Basically, how are we to make sense of human behaviour, specifically the dark side of human nature? And, more particularly, can we humans ever become truly moral beings? Wilson has put forward in his theory of Eusociality, but the psychosis-addressing-and-solving, real explanation of it.
Posted on April 8, by Scott Alexander I. I have a huge bias against growth mindset. More on Wikipedia here.
Social psychology has been, um, very enthusiastic about denying that result. If all growth mindset did was continue to deny it, then it would be unexceptional. But growth mindset goes further.
People who believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard enough will be successful, well-adjusted, and treat life as a series of challenging adventures.
It is right smack in the middle of a bunch of fields that have all started seeming a little dubious recently. Most of the growth mindset experiments have used priming to get people in an effort-focused or an ability-focused state of mind, but recent priming experiments have famously failed to replicate and cast doubt on the entire field.
And growth mindset has an obvious relationship to stereotype threat, which has also started seeming very The concept of good versus evil essay recently.
So I have every reason to be both suspicious of and negatively disposed toward growth mindset. Which makes it appalling that the studies are so damn good. Consider Dweck and Muellerone of the key studies in the area. First they did some easy ones and universally succeeded.
The researchers praised them as follows: All children were told that they had performed well on this problem set: You got [number of problems] right. Some children were praised for their ability after the initial positive feedback: This is a nothing intervention, the tiniest ghost of an intervention.
The experiment had previously involved all sorts of complicated directions and tasks, I get the impression they were in the lab for at least a half hour, and the experimental intervention is changing three short words in the middle of a sentence.
Children in the intelligence condition were much less likely to persevere on a difficult task than children in the effort condition 3. This was repeated in a bunch of subsequent studies by the same team among white students, black students, Hispanic students…you probably still get the picture.
Then she gave all of them impossible problems and watched them squirm — or, more formally, tested how long the two groups continued working on them effectively.
She found extremely strong results — of the 30 subjects in each group, 11 of the mastery-oriented tried harder after failure, compared to 0 helpless. This study is really weird. Either something is really wrong here, or this one little test that separates mastery-oriented from helpless children constantly produces the strongest effects in all of psychology and is never wrong.
None of them ever expressed a positive statement about their own progress, while over two-thirds of the children who thought effort was more important did. And a meta-analysis of all growth mindset studies finds more modest, but still consistent, effects, and only a little bit of publication bias.
So — is growth mindset the one concept in psychology which throws up gigantic effect sizes and always works? Or did Carol Dweck really, honest-to-goodness, make a pact with the Devil in which she offered her eternal soul in exchange for spectacular study results?
But here are a few things that predispose me towards the latter explanation. A warning — I am way out of my league here and post this only hoping it will spark further discussion. The first thing that bothers me is the history. It seems to have grown out of a couple of studies Carol Dweck and a few collaborators did in the seventies.
But these studies generally found that a belief in innate ability was a positive factor alongside belief in growth mindset, with the problem children being the ones who attributed their success or failure to bad luck, or to external factors like the tests being rigged which, by the way, they always were.
Its abstract describes the finding as: The real finding of the study was that children who attributed their success or failure to any stable factor, be it effort or ability, did better than those who did not.
When you actually look at the paper, this is another case of the persistent children actually having a higher belief in the importance of ability, which fails to achieve statistical significance because the study is on a grand total of twelve children.
I should say something else about this study. Dweck compared two interventions to make children less helpless and better at dealing with failure. In the first, she gave them a lot of easy problems which they inevitably succeeded on and felt smart about.
Finally, both groups were challenged with the difficult bound-to-fail problems to see how hard they tried on them. Dweck interpreted this to prove that telling children to work hard made them less helpless.The great philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev certainly wasn’t exaggerating when, in describing both the agony of our ‘good vs evil’-afflicted state or predicament and the need to resolve it, he wrote that ‘There is a deadly pain in the very distinction of good and evil, of the valuable and the worthless.
Expert Reviewed. How to Write a Literary Analysis. Four Methods: Taking Notes and Developing Your Argument Outlining the Paper Writing Your Essay Polishing Your Essay Community Q&A A literary analysis is the process where you read a literary work very closely to figure out how the author gets their main points across.
“WISHING WON’T MAKE IT SO” Metaphysics is the fundamental branch of philosophy, which shapes all the rest. In particular, Rand held that the issue of the primacy of existence vs. the primacy of consciousness is a basic . Themes in poetry are often quite apparent, but that isn’t always the case.
Sometimes the theme doesn’t make itself apparent and is instead up to the reader.
In religion, ethics, philosophy, and psychology "good and evil" is a very common srmvision.com cultures with Manichaean and Abrahamic religious influence, evil is usually perceived as the dualistic antagonistic opposite of good, in which good should prevail and evil should be defeated.
In cultures with Buddhist spiritual influence, both good and evil are perceived as part of an antagonistic. Admitting a bias is the first step to overcoming it, so I’ll admit it: I have a huge bias against growth mindset.
(if you’re not familiar with it, growth mindset is the belief that people who believe ability doesn’t matter and only effort determines success .