4 ms·

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 spor

by 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.

by tomp 7y ago

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.