|
|
|
|
|
|
by 0xcde4c3db
2329 days ago
|
|
|
Sure, but the problem I have with Dweck's response is that it seems to be muddying the water rather than adding precision. In particular, she says: > Everyone is a mixture of fixed and growth mindsets. You could have a predominant growth mindset in an area but there can still be things that trigger you into a fixed mindset trait. I have no problem with this concept per se; as far as it goes, it seems eminently more realistic than most descriptions I've seen of mindset theory (which seem to treat it like what therapists sometimes call a "core belief"). But if mindset is significantly contingent on immediate circumstances, what are we saying when we say that someone "has" a fixed or growth mindset? Are the instruments used in the studies capturing any of this variation? If not, what needs to be done to ensure that studies are properly taking this into account? |
|
|
There are a number of areas where it's widely believed that one must be a born X to be good at some skill. (Say, drawing, or mathematics).
The basic idea is that this is a limiting belief. People who think that drawing is amenable to hard work and practice grow more in that particular area.
But you can generally believe in the power of growth while also thinking that your least favorite subject (say math) is only for people with innate talent. In that case you grow in your "growth mindset" areas and plateau in your "fixed mindset" areas.
> Are the instruments used in the studies capturing any of this variation?
No, honestly probably not. The studies themselves may not replicate. But that doesn't mean that you can't measure such things better than we have.