[dcl]

It's great you've found techniques that work for you and you are correct the science is fuzzy...

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Dweck#Criticism

> Timothy Bates, a psychology professor at the University of Edinburgh, has been trying for several years to replicate Dweck's findings, each time without success, and his colleagues haven't been able to either.[23]

The statistics in Dweck's papers also fail the GRIM test which is a potential indicator of fraud (fake/false statistical values).

[wenc]

So for me, it's all about instrumental rationality -- do the thing that works, not the thing that ought or ought not to work. It's important to put things into practice.

Social science is full of hypotheses that are difficult to measure scientifically. Some are straight out wrong.

Others are instrumentally rational -- they are correct enough of the time if done in the right context (which may not always arise, but when they do, you're golden). The latter are the stuff we need to try out. Growth vs fixed mindset is a heuristic -- this means it's not always right, but it's useful enough that when applied you can often see meaningful results.

[afpx]

You just blew my mind. Dweck's theories are used all over the corporate-sphere.

Here's the article (the wikipedia link 404d): https://web.archive.org/web/20210216192213/https://www.spect...

[digilypse]

This seems to be focused on general intelligence. I always assumed it was more about the ability to learn skills and abilities rather than increasing IQ.

[abacadaba]

yes the corporate-sphere is.. how to say.. very dumb.

[blowski]

Corporations are the aggregation of thousands of individual agendas being compromised semi-publicly as you watch. Having some scientific-sounding bullshit support your agenda often works.