Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Against the growth mindset

Why did you quote that paragraph, but not the one that immediately follows, which fully fleshes out what Dweck means by "growth mindset"?


My reading of those two paragraphs makes the concept seem quite uncontroversial. Who here would deny that dedication and hard work are significant components of achievement and success and are things which should be encouraged?

There may be some people who believe that there are no differences in genetic/innate intellectual talent, but I've seen nothing that suggests Dweck is one of them.

Thank you! It's entertaining but no less relevant. I have personally been annoyed by the detrimental effects of "growth mindset" mania taken too far in our educational institutions.

Obviously effort is essential but ability no less so. No matter how often I am inundated by growth mindset mania, I simply do not believe that it is detrimental (at least for my high ability children) to remember that ability does significantly affect outcome.

Dweck claims that you can improve your innate ability through hard work. I disagree strongly.

You can improve your SKILL, but you can't improve your POTENTIAL.

So okay, you can't know your potential when you start developing a given skill. But lots of practice will give you a pretty good idea about where you'll end up, especially if you practice with other people or if you have access to what other people can do.

For example, I learned at an early age that I suck at drawing, and that no amount of practice will change that. Practice only makes my drawings less bad. My innate ABILITY simply will not change, though my skill might nudge a bit. I've tried several times over the years, and I know this for a fact.

I've taught undergrads, and I could see that some of my students just weren't good at [insert subject]. A few in each class tried hard, but they just couldn't do it anyway. I saw it when I was in school and when I was in college. There were the kids who just couldn't simplify the fractions, and the woman who failed statistics because she just couldn't understand it, in spite of lots of work. Etc.

What bugs me about Dweck and her ilk is the feel-good lying and the distortions. Admitting that not everyone has the same level of talent for academics or sports or whatever is discomfiting. But instead of accepting reality, Growth Mindset just pretends that anyone can do calculus or be a pro athlete if they work hard enough. And it blames its victims when they crap out, because, after all, if you work hard enough, you'll increase your ability.

A huge result of this is the everyone-can-go-to-college mentality (which, I admit, has other factors driving it). We spoon-feed lies to children and then send a message that they're not working when they fail the college entrance math exam or can't make it through year 1 or 2 of a STEM major. It must be soul-crushing for these kids to realize that they simply aren't up to it after being told that they were for so long. And it must be doubly crushing to keep hearing that hard work is all it takes.

First I am in and from NZ so this is an outsiders view.

I think the growth mindset meshes well with the US tenet that everyone can make something of themself if they try hard enough. Your whole system favours adapting a growth mid set approach. After all if it is true being poor or unskilled is personal choice.

I have more trouble with it being quoted here especially the 10,000 hours thing as NZ is a more socialist country which generally accepts that some people will need more help. It also strangely does have a slight class thing too.

I have recently come to think though if I had realised things required effort as a child I may have persisted with some things longer. I wouldn't have become great at them but I may have learnt to do a head stand.

I think that most of this comes from the gross oversimplification of all of this. The points made about growth mindset are good: talent is important, but effort is important, and you need BOTH. Not just one. The problem is a lot of people, at least in Carol Dweck's world,apparently don't realize the value of hard work -- hence growth mindset. The problem arises when people decided hard work is ALL of it, not PART of it. Let's face, not everyone is capable of everything. I think it's just as important for kids to learn and appreciate that there are some things they are not capable of as it to realize there are things they're capable of. Telling kids they can do anything is a nice, happy-feeling solution in the short term, but it's hurting them even more than a fixed mindset. I mean, I'll never be an artist either, but I can understand that and appreciate the effort on the part of those who can and the beauty of what they create, and that's important.

No, because that expression is equally meaningless to those who lack the intellectual ability necessary to understand the underlying concepts, and to those who lack the motivation to pursue them.

I agree with you Val I no fan of magical thinking here either.

I think that it is shockingly dishonest to lead children on like this.

Obviously, achievement involves more than just IQ, things like luck and grit also play a part. Even IQ comes down to luck or accident of birth, IMO.

The irrefutable fact is, however, that without a given threshold value of 'g' certain things are not going to be fully understood. Denial of that axiomatic truth sets people up for failure far more often than success, I believe.

This is where it kind of falls apart on the ground as far as applying all this to school. Still, I find the basics of Dweck useful for working with gifted kids. It has its limits.


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.

All this said, I have never told my children that they can "do anything" because it's not the kind of thing that I say. I prefer a bit more realism and exactitude. For instance, my DD likes to sing, but she knows that I think she is a decent singer, but not amazing. (She asked me.) I tell her she's getting better with practice, which is true, and that more practice will improve her more, which I assume to also be true. I'm not much on lying.

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.