a refutation of the supremacy of grit

[Miss Mousie]

I happened across this article today and thought folks here would be interested.

 

 

The consensus among scientists who have tested Duckworth’s theory rigorously is that grit probably is a distinct trait that does count towards academic achievement. However, its effect is very small, certainly compared to that of intelligence. Duckworth’s peers also regard these findings as less than a breakthrough. Grit is a variation on already well-studied personality traits: in particular, “conscientiousnessâ€, or self-discipline (which undoubtedly makes a contribution to achievement, just not as large a contribution as intelligence).

 

In other words, grit is not nothing, but neither is it new, or anything like the secret of success. Essentially, it is an exercise in rebranding, and a rather effective one.

 

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2016/06/talent-trap-why-try-try-and-trying-again-isn-t-key-success

 

 

[regentrude]

OK, so basically: hard work without talent does not get you to the top.

That is not newsworthy at all.

[nature girl]

Well...I can't say I agree. I mean, intelligence is important sure, but speaking as the mother of a bright ADHD'er, it's going to take a lot of work on her part (and mine) to struggle through her natural tendencies to avoid anything that requires hard work so she can reach her potential. There are a LOT of unmotivated people with above average intelligence who never go as far as they should because they're not willing to work for it.

 

On the other hand, a motivated hard worker with only average intelligence can go much further. (Look at Trump. Ba-dum-pum.)

[Another Lynn]

Maybe it's a matter of defining terms, but that seems exactly opposite of the book, Talent is Overrated.

[regentrude]

Except in the context of the current fashion to make it all about grit. 

 

I agree it seems obvious that the formula for getting to the top is talent (or GMA) plus hard work. 

 

What is GMA?

[Ausmumof3]

Well...I can't say I agree. I mean, intelligence is important sure, but speaking as the mother of a bright ADHD'er, it's going to take a lot of work on her part (and mine) to struggle through her natural tendencies to avoid anything that requires hard work so she can reach her potential. There are a LOT of unmotivated people with above average intelligence who never go as far as they should because they're not willing to work for it.

 

On the other hand, a motivated hard worker with only average intelligence can go much further. (Look at Trump. Ba-dum-pum.)

Or they are intelligent enough to look at the rewards for being at the top and figure, do a cost benefit analysis and figure it's not something they want to do. It's possible to decide to put your hard work into something that seems more valuable to you than achievement.

[Ausmumof3]

I think it's a lie to tell people they can achieve anything they want by hard work no matter their starting point. It's equally a lie to say that you can achieve anything you want based purely on natural ability without application. Both traits needs to work hand in hand to make success.

 

However I also think it's somewhat of a lie to tell people that putting more effort in is purely all about will power. There are many things that mess with people's ability to apply themselves, life circumstances and mental health issues. ADHD etc etc. persistence, determination and dedication can be inborn characteristics as much as intelligence though certainly every body can work on improving both executive function and intelligence. M

[Reefgazer]

When I have read about the effect of "grit" on success, it rarely refers to people reaching the pinnacle of their chosen profession.  It is usually used in reference to kids in tough circumstances getting out of and staying out of poverty/abuse/tough circumstances.  I don't think anyone would disagree that to reach the top of your profession takes grit, intelligence, and a bit of luck, but that's not usually the context for grit discussions.  So leaving aside exceptional intelligence,  it would seem that grit is an umbrella term for many traits that keep you out of trouble and allow you to live a somewhat pleasant life. 

[creekland]

That's a really good article IMO.  I know from the oodles of students I've worked with, I can almost always assess talent and intelligence pretty quickly - even if it resides in lower level "bad" kids or those who haven't been exposed to much due to family circumstances.  Grit also is easily seen by who actually is willing to work - even if they don't care for the subject.

 

A talented kid can get better if one can turn on the light at the end for them.  I've seen students go from super low to super high (rare, but happens).  A kid with (just) grit will do ok, but reach a ceiling.  They simply can't comprehend much beyond that (allowing for brain growth since we're talking teens).

 

Combine talent with grit and one often gets some really amazing individuals.

 

I think one can "train" intelligence somewhat - esp when kids are young.  Exercise their brains, but not with electronics.  Give them sticks and basic toys and let their imaginations work.  If theirs doesn't, pair them with someone's whose does to get inspiration.  Just don't keep them there so they end up not using theirs but being a follower all the time.  Read to them.  Don't fix things for them, let them figure out how to fix them (perhaps with hints).  Let them fall and get back up. Take them places and let them see sand, snow, forests, palm trees, mountains, prairies, etc, etc.  Experiencing things develops far more than merely talking about them.  (This is why I think intelligence corresponds with parents and money - kids need parents who both want to do these things and have money to do them.)

 

Teaching grit isn't so easy, but when kids have some success with fixing things and planning/doing things in their youth, it sure helps.

 

Why not electronics?  Kids brains follow electronics - the pictures - the stories - whatever.  They don't really think to fill all that in themselves.  Same thing with a full blown firefighter or cooking set.  Let kids have the basics (maybe a hat or some pots) and figure out all the rest themselves - again - perhaps with hints if needed to get started.

 

Just my two cents.

[hepatica]

Seems to me the question is not whether "grit" or "talent" or a "growth mindset" or whatever is the source of greatness/high achievement, but rather, when did ordinariness become a moral failing?

 

Who wants a world where everyone is Yo Yo Ma? What's wrong with just taking a few piano lessons so you can play Christmas carols with your family. What's wrong with just living an ordinary life of modest achievement and good character where you do absolutely nothing "great" at all?

 

 

Edited July 1, 2016 by hepatica

[abcmommy]

I like what Brene Brown says which I think is here

 

https://www.brainpickings.org/2015/09/02/rising-strong-brene-brown/

[creekland]

Seems to me the question is not whether "grit" or "talent" or a "growth mindset" or whatever is the source of greatness/high achievement, but rather, when did ordinariness become a moral failing?

 

Who wants a world where everyone is Yo Yo Ma? What's wrong with just taking a few piano lessons so you can play Christmas carols with your family. What's wrong with just living an ordinary life of modest achievement and good character where you do absolutely nothing "great" at all?

 

I don't think anything is wrong with ordinary as long as one is self supporting and content in life.  I live a reasonably ordinary life and am quite content with it.

 

Everything is wrong with ordinary when one struggles to eat, pay rent, and live in our world.

 

It's the latter group that most folks trying to get a grasp on grit and talent are trying to figure out how to assist.  (How to truly help the "poor" - or their kids.)

 

Some take it to Olympic extremes, but not most of us.

[KrissiK]

It definitely takes both. And I think grit/drive takes you a long way. I grew up testing pretty high in those standardized tests and was labeled gifted, and I coasted through the first 12 years of school. I did well, but not nearly as well as I could have. I think I had what it took intellectually, but just didn't want it. I didn't have a lot of drive. I didn't care. My son, while he's average intellectually, could do very well on the athletic field. He was blessed with a great physique, a lot of endurance and coordination. He was a stand out when he was little and playing soccer, but now, as he's getting older the other kids with more drive are leaving him in the dust because he just doesn't care. I had hopes that he would do really well in high school and maybe scholarship in college, but now, as a rising 8th grader.... I think this is his last year playing organized sports. And I'm really sad because I feel like he's wasting a lot of talent. So, maybe my opinion here is that grit and intellectual ability may be important, you gotta have drive or you don't have anything.

[abcmommy]

I don't think anything is wrong with ordinary as long as one is self supporting and content in life.  I live a reasonably ordinary life and am quite content with it.

 

Everything is wrong with ordinary when one struggles to eat, pay rent, and live in our world.

 

It's the latter group that most folks trying to get a grasp on grit and talent are trying to figure out how to assist.  (How to truly help the "poor" - or their kids.)

 

Some take it to Olympic extremes, but not most of us.

 

 

This is reductive.  If you think the poor lack grit I believe you have not spent time with them.  

 

"Ordinary people" struggle to eat pay rent etc every day for reasons which have ZERO to do with grit, talent, and even work ethic.

[hepatica]

It's not a question of whether people who struggle to eat have grit or talent. The issue is why we have political/ social/economic structures that require extraordinary grit or talent just to eat (at least for so so many people)

 

All this focus on individual traits keeps the focus off structures and institutions and public policy - so ultimately it serves the status quo.

 

Most people are, by definition, ordinary. Life should work for us too.

[ElizabethB]

I have an extended family relative who has a low IQ. She is a hard worker and loves children and is a fun, pleasant person to be around. She worked in child care. Her last job, she was watching children for a doctor whose wife had died. She is such a lively, lovely person he eventually married her. She is now well off even after his death, and has people help manage her money, she does not have a high enough IQ to manage it on her own.

 

I did not know she had a low IQ when I first met her, and she was very tan from being outside a lot and playing a lot of golf. My first thought was dementia, she looked older than she was. I was amazed to find out her IQ, but it made sense based on the conversations she could not follow in retrospect.

 

So, grit and a pleasant personaliy can be helpful even without talent, although you might call her rapport with and love of children a certain type of talent.

Edited July 1, 2016 by ElizabethB

[creekland]

This is reductive.  If you think the poor lack grit I believe you have not spent time with them.  

 

"Ordinary people" struggle to eat pay rent etc every day for reasons which have ZERO to do with grit, talent, and even work ethic.

 

The question I was answering was "What's wrong with ordinary?" not "Do the poor lack grit or talent."

 

There is something vastly wrong with "ordinary" when it means keeping a cycle of poverty going.  Whether one then wants to blame it on politics or educational opportunities or culture in general or whatever is a whole different topic.  Finding, encouraging, and facilitating grit and talent is only one aspect of all of that.

 

My ideal world prefers my first definition of ordinary and works to try to be sure the next generation (or this one) can get there if they aren't already.

[abcmommy]

http://markmanson.net/being-average

 

This will probably offend some- language used tends to be coarse.

 

But I think he makes good points.  

 

At the same time, I am not sure why we are conflating "ordinary" with an inability to provide for basic needs, bc that seems to me to be a bizarre interpretation of ordinary.  Rather, ordinary would be a teacher married to an insurance salesman perhaps.  Or a govt employee married to a construction engineer.

 

I find this discussion to be confused...

Edited July 1, 2016 by abcmommy

[hepatica]

Yeah, I definitely didn't mean "ordinary" in the sense of status quo. I was talking more about the statistical definition of ordinary, i.e. not outside the norm in terms of size, strength, intellect, personality etc.

 

In a just society, one should not need to be a high achiever in order to stay out of poverty.

 

 

[creekland]

Yeah, I definitely didn't mean "ordinary" in the sense of status quo. I was talking more about the statistical definition of ordinary, i.e. not outside the norm in terms of size, strength, intellect, personality etc.

 

In a just society, one should not need to be a high achiever in order to stay out of poverty.

 

I agree with the bolded.  But how "ordinary" is defined depends upon the person - what is the norm for them.  We have plenty of students whose norm is barely making ends meet and they see this as "how life is."  We want them to be able to redefine the word - without feeling they have to win the lottery to be able to do so.  (Some feel that is their only chance.)

 

Chances are, for most of us on this board, "ordinary" is pretty much my first definition - self supporting, decent life - not necessarily a high achiever.  But we are not the only demographic out there and grit/talent/educational opportunities, etc, are all things some of us use trying to assist others in changing their definition and seeing what possibilities exist.

 

[abcmommy]

I agree with the bolded.  But how "ordinary" is defined depends upon the person - what is the norm for them.  We have plenty of students whose norm is barely making ends meet and they see this as "how life is."  We want them to be able to redefine the word - without feeling they have to win the lottery to be able to do so.  (Some feel that is their only chance.)

 

Chances are, for most of us on this board, "ordinary" is pretty much my first definition - self supporting, decent life - not necessarily a high achiever.  But we are not the only demographic out there and grit/talent/educational opportunities, etc, are all things some of us use trying to assist others in changing their definition and seeing what possibilities exist.

 

 

 

I don't really understand what you are saying here.  We on the board are not the only demographic out there?

 

I am not self supporting.  Once I divorce I will require all the state services I can get my hands on.  I am 40 and I have not worked consistently my whole life.  Not only am I incapable of being self supporting, I also have a giant IQ (which impresses no one including me, outside of this board)  

 

I can't decide if I am ordinary in any demographic. Gritty?  not much.  Resilient?  I sure as sh*t hope so.

 

The point being you seem to think people here are a lot more "special" than they are.  

 

And ordinary is not an individual characteristic but has a meaning... average.  The average US citizen struggles but is self sufficient.

 

Until medical debt or some other catastrophe.

Edited July 1, 2016 by abcmommy

[creekland]

I don't really understand what you are saying here.  We on the board are not the only demographic out there?

 

I am not self supporting.  Once I divorce I will require all the state services I can get my hands on.  I am 40 and I have not worked consistently my whole life.  Not only am I incapable of being self supporting, I also have a giant IQ (which impresses no one including me, outside of this board)  

 

I can't decide if I am ordinary in any demographic. Gritty?  not much.  Resilient?  I sure as sh*t hope so.

 

The point being you seem to think people here are a lot more "special" than they are.  

 

And ordinary is not an individual characteristic but has a meaning... average.  The average US citizen struggles but is self sufficient.

 

Until medical debt or some other catastrophe.

 

Sorry about your divorce and wishing you the best future.  FWIW, I'm glad my mom got her divorce even though when I was 11 I didn't understand it at all.  It took until adulthood before it made sense (when I saw my dad profiled in an Abnormal Psych class - granted - not really my dad, but it could have been).

 

Otherwise, yes, I see a different demographic (via my years in the public school where I work) that is totally unlikely to be spending their time figuring out the best education/path for their kids.  Their kids have their own definition of ordinary.  We try to change it.

 

I'll just leave it at that otherwise.

[nature girl]

This thread is all over the place.

 

I define "success" in adulthood as fulfillment. We're all here, on these boards, because we want our children to have "decent, self-supporting" lives and, most importantly, fulfilling lives. We can show our kids the value of education, which we hope will foster grit, to some extent, give our children their own motivation to learn so that they can find jobs that will fulfill them. Like Creekland is saying, that is not the norm for many families. We're trying to show our children that a good life, if they're willing to work for it, is possible. Our kids on average aren't more intelligent than those struggling populations, but will (on average) be more successful than many because again we're teaching them that success is possible, and the importance of hard work. So really, is IQ the defining factor?

[Ausmumof3]

Seems to me the question is not whether "grit" or "talent" or a "growth mindset" or whatever is the source of greatness/high achievement, but rather, when did ordinariness become a moral failing?

 

Who wants a world where everyone is Yo Yo Ma? What's wrong with just taking a few piano lessons so you can play Christmas carols with your family. What's wrong with just living an ordinary life of modest achievement and good character where you do absolutely nothing "great" at all?

I think at least one part of this is down to our ability to mass produce and replicate stuff. So if someone is an amazing artist their work gets printed a million times and all the slightly less amazing artists don't get a start. If you are an awesome musician (or a well marketed one) your discs are on every shelf or your tunes on every iPad. But no one wants to pay to hear mediocre stuff. Maybe at some point we will begin valuing individuality more but right now it's not there for those type of jobs.

[hepatica]

Maybe it's not predominately talent or grit but sheer dumb luck that matters....

 

(essay on average kids)

[creekland]

Maybe it's not predominately talent or grit but sheer dumb luck that matters....

 

(essay on average kids)

 

Luck is definitely important, but I'm with the group that would have no problem with that book for the preschool set.  There's no need to limit kids at that point in their lives.  The problem comes when kids are pushed to be "the best" and the Silver metal at the local sports meet or academic competition is not considered worthy.

 

Or when kids are told they must be a doctor/lawyer/CEO.  What if they aren't good at those, or like them?

 

Or when kids are told (at a young age) that they can't be a certain profession - even Super Hero.  That gets them down.  Why try?  As they mature, they'll figure out what they like or dislike.

 

We still tell our kids they can be anything they want to be (except pimp, illegal drug dealer - or other criminal, or terrorist) and we'll support them 100%.  So far, so good.  Healthy self-esteems, curiosity about the world, and well on their way to being self supporting, even if in "average" jobs.  ;)

[abcmommy]

I think resiliency is what matters and to be resilient, one needs to recover.

 

https://hbr.org/2016/06/resilience-is-about-how-you-recharge-not-how-you-endure

[momma2three]

I think it's a combination of charisma and empathy.  I've known plenty of dumb people who have made it very far in school and in life, and I know plenty of smart people who have made it nowhere.  And I know plenty of really hard workers who just can not catch a break, and plenty of people who do the very bare minimum and just surf through life easy peasy.  

 

What I think really leads to academic and career success is being able to read your teacher/boss and understand what they want and how to deliver it in the package they want it in, be able to work well with co-workers, be able to sell your work and talents (just having them isn't enough... you need to make people take notice in a way that they think well of you... again, that's back to understanding what your teacher/boss wants to see), and basically just be a likable person that gets along with as many people as possible.  

 

Somehow, I doubt that theory would sell a lot of books.  And I don't know how much it can be taught.  There's more emphasis on teaching kids these skills than there ever has been before, and I think they can be taught to some extent.  But I think it's the kind of charm that you either have, or you don't, and you either know how to use it well, or you don't.

[creekland]

I think it's a combination of charisma and empathy.  I've known plenty of dumb people who have made it very far in school and in life, and I know plenty of smart people who have made it nowhere.  And I know plenty of really hard workers who just can not catch a break, and plenty of people who do the very bare minimum and just surf through life easy peasy.  

 

What I think really leads to academic and career success is being able to read your teacher/boss and understand what they want and how to deliver it in the package they want it in, be able to work well with co-workers, be able to sell your work and talents (just having them isn't enough... you need to make people take notice in a way that they think well of you... again, that's back to understanding what your teacher/boss wants to see), and basically just be a likable person that gets along with as many people as possible.  

 

Somehow, I doubt that theory would sell a lot of books.  And I don't know how much it can be taught.  There's more emphasis on teaching kids these skills than there ever has been before, and I think they can be taught to some extent.  But I think it's the kind of charm that you either have, or you don't, and you either know how to use it well, or you don't.

 

That's what I call "people skills" and yes, I see it as the biggest correlation to "success" (though not necessarily the Olympics).

 

We do try to teach those in school now and for some, it can make a difference.  They are as important overall as any academics we teach.

 

It's all part of the conversation that includes grit and talent.

 

Socio economic group can play a part.  Demographic group can play a part.  Education can play a part.  Dumb luck can play a part.  (All of those usually DO play a part, sometimes more, sometimes less.)  But people skills - to me - is the major player.  We'll continue to work on teaching them along with the academics.  No regrets.