Summary: On Mental Toughness by Harvard Business Review
chestergrant.com
chestergrant.com
A constant state of high mental determination can lead to a breakdown of relationships where mental and emotional endurance means out lasting people such that they simply give up. It's like persistence hunting in all the wrong and horrible ways when turned on people and relationships. So, learning when and when not to apply mental toughness is crucial.
Do you have any resources or recommendations on how to achieve a high level of mental toughness and grit?
For example, in my youth I was very fearful of becoming destitute. So to assuage that fear I became temporarily destitute: no money, no connections, and nothing to fall back on. Cue awful physical conditions like (attempting) to sleep out in hyperthermic temperatures with endless wind chill (something I've done before as a child), lack of food and water, and lack of resources. It's not bad for a month, but after that the realization will hit you that you are truly and utterly fucked if something goes wrong. Grossly miscalculate your travel from city to city? You now ran out of water, and will have to find some shelter when the night rolls in. All alone in the wilderness, will you make it in time to place with fresh water, or will you die before that happens? Uncertain. But all you can do is keep moving forward and play the hand your dealt. After a while the feelings you encounter aren't so potent, and you learn that all you can do is keep persevering in spite of everything.
A similar example is school sports. If you're an athlete you know what it's like to push yourself through the pain, drudgery, and exhaustion (something that no doubt had helped me in the above). You have a race to finish, so you might as well keep going and give it your all. Same with training: wake up at 4am, travel, practice for 3 hours with little sleep, and repeat for the season.
The trick is to be put into situations that test you and then it's up to you to pass. Once you pass, that grit you built will stay with you forever. It's mental, more than physical (but physical ailments and ill-health will greatly decrease your capacity for grit).
Unfortunately, it takes getting away from the modern coil and routine -- something that's not easily available to adults with responsibilities, careers, bills, and so on. So it's greatly unlikely you'll build grit, unless -- unsurprisingly -- you force yourself into the perilous situation of throwing it all away.
1. https://www.qu.edu/499a48/globalassets/global/media/qu/photo...
Grit, resilience, mental toughness, growth mindset are all great concepts but they're not really able to be measured in a validated way that produces reliable data.
Operationalizing and validating concepts and measures is genuinely difficult. There's always a question of whether the concept itself is real, if the test is really measuring it, and if anything can be learned from precisely measuring it.
Personally, I think this tracks with how reified the concept is in a particular society. No one would think twice at the validity of a gender test, some may question the validity or intelligence tests, and many may question grit tests. The almost instinctual reaction towards tests says more about someone's degree of social internalization than it does about the test, though of course it doesn't feel this way to the person being asked - see reification above.
The verdict from google is that many of the initial news-making studies have failed to replicate, in other words, "grit" and "mindset" probably don't concretely exist, and don't have any practical application.
Currently I am reading the book Grit by Angela Duckworth. The author cites studies of grit and has done much research on the subject. Are you suggesting that that research does not replicate?
It's not just "grit" - it's the entire field of "TED-Talk-headlining applied psychology [allegedly] based in research."
Absolutely infuriating.
I see, I know what you are getting at here. I stay away from TED talks specifically because I know those lack substance.
Thanks for the guidance, I will read more about this.
I'm talking about cynically spreading misinformation for personal financial gain - that's next level <insert favorite cussword here>.
That slight shift from "I'm not good at it, I'll never be good so why try?" (fixed mindset) to "I may not be good at it now, but I can get better, at least better than than where I was" (growth mindset) has led me down so many paths where I've pushed myself to achieve things I never thought I could. The book/concept can be summed up to the above sentences, so you can apply it without ever reading the book.
Like most HNers, I grew up being really interested in computers. I was naturally talented in languages and humanities but was weak at math (I failed math in high school 3 semesters in a row).
If I had adopted the fixed mindset of "I'm an arts person, math isn't my thing, I'll never be able to do a degree in CS or anything like that," I would not have ended up where I am now. Instead I told myself "even with my lack of talent, I want to see if I can push myself to do at least 1 technical degree so I can work with computers". I still struggled greatly with math, but realized that math was just a language like any other but with stricter rules, so I applied my ability with languages to the study of math. This worked OK in undergrad where math was more mechanical, but worked out really great in grad school, where math was more abstract -- which resembled the thinking behind natural languages more. I now have a Ph.D. in numerical optimization.
Whether you use the word "mindset" or not, believing that your abilities are not fixed, but that you can grow if you apply effort (even if you never become the best) changes your attitudes toward so many things in life and makes it possible for you to achieve more. It's a small change in thinking that pays compound interest over a long time.
It seems reasonable to me that diligent people with a positive attitude do better in the long run. And as far as I can tell, your positive attitude and diligence were self-generated.
The "scam" is ['researchers,' not you] claiming that what you've done for yourself, can be bottled, distilled, and taught in a classroom, or through millions of copies of a book, or huge speaking and consulting contracts, etc. That sounds good, but seems to not be true, or at least not be based in science.
I may not have had the language of "mindset" then, but now that I have it, I'm more conscious of it and can communicate the idea succinctly. It's making something previously tacit explicit. I think there's value in that.
The rest is probably off topic, but I need to vent…
My wife has/had (the scans after the experimental radiotherapy were clean and she is on Kiscaly) metastatic breast cancer. We are currently awaiting the results of the third follow-up CT-PET scan and I find the experience nerve-wracking.
Before the metastasis, I used to be able to tell myself that those scans were a formality and adopted an optimistic view. However, now that experience has shown me that they are not a formality and that catastrophic results are a real possibility even after four years of quarterly scans, I find it impossible to adopt a positive outlook. We don’t know until they call and there is nothing we can do.
I don’t see anything in this article that could help with this situation. There are some truths like 17:
…Chronic stress without recovery depletes energy reserves, leads to burnout and breakdown, and ultimately undermines performance.
This is disastrous in many environments, but won’t sound as alpha or be as fun of a read.
The point about acting angry and then being angry being the same only tells me that about anger. I’m very skeptical this applies to joy or happiness as cranking a heart rate up is easier than down.
Interestingly, most the qualities the authors praise are what have created a rather polarized world: high stress leading to growth (my anecdotal experience is this is very false and VERY bad for society as a whole), confident rather than thoughtful (could be construed as arrogant and doesn’t work well in complex environments ), and always localize to overcome (I do like this one).
Overall, pretty typical “stick-to-idness” type reasoning.
Well, it's focused on business achievements, which is by-design competitive, with winners and losers, and lots of personal risks if you're a loser.
You shouldn't generalize it to refer to actual life-success and fullfillement, or our ability as a species to survive and thrive, etc.
I want to also be clear that I’m not arguing that it’s not worth trying to be good at things you enjoy. By all means, that is healthy and a good use of time. I am making the distinction specifically around elite level play and the competitive standards.
People don’t like this argument but it is so far the case and there’s a plethora of evidence for it depending on the activity. It honestly can boil down to a couple things in most cases easily enough.
VO2 max is the measure of the maximal effort of your cells at consuming oxygen. This varies in humans between 20 and 90, with average being around 40 for women and 45 for men. It is well known that with rigorous persistent training that men can raise their VO2 max by about 20%. There’s even more potential with blood doping, altitude training, and illicit substances but it hardly goes up much more after that. If your VO2 max when first tested is around 45, do you think you’ll be competitive at any intense movement based activity? The average VO2 max of male olympic track and field atheletes is 75.
For weight lifting there is bone density, limb length, shoulder width, and overall size. All of these are barely alterable aside overall size. Someone who is 5’8” 140 lbs no matter how much training they ever do in their life might only ever bench 225 or 250. Meanwhile a 6’5” 280 lb man might bench 225 in his first month of working out. Granted here there is weight classes, so you would still need to put in the effort to find out how you may compare.
For things like musicianship, there is large variability in the tolerance of tendons and finger joints to rigorous practice. The amount required for elite level play is in the order of several hours per day for potentially decades. Shin Lim a famous magician was on track to being a concert pianist first, but had to withdraw due to developing carpal tunnel syndrome. Do you really think he had poor technique causing this? Extremely doubtful. On top of this, the ability for people to play various acrobatic repetoire varies quite a lot. Many people even with decades of rigorous practice will not ever be able to play the works of Alkan or Liszt etudes.
Many elite level players of shooters and other games have reaction times significantly lower than the general population.
It is thought but is not proven due to the difficulty of study that there is a cognitive equivalent to VO2 max and this is something much higher in top level players of fast paced competitive games compared to the general population. It certainly would make sense given the metabolic activity of cells working almost the same everywhere in the body.
Personal anecdote: My brother was reasonably athletic but not top level, but exceptionally gifted at math (never really studying all the way to acquiring a masters from university), so he chose contract bridge as his game of choice. He makes a living off it now and is a national champion. He told me the game and improving at it came completely naturally to him even far past what normal people would think is good and he said that’s just how it is. “I fell into this spot from inertia.” Several pro players of other competitive games have said something similar. It’s not “IQ” either. My brother has a friend who is something unreasonably gifted intellectually (tested IQ something like 158) and a multimillionaire and grinds like NO other at whatever he does. He is one of the all time best at a popular gameshow. He put this effort into Bridge too for quite a while. My brother said he’s decently good at it but nowhere near the competitive standard.
The point of all this rambling is that I think natural variability in talent accounts for far more than people think and attitudes toward mastery in many things adjust due to awareness of how one measures up after a reasonable effort has been put in. It is best for one to find the niche in their life where they seemingly have the most aptitude and go above and beyond developing in that area. These “attitude” ideals are great and all but they don’t make the difference between elite and average. They make the difference between average and good. And by extension I think trying every psychological trick you can possibly come up with like in the article to try and make up for being incompetent at a particular skill is probably less useful than simply finding something you seem naturally better at.
As with many good ideas, the "hard work is more important than talent" movement may have gone a bit too far. Now the pendulum swings back.
Eureka moments kind of.
Luck is a big factor in a person's success and it's influence shouldn't be under-rated, the biggest element being where and to whom you are born.
This is a tautology. Of course there's a ceiling of how one can go with [X] alone, (in fact, given any [X]). It doesn't pour water on the theory at all, it's just an uninteresting and fatalistic point of view.