4 ms·

> The reason parents in the US tend to have children with "achievement mindset" is because the culture itself rewards and favors achievements instead of growth.

> The reason parents in the US tend to have children with "achievement mindset" is because the culture itself rewards and favors achievements instead of growth. Self-confidence comes from achievement; there's no conflict between the two. That's again my distinction between culture (emulation, "you must achieve lots", which leads to burnt out kids) and psychology ("I'm confident in my abilities; I can achieve what I want if I work hard at it"). High-confidence kids will inherently want to achieve. There's no conflict; studies show that Asian kids have more of a growth mindset than other kids. Conditioning parental love to achievement is what's unnecesary and harmful. And I think my reply to another commenter addresses the "culture-psychology" distinction better. I'm talking about cultural change meant to improve the psychological nurturance-level of families, schools, communities, which I call "psychological change" as shorthand. I'm criticizing cultural change that's psychologically illiterate, and treats the problems it solves as cultural problems rather than psychological problems. "Teach men not to rape", for example, is cultural change that completely ignores all psychological dimensions ("rape culture", i.e. trivializing sexual assault, is just a symptom of emotionally unhealthy people, not a cause). Same with the ADL's pyramid of hate, that sees "fear of difference" and "lack of self-reflection on privilege" as the root causes, when the real problems are emotional and psychological problems within society (lack of empathy) that lead to hate and bigotry. Cultural change needs to be deeply informed by psychology to be effective. People are emotionally unhealthy, and the culture reflects that. Culture is downstream from psychology. Cultural change can address it, but only by causing psycohlogical change, not merely cultural change. Re-analyzing the examples above: reacting to bigoted people with hatred and ostracism is just another symptom our low-nurturance society. It's cultural change without psychological change. Buddhists had it right all along. Is that clearer?

hosh 4y ago
> Self-confidence comes from achievement Perhaps you should lookup what Carol Dewek means by "achievement mindset" and "growth mindset". I don't think the way you are using it is the same that she is using it. Self-confidence, self-esteem that is built from a process of intrinsic motivation is different than self-esteem built from extrinsic motivation. The self-esteem built from extrinsic motivation is shaky, and requires a constant feeding of validation. The mainstream culture is such that kids, many parents, and some teachers understand self-esteem as you do, without making a distinction between how it is developed. > Cultural change needs to be deeply informed by psychology to be effective. I'm not arguing with you there. An individual is nested within the community. It also means you cannot really separate psychology from culture either. Keep in mind, I have not once advocated that we change the culture. I am simply stating that the culture matters. > People are emotionally unhealthy, and the culture reflects that. Culture is downstream from psychology. Cultural change can address it, but only by causing psycohlogical change, not merely cultural change. That's an assumption that is not necessarily true. Psychology can also reflect culture, and it is not such a straightforward cause-and-effect. It's easy to see it as a hierarchical relationship (downstream vs. upstream), and to the extent that individuals are nested within a community, that's true. However, there are complex interaction between individuals and the communities they nest within. Just as you see that psychological changes must be taken into consideration for cultural change to be effective, cultural changes must be taken into consideration too as the context of that change. A tree is not just the trunk, the branches, the roots and the trees; it is also the sunlight, the soil, the wind, the seasons, the people ... The way you talk about culture and culture change seems like a cynical observation of business buzzspeak. The way I have been talking about culture and culture change is more along the lines of sociology. > Buddhists had it right all along. That's a rabbit hole all on its own. Psychological changes are difficult to enact without mindfulness ... likewise, there's a collective consciousness (culture) in which changees are difficult to enact without mindfulness. Metta (loving-kindness) is powerful transformative, and the Mahayana practitioners ardently go all the way with that ... but what's also transformative is a neutral, agnostic attitude of "let the cosmos decide". Not everyone, even within the diverse practices of Buddhism, aspires to be a Bodhisattva. And then I can get into the whole bit about "consensus" or "nice" Buddhism that seems to be the Western, pop understanding of Buddhism ... And then there is also how Buddhist practices cultivates a non-dual perspective, in which no single part can be completely separated from the Whole. You can't separate the tree from the sun or the land. That there is a seamless Whole is the basis for metta in the first place ... > Is that clearer? Are you asking if you are communicating your point of view clearer, or are you saying that your point of view is more correct than mine's, and asking me if that correctness is clearer?
- concinds 4y ago
  > Perhaps you should lookup what Carol Dewek means by "achievement mindset" and "growth mindset". I don't think the way you are using it is the same that she is using it. No, I meant confidence comes from achievements, not "achievement mindset" (maybe you mean "fixed mindset"? Dweck never talked about "achievement mindset"). "A process of intrinsic motivation" is fuzzy-thinking gibberish to me. Confidence is the belief that you can accomplish things to an acceptable level, which comes from setting goals and achieving them. If you think I agree with "mainstream culture" on self-esteem then you clearly completely misunderstand me. Mainstream culture seems barely aware that self-esteem exists, and TFA is a perfect example. >> Cultural change needs to be deeply informed by psychology to be effective. >I'm not arguing with you there. Then the rest of your post seems like a disagreement on semantics, because that's my entire point. People who try to address psychological problems on a solely cultural level are causing harm. People who address psychological problems through psychological changes accomplished through cultural changes are effective; but academia today, including most psychologists, rely on such fuzzy thinking and poor logic that they don't even realize the difference. > Are you asking if you are communicating your point of view clearer, or are you saying that your point of view is more correct than mine's, and asking me if that correctness is clearer? Obviously the former, because we're clearly talking past each other.
  - hosh 4y ago
    > "A process of intrinsic motivation" is fuzzy-thinking gibberish to me. Ok, I'm curious. Why do you think that is fuzzy-thinking gibberish to you?
  - mlyle 4y ago
    > , I meant confidence comes from achievements Confidence coming from achievements is a terrible foundation for real confidence. I did all kinds of things, and still found ways to doubt myself or think my purpose was exhausted. Confidence from enjoying growth and knowing I can improve and be valuable no matter what the outcome of what I'm doing now is a much more solid footing. Plus, it makes me try harder, too, instead of having my "achievements" called into question by each failure.
  - 4y ago
mlyle 4y ago
> ("rape culture", i.e. trivializing sexual assault, is just a symptom of emotionally unhealthy people, not a cause) It can be. But you can also be completely emotionally healthy and lack understanding of another person's perspective (or lack the cultural context to care) and cause tremendous harm. We don't have the mental or emotional bandwidth to put ourselves in everyone else's shoes. The cultural norms we have are shortcuts to respect people's interests without that cognitive load. Thinking and emoting is slow and fallible -- as Whitehead said, "It is a profoundly erroneous truism, repeated by all copy-books and eminent people when they are making speeches, that we should cultivate habit of thinking of what we are doing. The precise opposite is the case. Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking about them. Operations of thought are like cavalry charges in a battle—they are strictly limited in number, they require fresh horses, and must only be made at decisive moments."

hosh 4y ago

> Self-confidence comes from achievement Perhaps you should lookup what Carol Dewek means by "achievement mindset" and "growth mindset". I don't think the way you are using it is the same that she is using it. Self-confidence, self-esteem that is built from a process of intrinsic motivation is different than self-esteem built from extrinsic motivation. The self-esteem built from extrinsic motivation is shaky, and requires a constant feeding of validation. The mainstream culture is such that kids, many parents, and some teachers understand self-esteem as you do, without making a distinction between how it is developed. > Cultural change needs to be deeply informed by psychology to be effective. I'm not arguing with you there. An individual is nested within the community. It also means you cannot really separate psychology from culture either. Keep in mind, I have not once advocated that we change the culture. I am simply stating that the culture matters. > People are emotionally unhealthy, and the culture reflects that. Culture is downstream from psychology. Cultural change can address it, but only by causing psycohlogical change, not merely cultural change. That's an assumption that is not necessarily true. Psychology can also reflect culture, and it is not such a straightforward cause-and-effect. It's easy to see it as a hierarchical relationship (downstream vs. upstream), and to the extent that individuals are nested within a community, that's true. However, there are complex interaction between individuals and the communities they nest within. Just as you see that psychological changes must be taken into consideration for cultural change to be effective, cultural changes must be taken into consideration too as the context of that change. A tree is not just the trunk, the branches, the roots and the trees; it is also the sunlight, the soil, the wind, the seasons, the people ... The way you talk about culture and culture change seems like a cynical observation of business buzzspeak. The way I have been talking about culture and culture change is more along the lines of sociology. > Buddhists had it right all along. That's a rabbit hole all on its own. Psychological changes are difficult to enact without mindfulness ... likewise, there's a collective consciousness (culture) in which changees are difficult to enact without mindfulness. Metta (loving-kindness) is powerful transformative, and the Mahayana practitioners ardently go all the way with that ... but what's also transformative is a neutral, agnostic attitude of "let the cosmos decide". Not everyone, even within the diverse practices of Buddhism, aspires to be a Bodhisattva. And then I can get into the whole bit about "consensus" or "nice" Buddhism that seems to be the Western, pop understanding of Buddhism ... And then there is also how Buddhist practices cultivates a non-dual perspective, in which no single part can be completely separated from the Whole. You can't separate the tree from the sun or the land. That there is a seamless Whole is the basis for metta in the first place ... > Is that clearer? Are you asking if you are communicating your point of view clearer, or are you saying that your point of view is more correct than mine's, and asking me if that correctness is clearer?

concinds 4y ago
> Perhaps you should lookup what Carol Dewek means by "achievement mindset" and "growth mindset". I don't think the way you are using it is the same that she is using it. No, I meant confidence comes from achievements, not "achievement mindset" (maybe you mean "fixed mindset"? Dweck never talked about "achievement mindset"). "A process of intrinsic motivation" is fuzzy-thinking gibberish to me. Confidence is the belief that you can accomplish things to an acceptable level, which comes from setting goals and achieving them. If you think I agree with "mainstream culture" on self-esteem then you clearly completely misunderstand me. Mainstream culture seems barely aware that self-esteem exists, and TFA is a perfect example. >> Cultural change needs to be deeply informed by psychology to be effective. >I'm not arguing with you there. Then the rest of your post seems like a disagreement on semantics, because that's my entire point. People who try to address psychological problems on a solely cultural level are causing harm. People who address psychological problems through psychological changes accomplished through cultural changes are effective; but academia today, including most psychologists, rely on such fuzzy thinking and poor logic that they don't even realize the difference. > Are you asking if you are communicating your point of view clearer, or are you saying that your point of view is more correct than mine's, and asking me if that correctness is clearer? Obviously the former, because we're clearly talking past each other.
- hosh 4y ago
  > "A process of intrinsic motivation" is fuzzy-thinking gibberish to me. Ok, I'm curious. Why do you think that is fuzzy-thinking gibberish to you?
- mlyle 4y ago
  > , I meant confidence comes from achievements Confidence coming from achievements is a terrible foundation for real confidence. I did all kinds of things, and still found ways to doubt myself or think my purpose was exhausted. Confidence from enjoying growth and knowing I can improve and be valuable no matter what the outcome of what I'm doing now is a much more solid footing. Plus, it makes me try harder, too, instead of having my "achievements" called into question by each failure.
- 4y ago

mlyle 4y ago

> ("rape culture", i.e. trivializing sexual assault, is just a symptom of emotionally unhealthy people, not a cause) It can be. But you can also be completely emotionally healthy and lack understanding of another person's perspective (or lack the cultural context to care) and cause tremendous harm. We don't have the mental or emotional bandwidth to put ourselves in everyone else's shoes. The cultural norms we have are shortcuts to respect people's interests without that cognitive load. Thinking and emoting is slow and fallible -- as Whitehead said, "It is a profoundly erroneous truism, repeated by all copy-books and eminent people when they are making speeches, that we should cultivate habit of thinking of what we are doing. The precise opposite is the case. Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking about them. Operations of thought are like cavalry charges in a battle—they are strictly limited in number, they require fresh horses, and must only be made at decisive moments."