Originally Posted by ColinsMum
I'm not in US society and don't, perhaps, have a very good understanding of how it differs from UK society. In the UK, what I think I see is some people - most of them teachers! - promulgating the falsehood you're criticising, but in reaction against a much more prominent general assumption that what matters is "potential" or "raw talent" and that nurture, practice, parenting, education and the environment in general have only minor roles to play. Maybe knowing that will make it clearer why I kick against that falsehood (too) - I agree that both are false and unhelpful.

This has been a really fun discussion. I am in the US and rarely see much evidence that there is a societal tendency to believe anything can be achieved with effort. I see much more myth of the kind Dweck argues against (as does Chua in her references to Western parents) that you either have it or you don't and there isn't much place for practice or memorization or hard work because your IQ test at 3 labeled you gifted and that *cannot* be taken away. A kid is either talented in baseball and math, or not. Most threads, even on this board, illustrate the belief that one is or is not gifted and that gifted folks think differently and need different education. There is not that much discussion about whether that can meaningfully be measured, whether a measurement at 3 or 5 or 9 or 15 still applies at 30 or 40.

One thing I like about Gladwell is that he brings into the discussion many things that impact opportunities that are usually left out -- like whether one's parents are paying enough attention to know a teenager is slipping out at night to program computers, whether one's talents would be appreciated in a particular time period, how whether one was born in January or July impacts hockey skills later. Each of these fortuitous or non-fortuitous events has repercussions for future development. If you know more math than most entering K and adults praise your math ability and you get moved to GT math for more enrichment and end up doing more math, that becomes a huge advantage eventually. The initial advantage might have been talent, might have been hothousing, might have been being in a school with a teacher who isn't afraid of math. Each advantage can lead to others but in a seamless way so the steps aren't seen. Without reading Gladwell, I doubt many hockey parents would attribute their children's hockey success to month of birth. Similarly, I think many successful musicians believe in their talent when many, many people would have similar levels of success with similar levels of work.