3 ms·

Pop psychology, you know? It can teach you a lot about the reductionist inclinations of people. Let me posit something: A segment of the population thinks, fo

Pop psychology, you know? It can teach you a lot about the reductionist inclinations of people. Let me posit something: A segment of the population thinks, for one reason or another, that hard work [1] isn't very useful. Now, go back in time TEN THOUSAND years, learn the local language and ask the nearest slave/peasant/hunter (in the local dialect) whether hard work results in improvement. "Yeah, sure." say most. But some of them will be downers and say, "No." What have we learned? That farmers from 10,000 years ago are up on the latest in pop pyschology. Now, if you try to apply this illuminating insight, and attempt to change children into harder workers then you're really doing something that no one's ever thought of before. Maybe write a book about it. [1] By the way, I use the phrase "hard work" instead if "incrementalism" or whatever, because that is another bad habit: Renaming an existing concept in order to sound original.

mbateman 16y ago
I voted you up because I agree that the terminology being used is silly and that dividing people (especially children!) into one of two categories is "reductionist" in a bad way. However, the less silly version of the point is valid and non-trivial, even if not in need of new technical categories. People who think that talent or ability is basically innate are wrong and hindered by this fact. People who think that it's basically acquired by effort and time are right and are helped by this fact. I also think it's valid to point out that smarter people often suffer more from having the wrong view on this issue. This isn't necessarily their fault, I think there are institutional causes for this. For example, American public schools seem to be structured to make it likely that smart students absorb lazy habits. Smart kids observe that they can get top marks pretty much effortlessly and never develop a work ethic.
edanm 16y ago
Just a word on the terminology I used in the article: it was taken from Josh Waitzkin's book, and he took the terms from actual psychological studies performed by Carol Dweck, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Dweck http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Dweck. So the terminology does have some roots in actual psychology).
- mbateman 16y ago
  Yes, but academic psychology can also coin terms that are a bit silly. There is a real distinction here, to be sure, and I'm glad that there are academics working on it. But "entity theorist" vs. "incremental theorist" is bad terminology for the distinction. It's "entities" (i.e. people) that do the learning, after all, and learning isn't necessarily "incremental", especially not in the sense of regular increases along a scale of fixed units. Implying that people are "theorists" of these things, either by calling them so or turning the terms into -isms or -ists, is also misleading. What you really have are people with different kinds of mentalities or attitudes towards the relationship between ability and effort. If we need a new term, it could be based on that, such as "effort-oriented mentality" vs. "aptitude-oriented mentality" (or something like that).
  - gcheong 16y ago
    Dweck popularized her work using the terms "fixed mindset" and "growth mindset".
- mynameishere 16y ago
  Not sure what you're getting at. If someone means "hard work", or really, just "work", but they make a new term for the sake of making a new term, then it's all the worse that it's coming from an "actual" pyschologist. I hope I didn't suggest that professionals don't do that. They do obviously, especially in the soft sciences.
  - edanm 16y ago
    The term doesn't mean "hard work". It's shorthand for saying: "believing that hard work, and not inherent talent, is what brings success". So I think in this case, the term is worthwhile.

mbateman 16y ago

I voted you up because I agree that the terminology being used is silly and that dividing people (especially children!) into one of two categories is "reductionist" in a bad way. However, the less silly version of the point is valid and non-trivial, even if not in need of new technical categories. People who think that talent or ability is basically innate are wrong and hindered by this fact. People who think that it's basically acquired by effort and time are right and are helped by this fact. I also think it's valid to point out that smarter people often suffer more from having the wrong view on this issue. This isn't necessarily their fault, I think there are institutional causes for this. For example, American public schools seem to be structured to make it likely that smart students absorb lazy habits. Smart kids observe that they can get top marks pretty much effortlessly and never develop a work ethic.

edanm 16y ago

Just a word on the terminology I used in the article: it was taken from Josh Waitzkin's book, and he took the terms from actual psychological studies performed by Carol Dweck, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Dweck http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Dweck. So the terminology does have some roots in actual psychology).

mbateman 16y ago
Yes, but academic psychology can also coin terms that are a bit silly. There is a real distinction here, to be sure, and I'm glad that there are academics working on it. But "entity theorist" vs. "incremental theorist" is bad terminology for the distinction. It's "entities" (i.e. people) that do the learning, after all, and learning isn't necessarily "incremental", especially not in the sense of regular increases along a scale of fixed units. Implying that people are "theorists" of these things, either by calling them so or turning the terms into -isms or -ists, is also misleading. What you really have are people with different kinds of mentalities or attitudes towards the relationship between ability and effort. If we need a new term, it could be based on that, such as "effort-oriented mentality" vs. "aptitude-oriented mentality" (or something like that).
- gcheong 16y ago
  Dweck popularized her work using the terms "fixed mindset" and "growth mindset".
mynameishere 16y ago
Not sure what you're getting at. If someone means "hard work", or really, just "work", but they make a new term for the sake of making a new term, then it's all the worse that it's coming from an "actual" pyschologist. I hope I didn't suggest that professionals don't do that. They do obviously, especially in the soft sciences.
- edanm 16y ago
  The term doesn't mean "hard work". It's shorthand for saying: "believing that hard work, and not inherent talent, is what brings success". So I think in this case, the term is worthwhile.