Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Against the growth mindset

It's been very helpful for our family too (and I think Dweck has a lot to offer gifted kids who hear the toxic "you're so smart" all the time). (And big congratulations for passing the bar!)

A comment I would like to add is that with technology to assist in communication, we are finding that at least some children are not as severely affected in intellectual disability than was previously thought. The consequences of not trying to teach these students any academic topics therefore is much more troubling.

I think that most in the general population underestimate the abilities of people with ID.

Well, certainly not every 50-ish individual will learn to read or read well, but it's not a rare occurrence, especially in school systems that use phonetic approaches with those students (like Wilson or OG).

Oops. I meant that I met 50-ish of these kids over a period of 5-6 years or so. Many/most had IQs in the mid-40s or below (again, floor effects made it hard to calculate IQs in many of them). I thought that level was "severe" but maybe I was wrong?

I totally agree with this.

Also the parents are not the only ones telling these kids they are smart. The other kids at school maybe even teachers are telling them this, especially if they are younger and still at the top of the class. How could they not know. How would Dweck suggest you counter this with her anti-praise research?

We have praised effort and stepping out of your comfort zone for a long time with our ds but he knows what he is good/great at and what he is just OK at.

I don't think Dweck said you can or should hide this information: only that it's helpful to know that growth and change are possible.

OK. I'll bite.

How exactly did law school present a "challenge?"

This is more what I meant. I mean, not to say that there aren't differences in ability, but I do get nervous around the idea of "This Is Not For You." I know a lot of bright/not gifted kids and a lot of gifted kids, by IQ, and I don't feel like the sorting was extremely awesomely perfect. Do you all? I see outliers where it's clear the sorting mechanism was right, but I also see a lot of mushy middle where motivation, personality, grit, background, opportunity, teaching, parenting, LDs, whatever are obviously mattering a lot.

In addition, I also see gifted kids who have a lot of challenges, and may not be able to make the most of what they have intellectually due to those challenges. (Note: one of my children could be sorted into this category.) You could say their IQ is high, but their Other-Q (not necessarily EQ--many challenges in the world) is low. Some people might say--well, they have limits on what they can achieve, due to that low Other-Q. I don't think that opinion would be popular here.

All right, maybe Other-Q limitations are more malleable, but you see what I'm getting at, hopefully.

I don't think that's the right way to look at the question (actually, when it's framed this way, it makes it very easy to slide gently into the everyone-can-try-anything mindset).

Rather, I think that schools and society as a whole have a responsibility to help kids discover what they're GOOD at. Instead, we tell everyone to go to college, as though a BA is a career panacea.

Well, it *is* a career panacea for the College Administration Bureaucracy Complex.