11 ms·

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 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.

by edanm 16y ago

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.