Hacker News Reader

Hmm. Your point is valid, but does not contradict Dweck's version of "praise effort, not intelligence".

Dweck's main point is to avoid praising in such a way that it makes kids believe that they're naturally good at something. For example, don't say "You got 100% on that test? You're so good at math!" because that causes kids to believe that they're intrinsically good at math, and that they don't need to continue working at it. The result is that these kids shy away from learning new math, because whenever they encounter math they don't "intrinsically" understand, it violates their "I'm good at math" worldview and makes them feel stupid.

Instead, she suggests praising good results with phrases like "See? You worked hard to solve the problem, and you did it!" - because this encourages the obvious desired behavior that kids see themselves as able to solve problems if they work at them. These kids relish challenges because challenges give them opportunities to validate their worldview - that they're good at figuring out how to solve problems - by solving them.

The aspect of "Learning to work hard is not a worthy goal on its own if you don't learn to work better at the same time" is clearly there, because it's the good results that are praised in both cases. It's just a question of how you praise those good results: don't make the kid think that intelligence is intrinsic - but instead make them think that it can and must be worked at.

(And Dweck doesn't suggest praising poor results, as you suggest with your example "Great job, even though you did poorly on that math test you studied really hard!")

Hope this helps clear things up.

(And Dweck doesn't suggest praising poor results, as you suggest with your example "Great job, even though you did poorly on that math test you studied really hard!")

Hope this helps clear things up.

That absolutely does, thank you.

I've always bristled at the idea that poor results should be excused and rewarded as long as effort is expended, which is, on second reading, definitely not what she claims.

The quote 'praise effort, not intelligence' isn't mine, though I probably should have used the word ability instead of intelligence. It's been born out of the numerous scientific studies done that continually show that by saying to a child 'I am very proud of the effort you put forth on X' as opposed to saying 'You're so smart! You studied hard and got a B instead of a C!' you are placing the emphasis on something the child has control over (their effort), over something which is innate (their natural ability).

I agree with you that learning to work hard is not a worthy goal on its own, but the praise effort vs ability debate isn't about encouraging a child to work hard but simply to praise them on what they have control over (their effort) vs their innate abilities.

Now, when it comes to child psychology and keeping a child engaged, maybe you're right and it's better to praise effort. But that should not come at the expense of praising intelligence; "intelligence" is the end product of many years of effort directed at the process of learning and thinking, not something that's doled out of a box at birth.

This idea of praising effort vs ability has been discussed previously here, so instead of repeating it I'll just link to it :)

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2237874

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2562632

I agree with you that learning to work hard is not a worthy goal on its own, but the praise effort vs ability debate isn't about encouraging a child to work hard but simply to praise them on what they have control over (their effort) vs their innate abilities.

That makes a lot more sense, and is actually pretty close to what I was getting at (that what's often considered "natural intelligence" is really the end result of a whole lot of hard work aimed at the process of learning instead of the material being learned, and that it's not productive to pretend that one can't influence it).

You clearly see intelligence as malleable, which is great. The problem is many people don't (they view it as fixed), and Dweck's studies show that praising intelligence enforces this view. Dweck talks about good number of consequences of having this belief -- to name a few: encourages associating academic performance with self-worth (aka having contingent self-worth), focusing on grades and living up to expectations instead of learning and growing, avoiding challenging situations, shallow learning, lower achievement, and anxiety/tension and potentially depression.

There's a fine line, and the goal is having teachers that understand how to properly act in order to influence students to take on the proper mindsets (having a belief in malleable intelligence as one).

When someone "intelligent" gets a bad grade on a math test despite having studied hard, they realize that something is wrong with the way they studied. Or that they have a deficiency in earlier material that they need to correct. Or that they need to sleep more before the test. Etc.

No, actually. When a gifted kid has been praised for their intelligence, it is common for them to generalize a failure into a shameful personal defect: they have let everyone down by failing to live up to their Potential. (And with that high IQ they can generalize very well indeed.) This can result into fear and crippling risk aversion, or conversely manic overachievement.

... "intelligence" is the end product of many years of effort directed at the process of learning and thinking, not something that's doled out of a box at birth.

This is crystallized intelligence, specialized knowledge that can be applied to specialized problems. It is indeed the result of long, dedicated study and practice. However it is built on a foundation of fluid intelligence (IQ) which mostly is doled out of a box at birth.

Learning to work hard is not a worthy goal on its own if you don't learn to work better at the same time ... This is as true in programming as it is anywhere.

I think that "work hard" in this context was meant to mean you should depersonalize failure, so that you don't stop working because of shame or worry.