal. I can't really place my peers as being smarter or dumber, but that's because they've all made it through elite colleges already and been through the Google hiring process. If I broaden my sample out to "everyone I've known during my lifetime", there're some really stark differences in learning, and some of the people who struggled the most were just as determined or moreso than I was, and they continued to struggle despite approaching the material through several different angles.
You seem to have more experience than me, but I would hypothesize that learning fundamental physical metaphors just happens very early (and haphazardly) in life, and a lot of what seems to be "innate intelligence" is derived from those experiences. Just as linguistic intuition is hard to attain after a certain age, there is spacial, logical, and even epistemological intuition that happens well before the first grade.
Seeing a good magic trick at a young age, for example, is probably what leads to true understanding of epistemology - you need that initial feeling of "reality is not what it seems". Intuitively understanding logic is also indirect - it can come from a toy peaking a child's curiosity at the just the right time in just the right way.
No learning opportunity is missed completely, just as 30-somethings can learn to speak foreign languages, but there are certainly windows for the quick acquisition of certain ideas over others.
Seeing a good magic trick at a young age, for example, is probably what leads to true understanding of epistemology - you need that initial feeling of "reality is not what it seems". Intuitively understanding logic is also indirect - it can come from a toy peaking a child's curiosity at the just the right time in just the right way.
No learning opportunity is missed completely, just as 30-somethings can learn to speak foreign languages, but there are certainly windows for the quick acquisition of certain ideas over others.
Yeah, genetics versus environment, the age-old debate.
Environment certainly plays a role, but to what extent? It isn't just parental involvement -- there are plenty of bright accomplished people whose parents were busy doing something else during their upbringing. It isn't likely to be the toys that you get to play with, because there are bright kids even amongst the poorest of the poor -- though they do tend to be rarer exceptions.
I'd wager my money on a higher influence from genetics than many people in our society would currently want to believe. Some people, at birth, are predisposed to certain natural talents. They simply have good spatial reasoning, for example -- it's not something that they had to learn to mimic at a young age, it's something they were actually born with.
From there, the talent is subjected to environmental conditions, some positive, some adverse. Maybe their spatial reasoning and their parents' guidance gets them into sports instead of taking things apart. Maybe their natural talents manage to survive even very adverse environments. Or, maybe the abilities just wither away and die under conditions that don't nurture them.
Environment certainly plays a role, but to what extent? It isn't just parental involvement -- there are plenty of bright accomplished people whose parents were busy doing something else during their upbringing. It isn't likely to be the toys that you get to play with, because there are bright kids even amongst the poorest of the poor -- though they do tend to be rarer exceptions.
I'd wager my money on a higher influence from genetics than many people in our society would currently want to believe. Some people, at birth, are predisposed to certain natural talents. They simply have good spatial reasoning, for example -- it's not something that they had to learn to mimic at a young age, it's something they were actually born with.
From there, the talent is subjected to environmental conditions, some positive, some adverse. Maybe their spatial reasoning and their parents' guidance gets them into sports instead of taking things apart. Maybe their natural talents manage to survive even very adverse environments. Or, maybe the abilities just wither away and die under conditions that don't nurture them.
How do people account for complexity of the tricks? Is there a standard trick or is that number fairly stable?
That's clever. My labrador learned sit in about 6-8 tries I think.
I don't have to teach my German Shepard; just leave a note on the fridge.
I think I was lucky enough to have gone from "wow, you're smart" to "what do you mean you're struggling to catch up?" relatively early on. Also, joining the debate team and getting quashed repeatedly the moment I stepped above Novice rank helped sandblast apart any lingering arrogance I might've had. /Being/ smart is hard work - discovering that was a little painful, but at least I /did/ learn that lesson.
I've come across this line of reasoning before (in reference to the study with math problems/telling kids they're smart versus hard working) but I'm not sure if I believe this is particular to being designated as smart. In fact, I would imagine that telling students that they're not in the 'smart' range, or having peers designated as smart while they are not, is more damaging to academic motivation/leads to more fears and emotional distress. I think both are just manifestations of an underlying fear of being judged, regardless of the expectations - fears of not living up to high expectations, or confirming low ones, or in general moving from a comfortable position of uncertainty in one's skill/intelligence (leaving open the possibility of it being unexpectedly high) to a better defined and therefore less appealing position.
(you might argue that labeling a child as 'not smart' or at least not singling out a child as 'smart' might motivate them to prove the evaluation wrong - but I think those cases are by far the exception rather than the rule)
Now, the label of 'hard working' is on a very different scale from intelligence; I can understand how calling kids 'smart' rather than 'hard working' could decrease their performance. Nevertheless, over the course of our academic lives I think we all get a sense of how we fit in, intelligence-wise, even if we aren't explicitly labeled, from grades, peer performance, parent/teacher expectations and evaluations... the smart ones fear being 'found out' as dumb or tarnishing their reputations, the 'dumb' ones fear (even more, I would imagine) the criticism or negative evaluation of their work they expect to be forthcoming, the average ones fear being confirmed as merely average...
(you might argue that labeling a child as 'not smart' or at least not singling out a child as 'smart' might motivate them to prove the evaluation wrong - but I think those cases are by far the exception rather than the rule)
Now, the label of 'hard working' is on a very different scale from intelligence; I can understand how calling kids 'smart' rather than 'hard working' could decrease their performance. Nevertheless, over the course of our academic lives I think we all get a sense of how we fit in, intelligence-wise, even if we aren't explicitly labeled, from grades, peer performance, parent/teacher expectations and evaluations... the smart ones fear being 'found out' as dumb or tarnishing their reputations, the 'dumb' ones fear (even more, I would imagine) the criticism or negative evaluation of their work they expect to be forthcoming, the average ones fear being confirmed as merely average...
The trouble is that really smart kids quickly figure out that they are smart without being told. (Or, equivalently, that the other kids are just kind of stupid.)
I don't think that's necessarily the case, though. I find myself to be above average intelligence, and I've been told that throughout my life. However, it wasn't until somewhat recently (probably in past 3 or 4 years) that I truly started to accept it. I imagine I accepted it when I was very young, just as I accepted pretty much everything that was told to me, but there was definitely a large gap in my development where I didn't find myself to be anything above average.
My parents told their 6 farm kids "You are all really smart; you will all go to college". No financial support, no reading at bedtime, no clubs or activities other than chores.
4 computer professionals, 1 Environmental researcher, 1 Clinical Researcher. 3 VPs in Fortune-500 companies (not me)
I think your parents were doing a lot more than assigning chores and telling their offspring that they were smart my friend! :-)
Children learn 24/7, not just at designated "learning times". You had the benefit of having been blessed with extremely good teachers as parents.
Children learn 24/7, not just at designated "learning times". You had the benefit of having been blessed with extremely good teachers as parents.
I don't think the issue is whether or not the kids know they are smart. I think the issue is what quality of theirs gets them positive feedback and attention.
I can't say this is a universal reaction. As a child I was told I was smart, and subsequently wrote off all my failures with the flippant "I learned something here, and have become even smarter." Insecurity exists regardless of intelligence or hype.
> Insecurity exists regardless of intelligence or hype.
Author is probably referring to the study that kids who are praised on being "smart" do less well than kids who are praised on being "hard working".
Here's the first google result, looks like it:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-secret-...
Jives true to me as well. Most of the people who have identities based on being smart far underperform their intelligence. I was praised for being smart growing up, I fight that off like crazy now. "Me? Not smart at all. Just curious." "Nah, I'm dumb as a box of rocks. I just keep going." And so on. It's done wonders for me. (Also, realizing just how much I didn't know was pretty humbling - and the scariest is realizing how much that I'm not even aware I don't know...)
Author is probably referring to the study that kids who are praised on being "smart" do less well than kids who are praised on being "hard working".
Here's the first google result, looks like it:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-secret-...
Jives true to me as well. Most of the people who have identities based on being smart far underperform their intelligence. I was praised for being smart growing up, I fight that off like crazy now. "Me? Not smart at all. Just curious." "Nah, I'm dumb as a box of rocks. I just keep going." And so on. It's done wonders for me. (Also, realizing just how much I didn't know was pretty humbling - and the scariest is realizing how much that I'm not even aware I don't know...)
I am embarrassed to be among the crowd here that will all chime in and say, "I was told I'm smart too". And I, too, was a thoroughly mediocre student.
But the reason had nothing to do with fear, and everything to do with not seeing any value in what I was being asked to do. I knew the amount of effort that would be needed to slide by, and that was all the effort that I put in.
Nor do I shy away now from being "smart". My intelligence is a tool, and I should use it well, and I am not ashamed -- or afraid -- of it.
But the reason had nothing to do with fear, and everything to do with not seeing any value in what I was being asked to do. I knew the amount of effort that would be needed to slide by, and that was all the effort that I put in.
Nor do I shy away now from being "smart". My intelligence is a tool, and I should use it well, and I am not ashamed -- or afraid -- of it.
I'm another one of the fairly mediocre students that's been labeled "smart". It was much, much worse in middle and high school than it's been in college, thanks to a stiff kick in the ass by my father, but I still find myself falling back into that old habit of just sliding by. I still consider myself a mediocre student because, by my standards, I am doing mediocre. Now, by most of my contemporaries, I'm doing fairly well in school and life, but I still can't fight the feeling that I'm selling myself short and not living up to my ability.
I've noticed that a bit in this thread, and I have at least one other friend that's struggled with this: the notion that there is some kind of responsibility associated with some kind of talent.
Well, there isn't.
A person that's naturally beautiful doesn't have a responsibility to become an actor or an actress or a model. In our society, it's frowned upon if their parents do things like push them into beauty pageants.
People that are naturally strong or powerfully built don't have a responsibility to take a manual labor job, and nobody tells them that they aren't "living up to their ability" if they don't take a job in construction.
Now, there's a caveat: there are certain problems in human society which smart people are better suited to solving. That doesn't mean they will solve them -- most of the problems require multiple talents, and intelligence is just one -- but they do have some edge.
But that's not your responsibility, or mine, or anyone else's. You should decide what's important to you and then do that.
There's nothing wrong with spending your life having fun.
Well, there isn't.
A person that's naturally beautiful doesn't have a responsibility to become an actor or an actress or a model. In our society, it's frowned upon if their parents do things like push them into beauty pageants.
People that are naturally strong or powerfully built don't have a responsibility to take a manual labor job, and nobody tells them that they aren't "living up to their ability" if they don't take a job in construction.
Now, there's a caveat: there are certain problems in human society which smart people are better suited to solving. That doesn't mean they will solve them -- most of the problems require multiple talents, and intelligence is just one -- but they do have some edge.
But that's not your responsibility, or mine, or anyone else's. You should decide what's important to you and then do that.
There's nothing wrong with spending your life having fun.
I can't speak for the parent but I know that I'm not using my brain to it's fullest - it's not that I feel because I'm intelligent that society expects me to use that intelligence I don't feel I owe anything because of that blessing. It's simply that I'd like to use my intelligence to better effect, to positively influence society, to leave a legacy somehow of benificence, etc., that's probably more arrogance than anything else though. It does lead me on to thoughts of being an academic teacher in the more formal sense of the word (I consider many aspects of what I do to be teaching roles).
I believe that's the same for me as well. I don't feel that I'm selling society, my parents, my peers, etc. short by not living up to my potential. I'm simply selling myself short, and I feel guilty for wasting away something that not many people have.
Then again, I do spend a lot of my time learning and improving myself, and I'm not sure I need a 4.0 to back up some claim to knowledge. The most intelligent person I've ever met was a horrible student. He spent most of his hours studying, but he never really studied the things that his classes were teaching. You could certainly pin that on a lack of judgment, but I don't know anyone that would say he lacked intelligence.
Then again, I do spend a lot of my time learning and improving myself, and I'm not sure I need a 4.0 to back up some claim to knowledge. The most intelligent person I've ever met was a horrible student. He spent most of his hours studying, but he never really studied the things that his classes were teaching. You could certainly pin that on a lack of judgment, but I don't know anyone that would say he lacked intelligence.
> ...and I feel guilty for wasting away something that not many people have.
But I think that statement right there puts the lie to saying that you're doing it for yourself, and not for society. That may well be your intention, but is it possible that you're still driven at least in part by the expectations of others? If not, then why does it matter that you have it, and they don't?
BTW, I don't mean to discourage people that are doing something with what they have. Quite the contrary, I really wish more people would, whether they're creative or analytical or otherwise. However, I also think that the expectations placed upon kids of certain aptitudes by their parents, teachers, and others at a young age are perverse and cruel.
People should feel driven to accomplish great things because they want to, not because others expect it, or because they feel guilty if they don't.
But I think that statement right there puts the lie to saying that you're doing it for yourself, and not for society. That may well be your intention, but is it possible that you're still driven at least in part by the expectations of others? If not, then why does it matter that you have it, and they don't?
BTW, I don't mean to discourage people that are doing something with what they have. Quite the contrary, I really wish more people would, whether they're creative or analytical or otherwise. However, I also think that the expectations placed upon kids of certain aptitudes by their parents, teachers, and others at a young age are perverse and cruel.
People should feel driven to accomplish great things because they want to, not because others expect it, or because they feel guilty if they don't.
Assuming intelligence actually is a gift, it's a gift that is, at best, an amusing anecdote if not taken advantage of. If I don't use it, the world isn't really a worse place, but I am definitely a worse person in comparison to who I could have been if I had taken advantage of it. That isn't in relation to some other person's expectations of me; that's in relation to my own expectations. Sure, those could have been ingrained into me at a young age. There's probably a number of things that I consider to be my own, as far as perceptions, that sprang forth from my youth and my interactions with others. But that doesn't mean that I have this drive to do more with my intelligence because of what society dictates.
Intelligence helps society more.
> Jives true to me as well. Most of the people who have identities based on being smart far underperform their intelligence.
Best example, William James Sidis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Sidis).
Someone I think we all can identify with on a lot of levels.
"A true man in a world full of animals." Powerful words.
Best example, William James Sidis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Sidis).
Someone I think we all can identify with on a lot of levels.
"A true man in a world full of animals." Powerful words.
I suspect he would have been aghast at any of us comparing ourselves to him.
[deleted]
Most of the people who have identities based on being smart far underperform their intelligence.
Most people who have identities based on any single term underperform. I think you'd find that people who live life in a singleminded "athlete" way, or "gamer" way, or on and on, underperform similarly. Possibly they're happy that way, possibly they've just pidgeonholed themselves.
Most people who have identities based on any single term underperform. I think you'd find that people who live life in a singleminded "athlete" way, or "gamer" way, or on and on, underperform similarly. Possibly they're happy that way, possibly they've just pidgeonholed themselves.
Yeah, I've touted Carol Dweck's research on HN before. It's one of the most fascinating pieces of education research I've learned about. And it's clearly what the author refers to.
That may be a separate factor: that people who believe intelligence is malleable tend to recover better from failures - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/1838571/
If you've been taught to judge your worth by your intelligence, and simultaneously believe intelligence is fixed at birth, it's a logical consequence that you might do a lot of dumb things to preserve your internal belief that you're smart.
If you've been taught to judge your worth by your intelligence, and simultaneously believe intelligence is fixed at birth, it's a logical consequence that you might do a lot of dumb things to preserve your internal belief that you're smart.
I think you are an exception to the rule. Lots of research and similar anecdotal accounts support the article (kids who succeed early self-sabotage for the rest of their life).
I think it's interesting how praise, in this case being told you're smart, can lead to insecurity.
I guess that by being told you're smart, it builds up high expectations within your own mind, leading to emotional distress when you fail to meet those expectations.
I guess that by being told you're smart, it builds up high expectations within your own mind, leading to emotional distress when you fail to meet those expectations.
It's not that counter-intuitive, it's just a vague definition of "insecurity". When you praise someone for X, you show them that your admiration depends on your perception of X in them, they try to keep your perception of X alive, but avoiding things that would disprove X.
Instead of "admiration", let's say I give you $100 a day as long as you're "smart". Now, do you want to risk my perception by trying something new, or keep doing whatever you're good at?
It's still utility maximization, through and through.
Instead of "admiration", let's say I give you $100 a day as long as you're "smart". Now, do you want to risk my perception by trying something new, or keep doing whatever you're good at?
It's still utility maximization, through and through.
I was told I was smart and I worked hard. Country living left no room for insecurities about losing what was special about my identity. When I didn't do the math homework it wasn't because I didn't want to be discovered as a simpler person than other told me I was, it was because I was busy hacking away at some silly QBASIC code. Even playing Civilization or making minor explosives, I learned more there than a year long of "Egyptian History" in grade 6. Teach your kids to be independent, smart, kind, and get 'em to do at least 10 hours of chores a week and they'll be fine.
I would especially recommend the chores thing - maybe this is relating to watching something on BBC3 where they dumped a load of 18-25 year olds still living at home into a house and essentially simulated them having to live on their own, manage their own budgets, cook their own food, do their own shopping, do worklike tasks during the day, etc. They obviously completely failed in every way imaginable.
It is very easy with all the labour saving devices we now have for parents to just do pretty much all the chores, rather than expend the possibly greater effort of browbeating the kids into do them regularly. The other part is to mix it up - they all need in the end to be able to iron, wash clothes, put out trash, help with shopping, etc., so ensure they all do some of each rather than one "easy" chore they like every day/week (some are age dependant of course, but you have a decade or so to cover everything so that shouldn't be an issue)
It is very easy with all the labour saving devices we now have for parents to just do pretty much all the chores, rather than expend the possibly greater effort of browbeating the kids into do them regularly. The other part is to mix it up - they all need in the end to be able to iron, wash clothes, put out trash, help with shopping, etc., so ensure they all do some of each rather than one "easy" chore they like every day/week (some are age dependant of course, but you have a decade or so to cover everything so that shouldn't be an issue)
If you're interested in this, check out the book Mindset by Carol Dweck. I recommend it, it's amazing how hackable your mind is.
http://www.amazon.com/Mindset-Psychology-Success-Carol-Dweck...
http://www.amazon.com/Mindset-Psychology-Success-Carol-Dweck...
I think a lot of people would like to think of themselves as smart. I do, too. I'm smart, you're smart, and he's smart as well, but it's all relative.
Instead of thinking about how smart I am, I instead think about how much I don't know, especially about things I need to know, either for my professional life or for my personal life. This list can quickly grow, especially since the more you know, the more you become aware of the things you don't know. This is a more concrete measuring stick. Yeah we're both smart, but you know things I need to know to get through my day, so at least today, you're better off than I am. But hey, I'm so smart, maybe I'll figure it out.
Instead of thinking about how smart I am, I instead think about how much I don't know, especially about things I need to know, either for my professional life or for my personal life. This list can quickly grow, especially since the more you know, the more you become aware of the things you don't know. This is a more concrete measuring stick. Yeah we're both smart, but you know things I need to know to get through my day, so at least today, you're better off than I am. But hey, I'm so smart, maybe I'll figure it out.
I'm not sure why this guy keeps getting rejections because I think he can write.
Right on man, he can definitely write! Perhaps he just doesn't write about the right thing?
I wish someone did a study on how being told other things affect intelligence. For example, there is the stereotype of the dumb blonde. Perhaps being told (or knowing) that one is attractive leads to lower effort and therefore to less knowledge and lower intelligence. Maybe high intelligence is something geeks develop, only because they are not very good at anything else, such as being popular or good at sports etc.
Mensa (top 2% on intelligence test) have a demographic of high-ability non-achievers. Bookstore employees, lab assistants etc. Rarely the boss.
Surely it's Mensa membership that correlates with low achievement, not scoring well on IQ tests per se.
That's the primary reason I didn't join their party. They seem to think that the mere possession of intelligence is something noteworthy.
I might as well join an organization of naturally brown-haired people.
I might as well join an organization of naturally brown-haired people.
I don't buy the connection between being told you're smart and having a fear of failure. Just because many people have been told they're smart and many people fear failure doesn't mean that there's any relationship between the two.
And I also don't think the second one is necessarily a new phenomenon.
And I also don't think the second one is necessarily a new phenomenon.
It's not a random correlation based on observations of adults, it's studies that show small children behave in the mentioned ways when told they are smart, when compared to being told they are hard working. A lifetime of this can ingrain certain behaviors.
The problem with being smart is that you're never smart enough. In school I was considered very smart, and that was great. In grad school, I was smart, but not the most, and this makes you hurt inside. Then you start to learn that is effort that really matter.
Conversely, it's usually to your advantage to be perceived as smart, rather than just hard-working. Everyone believes they could work hard, if they wanted to. The people who impress us are the ones who make it seem effortless.
And to add to this, it's not just being told "it's Believing that you are smart", (which can happen without any one else involved) is the formula of destruction.
It's already said in a better way.
"When you’re ripe you rot, when you’re green you grow"
It's already said in a better way.
"When you’re ripe you rot, when you’re green you grow"
Basically, if your smart, you risk under achieving because compared to your perceived peers, your doing well and don't try any harder. However, compared to other people who are similarly smart your under achieving.
His conclusion - throw yourself into your life and your work whilst you are still young enough to be able to, so that you don't regret it when you are older.
"Far better to tell a kid that they're hard working."
Sorry. Working smart beats working hard. EOM
Sorry. Working smart beats working hard. EOM
Why not self publish?
There is something to this, but it is also quite misleading. It is (sometimes painfully) obvious that there is a huge variation in innate ability. There are extremely talented people, there are those who find just about everything difficult, and all the shades in between. You can see this even with quite small children. Success is very often correlated with hard work, but in no way does that imply that some people aren't much smarter than others.
The article doesn't imply that hard work trumps smartness at all, and it doesn't imply or state that there is little innate variation in ability. What it says is that if you tell a very smart or talented person how smart they are when they're younger, they're more likely to be afraid to take risks that would jeopardize that label. It's better to emphasize to them that they work hard, according to the author (and, I believe, studies that back him up).
My reaction to this kind of article is along the lines of "yeah, ok, sounds right, let's move on to something more interesting".
Then I went to a top university in Computer Science. I was suddenly surrounded by people that were orders of magnitude better at computer science than I was. I had to study for hours to understand something they seemed to understand implicitly. It took two years of struggling to finally reach a point where I considered myself "good" at computer science. After that, it came fairly easily but I still had to work much harder than my friends who did it effortlessly.
I learned over time that I am fairly smart. Not off the charts smart, but I've got my strengths. I still have to work harder than those in the top of my field, but I'm certainly on the down slope of the bell curve.
But the most important thing that I've learned is that it doesn't matter how smart you think you are. There will always be those more or less smart than you. What's important is what you do with it, and how hard you work to achieve what you want.