Is ‘grit’ overrated in explaining student success?(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Is ‘grit’ overrated in explaining student success?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/05/25/is-grit-overrated-in-explaining-student-success-harvard-researchers-have-a-new-theory-and-its-not-comforting-at-all/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories-2_gp-grit-710a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
102 comments
As the "smart kid" I was never able to grasp why all this busy work was important. I thought the point of homework was to prepare the student to pass tests. If I could already pass, why should I be forced to perform countless hours of pointless labor?
Fortunately I still have a work ethic when it makes sense to do work, but fifteen years after high school my lack of study skills is hampering attempts to further my education.
Fortunately I still have a work ethic when it makes sense to do work, but fifteen years after high school my lack of study skills is hampering attempts to further my education.
Yeah, it's a real problem that if you spend your entire education far ahead of the material with no real effort it teaches some very bad habits. Students need to be adequately stretched to remain engaged.
Fantastic. But how is the teacher supposed to know that you are just that smart?
There was likely ~25 kids in the class, and the teacher had no way of knowing that you cheated on the tests or got really lucky. The HW acted as a bulwark against the luck and cheating hypotheses that a teacher should entertain for each of the ~25 students in one of their ~6 classes (~150 students total). So what if you are a just that smart as a teenager? We all knew we were smarter than everyone at that age too. You have to prove that to the teacher in terms of consistent work at a consistent level (Sorta, things happen, Granpas die, parents get in accidents, etc. and teachers know that). 1 person out of ~150 showing up and acing a test tells a teacher nothing. And for the pay levels they get these days, the teachers are there because they want to be.
There was likely ~25 kids in the class, and the teacher had no way of knowing that you cheated on the tests or got really lucky. The HW acted as a bulwark against the luck and cheating hypotheses that a teacher should entertain for each of the ~25 students in one of their ~6 classes (~150 students total). So what if you are a just that smart as a teenager? We all knew we were smarter than everyone at that age too. You have to prove that to the teacher in terms of consistent work at a consistent level (Sorta, things happen, Granpas die, parents get in accidents, etc. and teachers know that). 1 person out of ~150 showing up and acing a test tells a teacher nothing. And for the pay levels they get these days, the teachers are there because they want to be.
> But how is the teacher supposed to know that you are just that smart?
It's part of their job.
It's part of their job.
Unfortunately there's the drawback brought on by standardized testing and "evidence based" grading systems.
As a teacher in the united kingdom, I do not actually do the marking myself. I gather and estimate the evidence of their grades, but then submit their work to a central exam board.
If a student will not produce the work, they can't get the grade.
My personal evidence that they are smart is actually 100% irrelevant in the context of non-progressive school systems. (virtually anything with standardized testing, league tables, school rankings, etc..)
"it's part of my job" is a wonderful platitude and is really easy to spout while waving your hands in the air to denote "details happen"
but the realities are that the second-smartest kids typically don't do the work and can't get the grades no matter how much coaxing, cajoling and whatnot I try.
Fact is, in a single room with 30 kids, and an annual working student body of ~300 - it's part of the student's job to do the work.
And if we all face facts here, the smart student who squanders their own abilities will actually be fine at the end of the day.
One day they'll decide they want to work, will catch up with the world and land in a distinctly average position like they deserve.
The hardest job and kid who deserves the most attention is the kid from a broken home, who might not get fed every day, whose role models are possibly drug abusing or alcoholic etc... If we invest our effort there we might be able to lift poverty into middle class.
Middle class to distinctly average is nothing we really have to worry about.
As a teacher in the united kingdom, I do not actually do the marking myself. I gather and estimate the evidence of their grades, but then submit their work to a central exam board.
If a student will not produce the work, they can't get the grade.
My personal evidence that they are smart is actually 100% irrelevant in the context of non-progressive school systems. (virtually anything with standardized testing, league tables, school rankings, etc..)
"it's part of my job" is a wonderful platitude and is really easy to spout while waving your hands in the air to denote "details happen"
but the realities are that the second-smartest kids typically don't do the work and can't get the grades no matter how much coaxing, cajoling and whatnot I try.
Fact is, in a single room with 30 kids, and an annual working student body of ~300 - it's part of the student's job to do the work.
And if we all face facts here, the smart student who squanders their own abilities will actually be fine at the end of the day.
One day they'll decide they want to work, will catch up with the world and land in a distinctly average position like they deserve.
The hardest job and kid who deserves the most attention is the kid from a broken home, who might not get fed every day, whose role models are possibly drug abusing or alcoholic etc... If we invest our effort there we might be able to lift poverty into middle class.
Middle class to distinctly average is nothing we really have to worry about.
> But how is the teacher supposed to know that you are just that smart?
For starters, notice that some kids are doing whole lesson's worth of material in the first 15 minutes and figure out that they have no reason to be at this lesson.
The hard question, to which I don't claim to know a silver bullet answer, is where should they be instead. Recognizing who is wasting their time at school isn't that difficult if you spend several hours per week with those kids.
For starters, notice that some kids are doing whole lesson's worth of material in the first 15 minutes and figure out that they have no reason to be at this lesson.
The hard question, to which I don't claim to know a silver bullet answer, is where should they be instead. Recognizing who is wasting their time at school isn't that difficult if you spend several hours per week with those kids.
Yeah maybe my experience was uncommon, but every teacher I've ever had knew I was smart in the first week. When everyone else is a child and you have an adult brain it's hard not to notice.
As somebody who was that "smart kid" I know that I personally felt that the easy-yet-time-consuming work was just boring. It wasn't until finding classes where I was adequately challenged that I began to care about the assignments, and it took years to develop the sort of persistence and drive that wasn't required of me in school.
Would I have been more successful at university and after graduating if I had more "grit?" I think so. But I didn't need it, so I didn't have it.
What can be done to prevent this? The obvious theoretical answer is to reduce class sizes, so that students can do coursework with other students who learn at a similar rate. If only America would adequately fund education...
Would I have been more successful at university and after graduating if I had more "grit?" I think so. But I didn't need it, so I didn't have it.
What can be done to prevent this? The obvious theoretical answer is to reduce class sizes, so that students can do coursework with other students who learn at a similar rate. If only America would adequately fund education...
How about creating federal guidelines under which churches may receive federal and local education funding for using their space as a school 5 days a week.
This would EMPHATICALLY not be vouchers. The funds would only be available to churches that do not currently run a private school.
Get more religious nut jobs out of my child's secular public schools. Reduce class size. Create more teaching jobs. Everyone's happy.
This would EMPHATICALLY not be vouchers. The funds would only be available to churches that do not currently run a private school.
Get more religious nut jobs out of my child's secular public schools. Reduce class size. Create more teaching jobs. Everyone's happy.
HS and collage are both very low hanging fruit. The real question is how much of this do they maintain after 15 years and that's more complex. Some collage seniors forget basic algebra skills if they don't use them regularly.
High school is not particularly G-loaded, it rewards conscientiousness far more. That says more about how high school is set up (busywork, non-time-bounded effort signalling games via extracurriculars, rewarding reaching thresholds rather than exceeding them, rewarding generalism rather than specialization, etc), than the general usefulness of intelligence vs conscientiousness.
"I worked for 5 years as a high school teacher. In my observation, the "smartest kid in class" could be left in the dust by a "dumb kid" who decided to work hard."
my experience as a student at top 5 ugrad was similar: kids with top hs grades and work ethic destroyed the truly brilliant students (with top test scores) in terms of academic performance.
my experience as a student at top 5 ugrad was similar: kids with top hs grades and work ethic destroyed the truly brilliant students (with top test scores) in terms of academic performance.
I crushed HS. Admitted to top Polish technical uni, dropped out due to health/mental issues
I fail at uni hard.
But in part it is because how terrible the whole process is. I spend more time trying to find relevant-to-exam-information than actually learning stuff. You literally sit for hours on end, listening to someone drone on. The exams themselves aren't particularly relevant either. I usually get passing grades, maybe a B+. The hard workers get A's...but when you ask them to explain anything they just derp hard.
I will ace almost any actual project. I've signed up for a Rover Challenge team and learned so much more already...
I constantly regret that my knowledge is rather rickety/shallow But at the same time it's rather wide-encompassing
The point is, "academic achievement" is rather moot, IMO. You pick up tools, a soldering iron and suddenly learn there is much more to it
I will ace almost any actual project. I've signed up for a Rover Challenge team and learned so much more already...
I constantly regret that my knowledge is rather rickety/shallow But at the same time it's rather wide-encompassing
The point is, "academic achievement" is rather moot, IMO. You pick up tools, a soldering iron and suddenly learn there is much more to it
It's not that surprising considering the metrics that school uses.
The same ideas are reflected in "Talent is Overrated" but that deals with topics outside of academics mostly.
Hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard.
Your comment reads like a parody of public education.
If the smartest kid "failed" because he "didn't hand in his work"... this is a plain and unambiguous confession that your job wasn't to educate, but to make the poodles jump through hoops.
If the smartest kid "failed" because he "didn't hand in his work"... this is a plain and unambiguous confession that your job wasn't to educate, but to make the poodles jump through hoops.
It's an accurate model of the real world, which very much belongs to those who show up and hand in the work.
My current job has absolutely zero labor as part of my responsibilities. I do not move things, I do not shape things, I do not package, weld, bolt, grow, or manufacture.
What hard work?
They need me to think. Clearly, intensely, brilliantly at times.
Someone who 'shows up and does the work" will never be able to do what I do, because "showing up and doing the work" is the antithesis of thinking clearly and intensely. It's what unthinking people do.
Here on Hacker News, I suspect most are more like me, and less like those who "show up and do the work". However, there are some vestigial counter-productive work ethics from the early 20th century that haven't completely withered. Or maybe it's just a metaphor that we can't let go of, one that feels important even though whatever it once described is now gone.
What hard work?
They need me to think. Clearly, intensely, brilliantly at times.
Someone who 'shows up and does the work" will never be able to do what I do, because "showing up and doing the work" is the antithesis of thinking clearly and intensely. It's what unthinking people do.
Here on Hacker News, I suspect most are more like me, and less like those who "show up and do the work". However, there are some vestigial counter-productive work ethics from the early 20th century that haven't completely withered. Or maybe it's just a metaphor that we can't let go of, one that feels important even though whatever it once described is now gone.
I interpreted the parent comment differently. To me, people who "show up" are those who are present, engaged, and making an effort to succeed in good faith. People who "hand in the work" are those who get stuff done, maybe not perfectly but they give it their best shot. They try. I agree with the original comment that these are crucial elements for success, and perhaps more valuable than raw intelligence.
Thinking is an important part of the job for most people on HN, as you rightly noted, but thoughts must lead to actions to produce any sort of value for an employer. The action could be as "simple" as communicating a thought with others (not always simple!).
Thinking is an important part of the job for most people on HN, as you rightly noted, but thoughts must lead to actions to produce any sort of value for an employer. The action could be as "simple" as communicating a thought with others (not always simple!).
My thoughts never lead to action.
I sit in an office chair all day. That's it. No actual work, no actions, ever occur.
It's not even fair to claim me clicking on a mouse or klacking on a keyboard are "actions"... at some point in the future they'll plug a jack into my skull and even those minimal physical movements will be a thing of the past. We're just not there yet.
The sum total of everything I do is thought. Not action.
I sit in an office chair all day. That's it. No actual work, no actions, ever occur.
It's not even fair to claim me clicking on a mouse or klacking on a keyboard are "actions"... at some point in the future they'll plug a jack into my skull and even those minimal physical movements will be a thing of the past. We're just not there yet.
The sum total of everything I do is thought. Not action.
Thinking only changes things if it manifests itself as work of some kind.
Perhaps you are a manager of a team. In that case your work is the communication with your staff, superiors, and peers, which must be complete, clear, and timely.
Or perhaps you are a programmer. In that case your work is the actual writing of code, testing, debugging, deploying, and communicating to manage feedback and plan the next round of work.
Knowing how to code up the next great new feature is not enough. It's not useful until it's coded and deployed, and that takes work.
Perhaps you are a manager of a team. In that case your work is the communication with your staff, superiors, and peers, which must be complete, clear, and timely.
Or perhaps you are a programmer. In that case your work is the actual writing of code, testing, debugging, deploying, and communicating to manage feedback and plan the next round of work.
Knowing how to code up the next great new feature is not enough. It's not useful until it's coded and deployed, and that takes work.
> Thinking only changes things if it manifests itself as work of some kind.
I never said I "changed" anything. Little bits get flipped on a hard disk somewhere, or in a ram chip. A computer spits out a different answer, or a new answer, or retains an old answer. Maybe it answers things it didn't answer before.
But "work" and "change", these aren't words I'd ever use to describe that.
> Perhaps you are a manager of a team.
Nope, just got passed over for that promotion a few weeks ago.
> In that case your work is the communication with
Nope, that's not work either. Thinking out loud, maybe.
> In that case your work is the actual writing of code, testing, debugging, deploying,
Not work.
My grandfather worked. Tried to farm on and off throughout his life. Also held down a job as a construction worker well into his 60s. He couldn't do what I do (he's pretty sharp, I think he would have had the mind for it... but his fingers are damn near 2 inches wide).
To call what I do work would feels like an insult to him. Though I think he's proud that I do what I do, rather than what he did.
Work is physical labor. Not everyone is employed to do actual work. Some are in offices, some supervise. They even (often) earn/deserve what they get. Doesn't make it work though.
In a way, considering that the software I produce reduces the need for actual work, I do anti-work. Less of it is accomplished because of my efforts.
I never said I "changed" anything. Little bits get flipped on a hard disk somewhere, or in a ram chip. A computer spits out a different answer, or a new answer, or retains an old answer. Maybe it answers things it didn't answer before.
But "work" and "change", these aren't words I'd ever use to describe that.
> Perhaps you are a manager of a team.
Nope, just got passed over for that promotion a few weeks ago.
> In that case your work is the communication with
Nope, that's not work either. Thinking out loud, maybe.
> In that case your work is the actual writing of code, testing, debugging, deploying,
Not work.
My grandfather worked. Tried to farm on and off throughout his life. Also held down a job as a construction worker well into his 60s. He couldn't do what I do (he's pretty sharp, I think he would have had the mind for it... but his fingers are damn near 2 inches wide).
To call what I do work would feels like an insult to him. Though I think he's proud that I do what I do, rather than what he did.
Work is physical labor. Not everyone is employed to do actual work. Some are in offices, some supervise. They even (often) earn/deserve what they get. Doesn't make it work though.
In a way, considering that the software I produce reduces the need for actual work, I do anti-work. Less of it is accomplished because of my efforts.
How can you assess a student who doesn't participate in assessment? It's not a moral judgment of the kid, but an observation that he didn't do the work that was going to be graded.
Or should the teacher award a subjective grade based on "well, this student's actually 'smarter', even though this other student worked a lot harder and completed the assigned work better"?
Or should the teacher award a subjective grade based on "well, this student's actually 'smarter', even though this other student worked a lot harder and completed the assigned work better"?
You don't even ask the right questions.
Tests, exams, and quizzes are assessments. Homework is, nominally, an attempt to coerce the student into enough practice that they succeed at the real assessment. Most practice will inevitably result in wrong answers and bad scores... if you could complete the practice perfectly you wouldn't need to practice or even take exams. If a student does poorly at homework and gets a 98 on an exam, only the exam should count towards a grade. Their poor scores on homework only indicate initial practice which served its purpose and allowed them to do better on their second (or third, or tenth) attempt which was the exam.
However, less logical human instincts prevail. Teachers who see this improvement don't think "hey that practice paid off" despite that being the most likely explanation (and the only good faith explanation). So, they recursively turn homework into its own assessment. Surely if they cheated to get the 98% on the exam, then using their homework scores will expose the lie. More tests are added, more homework is added, all in the instinctive hope that they surely can't cheat all the time and the predicted inconsistency will prove a guilt that was only theorized due to unfounded suspicion and a moral need for the children to be too stupid to succeed. After all, if these children could do that well, why would they even need teachers at all?
How many public school teachers did you have that demanded that you "show your work" and gave you bad grades for failure to do that? How does that even serve the purpose of assessment? They watched you do the math right there, at your desk. Were you pulling a calculator out of your rectum every time they turned their head, stuffing it back in before they spotted it? If the answers were right, if you did it there in their presence, then this didn't serve the purpose of assessment.
But all this goes even deeper. They simply don't know what to assess. They're too incompetent, too unintellectual to be able to assess any student. They rely on these bad measurements to they can maintain the pretense of assessing a student's education. It's nothing of the sort.
They make the poodles jump through hoops, because that's what the show is.
> Or should the teacher award a subjective grade
This particular phrase is so whacked-out, I don't even know where to begin.
Are grades "awards"? If they are awards, what can they be awards for, other than behavior? You don't award someone a prize for having blue eyes, or any other quality of their being. Why would you award one for them being educated?
Why would you give them a grade, some arbitrary number, a score? "Look, my education penis is bigger than yours!".
How could it ever be anything other than subjective? When they do a double-blind medical study, they're not saying "this pill is 68% effective for Tim Johnson, but 92% effective for John Timson!". That's because the score just doesn't mean much other than in the aggregate. Tim's 68% doesn't mean it was ineffective for him. Too many confounding factors were possible. It doesn't mean that John did better... he might have been healthier at the start of the study.
And if those aren't a measure of the pill, how can that individual number be measure of the patient? Could Tim's 68% have been higher if he had just followed the protocols more diligently? Wouldn't you find it absurd if someone suggested that?
But with teachers and their grades, if the student gets an F it's a measure of the student's failure and not the teacher's. Teachers' unions fight tooth and nail to prevent that public perception from becoming the norm.
Let's not even get into whether John's 92% pill effectiveness grade means he will live longer or be more healthy or any of the other desired effects of the medicine.
Have you ever even thought about any of this? Or did you just keep your head down close to the desk as you slowly scribbled out answers you hoped the poodle master would like? Have you shrugged off every criticism like this your entire life?
Tests, exams, and quizzes are assessments. Homework is, nominally, an attempt to coerce the student into enough practice that they succeed at the real assessment. Most practice will inevitably result in wrong answers and bad scores... if you could complete the practice perfectly you wouldn't need to practice or even take exams. If a student does poorly at homework and gets a 98 on an exam, only the exam should count towards a grade. Their poor scores on homework only indicate initial practice which served its purpose and allowed them to do better on their second (or third, or tenth) attempt which was the exam.
However, less logical human instincts prevail. Teachers who see this improvement don't think "hey that practice paid off" despite that being the most likely explanation (and the only good faith explanation). So, they recursively turn homework into its own assessment. Surely if they cheated to get the 98% on the exam, then using their homework scores will expose the lie. More tests are added, more homework is added, all in the instinctive hope that they surely can't cheat all the time and the predicted inconsistency will prove a guilt that was only theorized due to unfounded suspicion and a moral need for the children to be too stupid to succeed. After all, if these children could do that well, why would they even need teachers at all?
How many public school teachers did you have that demanded that you "show your work" and gave you bad grades for failure to do that? How does that even serve the purpose of assessment? They watched you do the math right there, at your desk. Were you pulling a calculator out of your rectum every time they turned their head, stuffing it back in before they spotted it? If the answers were right, if you did it there in their presence, then this didn't serve the purpose of assessment.
But all this goes even deeper. They simply don't know what to assess. They're too incompetent, too unintellectual to be able to assess any student. They rely on these bad measurements to they can maintain the pretense of assessing a student's education. It's nothing of the sort.
They make the poodles jump through hoops, because that's what the show is.
> Or should the teacher award a subjective grade
This particular phrase is so whacked-out, I don't even know where to begin.
Are grades "awards"? If they are awards, what can they be awards for, other than behavior? You don't award someone a prize for having blue eyes, or any other quality of their being. Why would you award one for them being educated?
Why would you give them a grade, some arbitrary number, a score? "Look, my education penis is bigger than yours!".
How could it ever be anything other than subjective? When they do a double-blind medical study, they're not saying "this pill is 68% effective for Tim Johnson, but 92% effective for John Timson!". That's because the score just doesn't mean much other than in the aggregate. Tim's 68% doesn't mean it was ineffective for him. Too many confounding factors were possible. It doesn't mean that John did better... he might have been healthier at the start of the study.
And if those aren't a measure of the pill, how can that individual number be measure of the patient? Could Tim's 68% have been higher if he had just followed the protocols more diligently? Wouldn't you find it absurd if someone suggested that?
But with teachers and their grades, if the student gets an F it's a measure of the student's failure and not the teacher's. Teachers' unions fight tooth and nail to prevent that public perception from becoming the norm.
Let's not even get into whether John's 92% pill effectiveness grade means he will live longer or be more healthy or any of the other desired effects of the medicine.
Have you ever even thought about any of this? Or did you just keep your head down close to the desk as you slowly scribbled out answers you hoped the poodle master would like? Have you shrugged off every criticism like this your entire life?
I disagree - "does this kid work hard?" is actually a super valuable question to have answered.
Remember all those startup articles that say "ideas are worthless" and "implementation is everything"?
School is a lot like that, and it's a valid measure. It's the rest of us that have a "fundamental misattribution error" in thinking grades are a measure of intelligence.
Remember all those startup articles that say "ideas are worthless" and "implementation is everything"?
School is a lot like that, and it's a valid measure. It's the rest of us that have a "fundamental misattribution error" in thinking grades are a measure of intelligence.
yup. that's exactly what it is... though you might be taking the wrong lesson from it.
The lesson I took was "work hard, dummy" not "it's unfair that school is so dumb that it doesn't reward smart lazy people for not doing anything"
Just work hard - nobody cares if you feel like a poodle.
The lesson I took was "work hard, dummy" not "it's unfair that school is so dumb that it doesn't reward smart lazy people for not doing anything"
Just work hard - nobody cares if you feel like a poodle.
some food for thought.
why did the "smart kid" not hand in her work? why did the "dumb kid? work more diligently?
what kind of environment is required to get the "smart kid" to work diligently on a consistent basis?
why did the "smart kid" not hand in her work? why did the "dumb kid? work more diligently?
what kind of environment is required to get the "smart kid" to work diligently on a consistent basis?
Recipe to help someone else:
1. Provide challenges near the edge of ability. 2. Ask tons of questions to help the child achieve the goal. 3. Congratulate. 4. Ask tons of critical questions. 5. Go to 1.
1. Provide challenges near the edge of ability. 2. Ask tons of questions to help the child achieve the goal. 3. Congratulate. 4. Ask tons of critical questions. 5. Go to 1.
That reminds me of the Stanford marshmallow experiment: give a kid a marshmallow, and tell the kid that he can eat the marshmallow now, but if they can wait 15 minutes, they'll get two marshmallows.
They found that there's an excellent correlation between the kids who wait and future life success.
But it also turns out that there's also an excellent correlation between kids who eat the marshmallow without waiting and kids who grow up in an environment where adults don't keep promises...
They found that there's an excellent correlation between the kids who wait and future life success.
But it also turns out that there's also an excellent correlation between kids who eat the marshmallow without waiting and kids who grow up in an environment where adults don't keep promises...
Don't forget that the perceived value of incentives varies. Tell the kid he'll get a bag of marshmallows and even if he thinks you're a liar he might wait the 15min. However, the kid that once got sick from eating a whole bag of marshmallows might not be so inclined to wait it out. The parallel being that kids who's parents went to college (graduated or not) and didn't move up in the world might not see paying attention in high school to be as valuable because "I'm going to be an electrician/whatever, I'm not going to college, I want to get to work and get paid" You see this in college too "I'm not going to grad school, I'll load up on classes/party it up, graduate and be done, C's get degrees, nobody cares about my transcript once I have the diploma"
Related: "An estimated 14.0 percent of American households were food insecure at least some time during the year in 2014," http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err-economic-research-r...
I question the assumptions at the foundations of these experiments. What if the decision to eat a marshmallow when you have the chance is a good strategy for a large number of people? It's easy to imply that people just need a bit of grit and hard work to succeed in life, when maybe the conclusion we should draw is that poor people often have to live hand-to-mouth. Maybe if we want to increase future life success we should focus on improving the security of their environment instead of attempting to teach them to be grittier.
I don't really know. Maybe they controlled for those variables. IANAS (I am not a scientist).
I question the assumptions at the foundations of these experiments. What if the decision to eat a marshmallow when you have the chance is a good strategy for a large number of people? It's easy to imply that people just need a bit of grit and hard work to succeed in life, when maybe the conclusion we should draw is that poor people often have to live hand-to-mouth. Maybe if we want to increase future life success we should focus on improving the security of their environment instead of attempting to teach them to be grittier.
I don't really know. Maybe they controlled for those variables. IANAS (I am not a scientist).
parent is alluding to correlation vs causation. i.e. that their future life success may be caused by reliable adults.
For what it's worth, In the Marshmallow Test book, the author mentions that prior to the test, the experimenter spent 15 minutes interacting with the child to build trust. They gave the child a bell, and the researcher would explain that if the researcher left the room, the child could ding the bell to bring the researcher back. They'd do a few iterations of this, with the researcher promptly rushing back each time, in order to build trust.
Perhaps not a complete solution, but the problem was at least addressed.
Perhaps not a complete solution, but the problem was at least addressed.
It seems to me that a one-time positive experience with one person hardly influences attitudes formed over a far longer period - and I don't even need to take into account yet that for evolutionary reasons negative signals have a much stronger influence than positive ones. So to me all this shows is that they were aware of the problem - I don't see that this shows that they did anything significant to address it.
How much can you retrain someone's brain in 15 minutes? That child's experiences are not wiped out.
I would eat the marshmallows immediately and then steal more. I stole food all of the time because my parents were too cheap to give me enough lunch money. They own a two million dollar house in Saratoga and my father is the CEO of a semiconductor company. Go figure.
I'd be more successful in life if they didn't let me go hungry all of the time. At least be less bitter.
I'd be more successful in life if they didn't let me go hungry all of the time. At least be less bitter.
[deleted]
> But it also turns out that there's also an excellent correlation between kids who eat the marshmallow without waiting and kids who grow up in an environment where adults don't keep promises...
Citation for this please? I don't remember that being mentioned in the marshmallow paper.
Citation for this please? I don't remember that being mentioned in the marshmallow paper.
From Wikipedia:
"Marshmallow Test Revisited". University of Rochester. October 11, 2012.
Kidd, Celeste; Palmeri, Holly; Aslin, Richard N. (2013). "Rational snacking: Young children's decision-making on the marshmallow task is moderated by beliefs about environmental reliability". Cognition 126 (1): 109–114. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2012.08.004. PMC 3730121. PMID 23063236.
"Marshmallow Test Revisited". University of Rochester. October 11, 2012.
Kidd, Celeste; Palmeri, Holly; Aslin, Richard N. (2013). "Rational snacking: Young children's decision-making on the marshmallow task is moderated by beliefs about environmental reliability". Cognition 126 (1): 109–114. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2012.08.004. PMC 3730121. PMID 23063236.
The personality psychologists I know tell me that Martin E. P. Seligman, the originator of the idea of "learned helplessness" and the author of helpful books such as The Optimistic Child, advised his student Angela Duckworth to call "grit" by that term as a marketing move to make people pay more attention to the idea. In the psychology literature, people have been writing for a long time about the personality dimension "conscientiousness," and grit is very little distinguishable from that. I'm a homeschooling parent of four children, and it's plain as day to me (and consistent with all the statistics in the research literature) that conscientiousness matters at the margins. Two equally smart children (per IQ test), one conscientious, one less conscientious, will differ in life outcomes. Everyone knows that.
The HUGE question that is well worth investigating is how much parenting or good teaching or anything else can change a young learner's level of conscientiousness. Conscientiousness changes over the course of life, so it isn't completely fixed for anyone. It varies (somewhat) among identical twins, so environmental influences do matter in development of a given degree of conscientiousness. But so far we don't know a lot yet about what kind of parenting or what kind of teaching might work best to develop conscientiousness. That's well worth learning about. Calling it "grit" is regrettable because that prompts people to neglect the prior research literature.
AFTER EDIT: Comments below this comment asked for definitions of "conscientiousness." I'll put a few links here.
http://pages.uoregon.edu/sanjay/bigfive.html
http://http-server.carleton.ca/~tpychyl/011382000/BigFive.ht...
http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/popkins.html
The HUGE question that is well worth investigating is how much parenting or good teaching or anything else can change a young learner's level of conscientiousness. Conscientiousness changes over the course of life, so it isn't completely fixed for anyone. It varies (somewhat) among identical twins, so environmental influences do matter in development of a given degree of conscientiousness. But so far we don't know a lot yet about what kind of parenting or what kind of teaching might work best to develop conscientiousness. That's well worth learning about. Calling it "grit" is regrettable because that prompts people to neglect the prior research literature.
AFTER EDIT: Comments below this comment asked for definitions of "conscientiousness." I'll put a few links here.
http://pages.uoregon.edu/sanjay/bigfive.html
http://http-server.carleton.ca/~tpychyl/011382000/BigFive.ht...
http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/popkins.html
If it truly is a synonym for grit in prior literature, "conscientiousness" is the regrettable term. "Grit" is far more faithful to common usage. "Conscientiousness" in everyday speech connotes "politeness" and "thinking about others." These qualities have nothing to do with the thing Duckworth (and other business writers) are calling "grit." They're referring to perseverance, never giving up -- the ability to get up and keep going after failing, and to doggedly pursue long-term goals. In popular culture (eg, the film "True Grit") and everyday speech, "grit" conveys this concept perfectly, better than any other word I can think of in English. So whether it was a conscious marketing ploy or not, it's a far more accurate term.
I think conscientiousness also means taking care in getting things done. And if you do not persevere, you might be quite nice and polite to people, but you will continually let them down by giving up on things you should be doing. Try the first four sentences of this paper for a literary/philosophical presentation of the idea: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20010216?seq=1#page_scan_tab_con....
I agree but I'd add that, for me, "grit" has a connotation of toughing it out and completing a task however painful/unpleasant/difficult it is. Conscientiousness is more about reliably doing things you've said you would do on schedule. The two are related but one suggests doing what it takes to make it through a really difficult stretch while the other is more akin to turning in assignments promptly because you stuck to a schedule and didn't go out partying the night before.
That's fair.
I lost most of my "grit" in a split second when I was hit by a car at age 17.
Until that moment, I was amazingly conscientious, and combined with a very high IQ it was logical to assume that I'd do very well in life. I still have the same IQ, but I can't for the life of me finish an education, save money, or eat the dessert last.
Apparently, "grit" is dependent on functions located somewhere in the left frontal lobe [1], and if you damage that particular part of the brain, no amount of training can bring it back to what it was. After years of training and therapy, I'm still essentially a reckless, gifted child. I've learned wonderful tricks to keep me on track in life, but they only get me so far.
I suspect that parenting has a similar effect to my training: It teaches the tricks, but doesn't address the underlying reality of sheer, physiological ability.
[1]: Probably the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
Until that moment, I was amazingly conscientious, and combined with a very high IQ it was logical to assume that I'd do very well in life. I still have the same IQ, but I can't for the life of me finish an education, save money, or eat the dessert last.
Apparently, "grit" is dependent on functions located somewhere in the left frontal lobe [1], and if you damage that particular part of the brain, no amount of training can bring it back to what it was. After years of training and therapy, I'm still essentially a reckless, gifted child. I've learned wonderful tricks to keep me on track in life, but they only get me so far.
I suspect that parenting has a similar effect to my training: It teaches the tricks, but doesn't address the underlying reality of sheer, physiological ability.
[1]: Probably the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
One thing I've wondered about with respect to conscientiousness, is how it is defined.
The way the word is informally used, a conscientious person is likely to be deemed conscientious by a supervisor due to obedience, rule following, punctuality, etc.
Is there a sense in which someone can be conscientious to his/her own life goals?
I think in cases where one's life goals diverge from pleasing authority figures, the word conscientiousness falls short (in informal meaning, at least).
Grit, on the other hand, seems to more aptly describe a person's dogged determination to achieve an outcome. I'm not sure which of the above are actually predictors of life outcomes.
The way the word is informally used, a conscientious person is likely to be deemed conscientious by a supervisor due to obedience, rule following, punctuality, etc.
Is there a sense in which someone can be conscientious to his/her own life goals?
I think in cases where one's life goals diverge from pleasing authority figures, the word conscientiousness falls short (in informal meaning, at least).
Grit, on the other hand, seems to more aptly describe a person's dogged determination to achieve an outcome. I'm not sure which of the above are actually predictors of life outcomes.
The word I like is perseverance.
Ditto to that! At the end of the day the one left standing is the one with the endurance. Of course, at the right place and the right time.
Yes. Every factor is overrated, except genetics which is greatly underrated.
Our culture demands that we do not accept "biological determinism" and so everything else needs to be (rhetorically) stretched to cover for it. That's how we get papers and thinkpieces on grit, stereotype threat, etc. These will be found to have minimal impact if the findings are replicated at all and so new factors will need to be invented.
Anecdotes from the OP aren't particularly damning but you can already see the authors angling to be the ones who feed the next cycle.
Our culture demands that we do not accept "biological determinism" and so everything else needs to be (rhetorically) stretched to cover for it. That's how we get papers and thinkpieces on grit, stereotype threat, etc. These will be found to have minimal impact if the findings are replicated at all and so new factors will need to be invented.
Anecdotes from the OP aren't particularly damning but you can already see the authors angling to be the ones who feed the next cycle.
I don't know why you're so confident this is settled. Clearly, at the extreme, someone who receives no education at all is going to be extremely hobbled in a modern society no matter how intelligent he is. At the other extreme, the best education in the world won't turn someone suffering from severe intellectual disability into a genius. But there is a large range between these and it is not really so clear, to me, that the balance is tipped so heavily in favor of genetics.
It's easier to see what's going on if you look at sports. Thousands of basketball players have received the best training, nutrition, and coaching that money can buy yet there is still a huge gap between top players like Curry or James and the rest of the field. We can talk about grit, perseverance, determination, etc. until we're blue in the face but all else being equal, talent will be the deciding factor.
> We can talk about grit, perseverance, determination, etc. until we're blue in the face but all else being equal, talent will be the deciding factor.
In fairness, both are equally necessary. Talent without conscientiousness goes no further than conscientiousness without talent.
In fairness, both are equally necessary. Talent without conscientiousness goes no further than conscientiousness without talent.
Here's the thing about pro sports. There are less than 500 people who play professional basketball. The distribution of basketball playing skill is logarithmic, so there might be 5,000 people with 90% of the skill of pro players, 50,000 people with 80% of the skill, etc. As a result, even if the total difference in skill resulting from talent is small, because the number of people who play basketball is so large and the number of pro players is so small, the pro ranks are going to be filled with only the most talented people.
Does that mean just because you're not naturally talented that you can't become a phenomenal basketball player? No, unless you're really short/unathletic, with enough hard work and intelligence you can probably achieve the 90% of pro skill level, which is still really freaking good. Unfortunately, most people are more motivated by the desire to be pro than the love of playing basketball, so when they are eclipsed by more talented people (a good sign you aren't going to be able to go pro) they give up and do something else.
The good news is that in most areas of life, all that matters is how good you are, and there isn't some artificially cutoff goodness below which your skill is pointless and wasted. For this reason the professional sports analogy is usually unnecessarily demotivating.
Does that mean just because you're not naturally talented that you can't become a phenomenal basketball player? No, unless you're really short/unathletic, with enough hard work and intelligence you can probably achieve the 90% of pro skill level, which is still really freaking good. Unfortunately, most people are more motivated by the desire to be pro than the love of playing basketball, so when they are eclipsed by more talented people (a good sign you aren't going to be able to go pro) they give up and do something else.
The good news is that in most areas of life, all that matters is how good you are, and there isn't some artificially cutoff goodness below which your skill is pointless and wasted. For this reason the professional sports analogy is usually unnecessarily demotivating.
There are less than 500 people who play professional basketball.
If you want to get technical, there are less than 500 people who play professional basketball in the NBA. There are bunch of other leagues around where people can make a living.
If you want to get technical, there are less than 500 people who play professional basketball in the NBA. There are bunch of other leagues around where people can make a living.
Exactly. For professional sports or for the top elite of anything, you need luck and talent and grit and support and more. Miss one and you're in the minor leagues. It provides no insight on what is most important because they're all important.
For insight into how relatively important those factors are, we're probably better of studying the minor leagues...
For insight into how relatively important those factors are, we're probably better of studying the minor leagues...
A strategy I've found extremely useful is to look at the commonalities among people who repeatedly achieve success in very different areas.
(deleted)
Intelligence may be necessary for many career paths, but I doubt very much that is sufficient for any of them.
[deleted]
I can name several off the top of my head....
> someone who receives no education at all is going to be extremely hobbled in a modern society no matter how intelligent he is. At the other extreme, the best education in the world won't turn someone suffering from severe intellectual disability into a genius
And that assumes that "intelligent" depends on something you are born with, and that your biology and genetic makeup don't change over time.
And that assumes that "intelligent" depends on something you are born with, and that your biology and genetic makeup don't change over time.
Yeah, effects like the upward trend of IQs over time do call that into question. But I think it is likely reasonable to say there is some innate level of intelligence that is inborn, even if we aren't able to measure it well right now.
Genetics and psychological traits are not competing explanations of behavior or success. The reason is that genetics matter by causing people to have certain psychological traits[0] that cause them to behave in certain ways!
To put the point more concretely, it's as if you asked which is more important for basketball success: genetics or height.
[0] As well as some non-psychological traits. It seems to be helpful to be attractive, tall, etc. Precisely, psychological traits are a subset of the ways that genetics matter. But in either case, the two explanations are not competing.
To put the point more concretely, it's as if you asked which is more important for basketball success: genetics or height.
[0] As well as some non-psychological traits. It seems to be helpful to be attractive, tall, etc. Precisely, psychological traits are a subset of the ways that genetics matter. But in either case, the two explanations are not competing.
Peer influence as a major component of environment barely even gets acknowledged.
The view that genetics control destiny results in weak people that don't respond well to adversity. If you look at people from fairly normal environments that became highly successful, they basically all discount the value of talent fairly highly. On the other hand, if you look at people who significantly underachieve, belief in talent and destiny are extremely common.
Is this belief sufficient for great success? Of course not, you probably still need to be above average, talent wise, and be lucky. It is almost certainly necessary, however.
Is this belief sufficient for great success? Of course not, you probably still need to be above average, talent wise, and be lucky. It is almost certainly necessary, however.
Is it discounting talent that results in success? Or is it success results in discounting talent?
Or a third (overlapping) possibility: Maybe believing in hard work results in "success", but only for a fraction of people. Is the expected value of the belief necessarily positive?
Ie, take a simplified hypothetical universe where "success" is a binary possibility, with "utility" of 1, and where "hard work" is something that requires a utility investment of -0.1. Even if only those who choose "hard work" become successful regardless of talent or resources, if P("success"|"hard work" && $some_level_of_talent && $some_level_of_prior_resources) < 0.1, then it's still can be suboptimal to pursue "hard work" for the subset of the population with $some_level_of_talent and $some_level_of_prior_resources.
Or a third (overlapping) possibility: Maybe believing in hard work results in "success", but only for a fraction of people. Is the expected value of the belief necessarily positive?
Ie, take a simplified hypothetical universe where "success" is a binary possibility, with "utility" of 1, and where "hard work" is something that requires a utility investment of -0.1. Even if only those who choose "hard work" become successful regardless of talent or resources, if P("success"|"hard work" && $some_level_of_talent && $some_level_of_prior_resources) < 0.1, then it's still can be suboptimal to pursue "hard work" for the subset of the population with $some_level_of_talent and $some_level_of_prior_resources.
I think this comment is good at pointing out (if not directly) that there's an assumption often made - success may or may not be correlated with hard work, but failure is very often assumed to be the result of a lack of hard work. In fact I'd argue the hardest working people you'll ever meet are blue-collar, and often struggle continuously in life. "Grit" has nothing to do with it.
Edit: I am not saying @akavi holds this belief. Don't know if that was clear.
Edit: I am not saying @akavi holds this belief. Don't know if that was clear.
It seems to me like that you could have the causality of that correlation reversed. People that don't have "talent" may consistently underperform those who do despite working hard and trying their best, causing them to realize that "talent" is an important factor.
The people I've met who fail at life tend to think they're working much harder than they are, and also have a tendency towards non-productive work. I don't care how fast you can run, if you're going in the wrong direction you're never going to win races.
By the same token, I've met people who excel at pretty much everything they do because they understand that there is a process to mastery.
By the same token, I've met people who excel at pretty much everything they do because they understand that there is a process to mastery.
Perhaps I misunderstood the article, but taking a collection of anecdotes (n = 36) about highly successful people who took a wide variety of paths to success doesn't seem like a very good way to attack the concept of grit. For one thing, extremely successful people are likely to be outliers in many ways, and so it may not be wise to generalize their advice.
It's unfortunate, because I think grit does have real issues: it seems that a large number of studies have found that it doesn't add anything over the existing concept of conscientiousness:
http://scottbarrykaufman.com/study-alert-much-ado-grit-meta-...
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/cover_story...
It's unfortunate, because I think grit does have real issues: it seems that a large number of studies have found that it doesn't add anything over the existing concept of conscientiousness:
http://scottbarrykaufman.com/study-alert-much-ado-grit-meta-...
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/cover_story...
"In each case, what we found is that they started down one path because they thought that was what they were supposed to do, and then at some point they realized that they didn’t like that path at all,” Rose said. “During that period, they fell into something else and made a series of choices that led them to success.”
This describes me exactly. I'm one of those people that never knew what they wanted to do and spent a lot of time just thinking about it and being worried about my future. After switching colleges once, majors 4 times, and seriously considering dropping out more than a couple of times, I finally landed on something that felt right enough I could force myself to get through when it was hard, without it feeling pointless. I found true motivation. My internal and external worlds aligned and I rocked it.
Unfortunately I think that feeling only lasted through getting my current job and I'm now back to contemplating the pointlessness/morality of my work day in and day out. The ultimate goal of my work is to replace people in a call center, to automate their jobs so they don't have to be hired anymore. I don't think I'll feel right about it until we figure out basic guaranteed incomes and what people are supposed to do to live if they don't work and all the Player Piano(Vonnegut) kind of stuff nobody talks about when they're just thinking about making money.
If you're working on something that you're passionate about, that is truly changing the world for the better, please let me know. I'd love to work on something and have no doubts about what I'm doing with my life again.
This describes me exactly. I'm one of those people that never knew what they wanted to do and spent a lot of time just thinking about it and being worried about my future. After switching colleges once, majors 4 times, and seriously considering dropping out more than a couple of times, I finally landed on something that felt right enough I could force myself to get through when it was hard, without it feeling pointless. I found true motivation. My internal and external worlds aligned and I rocked it.
Unfortunately I think that feeling only lasted through getting my current job and I'm now back to contemplating the pointlessness/morality of my work day in and day out. The ultimate goal of my work is to replace people in a call center, to automate their jobs so they don't have to be hired anymore. I don't think I'll feel right about it until we figure out basic guaranteed incomes and what people are supposed to do to live if they don't work and all the Player Piano(Vonnegut) kind of stuff nobody talks about when they're just thinking about making money.
If you're working on something that you're passionate about, that is truly changing the world for the better, please let me know. I'd love to work on something and have no doubts about what I'm doing with my life again.
Doubt is good! As an extreme example, remember how at the end of the war Nazis committed suicide, and it happened on all levels, not just the very prominent examples like Göbbels that everybody knows about? It wasn't because they were afraid of being judged (there were plenty of them who managed to escape justice), it often was because they were so convinced of their cause that when it failed they saw no future, nit just for themselves - they actually thought it was the end for the German people's future.
So please keep your doubt. The more I learn - and I've taken courses like crazy over the last couple of years - the more I doubt. It#s just that now my doubt is more specific.
So what you may want to do is replace "unspecific doubt" like the one exhibited in conspiracy theories by much more specific doubt. Donn't try to abandon doubt itself!
Also, life inherently only has exactly the meaning you decide it has, so looking outside yourself is prone to failure. Also see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4CvFWCULuI :-) Seriously, as soon as you look for something on the outside to tell you what you should do you limit yourself and start on a path to failure - because now, instead of taking responsibility for your choices you will say "but I had no choice!".
So please keep your doubt. The more I learn - and I've taken courses like crazy over the last couple of years - the more I doubt. It#s just that now my doubt is more specific.
So what you may want to do is replace "unspecific doubt" like the one exhibited in conspiracy theories by much more specific doubt. Donn't try to abandon doubt itself!
Also, life inherently only has exactly the meaning you decide it has, so looking outside yourself is prone to failure. Also see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4CvFWCULuI :-) Seriously, as soon as you look for something on the outside to tell you what you should do you limit yourself and start on a path to failure - because now, instead of taking responsibility for your choices you will say "but I had no choice!".
I am waiting for the grand reveal where we learn that luck is the dominant factor in success.
Lucky to be born in the United States? Sure! Lucky to not have gotten cancer? Yup. Lucky to have not been hurt in a random automobile accident? I was such a stupid driver in high school. Lucky to have not lost my mind as many males do in their late teens/early 20s? Oh god yes.
Lucky to have the good friends that I have? Still yes. Had I simply sat on the other side of the room of CS101 I'd have joined a different project team and have had different friends in school and to this day.
Lucky to be a gainfully employed programmer on salary? I feel I could do that 10 out of 10 times. Or 9 out of 10 times if it helps the conversation. In different realities I'd work at different companies. Specialized my talents differently. Probably even live in a different city. Definitely have a different partner. But I'd have a good job somewhere. In that I'm confident.
I've been "unlucky" in that no project I've ever worked on has ever blown up. Never seen a fat bonus. I've still drive the same 1999 Volkswagen Jetta I got in 2004. No fancy car for me. No lucky stock options that hit it big.
I'm arguably lucky to be a programmer. Born in a good year for it. But I don't think I'm lucky to have a good job that pays well. If I were born a few years earlier I'd simply have picked a different career. I could have been a lawyer. Or a mechanical engineer. Even a doctor. I find a lot of things interesting. For careers I'd have always picked something interesting that pays well. I like teaching people quite a lot. But it doesn't pay well. So it was never a consideration. If teachers averaged 6 figures it'd have been on my short list as well.
Lucky to have the good friends that I have? Still yes. Had I simply sat on the other side of the room of CS101 I'd have joined a different project team and have had different friends in school and to this day.
Lucky to be a gainfully employed programmer on salary? I feel I could do that 10 out of 10 times. Or 9 out of 10 times if it helps the conversation. In different realities I'd work at different companies. Specialized my talents differently. Probably even live in a different city. Definitely have a different partner. But I'd have a good job somewhere. In that I'm confident.
I've been "unlucky" in that no project I've ever worked on has ever blown up. Never seen a fat bonus. I've still drive the same 1999 Volkswagen Jetta I got in 2004. No fancy car for me. No lucky stock options that hit it big.
I'm arguably lucky to be a programmer. Born in a good year for it. But I don't think I'm lucky to have a good job that pays well. If I were born a few years earlier I'd simply have picked a different career. I could have been a lawyer. Or a mechanical engineer. Even a doctor. I find a lot of things interesting. For careers I'd have always picked something interesting that pays well. I like teaching people quite a lot. But it doesn't pay well. So it was never a consideration. If teachers averaged 6 figures it'd have been on my short list as well.
Add "environment" and we may have something here. After all, ones own determination and attitudes are significantly influenced by environment.
A long article was very recently posted either here or on reddit - was it the Washington Post? Don't remember unfortunately - about mass murderers. It looked at the actual research and tried to dispel myths like "they are all mentally ill, so if we just fix health care for mental illness to discover such people early we can solve much of the problem". The actual statistics showed that less than 10% of mass murderers (I think that was "more than two") had a treatable mental illness. Turned out that the major determining factor instead was "environment". Of course, individual factors such as certain personality traits play a role - but they are the same ones that can be found in successful people (it helps to be "full of yourself" and not dwell too much on what other people think, unless it's important for your own success). Whether such traits make you a murderer depends on your environment much more so than anything else.
And here we get to "luck": Environment is a lot of luck, the initial settings matter most of all (the womb you crawled out of). Environment can greatly enhance - or dampen - whatever you inherited genetically. Who will do better, an Einstein born in a favela of Rio de Janeiro surrounded by gangs, or an average guy born to wealthy parents? Example: G.W Bush... Those are extreme examples, but even if you only look at relatively equal American middle class examples, but one ends up in a group of peers mostly interested in girls and booze, the other one in a group of kids with more academic parents and more interest in learning than party will be influenced by the group.
A long article was very recently posted either here or on reddit - was it the Washington Post? Don't remember unfortunately - about mass murderers. It looked at the actual research and tried to dispel myths like "they are all mentally ill, so if we just fix health care for mental illness to discover such people early we can solve much of the problem". The actual statistics showed that less than 10% of mass murderers (I think that was "more than two") had a treatable mental illness. Turned out that the major determining factor instead was "environment". Of course, individual factors such as certain personality traits play a role - but they are the same ones that can be found in successful people (it helps to be "full of yourself" and not dwell too much on what other people think, unless it's important for your own success). Whether such traits make you a murderer depends on your environment much more so than anything else.
And here we get to "luck": Environment is a lot of luck, the initial settings matter most of all (the womb you crawled out of). Environment can greatly enhance - or dampen - whatever you inherited genetically. Who will do better, an Einstein born in a favela of Rio de Janeiro surrounded by gangs, or an average guy born to wealthy parents? Example: G.W Bush... Those are extreme examples, but even if you only look at relatively equal American middle class examples, but one ends up in a group of peers mostly interested in girls and booze, the other one in a group of kids with more academic parents and more interest in learning than party will be influenced by the group.
People are much more pliable if you can convince them they have no agency.
It's hilarious how the educational establishment tries to take well-known concepts with a rich psychological and psychometric history behind them, rebrand them, decide they're the Most Important Thing Ever for three years or so, and then toss them for the next thing. They usually pretend along the way that the same people haven't been in charge of the educational establishment for 60 years or so, and that the present state of education is some sort of test-driven Korean drill-and-kill dystopia, to which the latest fad is a breath of fresh air.
"Conscientiousness" is the term of art. It's part of the Big 5 personality model ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits ) which has its own various promoters and refuters. Inasmuch as the literature is contradictory it's because it's not a model that works super well for actually doing stuff, beyond marginal effects (more conscientious worker == better, all else equal) & tautologies (hard workers work hard and do better at hard jobs that reward hard work).
"Conscientiousness" is the term of art. It's part of the Big 5 personality model ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits ) which has its own various promoters and refuters. Inasmuch as the literature is contradictory it's because it's not a model that works super well for actually doing stuff, beyond marginal effects (more conscientious worker == better, all else equal) & tautologies (hard workers work hard and do better at hard jobs that reward hard work).
What a horrible article. The title talks about grit but then they commingled the 10,000 hour mastery concept into the conversation.
> “Things like grit and 10,000 hours are mindsets that are very misleading because they are consequences not causes — they are lagging indicators of performance,” said Todd Rose, who is the author of The End of Average, a book that illustrates how averages are flawed in understanding human achievement.
If we take grit to be "fire-in-the-belly" I have observed as a parent, mentor/coach of high school and adults and high performing team lead that it has several characteristics that a parent, coach, mentor, manager and even peer should be aware of.
I like the "fire" analogy. As a parent I can put water on my child's fire and put it out. I can be over-bearing, abusive etc. As a manager there are many things I can do to do the same like micro manage them.
As a parent I can help flame the fire (think adding fuel and oxygen). I can give them earned respect, greater levels of responsibilities and coach them with a growth mindset.
I have parented, managed and mentored with an intention to make the flame lager since I first had a manager responsibility and discussed this concept with Dr. Michael Stonebreaker in the early 1980s. So far it has seemed to work for me.
Genetics and early environment seems to me to be very important to starting life with a fire-in-the-belly. But what gets done with that by the individual and those that have some control over their paths early on makes a big difference.
But let us not forget that to be good at engineering, for example, one has to be able to conceptualize and visualize in their minds-eye. Having grit does not make up for that. Having both is a killer for success. My observations only and yes they are not scientific.
> “Things like grit and 10,000 hours are mindsets that are very misleading because they are consequences not causes — they are lagging indicators of performance,” said Todd Rose, who is the author of The End of Average, a book that illustrates how averages are flawed in understanding human achievement.
If we take grit to be "fire-in-the-belly" I have observed as a parent, mentor/coach of high school and adults and high performing team lead that it has several characteristics that a parent, coach, mentor, manager and even peer should be aware of.
I like the "fire" analogy. As a parent I can put water on my child's fire and put it out. I can be over-bearing, abusive etc. As a manager there are many things I can do to do the same like micro manage them.
As a parent I can help flame the fire (think adding fuel and oxygen). I can give them earned respect, greater levels of responsibilities and coach them with a growth mindset.
I have parented, managed and mentored with an intention to make the flame lager since I first had a manager responsibility and discussed this concept with Dr. Michael Stonebreaker in the early 1980s. So far it has seemed to work for me.
Genetics and early environment seems to me to be very important to starting life with a fire-in-the-belly. But what gets done with that by the individual and those that have some control over their paths early on makes a big difference.
But let us not forget that to be good at engineering, for example, one has to be able to conceptualize and visualize in their minds-eye. Having grit does not make up for that. Having both is a killer for success. My observations only and yes they are not scientific.
Of course 'grit' correlates with success in an environment where the payoff is way beyond the horizon, things are hard and there's ample opportunities to bail. Of course it matters much less if the payoff is visible, things are easy and there's things in place to prevent/dissuade people from bailing out.
Seems obvious to me.
Seems obvious to me.
For education, it matters. There are no choices or pivots available to a student; they have one path available to them in most cases.
For life, it may not matter. You have more options to find something where you excel more easily or are more passionate about something.
For life, it may not matter. You have more options to find something where you excel more easily or are more passionate about something.
Podcast on the topic and interview with the same author
http://freakonomics.com/podcast/grit/
I am not sure what I think. There is a definite correlation between grit and success. The people that try to do something once and quit are the people I know that are, 15 years after high school, working at the local pizza shack. The people I know that could try and try and try to get something done, are the pizza now doctors and programmers and lawyers.
But I also know that most of the people I see as gritty had the "better" parents. So maybe it was indeed a trailing indicator.
http://freakonomics.com/podcast/grit/
I am not sure what I think. There is a definite correlation between grit and success. The people that try to do something once and quit are the people I know that are, 15 years after high school, working at the local pizza shack. The people I know that could try and try and try to get something done, are the pizza now doctors and programmers and lawyers.
But I also know that most of the people I see as gritty had the "better" parents. So maybe it was indeed a trailing indicator.
As someone with ADHD, I have spent a lot of my life trying to have more grit. In fact, I did make it through some difficult programs, the navy nuclear power program and Georgetown Law, prior to being diagnosed. But I always came across like I wasn't trying. I wanted desperately to try, but didn't understand that my mind couldn't just add grit on demand. (though if I managed to get myself in enough of a bind, the adrenaline did help). Somewhere along the line (before being diagnosed), I came to see things like grit as a moral judgement--one that I consistently failed.
"Grit" is the latest pop-psych trend that will eventually fade away.
If 'grit' replaces 'passionate' I'm all in. I was tired of hearing about passionate people 10 years ago. Bout time for a change.
No. Not even close. I consider myself of average intelligence, I knew a lot of more intelligent people than me in my life. Some of them are even using meth now. I succeed because I stick to things, follow through, take pride in what I do and make sure I do as well as I can.
I was not an exceptional student, would have been but I worked 35 hours a week while attending college 12-19 hours a week plus studying till the library closed Sunday through Thursday.
I may not be a ninja developer or whatever but I'd honestly put money on myself over some genius-flake. And if someone has grit + genius... well, watch out because it would be amazing to see in action. Maybe that's Einstein in his later years. I'm sure everyone with a high IQ believes that description fits them, but in general geniuses don't have to try very hard so they never know what 'grit' is. Or what it takes for the rest of us.
I do think grit is partially taught in ways that are completely non-related to mental exercise. I grew up in the midwest in a house with no air conditioning because my father thought it would make us soft to have it. Thankfully the old man did buy us a Commodore. Yes, it gets hot in the midwest- just as hot as anywhere else in the summer. I was even raised in cloth diapers and I'm under 35... to give an idea of how old school. They also made sure I always worked, been working without lapse since I was 12 years old. I've worked on a hog farm in the July heat from 4AM-noon. While I was born in 82, I don't feel like a 'Millennial' at all. I feel like a very gritty person mentally and physically that is rare anymore but has paid off in ways. But definitely feel more in common with my brother's generation (born in '78, GenX) or maybe even older, less pampered gen.
From my perspective, American society is severely missing grit. People are going to have to toughen up because this softie society won't last forever. But I don't think people know the difference between false posturing tough guy aggression based on insecurity is and what real grit means. Too much tough guy gangster rap for the lower class and too many get-rich-quit-or-I-give-up flakes in the more fortunate classes.
I've heard multiple people in my lifetime tell me they "won't go to work for less than $15 an hour" or won't get out of bed for less than that. I've suffered years through horrible jobs to build a resume. Just to appear reliable, which I am.
Most people don't know what it takes to get ahead for those without lots of money and without a naturally high IQ. Sometimes it sucks but lays the groundwork for later on. It's about character.
I was not an exceptional student, would have been but I worked 35 hours a week while attending college 12-19 hours a week plus studying till the library closed Sunday through Thursday.
I may not be a ninja developer or whatever but I'd honestly put money on myself over some genius-flake. And if someone has grit + genius... well, watch out because it would be amazing to see in action. Maybe that's Einstein in his later years. I'm sure everyone with a high IQ believes that description fits them, but in general geniuses don't have to try very hard so they never know what 'grit' is. Or what it takes for the rest of us.
I do think grit is partially taught in ways that are completely non-related to mental exercise. I grew up in the midwest in a house with no air conditioning because my father thought it would make us soft to have it. Thankfully the old man did buy us a Commodore. Yes, it gets hot in the midwest- just as hot as anywhere else in the summer. I was even raised in cloth diapers and I'm under 35... to give an idea of how old school. They also made sure I always worked, been working without lapse since I was 12 years old. I've worked on a hog farm in the July heat from 4AM-noon. While I was born in 82, I don't feel like a 'Millennial' at all. I feel like a very gritty person mentally and physically that is rare anymore but has paid off in ways. But definitely feel more in common with my brother's generation (born in '78, GenX) or maybe even older, less pampered gen.
From my perspective, American society is severely missing grit. People are going to have to toughen up because this softie society won't last forever. But I don't think people know the difference between false posturing tough guy aggression based on insecurity is and what real grit means. Too much tough guy gangster rap for the lower class and too many get-rich-quit-or-I-give-up flakes in the more fortunate classes.
I've heard multiple people in my lifetime tell me they "won't go to work for less than $15 an hour" or won't get out of bed for less than that. I've suffered years through horrible jobs to build a resume. Just to appear reliable, which I am.
Most people don't know what it takes to get ahead for those without lots of money and without a naturally high IQ. Sometimes it sucks but lays the groundwork for later on. It's about character.
"overrated" implies an estimate of rating that diverges from the actual baseline.
For this, we have to know how people rate grit in importance.
There is pendulum where for a few years people will have "under estimated" intelligence, or patience, or genetics, or friends, or parents. These articles come out, and suddenly everyone "overrates" those factors to the detriment of others. Then the article moves on to the underrated factor.
Unless people are actually ascribing various quantities to these factors, I don't know how "under" or "over" the estimates are from the actual influence of the factors.
There is pendulum where for a few years people will have "under estimated" intelligence, or patience, or genetics, or friends, or parents. These articles come out, and suddenly everyone "overrates" those factors to the detriment of others. Then the article moves on to the underrated factor.
Unless people are actually ascribing various quantities to these factors, I don't know how "under" or "over" the estimates are from the actual influence of the factors.
Regardless of whether you believe in measuring success by "grit", the simple quiz referenced in the article is definitely intriguing.
Another point raised in this article is the idea of being able to focus on one task/goal until it's completed. Learning to multitask definitely detracts from one's ability to focus on single tasks/goals and make true progress. However, in my college and high school experiences, the structures didn't stress these common sense principles for learning enough.
Another point raised in this article is the idea of being able to focus on one task/goal until it's completed. Learning to multitask definitely detracts from one's ability to focus on single tasks/goals and make true progress. However, in my college and high school experiences, the structures didn't stress these common sense principles for learning enough.
A test that assesses the future success of West Point candidates might not be valid in assessing the future success of, say, a programmer or a lawyer. It does not necessarily takes the same thing to succeed in the military than to succeed in other spheres. I know of a lot of people who don't have that "grit", and would therefore probably fail at West Point, but they did not in that particular thing that they're doing.
Isn't this just type 2 (slow) thinking? The "grit" required to focus on complex tasks is the same brain function as ability to suffer for long periods during exercise, problem solving, etc. Many books and science cover this subject, I can think of two, "Thinking, Fast and Slow" and "Iron War".
Alfie Kohn has some good commentary on the topic of 'grit' as an educational philosophy: http://www.alfiekohn.org/article/downside-grit/
It's not just overrated, it can be actively harmful.
He goes further on this and other topics in the book "The Myth of the Spoiled Child"
It's not just overrated, it can be actively harmful.
He goes further on this and other topics in the book "The Myth of the Spoiled Child"
Is it really that hard to understand success? Right person at the right place at the right time. Seriously, it's a very old idea.
Not sure if you're trolling or being facetious or whatever... but I'll bite... that's a gross over-simplification, don't you think?
I think the whole point is to get a better idea of what it means to be "the right person". What kind of traits can we develop to make ourselves more likely to be "the right person"? Nobody is sitting on the couch all day crossing their fingers hoping that they're the right person to create a tech startup, for example.
I think the whole point is to get a better idea of what it means to be "the right person". What kind of traits can we develop to make ourselves more likely to be "the right person"? Nobody is sitting on the couch all day crossing their fingers hoping that they're the right person to create a tech startup, for example.
[deleted]
I use quotes because it does raise the question of who is really the smart one there.
In this case, I do mean that the smart kid was the one who immediately showed an understanding of the material and could demonstrate proficiency sometimes beyond the course material... but was too lazy to actually hand in his work.
The other kid needed massive amounts of extra attention, came in every day at lunch to see if he could just put a bit more time in, handed in the work six times with improvements each time... he crushed it.
If anything, `grit` would be underrated in measuring student success if we pegged it at 100% of the variance.
That said, "student success" is only one measure and is, in a number of ways, wildly artificial.
There was an adage to the effect of "you only learn what you pay attention to", but in this case we might also say "you're only graded on what you do"
If student success is measured in grades, and you're only graded on what you do, then doing work (aka: grit) is the only thing that matters.