The Secret to Raising Smart Kids 614
Hugh Pickens writes "Scientific American has an interesting article on the secret to raising smart kids that says that more than 30 years of scientific investigation suggests that an overemphasis on intellect or talent leaves people vulnerable to failure, fearful of challenges and unwilling to remedy their shortcomings. In particular, attributing poor performance to a lack of ability depresses motivation more than does the belief that lack of effort is to blame. One theory of what separates the two general classes of learners, helpless versus mastery-oriented, is that these different types of students not only explain their failures differently, but they also hold different "theories" of intelligence. The helpless ones believe that intelligence is a fixed trait: you have only a certain amount. Mistakes crack their self-confidence because they attribute errors to a lack of ability, which they feel powerless to change. Mastery-oriented children think intelligence is malleable and can be developed through education and hard work. Challenges are energizing rather than intimidating offering opportunities to learn."
I think you missed the point. (Score:5, Informative)
Article makes sense to me (Score:5, Informative)
1) Intelligence is not a fixed, immutable property.
2) People who believe it IS fixed and immutable tend to avoid intellectual challenges.
3) People who avoid intellectual challenges learn less, and more slowly than people who seek them out.
Therefore, in order to raise smart children, we should:
1) Teach them that intelligence can be increased. (E.g., "Einstein was a great mathematician because he worked really hard at it for a long time" rather than "Einstein was a born genius.")
2) Assign responsibility to effort rather than innate ability. (This works both ways; if the child does well on an assignment, you can say "That's a good job." But if they do poorly, you can say "You didn't put in enough effort." Either way, the problem is with the child's actions, not with the child's identity.)
This makes a great deal of sense to me. I have observed that I learn more from trying things that are hard than from repeating things I find easy. I think the same thing probably applies to other people; so in order to encourage learning, we should encourage people to believe that it's a good idea to try out things that are hard to do and see mistakes as opportunities to learn.
Re:Mental Disabilities (Score:2, Informative)
Its the only one I like by Vonnegut.
The inverse power of praise (Score:1, Informative)
http://nymag.com/news/features/27840/ [nymag.com]
Not that slashdot is on the trailing edge or nothing
Re:The secret to smart kids?? easy... (Score:3, Informative)
As the father of two grown daughters (one 20 and one 22) the first lesson I'll impart to new parents is that the experts are wrong. Throw those parenting books away! If your grandparents are still alive, ask them. They've been through it, twice. And follow your own instincts; millions of years ov evolution are on your side.
Nothing imparts insight like experience. Doctor Spock was a dimwit who ruined entire generations of kids.
Re:Mental Abilities (Score:5, Informative)
Gifted children are taught by their parents, pushed by their parents, and learn to please their parents by doing what their daddy wants them to do.
quoted from wikipedia
Also he didn't write an opera at age four, he's first opera was written at about age 11.
It's about motivation and success, not being smart (Score:5, Informative)
From what I've seen of the world, motivation is far more important in determining success than intelligence.
Re:Mental Disabilities (Score:2, Informative)
No.
Do a bit of reading on the Suzuki method of teaching children how to play musical instruments. I'd suggest this here for a few reasons. First, Suzuki's fundamental underpinning of his entire work is simply that TALENT IS NOT INNATE. He absolutely did not support the idea you've presented that some people simply have more music ability. Next, this may help you understand what this new research is and is not stating.
It takes motivation, persistence AND some method of proper feedback for helpful assessment and correction.
For the Suzuki method, the feedback is (at least) two-fold: lots of guided practice from teachers and parents and an enormous amount of active listening so that your mind gets attuned to how things should sound.
Let's say for example, I'd like to develop perfect pitch. If I simply start singing "do-re-mi"'s all day long, I'll very likely just make things worse. I will probably lay down deep patterns of doing it the wrong way. I'd have to spend even more time to unlearn/relearn. But if I use something like a tuner or a computer program to assist/evaluate, then I imagine after a few thousand times of doing this, I'd get much, much better.
This recent research isn't suggesting any such nonsense as motivation and desire could make someone a great guitarist in a month. Nor that the most motivated and persistent would be the best after a month.
It's simply rather clearly and poignantly demonstrating a significant and measurable difference of what happens in children's approaches to learning and challenges when you focus praise on either 1) intelligence ("you're so smart") or 2) effort ("you really worked hard"). The praise of a state ("smart") influences kids to switch to a mode of protecting that image to a degree which impedes learning whereas the praise of the "hard work" influences them to tackle challenges with relish.
If the Scientific American write-up didn't adequately describe some of these easily repeatable experiments, look here: The Power (and Peril) of Praising Your Kids -- New York Magazine [nymag.com]
The results were so immediate and clear that it'd be like a medical study where the study was simply cut short and those given placebos were immediately switched to the real thing.
Re:Correction (Score:3, Informative)
I realize that this is totally anecdotal, but when I was quite young (1st or 2nd grade) I was told I had a learning disability and had to take special classes for years (until early high school), mainly focusing on how to learn/study. One of my best friends who was classified as gifted and was in fact placed in various gifted programs.
I trudged through grammar/middle school and many parts of high school, only becoming "smart" (to some of my peers) because I took a strong interest in several subjects and worked very hard at them (science, history and computer programming to name a few). Many subjects were incredibly difficult for me such as math, foreign languages and english (because my spelling and handwriting sucked, but these improved dramatically when I got my first computer with a spell checker!). I don't think I ever received a grade higher than a C for low B for any math class I ever took. But none the less I persisted and have done quite well in life and academically. I ended up getting a degree in computer science (in which I had to take many, many math classes), and got an MBA with a concentration in finance (honestly, easy stuff compared to what you need to do for comp sci).
My friend did very well in grammar school (straight A's), pretty good in middle school, ok early on in high school, and then just fell apart. He ended up dropping out of college after his freshman year. Like myself, he was not a genius when it came to math, but he just couldn't deal with it. Unfortunately for my story we ended up growing apart as friends (after he dropped out of college), and I have no idea how he turned out. He could have very well turned it around, he certainly had the talent.
The same thing happened to several others I know, many of them scored perfect 1600's on their SAT's (back when that was the top score), got into great schools, and then ending up dropping out (again, maybe they made it big later on, I lost track of most of them).
So based on my experience I would agree that hard work pays off (at least academically).
Re:Mental Disabilities (Score:3, Informative)
I hate to just plain disagree with you but...
Take stroke victims. In severe cases they can't walk or speak properly. However they can make a full recovery, not by regenerating the damaged neurones, but by utilising neurones in the brain that are normally used in other mental tasks. Their brains have adapted.
A a boy, my father lived next to a boy who had severe problems walking (can't remember the exact name of the disease). His father forced him to walk even though it was painful for him and in my dad's house they could here him crying and protesting against his father. However, he grew up able to walk and to hold down a job and not just sit about.
Look at the late Jane Tomlinson [bbc.co.uk] who managed to run 3 marathons, several triathalons and the Great North run and many other physical achievments despite suffering from terminal cancer.
Or, Crawford Carrick-Anderson [scottishenduros.co.uk] who is profoundly deaf but has been 5 time Scottish champion, 2nd in Britain and 9th in the world in Motorbike endurance racing, as well as being in the British Ski-ing team. This is the "proper" championships mind you, not the "special" championships.
Or, Dame Evelyn Glennie [evelyn.co.uk] who is, arguably, one of the worlds top percussionists despite being profoundly deaf.
Sorry to go on, but these are just 5 of the instances I happen to know about who have overcome great difficulties(disabilities, although I doubt they will call them that) to become top of their field or at least live a "normal" life.
stupid psychologists (Score:3, Informative)
hard work, not "genius" (Score:3, Informative)
Danny.
Re:Mental Abilities (Score:3, Informative)
Last Spring there was a concert by Music of the Baroque of a piece Mozart wrote at age 6. It was quite excellent. There was subtlety, humor and great use of dynamics. It was as good as anything else that we being written at the time. I remember reading the program notes because I couldn't believe it was written by a child. He and his sister were stuck in Vienna or somewhere together, away from their parents and they made a game of composition.