I've just finished reading this book and I think many people here might enjoy it. (I'm sure many have read it, but this recommendation is for the others!) I opted for this rather than for her other book Mindsets because the Amazon reviews of the latter sounded as though it had rather too much of the content popularised out. Self-theories is still an easy read (she's left out all the stats!) but it's contentful and does a reasonable job of explaining the experiments they did. Most of her original research papers from which this is drawn are easily available online if one prefers to read them, but I fancied a pre-digested version.

The book has a chapter that relates to the "only praising children" thread, but its main substance is discussion of the different theories that people hold about intelligence (and other personal characteristics). In a nutshell, "entity theorists" consider intelligence to be basically fixed. Therefore - regardless of whether they see themselves as having a little or a lot of this quality - they tend to see a challenge as an opportunity to demonstrate their innate qualities, or, if the challenge seems too hard, as a threat. "Increment theorists" by contrast see intelligence as something that can be improved by work, and are more likely to see challenges as opportunities to do this. We could go off into "but which is TRUE", and if we took intelligence to be synonymous with what IQ tests measure, we might perhaps come down on the entity theorist side, but the interesting thing is that for things that actually matter, like school success, an increment theory seems to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Dweck describes a study in which they looked at children moving from elementary school to their next school, in which the work was more challenging. They had samples of children who had been found to hold an entity view, and a sample who had been found to hold an increment view. There was no difference in the children's achievement to that point, or in their confidence in their ability. Yet the incremental theorists did significantly better in their first year at the new school than the entity theorists did, and the effect was still visible the following year. They also have some evidence that children's, and even adults', beliefs about the mutability of intelligence can to some extent be changed by instruction in a way which does change their feelings and choices.

This has clear implications for how we talk to our children about giftedness.

Thanks for the book review ColinsMom - looks very interesting and very important for all of us.

If I had a magic wand, I would add chapters to both books that say something like this -

Our goal is to teach children that working hard bring rewards, so, in addition to finding placements where the children have a chance to work hard in order to learn things, it's important to communicate to our children that we believe that working hard brings rewards.

Sound good?
Grinity

Yes! (Including that it can be its own reward.) One thing that struck me was how true what Dweck says of entity theorists, especially "bright girls" is/was of *me*. For example, I've struggled through my whole life with the phenomenon that when I do something where I may not succeed, much of my energy is going to wondering whether I'm going to succeed and what will happen if I don't, and to shutting up the voice that's wondering that, instead of actually going to the task itself.

I read out some of the questions from the back of the book, designed to identify where people sat on these spectrums, to DS, DH, and a highly successful academic friend who was visiting. We adults didn't come out identical, but it was clear that we were all much further towards the entity theory end of the spectrum than DS, who was endorsing all the "you can change if you work" and "a chance to learn something is better than the chance to look clever" type options. It's possible that DS was to some extent giving what he knows to be the "right" answers, and that he thinks more like us internally. Still, looking back at my own experience, I think I was sold an entity view by teachers, parents, etc. etc., and I think this is really common for academic children like all three of us. Somehow "you can succeed if you work" is reserved for people who don't do well at something, while children who are good at the same thing aren't given the same message - instead, they are underchallenged and sold "you're just naturally good at this".

One might speculate - lazy talk for "I haven't looked to see if there's research on this" - that this might be related to the relative weakness of the relation between IQ measured in childhood and adult success. Do the people who manage to "realise" their IQ tend to be those who remain incrementalists in their hearts? It wouldn't surprise me.

I could witter on but I'll stop there.

I wanted to comment on this idea. �I haven't read the book. �I've seen her idea of incremental vs. entity rehashed in many articles in my net-surfing. I've peeked at her research on her website. �My take on it is that I would believe in an individual IQ entity ceiling which is what you and I would look like if we lived our life at peak performance. �An IQ test can only tell you what peak performance you have been measured at, not your actual I Q ceiling. �That being said we use 8% of our brain normally and I think we "adjust" to our surroundings (even if we levitate intellectually in relation to those around us, we stay on relation to those around us, or at least in relation to humanity). �So there's always plenty of vertical climbing room, complete with obsticals and mental blocks within the entity theory. �I'll add that 8% of a high IQ ceiling is a higher test score than 8% of a mediocre one. �Now the incremental theory is such a great point. �Work ethic with accurate focused directional movement will accelerate performance and growth. �I don't think it's in conflict with the entity theory at all, since we're all flying so far below our IQ ceilings the incremental gains don't stretch the entity, ever. �But it fills out our reality and gives it substance. �It broadens our horizons. �It let's us see more of what's happening in the world�around us. �I can't complain about her writing as if the two theories are in conflict because it's illustrating an important idea and bringing it to life. �If her metaphor of conflict can inspire and teach us how to expand our minds and our world then let her have artistic liscense to describe it however she sees it. �It inspires us to become better people and encourages us that yes we can better ourselves and most importantly warns us of lies we may tell ourselves to hold ourselves back.
Just wanted to add that I've seen people argue that incremental theory is dangerous because it suggests that ND kids can be made gifted if we work at it. �I think that's nonsense. �Sadly I can't articulate why. �But I think they're missing the forrest for the trees with that statement.

Reminds me of the Kennedy quote I like to use w my kids: we do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard.

"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."

Dang I wish I could edit in a paragraph break on my last statement. Guess that's what I get for digging up such an old thread. Looks like I wuz pretty excited over that topic, .. //>.>\\'....
Um., somehow, to me, this relates to what I've just read on slashdot.com (googled after a referrence on another blog..)...
Anyway, it's a study about skills Trainability and how Neuroplacisity lets you rise to a higher level of cognitive function and then go back to your natural range while keeping a skill you acquired at the higher cognitive level. Dude, that's the "nurture" part and the asynchronous starts and stops, right? Haven't we already been doing that our whole lives by seeking people out?

So, here's the article, then a link to a kid friendly explanation of neuroplasticity (for my benefit, lol).
http://scienceblog.com/44329/making-temporary-changes-to-brain-could-speed-up-learning/

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/plast.html

And, just for fun, a Mri 3D brain map: go mess with the crosshairs
http://human.brain-map.org/mri_viewers/data

Along the lines of this conversation is the online program that was developed by Dweck and Blackwell. It is meant to explain to students the two mind-sets and to explain further what actually happens in the brain when we learn something.

The rewards for working hard depend a lot on whether the activity is something one has talent for. When I was young I my hand/eye coodination was so poor that I almost always struck out in baseball. It would have been stupid for me to "work hard" at baseball. Working hard at my studies and a hobby I was good at brought rewards. It's non-PC but true that working hard at one's studies, beyond a certain point, is a waste of time for most people, because they have reached their intellectual limits. Here is an example. Should everyone "work hard" to master Algebra II, as some education policymakers are advocating http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...ationwide/2011/04/01/AF7FBWXC_story.html ? I say no.

I think Dweck's ideas are uncritically accepted by too many people, because we live in an age of what Charles Murray calls "educational romanticism".

An article in the Chronicle of Higher Education http://chronicle.com/article/Carol-Dwecks-Attitude/65405/ found that some studies supported Dweck's theories, and others, especially of college students did not.

'Three recent studies have found that college students' beliefs about intelligence are not correlated with their academic performance�at least not in the straightforward way that Dweck's model proposes. The authors of those studies say they admire Dweck's work, but they are less hopeful than she is that college students' performance can be turned around with a simple intervention.'

I think the study I posted was a little different than Carol Dweck's fixed vs. Malleable intelligence in that the changes in the cognitive level aren't permanent, but the higher level skills once acquired are. Maybe the difference is whoever's more comfortable functioning at the higher level continue on their quest, while others seek out birds of a different feather. I wonder how far the retained skills go? Do you retain algebra, once taught, if you don't use it?
FWIW I agree intelligence is Mutable, but not exActly in the "only if the little engine thinks he can."way. I think more like "one rotten apple spoils the whole bunch", but in this case "rottenness" is intelligence, which I believe might be contagious.