General Thoughts on "Growth Mindset"
I've found that pathological behavior is often the result of a subscription to a certain truth without the proper reconciliation with a seemingly contradictory truth.
The central thesis that Carol Dweck is postulating is that the typical ability to adapt and acquire new skills, what she calls intelligence, is significantly greater than the typical challenges faced by human beings and the typical skills that a person must acquire; more importantly, believing, understanding, and acting on this hypothetical truth is the best possible course of action when confronted with difficulty. That human beings have the ability to acquire new skills and overcome challenges is generally evident in the world; watching an individual's progression in developing any skill, whether it is competence on the job, writing or mathematics. Human capacity to overcome challenges is significantly more difficult to observe, but if we consider that learning new skills are themselves a challenge, then this is also quite evident.
The central pathological behavior that Carol Dweck is opposing is the assertion that human beings are generally unable to overcome the challenges typically found in life, and logically, if people are unable to overcome challenge, the optimal course of action is to avoid challenges. As Dweck points out, avoiding challenging tasks will only result in a given individual further losing the ability to overcome that challenge.
However, this pathological behavior is a corruption of several other truths: the ability of human beings to learn and grow is constrained, there are some challenges that are destructive to engage in, and these constraints are non-negligible in the typical lives of human beings. That human capacity is constrained is obvious. Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson, the strongest man alive, can lift 1,041 pounds. Despite all of his training it is doubtful that he could ever lift 70,000 pounds, but this is a physical constraint, and so many would argue it does not demonstrate that human cognitive ability is limited. However, human cognitive ability is also a physical phenomenon, as physical damage to the brain can and does significantly impact people's cognitive functions. Many people would consider this unsatisfactory in demonstrating that the typical cognitive ability of humans has physical constraints, as severe brain damage is not a typical phenomenon. I could also state that many human traits are inborn and variant among human beings, although some would retort that intelligence is such an adaptable trait, that the variation among humans is typically negligible in the vast majority of situations. There is some data indicating that I.Q. is to some degree hereditary, and by extension, rigid. I suspect that some people would reply that intelligence cannot be measured, or that I.Q. is a poor measure of intelligence. I could also cite specific individuals who I have interacted with and do not consider very intelligent, a handful of whom exhibited the growth mindset and who did not perform particularly well on tasks involving cognitive ability. of course, these could simply be major exceptions, and not typically applicable to life. In addition to this, perhaps those individuals would have performed even worse had they not exhibited this self improving mindset. I would reply that these individuals did not do well despite their intense effort, and so there must be limitations on their ability to overcome challenge. Furthermore, no matter how atypical these situations may be, they do exist, and at some level of challenge, I suspect that every person would be in that situation.
Any of these series of assertions and retorts could be an argument in and of themselves, and truly proving the thesis that "human capacity is constrained and that this constraint must be taken into account" to my personnel standards would require that I attempt to disprove this thesis and discredit every potential form of evidence supporting this conclusion, and I would only categorically consider the thesis true if this assault failed to disprove this idea. However, I feel the need to continue on, as this paragraph has already gotten far too long.
The central idea that I was leading up to is the integration of the two truths outlined above. Human beings can generally overcome or benefit from facing most challenges, and believing that this is true is necessary for individual growth and progress. However, there are some cognitive challenges that you will simply not have the ability to overcome, and which may even be harmful to attempt in a reckless fashion. the best method for dealing with these challenges is to acknowledge that both your current abilities, and abilities in the immediate future may not be sufficient, and the correct answer is may not be to run away, but rather to develop other skills which may lead to your overcoming the given challenge in the far future. However, there are some further challenges that you may truly be unable to deal with over your entire lifetime, and no amount of dedication or preparation would allow you to succeed.
The answer to these seemingly conflicting truths is to develop the capacity to honestly and objectively analyze incoming challenges and to correctly categorize them in the above categories. Furthermore, most challenges can be overcome, and attempting them will lead to growth; however, the potential loss on attempting something that you genuine should not has very significant consequences. Separating the two, and perhaps erring slightly to one side to correct for personal biases is in my estimation the best method to live in accordance with both of these truths.
Carol Dweck's most important assertion is that believing and acting on this principle is necessary for human growth, and that believing and acting on the pathological distortion of the second truth is destructive towards the well being of any person in the vast majority of cases. There is a degree of caution in my nature. as such, I am significant more concerned with the pathological distortion of the idea that Carol Dweck is proposing, which could lead people to frustration and anger when they realize that they have attempted an endeavor that they should not have.
Over the course of watching these videos, I noticed a peculiar phenomenon. While I was agreeing with a significant number of the ideas that Dweck was suggesting, I was becoming significantly more agitated. Upon further inspection, the apparent cause of this contradictory behavior was this. Dweck was postulating ideas that I agree with, many of which where not actually associated with one another, in a manner which may lead individuals to exhibit the undesirable corrupted forms of these ideas.
I generally agree with the idea that skills and competency, though not intelligence in the manner that I define the term, can be improved upon with time. I also agreed that many people lose interest in high school. I also agree that your present limitations are not as important as your future capacities, provided that they do develop. Dweck also tangentially covers a second pathological behavior, the tendency of people to attach their self worth to something that they should not, namely their abilities, and I agree that that this is a negative behavior.
However, these points are non-sequitur in relation to one another, and by mentioning them one after the other, I interpreted that Dweck was stating that they were related, which may simply have been an error in communication and interpretation.
Furthermore, I am worried about the possibility that Dweck's ideas may have been presented in a manner that make them easily corruptible into their negative form: the deliberate denial of the practical limitations of human ability, especially cognitive. I propose that the optimal way of avoiding both the cowardice of the excessively fixed mindset and the manic recklessness of deliberately ignoring realistic constraints, while behaving in a manner that accentuates growth yet acknowledges one's limitations, is to develop the ability to truthfully and properly distinguish between challenges that should be confronted, which I would consider the majority, while recognizing the challenges that may not be necessary or practical to confront.
Finally, I believe that stating a pathological mindset clearly is a great way to disprove it, as they so often reveal their own absurdity, as such.
The central thesis that Carol Dweck is postulating is that the typical ability to adapt and acquire new skills, what she calls intelligence, is significantly greater than the typical challenges faced by human beings and the typical skills that a person must acquire; more importantly, believing, understanding, and acting on this hypothetical truth is the best possible course of action when confronted with difficulty. That human beings have the ability to acquire new skills and overcome challenges is generally evident in the world; watching an individual's progression in developing any skill, whether it is competence on the job, writing or mathematics. Human capacity to overcome challenges is significantly more difficult to observe, but if we consider that learning new skills are themselves a challenge, then this is also quite evident.
The central pathological behavior that Carol Dweck is opposing is the assertion that human beings are generally unable to overcome the challenges typically found in life, and logically, if people are unable to overcome challenge, the optimal course of action is to avoid challenges. As Dweck points out, avoiding challenging tasks will only result in a given individual further losing the ability to overcome that challenge.
However, this pathological behavior is a corruption of several other truths: the ability of human beings to learn and grow is constrained, there are some challenges that are destructive to engage in, and these constraints are non-negligible in the typical lives of human beings. That human capacity is constrained is obvious. Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson, the strongest man alive, can lift 1,041 pounds. Despite all of his training it is doubtful that he could ever lift 70,000 pounds, but this is a physical constraint, and so many would argue it does not demonstrate that human cognitive ability is limited. However, human cognitive ability is also a physical phenomenon, as physical damage to the brain can and does significantly impact people's cognitive functions. Many people would consider this unsatisfactory in demonstrating that the typical cognitive ability of humans has physical constraints, as severe brain damage is not a typical phenomenon. I could also state that many human traits are inborn and variant among human beings, although some would retort that intelligence is such an adaptable trait, that the variation among humans is typically negligible in the vast majority of situations. There is some data indicating that I.Q. is to some degree hereditary, and by extension, rigid. I suspect that some people would reply that intelligence cannot be measured, or that I.Q. is a poor measure of intelligence. I could also cite specific individuals who I have interacted with and do not consider very intelligent, a handful of whom exhibited the growth mindset and who did not perform particularly well on tasks involving cognitive ability. of course, these could simply be major exceptions, and not typically applicable to life. In addition to this, perhaps those individuals would have performed even worse had they not exhibited this self improving mindset. I would reply that these individuals did not do well despite their intense effort, and so there must be limitations on their ability to overcome challenge. Furthermore, no matter how atypical these situations may be, they do exist, and at some level of challenge, I suspect that every person would be in that situation.
Any of these series of assertions and retorts could be an argument in and of themselves, and truly proving the thesis that "human capacity is constrained and that this constraint must be taken into account" to my personnel standards would require that I attempt to disprove this thesis and discredit every potential form of evidence supporting this conclusion, and I would only categorically consider the thesis true if this assault failed to disprove this idea. However, I feel the need to continue on, as this paragraph has already gotten far too long.
The central idea that I was leading up to is the integration of the two truths outlined above. Human beings can generally overcome or benefit from facing most challenges, and believing that this is true is necessary for individual growth and progress. However, there are some cognitive challenges that you will simply not have the ability to overcome, and which may even be harmful to attempt in a reckless fashion. the best method for dealing with these challenges is to acknowledge that both your current abilities, and abilities in the immediate future may not be sufficient, and the correct answer is may not be to run away, but rather to develop other skills which may lead to your overcoming the given challenge in the far future. However, there are some further challenges that you may truly be unable to deal with over your entire lifetime, and no amount of dedication or preparation would allow you to succeed.
The answer to these seemingly conflicting truths is to develop the capacity to honestly and objectively analyze incoming challenges and to correctly categorize them in the above categories. Furthermore, most challenges can be overcome, and attempting them will lead to growth; however, the potential loss on attempting something that you genuine should not has very significant consequences. Separating the two, and perhaps erring slightly to one side to correct for personal biases is in my estimation the best method to live in accordance with both of these truths.
Carol Dweck's most important assertion is that believing and acting on this principle is necessary for human growth, and that believing and acting on the pathological distortion of the second truth is destructive towards the well being of any person in the vast majority of cases. There is a degree of caution in my nature. as such, I am significant more concerned with the pathological distortion of the idea that Carol Dweck is proposing, which could lead people to frustration and anger when they realize that they have attempted an endeavor that they should not have.
Over the course of watching these videos, I noticed a peculiar phenomenon. While I was agreeing with a significant number of the ideas that Dweck was suggesting, I was becoming significantly more agitated. Upon further inspection, the apparent cause of this contradictory behavior was this. Dweck was postulating ideas that I agree with, many of which where not actually associated with one another, in a manner which may lead individuals to exhibit the undesirable corrupted forms of these ideas.
I generally agree with the idea that skills and competency, though not intelligence in the manner that I define the term, can be improved upon with time. I also agreed that many people lose interest in high school. I also agree that your present limitations are not as important as your future capacities, provided that they do develop. Dweck also tangentially covers a second pathological behavior, the tendency of people to attach their self worth to something that they should not, namely their abilities, and I agree that that this is a negative behavior.
However, these points are non-sequitur in relation to one another, and by mentioning them one after the other, I interpreted that Dweck was stating that they were related, which may simply have been an error in communication and interpretation.
Furthermore, I am worried about the possibility that Dweck's ideas may have been presented in a manner that make them easily corruptible into their negative form: the deliberate denial of the practical limitations of human ability, especially cognitive. I propose that the optimal way of avoiding both the cowardice of the excessively fixed mindset and the manic recklessness of deliberately ignoring realistic constraints, while behaving in a manner that accentuates growth yet acknowledges one's limitations, is to develop the ability to truthfully and properly distinguish between challenges that should be confronted, which I would consider the majority, while recognizing the challenges that may not be necessary or practical to confront.
Finally, I believe that stating a pathological mindset clearly is a great way to disprove it, as they so often reveal their own absurdity, as such.
Figure 1: Refutation of Pathological Fixed Mindset Pixabay
Figure 2: Refutation of Pathological Limit Disregarding Mindset Wikimedia
Comments
Post a Comment