Agree it's a bad metaphor. Essentially, it's the idea that when one is confronted with failure, one believes they can either 'improve' or rather, be 'resigned'

Agree it's a bad metaphor. Essentially, it's the idea that when one is confronted with failure, one believes they can either 'improve' or rather, be 'resigned' to the fact they are not good at whatever it is. I believe this perspective is valid, and that it exists, and that it's one of the fundamental elements of character that shapes our lives. I was always good at math and music. I would never, ever detract from a math problem. I would attack it. I was a poor athlete. (Bad cardio, always). I firmly and resolutely believe that I could not run a long distance. 5K would kill me. It was very painful. But I was out of shape and didn't realize what it meant to improve. I joined officer corps in the Army and was eventually forced to go some pretty long distances, always extremely anxious and at the tail of the pack, but I got through and eventually did a marathon distance. I can assure you my mind was completely blown. It was though I had learned to fly. I firmly believed I could not do it, but I did ... so if I could do a marathon, what else could I do? I saw the relationship between training and outcomes, and realized that being 'out of shape' simply means you have to do some things to 'get into shape'. Obviously, it's not so easy to do, but the relationship is clear. That, and some similar things, completely changed my life. I believe many, many people are trapped in a limited view of themselves. Conversely - the opposite exists - we sometimes believe we can 'do anything' if we just try enough, which is obviously not the case. I'm working with a startup non-technical CEO who believes they can bang together a solution with almost no resources, in almost no time, for something that is better than even Google' cutting edge solution. I appreciate the audacity ... but it's unrealistic.