4 ms·

I was called “smart” growing up. Looking back I believe it was a huge disservice. School was generally easy for me, but I was afraid to ask questions to risk ap

I was called “smart” growing up. Looking back I believe it was a huge disservice. School was generally easy for me, but I was afraid to ask questions to risk appearing “not smart.” I learned a hard lesson in college. Smart isn’t something you are, it’s something you can become, through perseverance, dedication, and grit. Luckily I posses those qualities. We don’t use the S word around our kids. And when strangers tell me our young children are smart, while they are in earshot, I say, “Thank you. They work hard and practice a lot.”

dkarl 7y ago
I think that's a function of the school system. I had access to "honors" classes and so forth, but they weren't that advanced or challenging, so there was a pretty low ceiling on what you could accomplish in school. Since kids couldn't distinguish themselves by accomplishing more or harder things, and there was nothing glamorous about grinding out a 99 versus a 98, the "smartest" kids were the ones who didn't have to work hard or answer questions. I remember sometimes I would pull out a blank sheet when the teacher started collecting assignments and try to finish it in before she got to my desk, because there was no other way for it to be an accomplishment. With the level of accomplishment fixed at a low level, the only way to prove you were more capable was by being flamboyantly undisciplined.
- abootstrapper 7y ago
  Reminds me of my high school experience. The kids in the top of the class worked hard to appear as if they didn’t work hard. I among them. I was relieved to find students at my university genuinely cared and worked hard on their academics. And the ones who didn’t failed. My kids future high school has a reputation for being academically difficult. I’m thrilled by that. I don’t care if they’re C students, I just want them to be challenged.
ALittleLight 7y ago
I felt being called "smart" was a disservice to me as well. I think it depends on the attitude of the child though. For me, when I heard it, it felt like a license to be lazy. Don't need to work hard, teacher already thinks I'm smart. I wasn't bothered by poor grades because I believed I was smart (that's my natural inclination anyway). On the other hand, I think if people had told me they were worried about me failing, or that I was nth in the class, that would've been a powerful motivator for me and I'm confident I would've worked harder at school. The complicated thing is that different strategies will do different things for different kids. Some kids might lack self confidence and need encouragement, while others (like me) may have too much self confidence and need push back or a wake up call. The problem is delivering encouragement to the over confident and a challenge to the under confident.
tomp 7y ago
You're generalizing from 1 example. I don't remember being called smart, but I definitely was smart (comparatively, always in the top of achievement except sports through my schooling including Oxford university). I wasn't afraid to ask questions and was happy to risk looking like a fool in order to ask a question about a complex topic (which, given it was complex for me, it was also likely complex for other people).
- DoreenMichele 7y ago
  If you weren't called smart, your anecdote fails to actually contradict theirs. Theirs is also supported by the research, which says generally that it's harmful to children to praise them for being smart. It's better to praise them for effort and results. https://bingschool.stanford.edu/news/carol-dweck-praising-intelligence-costs-children-s-self-esteem-and-motivation https://bingschool.stanford.edu/news/carol-dweck-praising-in...
  - tomp 7y ago
    > Theirs is also supported by the research Is it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Dweck#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Dweck#Criticism > Critics point to the fact that Dweck's research does not appear to be replicable—a key requirement to prove its validity. > If your effect is so fragile that it can only be reproduced [under strictly controlled conditions], then why do you think it can be reproduced by schoolteachers?
    - DoreenMichele 7y ago
      Your style of argument fundamentally doesn't work. This comment is no better than your earlier one. 1. Dismissing someone else's personal anecdote because you have a different personal anecdote is basically broken on the face of it. 2. Saying "Being called smart doesn't hurt anyone, I know because of my personal anecdote wherein I was not called smart" is just not any kind of solid logic whatsoever. 3. Dismissing their anecdote as a single instance with your single instance when there are actually other anecdotes here in this very discussion that agree with theirs and it's the essential point of the article under discussion is not a reasonable claim in the slightest. 4. All research has its critics. Rebutting my comment with "your research has critics" while ignoring the myriad other flaws in your initial position amounts to cherry picking. If you want to debate this further, let me suggest you address the other points I have made and also go find research that actually agrees with your world view as stronger arguments than your current one. Otherwise, it's most likely really not worth engaging.

dkarl 7y ago

I think that's a function of the school system. I had access to "honors" classes and so forth, but they weren't that advanced or challenging, so there was a pretty low ceiling on what you could accomplish in school. Since kids couldn't distinguish themselves by accomplishing more or harder things, and there was nothing glamorous about grinding out a 99 versus a 98, the "smartest" kids were the ones who didn't have to work hard or answer questions. I remember sometimes I would pull out a blank sheet when the teacher started collecting assignments and try to finish it in before she got to my desk, because there was no other way for it to be an accomplishment. With the level of accomplishment fixed at a low level, the only way to prove you were more capable was by being flamboyantly undisciplined.

abootstrapper 7y ago
Reminds me of my high school experience. The kids in the top of the class worked hard to appear as if they didn’t work hard. I among them. I was relieved to find students at my university genuinely cared and worked hard on their academics. And the ones who didn’t failed. My kids future high school has a reputation for being academically difficult. I’m thrilled by that. I don’t care if they’re C students, I just want them to be challenged.

ALittleLight 7y ago

I felt being called "smart" was a disservice to me as well. I think it depends on the attitude of the child though. For me, when I heard it, it felt like a license to be lazy. Don't need to work hard, teacher already thinks I'm smart. I wasn't bothered by poor grades because I believed I was smart (that's my natural inclination anyway). On the other hand, I think if people had told me they were worried about me failing, or that I was nth in the class, that would've been a powerful motivator for me and I'm confident I would've worked harder at school. The complicated thing is that different strategies will do different things for different kids. Some kids might lack self confidence and need encouragement, while others (like me) may have too much self confidence and need push back or a wake up call. The problem is delivering encouragement to the over confident and a challenge to the under confident.

tomp 7y ago

You're generalizing from 1 example. I don't remember being called smart, but I definitely was smart (comparatively, always in the top of achievement except sports through my schooling including Oxford university). I wasn't afraid to ask questions and was happy to risk looking like a fool in order to ask a question about a complex topic (which, given it was complex for me, it was also likely complex for other people).

DoreenMichele 7y ago
If you weren't called smart, your anecdote fails to actually contradict theirs. Theirs is also supported by the research, which says generally that it's harmful to children to praise them for being smart. It's better to praise them for effort and results. https://bingschool.stanford.edu/news/carol-dweck-praising-intelligence-costs-children-s-self-esteem-and-motivation https://bingschool.stanford.edu/news/carol-dweck-praising-in...
- tomp 7y ago
  > Theirs is also supported by the research Is it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Dweck#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Dweck#Criticism > Critics point to the fact that Dweck's research does not appear to be replicable—a key requirement to prove its validity. > If your effect is so fragile that it can only be reproduced [under strictly controlled conditions], then why do you think it can be reproduced by schoolteachers?
  - DoreenMichele 7y ago
    Your style of argument fundamentally doesn't work. This comment is no better than your earlier one. 1. Dismissing someone else's personal anecdote because you have a different personal anecdote is basically broken on the face of it. 2. Saying "Being called smart doesn't hurt anyone, I know because of my personal anecdote wherein I was not called smart" is just not any kind of solid logic whatsoever. 3. Dismissing their anecdote as a single instance with your single instance when there are actually other anecdotes here in this very discussion that agree with theirs and it's the essential point of the article under discussion is not a reasonable claim in the slightest. 4. All research has its critics. Rebutting my comment with "your research has critics" while ignoring the myriad other flaws in your initial position amounts to cherry picking. If you want to debate this further, let me suggest you address the other points I have made and also go find research that actually agrees with your world view as stronger arguments than your current one. Otherwise, it's most likely really not worth engaging.