4 ms·

Could it not be equally harmful to a smart kid to give them the impression that their intelligence is worthless? It seems there should be a balance where kids

Could it not be equally harmful to a smart kid to give them the impression that their intelligence is worthless? It seems there should be a balance where kids retain their motivation while also learning how to make the most of their personal advantages and disadvantages. If a smart kid is always taught the convenient fiction that everyone is exactly the same, then when they interact with an athletic kid who dominates them at sports but struggles academically, what conclusion will the smart kid draw? And finally, is this "praise effort and self esteem" movement responsible for the current wave of anti-free-speech protests on college campuses?

landryraccoon 10y ago
> athletic kid who dominates them at sports but struggles academically, what conclusion will the smart kid draw? Your implicit assumption is that your kid will not succeed at something athletically no matter how hard they try. If a kid dreams of going for the NBA or the NFL, why not let them try? What's the benefit of praising a child for their intelligence if intelligence is immutable? Is it a self esteem play or what?
- nitrogen 10y ago
  Your implicit assumption is that your kid will not succeed at something athletically no matter how hard they try. If a kid dreams of going for the NBA or the NFL, why not let them try? It's a hypothetical example to show that there might be kids who are inherently good at different things, and that focusing on intelligence as the attribute not to praise hasn't played out over the last 18 years the way people seemed to expect in 1998. My point is that intellectual aspirations are just as valid as athletic ones, and that kids should be free to choose their goals and dreams with full awareness of their own advantages and disadvantages. What's the benefit of praising a child for their intelligence if intelligence is immutable? The benefit I am proposing is that truly intelligent children won't be afraid to use their intelligence to get ahead, nor be afraid to admit where they might not be ahead. IMO maximizing individual potential puts society in a better position to maximize societal potential than trying to normalize everyone to be similar.
  - landryraccoon 10y ago
    > truly intelligent children won't be afraid to use their intelligence to get ahead I think you're saying that unless you give intelligent children permission to use their intelligence, they won't do so, or will do so less. I find that very dubious. What evidence do you have for this? I even feel (though I hope I am mistaken) that what you are really after is a hint that it's okay for your kids to feel superior or entitled in some sense relative to kids that are less intelligent. If intelligence is useful for producing work, why not let all kids be judged by the work they produce, rather than something abstract like intelligence?
shimon 10y ago
This isn't about pretending everyone has the same abilities. It is about focusing reinforcement on the choices and actions a kid takes rather than on characteristics they have. By reinforcing the action, you help a kid understand that it is their effort that led to the achievement, which encourages the kid to make efforts when she wants something. Reinforcing the characteristic, on the other hand, suggests that it is the kid's innate characteristics that led to the achievement, which encourages them to defend that identity.
colechristensen 10y ago
>Could it not be equally harmful to a smart kid to give them the impression that their intelligence is worthless? That just doesn't make sense. Praise your kid for doing not for being. Who's advocating teaching smart kids everyone is the same? It seems like any child is going to realize this isn't true. >is this "praise effort and self esteem" movement responsible for the current wave of anti-free-speech protests on college campuses? Absolutely not. That is a result of the cultural admiration of protesting / fighting for rights / rebelling against X. Admiration of the real civil rights movement, environmentalism, etc. The problem is that as a society we're running out of clean cut black and white issues (no pun intended) to be opposed to. There are still problems, but not nearly as many _simple_ problems. Things are complicated these days. So they're straying off into the weeds trying to attack complex social issues with the same strategies that worked against simple ones and coming out looking like fools. And likewise the targets of their protests are straying because complex issues don't have a big bad evil you can hate, and that nuance and detail are being lost. The once reasonable protesting class are being supplanted by increasingly unreasonable protestors who are rebels searching desperately for a cause.
- nitrogen 10y ago
  Who's advocating teaching smart kids everyone is the same? It seems that has been the general trend in elementary education since I was a kid. As an example, I remember the year that all the talent trophies were changed to be the same size, and everyone got one just for participating. Athletics were an exception, though; it was considered acceptable to be better at sports. It was a noble attempt to try to boost the underprivileged, but just ended up confusing everyone. The once reasonable protesting class are being supplanted by increasingly unreasonable protestors who are rebels searching desperately for a cause. This is an interesting explanation for the phenomenon I had not yet considered. I am not yet convinced it is the right or only one, but I will keep it in mind.
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    In my school, it was in 1993/1994. They went from "tracked" classes that mixed the 20 year old 9th graders with smart kids. Everyone got to suffer together.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

landryraccoon 10y ago

> athletic kid who dominates them at sports but struggles academically, what conclusion will the smart kid draw? Your implicit assumption is that your kid will not succeed at something athletically no matter how hard they try. If a kid dreams of going for the NBA or the NFL, why not let them try? What's the benefit of praising a child for their intelligence if intelligence is immutable? Is it a self esteem play or what?

nitrogen 10y ago
Your implicit assumption is that your kid will not succeed at something athletically no matter how hard they try. If a kid dreams of going for the NBA or the NFL, why not let them try? It's a hypothetical example to show that there might be kids who are inherently good at different things, and that focusing on intelligence as the attribute not to praise hasn't played out over the last 18 years the way people seemed to expect in 1998. My point is that intellectual aspirations are just as valid as athletic ones, and that kids should be free to choose their goals and dreams with full awareness of their own advantages and disadvantages. What's the benefit of praising a child for their intelligence if intelligence is immutable? The benefit I am proposing is that truly intelligent children won't be afraid to use their intelligence to get ahead, nor be afraid to admit where they might not be ahead. IMO maximizing individual potential puts society in a better position to maximize societal potential than trying to normalize everyone to be similar.
- landryraccoon 10y ago
  > truly intelligent children won't be afraid to use their intelligence to get ahead I think you're saying that unless you give intelligent children permission to use their intelligence, they won't do so, or will do so less. I find that very dubious. What evidence do you have for this? I even feel (though I hope I am mistaken) that what you are really after is a hint that it's okay for your kids to feel superior or entitled in some sense relative to kids that are less intelligent. If intelligence is useful for producing work, why not let all kids be judged by the work they produce, rather than something abstract like intelligence?

shimon 10y ago

This isn't about pretending everyone has the same abilities. It is about focusing reinforcement on the choices and actions a kid takes rather than on characteristics they have. By reinforcing the action, you help a kid understand that it is their effort that led to the achievement, which encourages the kid to make efforts when she wants something. Reinforcing the characteristic, on the other hand, suggests that it is the kid's innate characteristics that led to the achievement, which encourages them to defend that identity.

colechristensen 10y ago

>Could it not be equally harmful to a smart kid to give them the impression that their intelligence is worthless? That just doesn't make sense. Praise your kid for doing not for being. Who's advocating teaching smart kids everyone is the same? It seems like any child is going to realize this isn't true. >is this "praise effort and self esteem" movement responsible for the current wave of anti-free-speech protests on college campuses? Absolutely not. That is a result of the cultural admiration of protesting / fighting for rights / rebelling against X. Admiration of the real civil rights movement, environmentalism, etc. The problem is that as a society we're running out of clean cut black and white issues (no pun intended) to be opposed to. There are still problems, but not nearly as many _simple_ problems. Things are complicated these days. So they're straying off into the weeds trying to attack complex social issues with the same strategies that worked against simple ones and coming out looking like fools. And likewise the targets of their protests are straying because complex issues don't have a big bad evil you can hate, and that nuance and detail are being lost. The once reasonable protesting class are being supplanted by increasingly unreasonable protestors who are rebels searching desperately for a cause.

nitrogen 10y ago
Who's advocating teaching smart kids everyone is the same? It seems that has been the general trend in elementary education since I was a kid. As an example, I remember the year that all the talent trophies were changed to be the same size, and everyone got one just for participating. Athletics were an exception, though; it was considered acceptable to be better at sports. It was a noble attempt to try to boost the underprivileged, but just ended up confusing everyone. The once reasonable protesting class are being supplanted by increasingly unreasonable protestors who are rebels searching desperately for a cause. This is an interesting explanation for the phenomenon I had not yet considered. I am not yet convinced it is the right or only one, but I will keep it in mind.
- Spooky23 10y ago
  In my school, it was in 1993/1994. They went from "tracked" classes that mixed the 20 year old 9th graders with smart kids. Everyone got to suffer together.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]