This is one of those Davidson threads that confuses me. For those who are enthusiastic about Dweck's ideas, why are you here,
Not necessarily "enthusiastic about Dweck's ideas", but
- respect the research as presented,
- have questions about the research studies conducted prior to the book,
- have questions about any follow-up studies conducted in the decade or so since the book,
- have questions about the application, implementation, and possible extrapolation of the research.
That's why some of us are here, participating on this thread.
her entire philosophy is grounded in the idea that intelligence isn't innate
Here is a brief roundup of counter-points to that statement:
1) Intelligence consists of both fluid intelligence (reasoning) and crystallized intelligence (acquired knowledge).
2) Many gifted students experience difficulty with their education, that is, acquiring knowledge.
3) Dr. Dweck's "philosophy" is research-based and focuses on
motivation.
I mean, I've met enough HG+ people to know that a high IQ doesn't make people immune to woo, but growth mindset is so hostile to innate giftedness, I honestly can't understand why people could believe it AND talk about the unique needs of HG+ kids.
You may have read this elsewhere on the forums:
One aspect or application of a fixed mindset 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. Here's a quote from the Mindset Works/Brainology web site:
One of the most damaging myths has been that some people are born with more intellectual ability than others, and that they retain this competitive advantage throughout their lives.
This was presented in the context of nature / nurture. Crystalized intelligence (acquired knowledge) may be closely related to nurture.
a) Is it a myth that some people are born to be taller or naturally stronger than others? YES, it's a valid comparison. Height, strength, and intelligence result from anatomy and/or physiological processes (and genetics). All can be severely hindered by a poor environment, and while they can be optimized in a good environment, the degree to which they can be optimized is << the degree to which they can be hindered. (Umpteen references, including those related to physiological constraints on linear growth in a generation, available on request.)
Some kiddos may be gifted, HG+, and unidentified, possibly treated as behavior problems, and have low expectations set for them by others. It is my belief that this is the population which schools may be quite excited about reaching.
b) Nice trick: they used a lie about innate ability to make an invalid claim about IQ and competitiveness. This type of language is very useful for manipulating people.
1) Choosing words such as "trick", "lie", "invalid claim" may also be regarded as "very useful for manipulating people".
2) As not all intelligence is innate (G = Gf + Gc), some may see that truth exists in statements about growing one's abilities.
3) There are many threads on the forums in which parents seek to parlay IQ into an edge or "competitive advantage". For example, college admissions.
The gifted label is another way of praising selected kids for their intelligence. It can work to inculcate a fixed mindset, reinforcing the notion that intelligence is something that some children have and some just don't, and implying that the bestowal of the gift is out of the individual's control.
While some suffer the gifted label as a necessary preliminary step (under current legislation in some States) to obtaining any incremental gains toward meeting their child's educational needs, other parents grasp at the label as something to flaunt.
This idea is integral to the growth mindset philosophy. What does this site have to offer adherents, given that this board is heavily focused on HG+ kids being different from their peers in some ways because of cognitive abilities they were born with?
1) Some may say that the website which you shared is not the definitive work, rather the book
mindset is.
2) These forums do not consist of all parents of gifted children; Not all HG+ children are identified, and unfortunately some members here are hesitant to share the forums with other parents. Some members may derive a benefit, edge, or competitive advantage which they'd rather not share with other local parents, whose children may compete with their own. It is also my understanding that some members may have a vested interest in keeping other local parents away from the forums as these members may gather information here which they then present to local parents who are paying clients of the member's professional gifted consultancy business.
3) The website seems intended to attract all who might benefit from learning of Dr. Dweck's research on motivation.
And BTW, if intelligence isn't innate, why do so many HG+ babies develop skills weeks and months ahead of neurotypical babies? My daughter was using her hands before she was a month old (this skill normally develops in the third month).
While early milestones are an indication of giftedness for those who know what to look for, being a precocious child is not necessarily a guarantee of being gifted, HG+, etc.
Did she just have a growth mindset about getting her fingers into her mouth? Did my month-old son have a growth mindset about reaching for objects? Did they both have growth mindsets about paying attention to the world around them, consistently, from birth? Why do so many people here report the same things, while so many others in the population are surprised by what HG+ newborns do?
In the video shared upthread, Dr. Dweck opens with: comments on the natural curiosity of babies, then shows bored kids in school, what happened?
Dweck claims and that the brain is "a muscle" that can be developed.
Some may say this is an analogy or metaphor, using something which is common knowledge to help a broad audience understand the concept of development through effort may apply to athleticism/muscles and also to academics/intellect.
Obviously, more practice with cognitively demanding tasks can improve SKILL, but this is not the same as changing ABILITY.
The distinction may, in some cases, be a fuzzy line. For example, a math skill, with automaticity, may yield higher achievement causing a student to be considered high ability.
Similarly, people can work out with weights and get stronger, but not everyone will be able to bench press 250 pounds, no matter how hard they try.
Agreed. This quote from the book
mindset was posted
upthread in reply to your earlier post, and I'll share it again here:
The growth mindset is the belief that abilities can be cultivated. But it doesn't tell you how much change is possible or how long change will take.
Pretending that you can growth mindset your way to a degree in engineering...
What informed your view? IOW, do you have a source for this, which is attributable to Dr. Dweck?
Alternatively, is this possibly a bit of hyperbole for illustrative purposes?Finally, what makes me even more suspicious is that she's
running a Brainology business. I mean, seriously ---
Brainology? My woo meter is deep in the red there.
Like all titles, meant to attract attention, and be memorable. Reading her bio page at the Stanford site, the bio in her book, etc, she is quite open and transparent about her area of research: motivation. This is just not as catchy.
