[username90]

If most scientists fail to understand what growth-mindset is then it is a worthless theory. The people in this thread who praise it as something awesome then almost surely have the wrong idea about it in their head and is applying it wrongly. So you are right, this is a concern, which is why we should take failure to replicate extremely seriously!

[HelloMcFly]

Much of the growth mindset literature out there has its foundations built on goal orientation theoretical framework, which has been replicated extensively across domains, frameworks, and cultures. There's been a number of studies on growth mindset as well, but the results are clearly more mixed. That's interesting to me given how the concepts are related, but obviously not identical.

[username90]

Goal orientation is pretty simple, for a larger goal set up concrete smaller goals like "practice the parts I can't do every day for 1 hour until I can do them" and then do those. I don't see how growth mindset is related at all.

Here is the main definition of fixed mindset (the opposite of growth mindset):

> In a fixed mindset students believe their basic abilities, their intelligence, their talents, are just fixed traits.

I don't believe this at all. I strongly believe that people cannot improve their intelligence, that some people are destined to be dumb their whole lives while others are brilliant. Of course I can still see the value of practice, and that working hard can immensely improve your performance, but I am still "fixed mindset" according to the definition.

Do you believe that people can improve their intelligence through hard work? If not, then you are fixed mindset like me.

[HelloMcFly]

I don't believe people can improve their core intelligence or "g", no. But I do think that people can become smarter and more knowledgeable generally. A person with a lower g can still learn, grow, and improve. They may take longer to do it, they may reach diminishing returns sooner, but they can do it.