Grit Has a Negligible Effect on Success Compared to Intelligence(journals.sagepub.com)
journals.sagepub.com
Grit Has a Negligible Effect on Success Compared to Intelligence
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1948550620920531
108 comments
As Sam Altman says, think more about what you want to do. Moving fast in a wrong direction isn’t going to help.
> My suspicion is that grit (in the sense that matters, not whatever the grit researchers have been pushing) is mostly indistinguishable from intelligence as it's typically measured.
I don’t know about that. I’m pretty intelligent, but don’t have much grit at all.
I don’t know about that. I’m pretty intelligent, but don’t have much grit at all.
A few points for context:
1. Those R squared numbers in table 2 are quite low. The statistical analysis itself is painfully basic. I'm a statistician, and I've a bookshelf full of excellent books written by statisticians who publish in psychology, so they should have been able to find someone to beef up the analysis a bit. That said, psych publications is also notorious for bad data analysis. I'm an outsider to this field, but this feels like an omission.
2. The paper doesn't use any causal inference techniques despite making a clear causal claim in the title. They use simple linear regression, which is not a causal model unless causal assumptions are made explicit. In my book this is a grave sin, one avoids making causal assumptions that might be hard to defend, fits a model with linear correlation, then makes causal conclusions. To understand what I mean by causal model, read this (these techniques are well-known and if the authors' defense is that they don't know them, it reflects badly on them): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubin_causal_model
3. It is worth thinking about what the intelligence assessment, the AFQT test, actually quantifies. One critique of AFQT is that it is more of a measure of literacy than intelligence. Read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Services_Vocational_Apti.... Maybe the title should be "Having parents that make sure you can read by age five has a greater effect on success than grit."
4. The AFQT and other intelligence tests have a pesky problem of having averages that change in time. This suggests that much of what they measure is not innate, but learned.
5. Social psychology is plagued by a reproducibility crisis. I'm sorry to say, their papers, no matter how provocative the findings, have to be viewed with great skepticism. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/replication-crisis
6. The paper says social economic background has a significant effect, but about the same effect on pay as intelligence. That seems to conflict with a pile of research that says that social economic background is the strongest predictor of success. To say that IQ is just as important as your parents' wealth is pretty eyebrow-raising.
1. Those R squared numbers in table 2 are quite low. The statistical analysis itself is painfully basic. I'm a statistician, and I've a bookshelf full of excellent books written by statisticians who publish in psychology, so they should have been able to find someone to beef up the analysis a bit. That said, psych publications is also notorious for bad data analysis. I'm an outsider to this field, but this feels like an omission.
2. The paper doesn't use any causal inference techniques despite making a clear causal claim in the title. They use simple linear regression, which is not a causal model unless causal assumptions are made explicit. In my book this is a grave sin, one avoids making causal assumptions that might be hard to defend, fits a model with linear correlation, then makes causal conclusions. To understand what I mean by causal model, read this (these techniques are well-known and if the authors' defense is that they don't know them, it reflects badly on them): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubin_causal_model
3. It is worth thinking about what the intelligence assessment, the AFQT test, actually quantifies. One critique of AFQT is that it is more of a measure of literacy than intelligence. Read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Services_Vocational_Apti.... Maybe the title should be "Having parents that make sure you can read by age five has a greater effect on success than grit."
4. The AFQT and other intelligence tests have a pesky problem of having averages that change in time. This suggests that much of what they measure is not innate, but learned.
5. Social psychology is plagued by a reproducibility crisis. I'm sorry to say, their papers, no matter how provocative the findings, have to be viewed with great skepticism. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/replication-crisis
6. The paper says social economic background has a significant effect, but about the same effect on pay as intelligence. That seems to conflict with a pile of research that says that social economic background is the strongest predictor of success. To say that IQ is just as important as your parents' wealth is pretty eyebrow-raising.
I have a friend who got a PhD in psychology. She had me look over her analysis and it was bad. The two "highlights" were:
1. Her advisor told her to use a student's t-test for multivariate data.
2. When the P value insufficiently low to reject the null hypothesis, he walked her through p-hacking the data.
1. Her advisor told her to use a student's t-test for multivariate data.
2. When the P value insufficiently low to reject the null hypothesis, he walked her through p-hacking the data.
I had the same thing with a friend who was getting her PhD in nutrition.
She was aware that the statistics were not strong, but they were horrendous.
After helping her to get at least a bit back on track I developped a strong skepticism to anything published without a rewiew of the stat methods. Which is almost everything one can read in the press.
She was aware that the statistics were not strong, but they were horrendous.
After helping her to get at least a bit back on track I developped a strong skepticism to anything published without a rewiew of the stat methods. Which is almost everything one can read in the press.
I'll take your word for it on the stats - it never was my strong suit. But having read Duckworth's "seminal" book on Grit it's also incredibly unscientific, frequently mistaking survivorship bias for causation.
Abstract says: "intelligence contributes 48–90 times more than grit to educational success and 13 times more to job-market success. Conscientiousness also contributes to success more than grit but only twice as much..."
Very challenging to evaluate without paying $40 to read the paper. They mention a difference in how they group the subjects (by intelligence). My gut take (often wrong!) is that they're grouping the subjects in some way that pushes part of my understanding of grit into intelligence.
Very challenging to evaluate without paying $40 to read the paper. They mention a difference in how they group the subjects (by intelligence). My gut take (often wrong!) is that they're grouping the subjects in some way that pushes part of my understanding of grit into intelligence.
I linked to the paper is another comment. They used the Armed Forces Qualifying Test (AFQT) for intelligence.
>The AFQT score in the NLSY is the sum of the standardized scores of four tests: arithmetic reasoning, paragraph comprehension, word knowledge, and mathematics knowledge, and is expressed as a percentile score out of the general population
To my non-expert perception this does seem like a test that benefits from studying and general schoolwork (ie: reading books).
They used the The Short Grit Scale to determine grit (http://www.sjdm.org/dmidi/files/Grit-8-item.pdf) which seems like it biases toward un-creativity and "OCD completionism."
>The AFQT score in the NLSY is the sum of the standardized scores of four tests: arithmetic reasoning, paragraph comprehension, word knowledge, and mathematics knowledge, and is expressed as a percentile score out of the general population
To my non-expert perception this does seem like a test that benefits from studying and general schoolwork (ie: reading books).
They used the The Short Grit Scale to determine grit (http://www.sjdm.org/dmidi/files/Grit-8-item.pdf) which seems like it biases toward un-creativity and "OCD completionism."
Seems to me like intelligence and drive ("grit") are multiplicative factors. Saying either is more important sounds wrong because if either is zero, you have nothing. And if intelligence is fixed, then working harder is the only way to improve your chances. From that perspective, "grit" is the only thing that matters.
Firstly, neither is ever zero. That would only ever be true in a dead person.
It makes perfect sense to say that one factor is more important than another if it has more effect on the outcome.
Intelligence is not fixed. It can certainly be decreased by long term stress and environmental toxins etc.
It can also be enabled or inhibited by situational factors such as access to information, available time, etc.
Working ‘harder’ is not well defined. Do you mean going faster at doing the same things, or spending more time working? If not, can you define it?
Working harder or faster on something that is systematically unproductive will only make ones situation worse.
Intelligence is the capacity to select valuable activities in which to invest one’s energy.
Therefore grit doesn’t matter at all in the absence of intelligence, or can even be a negative.
It makes perfect sense to say that one factor is more important than another if it has more effect on the outcome.
Intelligence is not fixed. It can certainly be decreased by long term stress and environmental toxins etc.
It can also be enabled or inhibited by situational factors such as access to information, available time, etc.
Working ‘harder’ is not well defined. Do you mean going faster at doing the same things, or spending more time working? If not, can you define it?
Working harder or faster on something that is systematically unproductive will only make ones situation worse.
Intelligence is the capacity to select valuable activities in which to invest one’s energy.
Therefore grit doesn’t matter at all in the absence of intelligence, or can even be a negative.
>Firstly, neither is ever zero. That would only ever be true in a dead person.
Pedantically speaking, a depressed person can easily have zero drive to do stuff and still be intelligent.
As I said in another comment, "fixed" intelligence implicitly means a fixed ceiling; assuming we all know of intoxication, dementia, etc. is something I think is required by HN standards of being reasonably charitable towards the people you are addressing, also known as the Cooperative Principle.[1]
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle
Pedantically speaking, a depressed person can easily have zero drive to do stuff and still be intelligent.
As I said in another comment, "fixed" intelligence implicitly means a fixed ceiling; assuming we all know of intoxication, dementia, etc. is something I think is required by HN standards of being reasonably charitable towards the people you are addressing, also known as the Cooperative Principle.[1]
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle
“Pedantically speaking”, a depressed person doesn’t have zero drive, just a low drive. There is also plenty of debate as to what depression is, and what an intelligent response to it would be.
Implying that I’m being uncharitable is the antithesis of the cooperative principle.
I’m being neither charitable nor uncharitable. I am merely disagreeing with your logic.
As I mentioned elsewhere, I disagree with the idea of a fixed ceiling on intelligence as a general concept.
If you mean performance on narrow tests then I agree there will be ceilings, but that is irrelevant to the general idea.
Implying that I’m being uncharitable is the antithesis of the cooperative principle.
I’m being neither charitable nor uncharitable. I am merely disagreeing with your logic.
As I mentioned elsewhere, I disagree with the idea of a fixed ceiling on intelligence as a general concept.
If you mean performance on narrow tests then I agree there will be ceilings, but that is irrelevant to the general idea.
There’s inclusive evidence that intelligence is fixed, and there’s evidence that people that believe intelligence is fixed have worse outcomes.
I think it’s very likely environmental factors and personal mindset have considerable impacts both positive and negative on intelligence. I also suspect in the next decade or two research will come out on pharmaceuticals that show improved mental performance. There’s already the beginnings of this.
I think it’s very likely environmental factors and personal mindset have considerable impacts both positive and negative on intelligence. I also suspect in the next decade or two research will come out on pharmaceuticals that show improved mental performance. There’s already the beginnings of this.
What evidence do you have that intelligence is fixed? I believe there is evidence that it is mix of fixed and not fixed attributes, but I don't think there's any evidence that it is strictly fixed.
Right. The parent comment I was replaying to stated “if intelligence is fixed” and I was attempting to cast doubt on the clause. I wouldn’t want to take position that intelligence is fixed in an argument.
The context was more of a fixed ceiling. Presumably everybody knows and agrees that being tired, drunk, ill, having dementia, etc. can affect apparent intelligence. By "fixed intelligence" the implication is that there is a ceiling where a person's brain has developed and they are fully functional that isn't straightforwardly or easily raised.
We don’t have clear evidence for this being true.
Perhaps for performance on a fixed kind of test or for certain kinds of raw calculation speed, it is true, but handling complexity and problem solving skills can continue to develop based on experience and exposure to concepts.
The belief that intelligence is fixed is a trap for the mind.
Perhaps for performance on a fixed kind of test or for certain kinds of raw calculation speed, it is true, but handling complexity and problem solving skills can continue to develop based on experience and exposure to concepts.
The belief that intelligence is fixed is a trap for the mind.
I wasn't asserting that it was true, and it seems that you want to argue with someone who both thinks that "it" is true and has a different definition of it from what I was using, in context.
It's a morass I'm uninterested in getting into.
It's a morass I'm uninterested in getting into.
Once again you violate the spirit of the group with ad hominem.
I agree your original comment used the conditional ‘if’ about the truth of fixed intelligence.
Such a proposition naturally invites examination of whether the conditions are in supported by evidence, which is all I am doing.
I am curious if you have a definition of intelligence that sheds light on your original argument.
I have no stake in what truth you believe.
However I think your argument is clearly incorrect.
As you suggest, I could be basing my conclusion on a different definition to the one you are using.
But if you won’t produce a clarifying definition, you can’t reasonably make claim to be operating under any principle of cooperation.
I agree your original comment used the conditional ‘if’ about the truth of fixed intelligence.
Such a proposition naturally invites examination of whether the conditions are in supported by evidence, which is all I am doing.
I am curious if you have a definition of intelligence that sheds light on your original argument.
I have no stake in what truth you believe.
However I think your argument is clearly incorrect.
As you suggest, I could be basing my conclusion on a different definition to the one you are using.
But if you won’t produce a clarifying definition, you can’t reasonably make claim to be operating under any principle of cooperation.
Aah, I misunderstood what you were saying.
I think you meant to say "inconclusive evidence"
There’s a trick you can do on the internet that involves the words sci and hub and doi.
The paper is behind a paywall and not open-access, so here are some pieces of information I thought were interesting:
"Intelligence" was measured by an individual's performance on the "Armed Forces Qualifying Test" (AFQT).
"Grit" is self-reported on the "Short Grit Scale" which asks participants to rate themselves from 1 to 5 on statements like "I am diligent."
"Success" was measured by level of education attained and hourly wage rate in 2015.
Control variables include: Gender, household income as a child and level of education by parents. Study participants were born in the early 1980's.
Top-level findings:
> Although in our representative sample of the American population grit does explain educational and job-market success over and beyond other predictor variables such as socioeconomic status, intelligence, and the Big Five personality characteristics, its absolute effects are rather minimal. In particular, its effects are negligible in comparison to the effect of intelligence. Finally, the effects of grit were also considerably weaker than the effects of conscientiousness.
"Intelligence" was measured by an individual's performance on the "Armed Forces Qualifying Test" (AFQT).
"Grit" is self-reported on the "Short Grit Scale" which asks participants to rate themselves from 1 to 5 on statements like "I am diligent."
"Success" was measured by level of education attained and hourly wage rate in 2015.
Control variables include: Gender, household income as a child and level of education by parents. Study participants were born in the early 1980's.
Top-level findings:
> Although in our representative sample of the American population grit does explain educational and job-market success over and beyond other predictor variables such as socioeconomic status, intelligence, and the Big Five personality characteristics, its absolute effects are rather minimal. In particular, its effects are negligible in comparison to the effect of intelligence. Finally, the effects of grit were also considerably weaker than the effects of conscientiousness.
> Grit" is self-reported on the "Short Grit Scale" which asks participants to rate themselves from 1 to 5 on statements like "I am diligent."
This is a pretty awful way to measure grit and makes me doubt the results
This is a pretty awful way to measure grit and makes me doubt the results
But the measurement of Conscientiousness was much worse, and it still outpredicted Grit considerably:
"Given the NLSY 2-item measure of conscientiousness and the 8-item measure of grit, this comparison is likely to overestimate the effect of grit relative to conscientiousness (Crede et al., 2012 for the consequences of using short measures of the Big Five personality traits)."
Plus, going from an 8-item test to a longer one isn't going to close a gap with IQ that large, and as they point out, the reliability is decent enough and pro-Grit authors have no trouble making claims based on, so what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander:
"The reliability of the scale in our data was .72, which is comparable to the reliability reported by Duckworth and Quinn (2009) and within the ranges reported in the meta-analysis of Crede et al. (2017)."
"Given the NLSY 2-item measure of conscientiousness and the 8-item measure of grit, this comparison is likely to overestimate the effect of grit relative to conscientiousness (Crede et al., 2012 for the consequences of using short measures of the Big Five personality traits)."
Plus, going from an 8-item test to a longer one isn't going to close a gap with IQ that large, and as they point out, the reliability is decent enough and pro-Grit authors have no trouble making claims based on, so what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander:
"The reliability of the scale in our data was .72, which is comparable to the reliability reported by Duckworth and Quinn (2009) and within the ranges reported in the meta-analysis of Crede et al. (2017)."
This is an issue with most self-report surveys.
Thank you for this. What is the difference between their measure of grit and their measure of conscientiousness?
Conscientiousness was measured by the "The Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI)"
> a 10-item measure of the Big Five (or five-factor model) dimensions of personality: openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability
> a 10-item measure of the Big Five (or five-factor model) dimensions of personality: openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability
[deleted]
There is grit before and after a certain point on a “trajectory” that matters. And intelligence may get you far, maybe grit will help you complete the last mile. So no I don’t think you can definitely say what the study says
[deleted]
TLDR; grit helps, but only when in the same range of intelligence as your peers.
This isn’t particularly shocking. There aren’t a lot of high paying jobs for dumb people and nepotism doesn’t scale enough to make up for that.
This isn’t particularly shocking. There aren’t a lot of high paying jobs for dumb people and nepotism doesn’t scale enough to make up for that.
This. There isn't much more to take away from the paper.
As an aside, there seems to be some sort of snowball effect that might confound a naive interpretation of the role of intelligence. For example, getting a high SAT score (and AP scores) is likelier to lead to Ivy admission. Ivy admission is likely to lead to above average training, as well as more influential social networks. This can lead to interviews with above average firms... etc. You get the picture.
Now, intelligence played a role in the high test scores and admission to an elite undergrad, and still plays a role throughout the journey of a successful (whatever the definition) individual. However, there are many feeback loops and amplifying/compounding first and second order effects as well. Quantifying the effect of grit, intelligence, etc seems very difficult.
As an aside, there seems to be some sort of snowball effect that might confound a naive interpretation of the role of intelligence. For example, getting a high SAT score (and AP scores) is likelier to lead to Ivy admission. Ivy admission is likely to lead to above average training, as well as more influential social networks. This can lead to interviews with above average firms... etc. You get the picture.
Now, intelligence played a role in the high test scores and admission to an elite undergrad, and still plays a role throughout the journey of a successful (whatever the definition) individual. However, there are many feeback loops and amplifying/compounding first and second order effects as well. Quantifying the effect of grit, intelligence, etc seems very difficult.
Nepotism doesn’t, but I’m starting to think that other forms of corruption can, under the right political circumstances. For example credentialism in combination with friendship corruption is potentially powerful. I think we’re starting to see significant effects of that in Sweden for example.
[deleted]
Comparing two ill-defined high-level cognitive traits to determine which will more greatly effect success in a unmeritocratic society and extrapolating the results to general humanity: what could possibly go wrong?
>The measure of intelligence was taken from the 1999 wave, the measure of grit was taken from the 2013 wave, and the measures of suc- cess from the 2015 wave. Thus, intelligence was measured when the participants were aged 15–19, grit was measured when the participants were aged 29–34, and success was mea- sured when they were aged 31–36.
Jesus.
>The measure of intelligence was taken from the 1999 wave, the measure of grit was taken from the 2013 wave, and the measures of suc- cess from the 2015 wave. Thus, intelligence was measured when the participants were aged 15–19, grit was measured when the participants were aged 29–34, and success was mea- sured when they were aged 31–36.
Jesus.
American society is many things but it is not a low merit society. If you are significantly better then someone else at something you will, in general, reap the rewards.
That depends on what „something“ is and how it is rewarded in comparison to something else. And how you value types of rewards.
In my personal, political opinion it seems that being good at convincing others and being greedy gets rewarded way too much over creating direct value.
In my personal, political opinion it seems that being good at convincing others and being greedy gets rewarded way too much over creating direct value.
Meritocracy generally refers to a system where your upbringing/family/etc. matters less than your innate talent, hard work and achievements. It does not mean a system where your success is tied to the value you bring.
edit: For example, standardized tests for advancement are a meritocracy even if the tests are divorced from the requirements of society.
edit: For example, standardized tests for advancement are a meritocracy even if the tests are divorced from the requirements of society.
Thank you for clarifying. Is there a better word for what I meant than meritocracy?
I'm appalled that this passes muster for you as a rational statement, knowing all we do about how parental wealth and education, professional network size and health, and even residential location can effect career outcomes in even technical fields. I thought we put this canard to rest.
Nothing is perfect, saying something is atrocious because it is not perfect is irrational.
Also, if you define "merit based" as "capable of improvement through own effort" then both "professional network size and health" and "residential location" fall under that.
Also, if you define "merit based" as "capable of improvement through own effort" then both "professional network size and health" and "residential location" fall under that.
I would define "merit-based" as "measuring and ranking based on directly relevant capability." There are limited cases where the first contributes to merit, but both are becoming less and less justifiable in a global, or even national, job market.
I never said the US is a perfect meritocracy. I said it's not a low merit society. For example if you are good enough you can get an entire free ride to the best education the world has to offer just because you are good. If you make a product that significantly better the competition it will most likely out compete it. If you are significantly better then your peers you can command a higher salary etc.
Compare that to India where if you are born into a low caste you can't do anything. Even if you are the most competent person that has ever walked the earth.
Not everyone in the US has the exact some opportunities but that is orthogonal to merit. To call it the US a low merit society seems completely bonkers to me.
Compare that to India where if you are born into a low caste you can't do anything. Even if you are the most competent person that has ever walked the earth.
Not everyone in the US has the exact some opportunities but that is orthogonal to merit. To call it the US a low merit society seems completely bonkers to me.
This statement is filled with qualifications that render it mostly meaningless. "Good enough," "significantly better," etc., are ill-defined and leave room for the weaseling that crashes any notion of a society that is even mostly meritocratic. Even approaching a 50/50 chance that your outcome is a crapshoot or else weighted by unrelated cultural artifacts is unacceptable.
>Compare that to India where if you are born into a low caste you can't do anything.
Black men born into the top quintile of family wealth are as likely as black men born in the bottom quintile to die in the bottom quintile. White men born in the top quintile are highly unlikely to drop even to the next lowest quintile. Americans criticizing India's caste system is laughable.
>Compare that to India where if you are born into a low caste you can't do anything.
Black men born into the top quintile of family wealth are as likely as black men born in the bottom quintile to die in the bottom quintile. White men born in the top quintile are highly unlikely to drop even to the next lowest quintile. Americans criticizing India's caste system is laughable.
Of course the adjectives I'm using are in relative terms rather then absolute. There doesn't exist an absolute measure on how meritocratic a society is. But it's very clear that US society most certainly is a more meritocratic then most other societies.
> Black men born into the top quintile of family wealth are as likely as black men born in the bottom quintile to die in the bottom quintile. White men born in the top quintile are highly unlikely to drop even to the next lowest quintile. Americans criticizing India's caste system is laughable.
First of all I'm not an American. It's quite funny that you criticize me for not using precise and absolute terms while you yourself use the same terms. Your point is even self-defeating. That a black family(which you indirectly compare to a low cast family in India, which I don't agree with. But that's beside the point.) can be in the top quintile already means that the situation in America is vastly better then in India.
> Black men born into the top quintile of family wealth are as likely as black men born in the bottom quintile to die in the bottom quintile. White men born in the top quintile are highly unlikely to drop even to the next lowest quintile. Americans criticizing India's caste system is laughable.
First of all I'm not an American. It's quite funny that you criticize me for not using precise and absolute terms while you yourself use the same terms. Your point is even self-defeating. That a black family(which you indirectly compare to a low cast family in India, which I don't agree with. But that's beside the point.) can be in the top quintile already means that the situation in America is vastly better then in India.
How can something that you claim is unmeasurable possibly be clear enough to pass such judgment on? You're not making sense.
>First of all I'm not an American.
I'd like to know what then qualifies you to make these statements. With this:
>That a black family(which you indirectly compare to a low cast family in India, which I don't agree with. But that's beside the point.) can be in the top quintile already means that the situation in America is vastly better then in India.
you're revealing a poor understanding of racial and social dynamics in America. Perhaps of India, too; there are Dalit millionaires, after all.
>First of all I'm not an American.
I'd like to know what then qualifies you to make these statements. With this:
>That a black family(which you indirectly compare to a low cast family in India, which I don't agree with. But that's beside the point.) can be in the top quintile already means that the situation in America is vastly better then in India.
you're revealing a poor understanding of racial and social dynamics in America. Perhaps of India, too; there are Dalit millionaires, after all.
I don't claim it's unmeasurable. I claim there is no absolute scale. That's very different from eachother.
This conversation doesn't make sense for me to continue since you keep assuming things about me and claiming I said things I never said. I don't like such bad faith arguments.
This conversation doesn't make sense for me to continue since you keep assuming things about me and claiming I said things I never said. I don't like such bad faith arguments.
The study you are commenting on showed that intelligence is a greater predictor of pay than parental wealth. It might not be perfect, but your pay is far from determined by your parents.
The hope is that grit can be developed and nurtured in children, while we're pretty sure intelligence is genetic to a super high degree.
> while we're pretty sure intelligence is genetic to a super high degree.
No? There are tons of studies about childhood development that focus on intelligence being affected by their environment / upbringing.
No? There are tons of studies about childhood development that focus on intelligence being affected by their environment / upbringing.
This seems to be the full paper for those noting the paywall:
https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2020-zissman.pdf
https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2020-zissman.pdf
I think the most interesting thing in this paper is the fact that grit seems to be extremely important in certain circumstances, and much less important in others. It makes sense that getting through a challenge like going through West Point is going to require a sense of the importance of your goals. Most of the time, though, we're not in those circumstances and other factors are more important. Grit, as described, could even lead to a lack of flexibility in some circumstances, which could inhibit success.
I agree, looking at the questions they seem to penalize changing your goal which I view as a vital part of success. Work hard towards your goal but stop if you realize your goal is wrong. Then work hard at whatever you consider the better goal.
I'm still reading through the paper myself, but that was my first impression reading the Introduction. In heterogeneous groups, intelligence beats grit as an indicator for success. However, if you then consider Duckworth used homogeneous groups, you can argue that grit is what separates you from similar candidates.
Neither intelligence nor grit hold a candle to luck and having chosen the right parents.
That 10% that comes from grit matters more than the 90% that comes from intelligence, because it's the only aspect that reflects the sovereignty one has over oneself and the ability to define oneself in spite of physical reality (supernatural). The 90% is just an inheritance.
Matters more to whom? I'll take your inheritance if you are offering.
Why would you choose what's natural (inheritance, physical development, parent's DNA) over what's supernatural (your willpower)?
I get what you are saying philosophically, but I don't think it holds up in reality. I'll take good healthy genes over whatever life lesson you are offering.
It only matters if your happiness is in this-life-only. If you don't then it's just another part of staying in a bad inn.
You seem to have a clear view of what will make you happy, and I genuinely commend you for that. My initial question was "To Whom (does it matter)?" and you seem to have answered it with "To me and my beliefs about who I am". Fair enough.
But I wonder, - Do you want a brilliantly gifted surgeon or one who gets by on grit to operate on your loved one? - Do you want to listen to the effortless musician who seems to have some gift from god, or one that practices 6 hours a day even though they know they kinda suck?
But I wonder, - Do you want a brilliantly gifted surgeon or one who gets by on grit to operate on your loved one? - Do you want to listen to the effortless musician who seems to have some gift from god, or one that practices 6 hours a day even though they know they kinda suck?
Kind of a theoretical question since you cannot observe grit. Only the surgeon can know if he has grit based on his own self-reflection.
> or one that practices 6 hours a day even though they know they kinda suck?
Again, we know that practice does not make perfect, but rather perfect practice makes perfect. Just because he practiced for six hours a day doesn't mean he practiced well.
> or one that practices 6 hours a day even though they know they kinda suck?
Again, we know that practice does not make perfect, but rather perfect practice makes perfect. Just because he practiced for six hours a day doesn't mean he practiced well.
this is all rhetorical, especially when you brought in the afterlife.
grit == effort, not results, and not even effective effort, since that would take an inheritance to understand what is and what isn't effective. you dodged the question
grit == effort, not results, and not even effective effort, since that would take an inheritance to understand what is and what isn't effective. you dodged the question
Reframe it! Instead of thinking results matter, reframe your life as the following:
1. Pretend that only effort exists
2. Assume beforehand that all your results are equal to <insert first-rate role model>'s results in <insert your desired field>
3. Only exit this make-believe world by looking at your actual results in order to measure the quality of your effort
1. Pretend that only effort exists
2. Assume beforehand that all your results are equal to <insert first-rate role model>'s results in <insert your desired field>
3. Only exit this make-believe world by looking at your actual results in order to measure the quality of your effort
Any evidence that grit isn’t also a heritable trait?
The above argument doesn't hold if free will doesn't exist. But then I couldn't choose to believe that I have free will if free will doesn't exist, so why bother arguing?
Even assuming free-will exists, the argument assumes that "grit" is less heritable than "intelligence," which is a claim that needs to be substantiated.
Then replace grit with desire, or desire with faith in oneself, or faith in oneself with determination to live and die doing what I value, etc....
Again, is there evidence that any of those is less heritable than intelligence? Replacing the words with synonyms doesn't change the fundamentals of the claim.
Here's a non-paywall copy: https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2020-zissman.pdf
"...a major concern about the studies which argued that grit has a strong impact on success is that they were based on selected samples such as West Point cadets (Duckworth et al., 2007), employees in technology companies (Jachimowiczet al., 2018) or students in inner city schools (Eskreis-Winkleret al., 2014). These samples were drawn from institutions which are characterized by a homogeneous socioeconomic population (and perhaps even by population that are homogenous in their intelligence)—a characteristic which is likely to impose a range restriction on important predictors of success."
Ow!
Ow!
You mean, they... controlled variables?
Between those 3 cohorts, I see a phenomenon that cuts across a wide slice of the population.
Between those 3 cohorts, I see a phenomenon that cuts across a wide slice of the population.
If you're arguing for particular significance of a variable (grit), you can't go around controlling for all other variables with the same effect. It's not meaningful to see significance of a variable in a homogeneous cohort and translate that to the the variable being significant in the general population.
It might make sense that West Point students differ largely by grit, especially if all other variables are controlled for. That does not prove that the success of people generally is significantly affected by their grit.
It might make sense that West Point students differ largely by grit, especially if all other variables are controlled for. That does not prove that the success of people generally is significantly affected by their grit.
The problem is if I look at a population that has an IQ between 115 and 120 and scores 20-25% on conscientious I'll find that grit is far more predictive than IQ or conscientiousness. But this doesn't tell me anything about how important it is in the general population m
But you'd get far different results in the general population.
But you'd get far different results in the general population.
It's ignoring the contribution of intelligence, grit, and other factors to _getting_ into this situations (whether casually or correlatively).
As an easy example: if I independently studied kindergarteners, fifth graders, and twelfth graders, I will have might discover that age has no correlation with verbal proficiency. The problem is that by studying homogeneous groups separately, I've thrown away the possibility of studying the effects that may have induced the homogeneity.
As an easy example: if I independently studied kindergarteners, fifth graders, and twelfth graders, I will have might discover that age has no correlation with verbal proficiency. The problem is that by studying homogeneous groups separately, I've thrown away the possibility of studying the effects that may have induced the homogeneity.
[deleted]
TLDR: Stupid is as stupid does.
Standard warnings: Social Psychology is not a science and should probably be ignored. "Grit" and "Intelligence" are so poorly and inconsistently defined as to be meaningless. This is controversy for controversy's sake
Not true but typical belief of STEM types. If you go by reproducibility rates you could say the same about medicine and economics. Hell, gravity is poorly and inconsistently defined, but we don’t throw away physics.
Gravity is extremely clearly defined. And yes, we do bash on economics quite a bit. We bemoan medicine, but we don't make fun of it for having reproduction rates in the low single digits. Because it doesn't.
Even the Standard Model does not explain gravity, hence it is not "extremely clearly defined".
There’s a famous saying in the sciences: “All models are wrong, some are useful.” Many of our physics models have been “wrong” historically, but yet they describe the world well-enough to be useful in making very good predictions. Newtonian physics is a perfect example of this - it tells an incomplete story of reality, but it’s still extremely useful in making predictions about how the world works.
The reproducibility crisis across the social sciences (and sometimes even in biology and medicine and - hot take - machine learning) is evidence that many of these models are both wrong AND useless for prediction, as opposed to just being incomplete.
The reproducibility crisis across the social sciences (and sometimes even in biology and medicine and - hot take - machine learning) is evidence that many of these models are both wrong AND useless for prediction, as opposed to just being incomplete.
Many sociological and psychological models are useful as well. All sciences are affected by the reproducibility crisis because of the incentive structure in the peer review process. Physics has perpetuated useless models also so it’s not immune from criticism.
Back to my original point, it’s misleading to claim that social psychology is not a science and should be ignored.
Back to my original point, it’s misleading to claim that social psychology is not a science and should be ignored.
Come up with an experiment that involves gravitational forces; there are physics models will predict it and you can design your experiment to have a P value of 10^-6 to confirm those models.
That's very different from the other items listed previously.
That's very different from the other items listed previously.
Reasoning mistake, it's also not in de phonebook, 300.000 km = 1 sec, that is what a the Minkowski Space defines as the relation between space and time.
I'm pretty sure gravity experiments are reproduced very frequently.
Economics is not STEM and many people who complain about psychology would also say it lacks rigor (especially the social rather than theoretical/mathematical side).
I think we know very little about psychology and how individual vs cultural human consciousness is.
Like... Samurai’s and self-immolating monks are human.
Post-enlightenment, post-Kant, social sciences treat man as an individual unit “homo-economicus” — nothing could be further from the truth.
Like... Samurai’s and self-immolating monks are human.
Post-enlightenment, post-Kant, social sciences treat man as an individual unit “homo-economicus” — nothing could be further from the truth.
Well, 'gravity' is a technical term defined within a theory--be it Newtonian or Einsteinian. This definition is not coming from the common sense, but the other way around: technical definitions percolate down to the commonsense.
The way the phenomenon of gravity is tested: by deriving (predicting) consequences with auxiliary hypotheses(or theories), then do empirical tests and compare.
That's not the case in social sciences: they pick an explanation(explanans) that only explains what is already picked(explananda).
Just pick up some facts, say, X, Y and Z. And postulate A to explain X, Y and Z. Then do all mumbo jumbo: statistics, surveys, questionnaire. That's not what theories in physics do: they explain/predict something(not from the set X,Y,Z) that is NOT already there.
Larry Laudan in his philosophy of science makes a distinction between confirming instances and positive instances. Social scientists just pick up positive instances(X,Y,Z), Natural sciences are on the look out for confirming instances(instances that are not of the type X, Y and Z).
Take a crude example from our ordinary experience: all swans are white. Go and look out for a white swan. That's a positive instance, not a confirming instance.
The way the phenomenon of gravity is tested: by deriving (predicting) consequences with auxiliary hypotheses(or theories), then do empirical tests and compare.
That's not the case in social sciences: they pick an explanation(explanans) that only explains what is already picked(explananda).
Just pick up some facts, say, X, Y and Z. And postulate A to explain X, Y and Z. Then do all mumbo jumbo: statistics, surveys, questionnaire. That's not what theories in physics do: they explain/predict something(not from the set X,Y,Z) that is NOT already there.
Larry Laudan in his philosophy of science makes a distinction between confirming instances and positive instances. Social scientists just pick up positive instances(X,Y,Z), Natural sciences are on the look out for confirming instances(instances that are not of the type X, Y and Z).
Take a crude example from our ordinary experience: all swans are white. Go and look out for a white swan. That's a positive instance, not a confirming instance.
Many of the social sciences, including economics and psychology, do not meet the criteria to be considered a science (at least not a rigorous one).
What Separates Science from Non-Science? - https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2012/05/30/what_se...
What Separates Science from Non-Science? - https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2012/05/30/what_se...
> about medicine
Partially true.
> and economics
Yes.
So what?
Partially true.
> and economics
Yes.
So what?
So STEM types arrogate "real science" to themselves, while they suffer the same reproducibility crises as "soft" science. They also seem to be ignorant of the histories and developments of social sciences, so cannot even conceive how they could be scientific. It's myopic.
> So STEM types arrogate "real science" to themselves, while they suffer the same reproducibility crises as "soft" science.
What are you even talking about? STEM is science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Yes, these are hard sciences.
Medicine and economics are soft sciences and yes, they suffer a lot more from a lack of reproducibility than STEM studies.
What are you even talking about? STEM is science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Yes, these are hard sciences.
Medicine and economics are soft sciences and yes, they suffer a lot more from a lack of reproducibility than STEM studies.
Hard science suffers the same problems, albeit to a lesser degree, as other sciences because the peer review system is based on humans at the end of the day, so social and psychological factors will always be in play. It’s myopic to say social psychology is not a real science and should be ignored.
Perhaps it is because "STEM types" understand the difference in rigor that mathematics affords hard sciences. That's not an opinion.
Henry Ford would disagree. Does today's economy make some difference?
That's hilarious. Extremely counter to the prevailing narrative of how hard work and grit get one to the top.
I'd say that's still better than the other fake narrative: The game is rigged, the cards are stacked against you, they're holding you down, don't even try.
Is it? For the question "what predicts your pay", your "grit" beta coefficient is only 0.09, compared to a sum of .55 determined by your gender, background, and intelligence.
That is, raising your "grit level" by 1 standard deviation will only increase your pay by 0.09 standard deviations, when compared to your age-matched peers. Somebody only one standard-deviation down on each of the other factors would have to be 6 standard-deviations higher on grittiness in order to get the same pay. That's the difference between the 0.1th percentile of grittiness and the 99.9th percentile.
The data shows that increasing your grit enough to compensate for even small levels of adversity is impractical.
That is, raising your "grit level" by 1 standard deviation will only increase your pay by 0.09 standard deviations, when compared to your age-matched peers. Somebody only one standard-deviation down on each of the other factors would have to be 6 standard-deviations higher on grittiness in order to get the same pay. That's the difference between the 0.1th percentile of grittiness and the 99.9th percentile.
The data shows that increasing your grit enough to compensate for even small levels of adversity is impractical.
> Is it?
Yes, because if you buy into that narrative, you're going to be a loser, guaranteed. If you don't, you might still be unsuccessful, but you will earn (self) respect. You gave it your best shot.
Nobody respects the person who never tries, who always makes excuses, who blames everyone and everything but themselves. It's bad for you.
Yes, because if you buy into that narrative, you're going to be a loser, guaranteed. If you don't, you might still be unsuccessful, but you will earn (self) respect. You gave it your best shot.
Nobody respects the person who never tries, who always makes excuses, who blames everyone and everything but themselves. It's bad for you.
Maybe we shouldn't base our respect for people on how much grit they seem to show, if it doesn't seem to matter anyways.
It does matter even by the numbers shown in the paper. It matters more than agreeableness, emotional stability and even conscientiousness. It just doesn't make up for intelligence.
Also, if you're lazy and smart, you're still going to be a loser. You'll still need some amount of grit.
Also, if you're lazy and smart, you're still going to be a loser. You'll still need some amount of grit.
It matters half as much as conscientiousness, was the conclusion.
Using the term "tools" loosely, fork and spoon comparisons digest better than apples and oranges.
Eating soup with a fork is still a success with enough intelligence.
Pfffft. Spoon-fed geniuses raised with only forks was a cruel joke.
Let me guess... For an encore, they'll do a study that says AI is more successful.
A suckers iterated ever minute on the Internet with a path/information like that.
Eating soup with a fork is still a success with enough intelligence.
Pfffft. Spoon-fed geniuses raised with only forks was a cruel joke.
Let me guess... For an encore, they'll do a study that says AI is more successful.
A suckers iterated ever minute on the Internet with a path/information like that.
I hope the downvote was for being incomplete.
A fork, spoon and a knife are required tools for most meaningful job/professional successes.
It may even mirror the mind, body and soul tools needed to achieve personal successes. 2 outta 3 sucks. 1 outta 3 is worse..
A fork, spoon and a knife are required tools for most meaningful job/professional successes.
It may even mirror the mind, body and soul tools needed to achieve personal successes. 2 outta 3 sucks. 1 outta 3 is worse..
> The Short Grit Scale (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009) was used as a measure of grit and was administered to most of the NLSY participants in 2013 (6,476 of the original sample of 8,984 in 1997). It consists of 8 items in total, 4 items for each grit facet—perseverance and consistency of interest. Sample items are “I am diligent” (perseverance) and “new ideas and projects sometimes distract me from previous ones” (consistency of interest). Answers are given on a scale from 1 (very much like me) to 5 (not like me at all).
This is like measuring intelligence by asking people whether they identify with statements like "I am a fast learner." Most people aren't very self-aware. I often find that people that work less hard (in general across a wide range of things) often self-identify as having more grit because people work hardest when they work on something they are motivated to do, but being able to work superficially in the absence of motivation for long periods of time makes people feel they have more grit.
My suspicion is that grit (in the sense that matters, not whatever the grit researchers have been pushing) is mostly indistinguishable from intelligence as it's typically measured. I'd be shocked if most intelligence tests don't already do a better job of determining grit (in terms of the level of perseverance you could expect from someone) than asking someone if they are diligent.