3 ms·

Along side the findings reaffirmed in this study, I think it's prudent to mention the impact that language can have on a child's confidence. Specifically, the w

Along side the findings reaffirmed in this study, I think it's prudent to mention the impact that language can have on a child's confidence. Specifically, the work done by Carol Dweck [1] and her colleagues have shown just how influential language can be in setting a fixed-mindset vs a growth-mindset in children. In short, praise effort, not intelligence. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Dweck http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Dweck

bermanoid 15y ago
In short, praise effort, not intelligence. Intelligence is vastly overrated and widely misunderstood. By which I mean, it's not a fixed quantity that an individual has no control over; it is not the same thing as natural aptitude. And responses like "Great job, even though you did poorly on that math test you studied really hard!" are not helpful if you actually want someone to get better. [Note: I'm not saying that "Bad Timmy, you clearly suck at math and I'm giving you an F!" is any better, though unfortunately belief in that false dichotomy is pretty common in the world of education] When someone "intelligent" gets a bad grade on a math test despite having studied hard, they realize that something is wrong with the way they studied. Or that they have a deficiency in earlier material that they need to correct. Or that they need to sleep more before the test. Etc. They never accept that they didn't work hard enough (they did!), and they never accept that they're not smart enough (they are!) - they assume that they somehow worked wrong, and they set about fixing that problem. When someone "unintelligent" gets a bad grade on a test, they chalk it up to the fact that they're not very good at math, but hey, they tried hard, and that's what's important, right? That's not what's important. Learning to work hard is not a worthy goal on its own if you don't learn to work better at the same time (or at least it's not the most worthy goal). This is as true in programming as it is anywhere. Now, when it comes to child psychology and keeping a child engaged, maybe you're right and it's better to praise effort. But that should not come at the expense of praising intelligence; "intelligence" is the end product of many years of effort directed at the process of learning and thinking, not something that's doled out of a box at birth. Unfortunately it's something that we've never really learned to effectively teach, which is a shame. [Edit: I'm also not claiming that there's no natural difference in smarts that does come "for free" at birth, there is absolutely some sort of Bell curve happening there, and some people are destined to be at the high and low ends of it, for sure. But my point is that the way the people at the top handle failure is vastly different from the way people at the bottom handle it, in that they're never satisfied with mere effort.]
- dolinsky 15y ago
  The quote 'praise effort, not intelligence' isn't mine, though I probably should have used the word ability instead of intelligence. It's been born out of the numerous scientific studies done that continually show that by saying to a child 'I am very proud of the effort you put forth on X' as opposed to saying 'You're so smart! You studied hard and got a B instead of a C!' you are placing the emphasis on something the child has control over (their effort), over something which is innate (their natural ability). I agree with you that learning to work hard is not a worthy goal on its own, but the praise effort vs ability debate isn't about encouraging a child to work hard but simply to praise them on what they have control over (their effort) vs their innate abilities. Now, when it comes to child psychology and keeping a child engaged, maybe you're right and it's better to praise effort. But that should not come at the expense of praising intelligence; "intelligence" is the end product of many years of effort directed at the process of learning and thinking, not something that's doled out of a box at birth. This idea of praising effort vs ability has been discussed previously here, so instead of repeating it I'll just link to it :) http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2237874 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2237874 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2562632 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2562632
  - bermanoid 15y ago
    I agree with you that learning to work hard is not a worthy goal on its own, but the praise effort vs ability debate isn't about encouraging a child to work hard but simply to praise them on what they have control over (their effort) vs their innate abilities. That makes a lot more sense, and is actually pretty close to what I was getting at (that what's often considered "natural intelligence" is really the end result of a whole lot of hard work aimed at the process of learning instead of the material being learned, and that it's not productive to pretend that one can't influence it).
- zamfi 15y ago
  Hmm. Your point is valid, but does not contradict Dweck's version of "praise effort, not intelligence". Dweck's main point is to avoid praising in such a way that it makes kids believe that they're naturally good at something. For example, don't say "You got 100% on that test? You're so good at math!" because that causes kids to believe that they're intrinsically good at math, and that they don't need to continue working at it. The result is that these kids shy away from learning new math, because whenever they encounter math they don't "intrinsically" understand, it violates their "I'm good at math" worldview and makes them feel stupid. Instead, she suggests praising good results with phrases like "See? You worked hard to solve the problem, and you did it!" - because this encourages the obvious desired behavior that kids see themselves as able to solve problems if they work at them. These kids relish challenges because challenges give them opportunities to validate their worldview - that they're good at figuring out how to solve problems - by solving them. The aspect of "Learning to work hard is not a worthy goal on its own if you don't learn to work better at the same time" is clearly there, because it's the good results that are praised in both cases. It's just a question of how you praise those good results: don't make the kid think that intelligence is intrinsic - but instead make them think that it can and must be worked at. (And Dweck doesn't suggest praising poor results, as you suggest with your example "Great job, even though you did poorly on that math test you studied really hard!") Hope this helps clear things up.

bermanoid 15y ago

In short, praise effort, not intelligence. Intelligence is vastly overrated and widely misunderstood. By which I mean, it's not a fixed quantity that an individual has no control over; it is not the same thing as natural aptitude. And responses like "Great job, even though you did poorly on that math test you studied really hard!" are not helpful if you actually want someone to get better. [Note: I'm not saying that "Bad Timmy, you clearly suck at math and I'm giving you an F!" is any better, though unfortunately belief in that false dichotomy is pretty common in the world of education] When someone "intelligent" gets a bad grade on a math test despite having studied hard, they realize that something is wrong with the way they studied. Or that they have a deficiency in earlier material that they need to correct. Or that they need to sleep more before the test. Etc. They never accept that they didn't work hard enough (they did!), and they never accept that they're not smart enough (they are!) - they assume that they somehow worked wrong, and they set about fixing that problem. When someone "unintelligent" gets a bad grade on a test, they chalk it up to the fact that they're not very good at math, but hey, they tried hard, and that's what's important, right? That's not what's important. Learning to work hard is not a worthy goal on its own if you don't learn to work better at the same time (or at least it's not the most worthy goal). This is as true in programming as it is anywhere. Now, when it comes to child psychology and keeping a child engaged, maybe you're right and it's better to praise effort. But that should not come at the expense of praising intelligence; "intelligence" is the end product of many years of effort directed at the process of learning and thinking, not something that's doled out of a box at birth. Unfortunately it's something that we've never really learned to effectively teach, which is a shame. [Edit: I'm also not claiming that there's no natural difference in smarts that does come "for free" at birth, there is absolutely some sort of Bell curve happening there, and some people are destined to be at the high and low ends of it, for sure. But my point is that the way the people at the top handle failure is vastly different from the way people at the bottom handle it, in that they're never satisfied with mere effort.]

dolinsky 15y ago
The quote 'praise effort, not intelligence' isn't mine, though I probably should have used the word ability instead of intelligence. It's been born out of the numerous scientific studies done that continually show that by saying to a child 'I am very proud of the effort you put forth on X' as opposed to saying 'You're so smart! You studied hard and got a B instead of a C!' you are placing the emphasis on something the child has control over (their effort), over something which is innate (their natural ability). I agree with you that learning to work hard is not a worthy goal on its own, but the praise effort vs ability debate isn't about encouraging a child to work hard but simply to praise them on what they have control over (their effort) vs their innate abilities. Now, when it comes to child psychology and keeping a child engaged, maybe you're right and it's better to praise effort. But that should not come at the expense of praising intelligence; "intelligence" is the end product of many years of effort directed at the process of learning and thinking, not something that's doled out of a box at birth. This idea of praising effort vs ability has been discussed previously here, so instead of repeating it I'll just link to it :) http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2237874 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2237874 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2562632 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2562632
- bermanoid 15y ago
  I agree with you that learning to work hard is not a worthy goal on its own, but the praise effort vs ability debate isn't about encouraging a child to work hard but simply to praise them on what they have control over (their effort) vs their innate abilities. That makes a lot more sense, and is actually pretty close to what I was getting at (that what's often considered "natural intelligence" is really the end result of a whole lot of hard work aimed at the process of learning instead of the material being learned, and that it's not productive to pretend that one can't influence it).
zamfi 15y ago
Hmm. Your point is valid, but does not contradict Dweck's version of "praise effort, not intelligence". Dweck's main point is to avoid praising in such a way that it makes kids believe that they're naturally good at something. For example, don't say "You got 100% on that test? You're so good at math!" because that causes kids to believe that they're intrinsically good at math, and that they don't need to continue working at it. The result is that these kids shy away from learning new math, because whenever they encounter math they don't "intrinsically" understand, it violates their "I'm good at math" worldview and makes them feel stupid. Instead, she suggests praising good results with phrases like "See? You worked hard to solve the problem, and you did it!" - because this encourages the obvious desired behavior that kids see themselves as able to solve problems if they work at them. These kids relish challenges because challenges give them opportunities to validate their worldview - that they're good at figuring out how to solve problems - by solving them. The aspect of "Learning to work hard is not a worthy goal on its own if you don't learn to work better at the same time" is clearly there, because it's the good results that are praised in both cases. It's just a question of how you praise those good results: don't make the kid think that intelligence is intrinsic - but instead make them think that it can and must be worked at. (And Dweck doesn't suggest praising poor results, as you suggest with your example "Great job, even though you did poorly on that math test you studied really hard!") Hope this helps clear things up.