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.
