Book Discussion: Mindset- How to Talk so kids will learn and succeed

[Pen]

I second this..maybe Beaners has Mindset confused with a different book.?

I did not see the 'decatastrophizing" techniqueanywhere in the book. Are there multiple editions of the book out with revisions/additions?

 

 

So far as I know there was hardcover in 2006 and paperback in 2008, and they have a single copyright which means there was not new material to copyright.

 

The word 'decatastrophizing' probably does not appear, but it was related to the work of Aaron Beck (and others) and has been pulled into contemporary Self-Help and "Pop-psychology so that it is familiar to some people. Beck is referred to several times in the book. Pages 214-216 sections titled " Beliefs are the Key to Happiness (and to Misery)" and "Mindsets Go Further". are worthwhile sections to review, IMO. Dweck appears to be making clear--especially for people who might be familiar with cognitive therapy techniques (or reframing or other similar methods), that while Beck's and others work in the 1960s in this area was an important advance, that the Mindset idea is not the same as that and goes further--or perhaps 'deeper' would be the right word.

[beaners]

 

I think in a book discussion having someone who did not like the book is great for adding perspective and dimension to the discussion.

 

However, I am still thinking it might be a different book that you read and do not like, because I am on pages 55-56 right now and see no such quote.

 

In my edition pages 55-56 are the start of chapter 3 "The Truth About Ability and Accomplishment" and not only am I not seeing such a quote, the thrust of the chapter is the opposite. It starts with Edison as an example, discussing how Growth Mindset is important at that end of the spectrum (and gives other examples at the "prodigy" end also), and then later has other examples such as Marva Collins's students, including ones labeled "retarded" and discusses how growth mindset is also important at that end of the spectrum--as well as in the middle. Even if we have different editions, I cannot see anywhere a bit before or after the 55-56 in my book where there could have been a quote saying that the growth mindset does not apply to "the top 1 or 2% and the bottom 2 and 3%." It not only seems like it would not be a central feature of the book, but it is contrary to the message of the book.

 

Could you take a look at yours again and try to clarify? While I think having someone who does not like it will be an excellent addition to the discussion, I think it is important that we all actually be discussing the same book and accurately so.

 

 

 

 

By the way, at around page 214-215 Dweck discusses cognitive therapy (the sort of psychology that involves "disputing" and "decatastrophizing") approvingly, but also goes on to say that from the research she and her colleagues did, it does not go far enough, and then goes on to discuss that.

 

The whole idea that it is about "competing" against others rather than being your own best as you might have been led to by blogs you have read about getting little snowflake into Harvard ( I wonder why are you reading such blogs if they annoy you), or whatever that was, misses the whole thrust of the book, and might well have greatly colored your feelings and experience of it--if it actually is the same book that you read.

 

It was the same book. Those were the page numbers listed when I searched on Amazon for the quote. It was right after that section. I'm going to bow out now.

[LaughingCat]

FWIW, I love the ideas behind Mindset but I was "meh!" about the book itself when I read it. I have definitely read other people's descriptions of Carol Dweck's work that got me far more excited/motivated than did her own book. Can't reference any specific ones though but I know I have seen it mentioned many places ( Po Bronson's Nutureshock is one I'm sure but I never come away from his stuff feeling I know anything I can actually do to make changes in my own life).

 

Also I have heard that paperback and hardback versions don't always match - but that is purely a rumor I am passing on :001_rolleyes: ('cause I have no proof or source)

[Pen]

Hmmm. The version I have is the paperback, recently purchased from Amazon, which does not have anything about inapplicability to the top and bottom very few % on pages 55-56. Here is a link to the only other edition listed at Amazon. I can't do the "look inside" feature. Maybe someone who can would be able to resolve whether it has the statement there.

[Pen]

I think a lot of the time the wisdom in this book get distilled down to "praise them for effort not for success" and I think that ignores the strong bias our society has against failure, along with the obvious fact that some people are naturally more adept. Look at the similar "all you need to do is practice a lot " paradigm I've seen in various books - purporting to say that practice is the most important thing not natural ability (the "10,000 hours" idea) - the problem is it isn't just any old "practice" but only a certain type of practice that creates improvement, plus there are still going to be those for whom it would take 100,000+ hours instead. I think the "mindset" idea is the same - it is not just any old "you worked hard" praise that will move them away from fear of failure any more than it is any old hard work that will move them away from actual failure.

 

Now have I been able to translate those thoughts into action - no :glare: So for now I just keep talking about the brain as a muscle (grows with hard work) and try to praise effort not success.

 

 

I think both these are important. I think maybe part of the growth mindset idea would be that one would be looking for ways to grow in finding new ways to practice. Not just, If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. But Try, try again, differently. And seek out help. She does address that at one point by comparing students who read a book again and again to try to do better on an exam they did poorly at, versus ones who make appointments with the professor to ask how to go about learning the material or that sort of thing.

 

One has to have at least some growth mindset to try the several hours to get anywhere at all, however. My family was pretty extreme in fixed mindset beliefs. For example, my grandfather (who had umpteen varsity letters) took out my dad with a baseball glove at age say 5ish, and hit him a pop fly. My dad did not catch it, so my grandfather took the glove and announced that my dad obviously was not talented at sports, and that he hoped he would do better at something else, maybe academics or music. As it happened, my dad did do well at academics, and maybe it was better for him to concentrate on that, rather than to have spent 100,000+ hours on a sport at which he would not excel. Or not. My mom's parents had been similar.

 

By my generation, it was not so broad--if one did not catch a pop-fly first time out, there would not have been a statement that one was bad at all sports, but certainly it would have been considered clear that there was no talent for baseball and no point spending time on that. So sometimes it just seemed like chance. If one happened to have the glove in the right spot and the ball dropped in, you were called talented at that, and could do it more, (but woe the moment one failed), if the first time out at anything did not go well, there was never a second time. Okay, that is a bit of an exaggeration, since some things such as in school required a second time, but pretty much the "you are not good at _____" based on the first experience was ingrained from then on.

 

In my own life, I was told when I first tried to sing, and it was off key, that I was tone deaf, so I went through life not doing music, and in school approached required music classes by mouthing the words silently so that my tone deafness would not stand out. It was not until law school when I admitted this to a professor of mine who was a musician along with being a lawyer, that he said if I could hear music at all I was not tone deaf, it just took practice, and that many kids sing off key the first time they try. And it was not until a few years ago that I had the courage to take a singing class and discover that yes, with practice, I could sing on key just fine. But, quite far from there being any issue of my being a great professional singer, just every time "Happy Birthday to you" type songs or songs around a camp fire or hymns in church were sung, it was a wrenching emotional experience full of stress and anxiety, where I just wanted to crawl under a rock and disappear.

 

So it is unlikely that I would have been a great singer, but if my parents had not condemned me at the first try, and if I had had just one class with a teacher who knew how to help guide me (as I did as an adult), I might have had a childhood of happy times during song time around campfires and not been miserable in music and choir classes trying to pretend I did not exist. It is unlikely that my dad would have been the next Babe Ruth, but, but for his dad, he might have enjoyed a now and again neighborhood baseball game, or maybe a pick up basketball game, or maybe found some very different non-ball oriented sport that he might have enjoyed as a hobby.

 

If, quite aside from parental assessments, I had had the Growth Mindset and resiliency needed, I might have told someone about the music problem who could have helped long before law school. Additionally, I did not pursue some areas where I did appear to have considerable talent because of fixed-mindset problems. I may not only try to help my son to have a more growth mindset now, but also try to fix these areas for myself now to the extent possible at this stage.

[beaners]

Hmmm. The version I have is the paperback, recently purchased from Amazon, which does not have anything about inapplicability to the top and bottom very few % on pages 55-56. Here is a link to the only other edition listed at Amazon. I can't do the "look inside" feature. Maybe someone who can would be able to resolve whether it has the statement there.

 

 

Good grief. I used Look Inside on Amazon to find the quote. The first edition I pulled up this time listed it on page 66. Either I had a different edition last time or I typed the wrong page numbers.

 

Do you realize you sound like you don't believe me that there is this quote in the book? Why in the world would I make that up? LOL Ok, I'm really done this time.

[Pen]

Good grief. I used Look Inside on Amazon to find the quote. The first edition I pulled up this time listed it on page 66. Either I had a different edition last time or I typed the wrong page numbers.

 

Do you realize you sound like you don't believe me that there is this quote in the book? Why in the world would I make that up? LOL Ok, I'm really done this time.

 

I don't think you made it up. I think you misunderstood it.

 

Thank you for staying long enough to clarify where it actually was, and I hope you will continue to participate.

 

On page 66 I see a quote that is the one you must mean which refers to the top and bottom percentages. However, it is not about Growth Mindset not applying to people at those ends of the spectrum.

 

Rather, it is a comment by Dweck about a quote by Benjamin Bloom: "What any person in the world can learn, almost all persons can learn, if provided with the appropriate prior and current conditions of learning."

 

Dweck appears to be trying to explain who the "almost"refers to (or who it excludes) in Bloom's conclusion that nearly everyone can learn nearly anything learnable. She may or may not be correct. It is not clear to me that Bloom himself meant to exclude the top 1 to 2 percent at the top as being unable to learn things that others can learn. I think he may have only meant that there are certain cases of impairments so severe as to make the learning of nearly anything learnable not possible in those most extreme cases.

 

ETA: But I think the thrust of Dweck's research was that even then, the Growth Mindset would allow people in the extreme case situations to do as well as they personally could. I have a friend with a severely, maybe the word is "profoundly", "retarded" child where I think that is demonstrated. He is not able to live on his own, nor read, nor add, but he is able to do things around their home, and was able to get a job in a store bagging groceries and that sort of thing, where his interpersonal people skills were a plus and where his carefulness and joy to be able to do that job made him happy in it, and customers happy with him. Or for a famous and unusual example, I think of the artist in the movie My Left Foot, who was able to do art despite severe cerebral palsy (as I recall his condition).

Edited June 2, 2013 by Pen

[Pen]

I was noticing an interesting bit where the book said that people reading the book on the horse Sea Biscuit might read it differently depending on their mindset. I wonder if people would read Mindset itself differently depending on their Mindset.

 

Maybe for people who are thoroughly in the Growth Mindset, it is nothing new, as they already know all that. But for people thoroughly in the Fixed Mindset, maybe it is not possible to see it other than through that filter thus perhaps it seem to be about competing or how to get a child into Harvard, or something. ????. While maybe it speaks most to people who are ready to change, or have started to, but haven't quite got it figured out yet, and for whom it seems to be a revelation and help. ??????