We invite you to share your experiences and to post information about advocacy, research and other gifted education issues on this free public discussion forum. CLICK HERE to Log In. Click here for the Board Rules.
Perfectionistic tendencies may be a sign of developing a fixed mindset rather than a growth mindset. One aspect or application is that gifted kids may stop taking appropriate risks in order to always be "right" or always be "smart" or never be "wrong", and this may work against them. The concept is nicely summarized in these youtube videos: Ashley Merryman & Po Bronson: The Myth of Praise (link- ) Teaching a Growth Mindset (link- )
Parents may wish to read the book Mindset by Carol Dweck for tips on promoting a growth mindset. It is based on years of research. Not that I agree with every idea/application, but on balance found a number of ideas to be useful.
As far as innate potential, I suppose I'm a bit more agnostic than some here. I don't think I believe in a fixed, immovable g set in stone at birth or age 3 or whatever. I think time and experience have a way of having their way with us, for good and ill. I think there is a range of capacity for each of us. It certainly is HARDER or EASIER for people to do or understand some things than others. But often I think we decide people are incapable of things when they've had bad teachers or have been unmotivated.
The point of this entire conversation is that there is a fixed, immovable *limit* on the *upper point* of that *range of capacity* for any particular person.
And one problem is that it's not a fixed limit as such.
Modern IQ tests are largely derived from the military's AFQT. The AFQT exists solely to predict success in a variety of training schools. The more challenging schools have higher AFQT requirements to attend, in order to avoid wasting resources on recruits who have little chance of succeeding.
Those students selected for advanced training, based on their higher AFQT scores, still fail at a significant rate. The US Navy's most challenging school, nuclear power school, has so many failed students every year that they've been given a colloquialism: "nuclear waste."
The Navy's data tells them that this is to be expected, because they've been doing this long enough to see that an AFQT of X will yield Y% of successful graduates, as X goes down, so does Y, and it's not so much a hard limit as it is a continuum (although obviously their data set doesn't follow the numbers all the way down to Y=0).
Caution: Made up numbers below for illustration only.
So, if 40% if recruits with an AFQT of 85 can successfully graduate nuclear power school (or conversely, that 8% of recruits with a 99 AFQT fail), that says:
1) AFQT is telling you something. 2) There are other factors involved for the 40% of students who succeed/8% who fail, with ability being equal.
Whenever we talk about success and failure among individuals with equal levels of ability, we inevitably start talking about personality traits relating to increased effort: perseverance, grit, motivation, work ethic, etc. Those are traits that a growth mindset seeks to promote.
Whenever we talk about success and failure among individuals with equal levels of ability, we inevitably start talking about personality traits relating to increased effort: perseverance, grit, motivation, work ethic, etc. Those are traits that a growth mindset seeks to promote.
Agreed! May I add, in addition to talking about efforts, we begin talking about opportunity, specifically access to opportunity. Including opportunity to experience challenge, failure, resilience, and overcoming setbacks.
I have found Dweck's work very helpful - especially with a perfectionist gifted kid. Despite what others have posted I don't believe she says that "every one can do everything if they work hard enough" - it's more along the lines that if you do work hard you have a better chance of growing and actually realizing whatever potential is there. It may seem like an obvious point, but unfortunately it's missing from a lot of schools where the focus is on measuring and ranking, but not necessarily teaching.
The point of this entire conversation is that there is a fixed, immovable *limit* on the *upper point* of that *range of capacity* for any particular person.
And one problem is that it's not a fixed limit as such.
...
Whenever we talk about success and failure among individuals with equal levels of ability, we inevitably start talking about personality traits relating to increased effort: perseverance, grit, motivation, work ethic, etc. Those are traits that a growth mindset seeks to promote.
I'm talking about the fixed limit once you add in maximum perseverance, grit, motivation, work ethic, etc.
Exactly-- it's not that there is some bright line there, that I'm capable of vector calculus, but not.... well, some way-out-there-esoteric-theoretical mathematics.
But it's probably there somewhere.
Are children with profound mental retardation capable of "learning to read?"
Well, yes, probably SOME of them are, given enough of the idealizing inputs discussed. But not all of them, and it may depend on your standards-- is this at the level of a 3rd grader? A sixth grader?
Can they simply "grow" into this task if they really, really want to, and we all "encourage" them enough?
I'd argue that the answer is "no." That's not to say that life ought to be filled with people saying "Nope, not for you."
Because people are complicated and surprising-- some of them probably CAN, in spite of all the predictive evidence arguing that they shouldn't be capable. This is how people escape from horrifying childhood circumstances and go on to prestigious careers, after all-- instead of prison.
I think that all of us here are discriminating enough not to throw the baby out with the bath water on everything that Dweck and others say. Obviously, kids need to be encouraged the push their boundaries and take risks. Of course, effort SHOULD be encouraged via praise.
Perfectionism is a risk for our kids and I am open to all and any suggestions for managing it.
But basically there are upper limits to potential as JonLaw so succinctly stated.
Are children with profound mental retardation capable of "learning to read?"
Well, yes, probably SOME of them are, given enough of the idealizing inputs discussed. But not all of them, and it may depend on your standards-- is this at the level of a 3rd grader? A sixth grader?
Can they simply "grow" into this task if they really, really want to, and we all "encourage" them enough?
I'd argue that the answer is "no." That's not to say that life ought to be filled with people saying "Nope, not for you."
Having spent some time around profoundly (and severely) retarded kids, I'd have to disagree that even some of them can learn to read. They can't even talk (though some can learn some sign language). Our school system is very generous with them, and they may get aides in a classroom or, for those who can't go to school, get visits from aides who help them develop motor skills and so on. The experiences are enriching for them, but they don't learn learn reading skills. Certainly, some moderately retarded children may learn to read a little and write a few words.
I'm only pointing this out because it highlights the reality of ability limits. People who work with severely intellectually disabled children don't generally pretend that these kids can make themselves smarter if they work hard. Maybe this is because they spend a lot of time working with these kids and they get to know what that condition really means.
Maybe I sound mean. I don't know. Personally, I think it's meaner to tell a student with a barely average or below-average IQ that he can become an engineer if he just believes in himself and works hard.
Our society encourages people to stretch themselves, which is a good thing. I just think that we've reached a point where the idea gets taken way, way too far, and it does a lot of damage.
Can anyone actually provide a quote from Dweck along the lines that "anyone can do anything if they work hard enough". I don't think she's ever said that.
I think that all of us here are discriminating enough not to throw the baby out with the bath water on everything that Dweck and others say. Obviously, kids need to be encouraged the push their boundaries and take risks. Of course, effort SHOULD be encouraged via praise.
Perfectionism is a risk for our kids and I am open to all and any suggestions for managing it.
But basically there are upper limits to potential as JonLaw so succinctly stated.
Agreed 100%... in fact, the baby-bathwater analogy occurred to me more than once during this discussion. Sure, Ms. Dweck may be saying some ill-considered things in support of her views, but it's also worth noting that this is becoming something of an industry for her. Regardless, I think we can discount some of her weirder statements and still accept that her core message is something of relevance and value.
And yes, there is definitely an upper limit, but the problem is, we don't really have an effective way to measure that. Like the AFQT, IQ is an imperfect measure at best, and the continuum is so large, that except for obvious, extreme cases, the concept of hard limits isn't really one with a lot of practical application.
