Reading these tweets, I realize I had no idea that "growth mindset" had very specific claims. Finding evidence to either invalidate or lessen the validity of said claims doesn't take away from the main lessons I've had from growth mindset ideas though. Tweeter seems to be quibbling with details and semantics, which may or may not be helpful. If "growth mindset" is a specific theoretical framework with clearly defined points for the sake of marketing one Carol Dweck and other people cannot use the phrase for what they thought it meant, fine, whatever.
But the lesson I took from the idea was that people who think that people cannot grow find themselves in a self-fulfilling prophecy where they don't try to grow. They potentially can get stuck in their careers and potentially might get bitter about things if they are not satisfied, wondering why the world is unfair, while other people who apply themselves can continue to grow. Yes, many variables and factors also influence how things happen, but the fundamental idea that people actually do limit themselves for no good reason is also frequently seen. How many people in the world are like this, I don't know, but they exist, and we should encourage those people to change the way they think. I am not sure how anyone would be able to argue against that being true.
> many variables and factors also influence how things happen, but the fundamental idea that people actually do limit themselves for no good reason is also frequently seen.
There are a ton of reasons why many "average" people don't become "exceptional". But the idea that many folks make an affirmative choice not to seems pretty far down the totem pole.
> But the idea that many folks make an affirmative choice not to seems pretty far down the totem pole.
That's not really the point he was making. People internalize a lot of behaviours and beliefs that limit their realized potential. It doesn't require a conscious choice to limit yourself, it takes a bunch of internal, unproductive thoughts and emotions and decisions that sabotage you even though you may not be entirely aware of it.
It's instinctive and hard to change. In my case I have a why not try it approach. At the office some folks 100% of the time think every idea / change is bad.
It's made a difference in my life, things can always be done better - so I'm always thinking about how to do them better and then doing a fair number of relatively small things to make things better - boom - you are getting paid real money and have some success.
Yes, you got the gist. Heads, it's _peer reviewed science_ and we get social programs/consulting business/corporate training based on it. Tails, well, the _specific_ experiment may not replicate, but the basic idea clearly has intuitive validity, it's well-intentioned, you'd have to be a monster to deny it.
I don't believe that these exist, which was the point. Everyone knows that people can learn things and become more skilled, claiming that some people don't believe this is straw-manning and hence bad science.
It is true that some people give up and stop growing, but I don't believe at all that it is related to "growth-mindset". More likely they just feel that the growth isn't worth the effort, they are happy enough where they are. Claiming that these people lack "growth-mindset" is like claiming that people who fail to reach their fitness goal lacks "growth-mindset" instead of just lacking motivation to work hard but still having enough motivation to talk constantly about it.
To some extent, sure.. "Everyone knows that people can learn new things".
It's one of those aphorisms that we can probably agree on, however... if you examine how some people operate, across more than one spectrum of their life, those people may say it and yet not live it.
I believe that people have so many self-limiting factors front-loaded in their thoughts, action and speech that it can cumulatively operate as a hard coded mindset.
I've coached people, as a manager and as a volunteer CPT (certified personal trainer). Working through people's sense of self, typically broadcasted explicitly as a statement of limitation ("I can't do that...") or argumentativeness (as a coach, ask a question or dare to offer a statement of some kind, and the person who asked for coaching may well interrupt you, digressively, before you make any progress with your effort).
This can accumulate, over the course of a life, and embed itself as something that can be really difficult to disrupt, or even acknowledge.
Counter-example: mathematics. I can't count how many times I've encountered people who "just aren't good at math". Besides those few with a condition to justify it, those people aren't good at math because they've been told all their life that math is hard and they can never be good at it. There's nothing inherently blocking them from excelling at it.
I also suspect that a lot of people claiming that they just aren't interested or motivated to learn X are often covering for their own insecurities. I know I'm personally guilt of it.
There are some people who say that they can't do math when they never tried just because it is a meme, but many people did actually try hard and still failed. After enough tries and failures they gave up and said "I am just not good at math". There is no point for such people to try harder at math, there are others for which the subject is a breeze so them trying is just a waste of time and effort for humanity. Not everyone needs to be good at it, humans can cooperate and cover for each others weaknesses.
And I am 100% sure that mathematical talent is a thing. I learned all concepts below college level the instant I saw them, and I completed a masters degree in math with just going to lessons and not studying at home, there is no way math is that easy for most people. A person like me will never feel they just aren't good at math, and people comparing themselves to me will rightfully acknowledge that they lack the kind of talent I have.
Now the situation is a lot less stark between most people, but I am pretty sure that the difference in talent is still there.
Right, I'm not trying to claim that everyone can be good at math, or should be. There is some level of talent involved, and of course certain brain configurations that help or hurt (like discalcula or photographic memory).
However, it's still the case that a huge quantity of people simply give up on the subject because they don't believe they'll ever be any good at it, without even giving it a real try. They shut themselves down. Just because that doesn't apply to absolutely everyone doesn't make it something that's not important to recognize and combat.
Is there really a distinction between people who say "I can't learn something new" and "I can't be bothered to learn something new"? The results are going to be the same.
I'd say it's possible, speaking from my own experience. Neither my parents care much about sport, rather they discouraged it. I still actively do lots of sports though.
I think it's important to have others to learn and inspire from, while also realizing you can actively work towards it yourself (directly and indirectly). It's imo quite hard though...
You took a path different from your parents not from your own past self.
Changing who you are is a much more difficult battle. You need to be a certain type and have another overriding motivation to truly drive yourself to the change.
But the lesson I took from the idea was that people who think that people cannot grow find themselves in a self-fulfilling prophecy where they don't try to grow. They potentially can get stuck in their careers and potentially might get bitter about things if they are not satisfied, wondering why the world is unfair, while other people who apply themselves can continue to grow. Yes, many variables and factors also influence how things happen, but the fundamental idea that people actually do limit themselves for no good reason is also frequently seen. How many people in the world are like this, I don't know, but they exist, and we should encourage those people to change the way they think. I am not sure how anyone would be able to argue against that being true.