Comment by _kxbd | Hacker News Reader

Comment by _kxbd | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

funny you say that because growth mindset seems to be one of the clearest examples of modern feel-good science.

invariably when a topic about intelligence gets posted we need someone to come around with an IQ around the 140 mark (I have no reason to doubt they are being honest fwiw) to tell us how because they personally failed, genetic intelligence is really unimportant (smarter rebuttals acknowledge that genetics plays a major role in intelligence, but that IQ is a really poor proxy of this, which is debatable).

this ultimately culminates in Almost Everyone Can Be Good At Almost Everything If They Try Hard With A Good Minset, The Growth Mindset. the science is weak. it's baffling how her book can be a "must-read".

https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/04/08/no-clarity-around-grow...

https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/07/growth-mindset-4-growt...

https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/what-is-your-mindset

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

edit: this article only addresses MENSA members, so i think this submission is bad. most well-adjusted intelligent people want nothing to do with MENSA. so even the claims of the submission are questionable.

> Almost Everyone Can Be Good At Almost Everything If They Try Hard With A Good Minset

The thing here is that many people are convinced that "I just cant learn X at all", so they wont even try. And when they do actualy try, they can become at minimum alright, probably decent and maybe good at X. You see that on both kids and adults.

That is where growth mindset comes from.

Will everybody be next Beethoven, Michelangelo, Knuth or win the olympic? No. Can healthy person learn to play piano, draw a portrait, write a python script or learn to swim? Absolutely yes.

I had no idea the book was so much of a "thing", its name and principles are basically inexistent here (France and nearby countries). People either feel they "are" smart or not, and believe it's forever. More strikingly it's about logical intelligence (IQ), as if that was the major deciding factor for success (it's really not). Hence why I always try to mention Dr Dweck (especially for kids).

I trust you've done your research so this isn't a rebuttal — merely a surprised observation. You probably have too much of it in the US (and indeed too much of even a good thing can hurt) whereas we have way too little of it in the EU (at least the "Latin" world).

100% agreed on Mensa (we don't have that here but even I know it's almost a scam).

Most interesting people I've ever met.

I would almost suggest Josh Waitzkin’s book “The Art Of Learning” instead of Dr. Dweck’s as his speaks through first-hand experience of the two mindsets while being a child prodigy.

I'll definitely check it out, then. Thanks for the pointer!

I would argue the contrary. France is heavy imprinted with socialism and ideas such as "everything is cultural". There is strong social backlash for even implying that intelligence is (mostly) genetics. The political implications are too strong, in particular for the "vivre ensemble" fantasy.

The whole education system is built around the idea that everyone is the same and could success if they work hard enough, which has seriously bad consequences such as universities filled with people who don’t belong there (this is becoming worth and worth as the bar is lowered constantly in lower education). There is shaming about trade schools in most of the country, despite it being a way to succeed and filling jobs needed by society. There is specialized schools and sections for low IQ people but not for higher ones. You better be average to fit and "succeed" at school.

> France is heavy imprinted with socialism and ideas such as "everything is cultural". There is strong social backlash for even implying that intelligence is (mostly) genetics.

As a french, I would argue that there is "public" backlash - e.g. in newspapers, etc. - but in private life most people would agree with OP. France is by far not a socialist country - here are the last (2015) regional election results : blue is right-wing, black far-right, pink and red, left-wing :

http://referentiel.nouvelobs.com/file/13820492.jpg

For Americans it could be called a socialist country, take into account that the parties we call right-wing in most European countries propose economic policies that are to the left of America's mainstream left. In fact, probably even Le Pen is to the left of America's mainstream left in terms of worker's policies.

Exactly. The political landscape is really skewed towards left, but to realize that you need to live abroad and expose yourself to other ideas. All political parties basically are 50 shades of left. Marine Le Pen ideas are qualified as the absolute evil in France while far stronger ideas (the one held by the real far-right, represented by Zemmour & MMLP) are totally normal in other places of the world. Take Japan for instance, where death penalty is approved by 60% of the population, criminals are actually sentenced to jail and immigration is severely restricted. This doesn’t make it a fascist state and it’s actually a really good place to live.

I didn't actually mean to discuss what's normal and what's skewed, and much less what's better or what's worse, but just to state a quite objective fact (that even the rightmost parties in Europe are to the left of American mainstream left) without sparking controversy. But I'll bite.

The Japan example is true (although they do have serious social issues), but the fact is that European countries utterly dominate most list of the best places to live. See for example

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/best-countries-to...

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/quality-of-life-r...

https://ceoworld.biz/2019/04/11/best-quality-of-life-2019/

where most of the countries in the top ten are European, with special predominance of particularly leftist countries like the Nordic countries. And at least the first two are American sources (not sure about the location of the third one).

The article does mention that point about MENSA:

"It’s also possible that people who join Mensa differ from other people in ways other than just IQ."

That’s probably quite true, too. I personally found the idea of Mensa the organization unattractive at best, and haven’t much enjoyed the little time I spent with its members.

Credible sources, please? Buzzfeed and a Wordpress blog don't lend much credence.

judge the articles based on their merits. they're not hiding their sources, you can go check the study of 5,000 british students if you want to read it yourself.

ironic because you'd think that if buzzfeed was as bad as its reputation, being a left-leaning outlet, it would be reasonable to assume they'd be in favor of growth mindset.

Imagine two worlds. In one world all people are completely and absolutely identical and unable to change themselves in any meaningful way. In the other world people are all completely identical, but able to radically reshape themselves as they see fit.

In one world an individuals actions and decisions would largely determine their outcome. In the other world things completely outside of an individual's control would be the primary determining factors in their outcome.

One of these worlds would imply the need for systems directly subsidizing those who fail to achieve. In the other world, poor outcomes would be attributable in large part to poor decisions. The latter scenario doesn't necessarily preclude a subsidization of those who fail to succeed, but it makes it a much more tenuous proposition.

Oddly enough, slatestarcodex is considered a highly reputable source.

I reccommend checking the sources given in the blog post.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com