Slashdot Mirror
The Secret to Raising Smart Kids
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."
This is also an implicit critique for those in certain fields of biology, who, unwilling to question their genetic reductionistic assumptions, continuously attempt to explain everything about humanity in terms of genetics or selection pressure, as though their particular field exists within an epistemological vacuum.
But you can over encourage your children and get them to not apply themselves. I've seen it happen...
If you allow your awareness to lapse and fade, you will become a victim of your own overconfidence. - the book of five rings
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
Sure, having innate gifts helps, but it doesn't do any good if you don't show up and get things done. That's why doing homework is part of my kids' nightly routine. It's also why being borderline obsessive/compulsive tends to get you ahead academically and in many work environments. Of course, it means tearing my kids away from their current project for dinner time is occasionally an epic battle. I tell my son that our ability to intensely focus on things is our family's superpower, and should be used for good and not evil.
The other thing I've seen research on is that praising kids in general ways such as "you're smart" isn't very helpful. Being specific with your praise, such as "you've got a good memory and learn spelling words well" is more effectively motivating.
I think you may have missed the point of the article. It's quite possible to take the time to teach your kids, but have it blow up in your face because the methods of teaching are not optimal.
You seem to have done a great job making sure your daughter is open to traditionally gender-inappropriate areas of interest, and to have challenged her and stimulated her in positive ways. Often, though, parents will say, "C'mon, you're smarter than that" or something similar when their child fails. As failures mount (and they will, learning is a process that requires failure), the child begins to believe that they really aren't that smart, and that a lack of intelligence is why they fail.
What I've taken from the article is that a better way to handle that would be to say, "C'mon, let's figure out how you can be smarter about that problem next time." This implies that intelligence is malleable and trainable.
How have you handled your daughter's failures?
/For the record, I've been doing a lot of reading on the subject lately, as I'm a fairly new father of a girl -- and I'm always looking for insight.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
How? ok I have a great example....
I asked her to change the manual transmission oil on my Sidekick sport, no instruction at all just a command and acted like I was doing something.
when she opened the book and crawled under the car with a breaker bar to remove the oil drain plug I almost snickered... I let her get covered in old 90 weight oil, I then quietly slid the oil pan under for her and said, "need this?" she cleaned up the mess and finished the job and I said " good job! Mistakes make you better at what you do."
Expect kids to make mistakes and praise them for making them.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Many of us here are the people described in the article, and we hold "being smart" as the highest possible attribute. We worship "smart" here. Ironically, of course, since one can't claim any more honor from being born smart than from being born handsome or good at sports, traits that are scorned here.
Well, that's the focus of the article, isn't it? I totally agree with you, by the way - there's nothing to be proud of in relying on abliity alone to outperform the less talented if you're still underachieving.
I was certainly one of the ones that got the 'wow, that kid's smart' a lot. Probably more in school than from my parents, who emphasized work over talent. And I was an underachiever (relatively) until I realized how shameful it was that I was getting grades without any effort that my friends had to work their asses off for. And some of them resented it. I came to realize that a great deal of unused talent isn't something to be proud of; it's something to be ashamed of, if anything.
I've got kids now, and they're young, but they seem pretty sharp. And while I'll never tell them that they're dumb, praise comes through recognition of hard work - not talent.
The article never really states that intelligence is terribly malleable. This is more of a general impression left with the reader - which is mostly incorrect. The article mainly states that it is preferable that children hold a more rose-tinted view of the nature of intelligence, as that tends to make them less prone to fatalism and more prone to work hard. Sort of like how a belief in Santa can make kids behave better.
I recall reading about a Nobel prize winner's acceptance speech that included this anecdote.
... encouraging him to experiment.
Once, when he was very young, he spilled a pitcher of juice (milk?) all over the kitchen while trying to serve himself a drink. Instead of yelling at him, his mother helped him clean it up. She then filled the pitcher with water and took him outside and told him "The way you did it before didn't work very well, how else can you hold and pour so you don't spill?"
In the speech, he thanked his mother for helping him win the science prize by teaching him to try new approaches when his attempts failed... and not to fear mistakes.
I really liked that story when I first heard it (and try hard to practice the same type of teaching with my own children). I wish I knew which prize winner it was so I could read or listen to his entire acceptance speech (and see if I'm remembering that story correctly)
Come play free flash games on Kongregate!
Being smart is somehow different than other traits though. If I were to tell a coworker or a friend "let me carry that, I'm stronger" or "let me reach that, I'm taller than you", no one would bat an eye. But if I were to say "let me solve that, I'm smarter", that's plainly offensive. Why is that?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
You mean I'm not smart just because a bunch of people told me so? Who knew?
New York Magazine published a pretty good article about how actively boosting a child's self-esteem often has the opposite effect to what a well-meaning adult intends.
The 5000 foot view is that in 1969 a guy named Nathaniel Braden published The Psychology of Self-Esteem a wildly popular book among academicians, whose whole point was that self-esteem is the single most important personality trait. True or not, his conclusions spawned the next 38 years of effort to boost self-esteem, particularly among "low social status" (read "poor and minority") children.
Many years later, Prof. Roy Baumeister of Case Western Reserve U, then a leading member of the self-esteem movement (as a CWRU alumn, I remember reading his abstracts at the time and thinking it was all ridiculous--yay me!) did a massive review of the research. He found something like 15000 research articles on the matter. His team began their review by establishing academic standards and throwing out articles that didn't meet them.
They ended up with 200 articles out of 15,000 that could be considered academic research quality. Whoops.
Of the 200 valid articles they soon realized that most either failed to establish the efficacy of self-esteem boosters or denied it outright. Double whoops.
Baumeister became a convert and now preaches the evils of vacuous self-esteem bolstering.
Then came Carol Dweck, whose 10 years of experiments in NYC public schools pretty much killed the "science" of self-esteem dead, dead, dead. FWIW, my wife, a public school teacher when she's not birthin' babies, is a huge fan of Ms. Dweck.
That said, old habits die hard and to this day we still have identical trophies for every kid on the soccer team, and we don't tell them whether they won or not.
Slashdotter parents, RTFA, Google all the names in it, read the research. You'll be convinced, too, and moreso than if you stuck to SciAm.
My parents did the first for me.
My sister had accomplished the second. She was 10 years my senior, I was in 4th or 5th. I still remember that moment seeing my sister(sitting on the sofa and reading the third book from the Belgariad series from David Eddings. My attention was captured when she laughed and I looked up to find a huge grin running across her face. Naturally, my curiosity was piqued and I just had to know what was so entertaining, but she said there was no way I could understand without reading the book. Sure enough, I ended up reading my way through her shelves, starting with that series. This probably contributed to my growing up into a nerd given her particular areas of interest.
Thanks to their influences there was a stark distinction between my reading comprehension and vocabulary compared to my K-12 peers who had never discovered the joys of extracurricular reading. They instead found reading to be an annoying and stressful exercise since every association they had with reading stemmed from either a boring textbook or assigned reading forced upon them. Furthermore, both forms of reading involved deadlines, followed by tests. They couldn't understand why I found reading to be enjoyable, but given their only encounters with reading, I could hardly blame them.
As we learn more about brain plasticity and the mind as a dynamic system, rather than a simply structured one, the idea that there is a fixed property like "intelligence" in that system becomes increasingly naive and dated.
We don't think of physical strength or athletic ability as "fixed", just waiting for us to "learn to use it." We need to think of intellectual activity in the same terms that we think of physical activity.
I think a better way to put it would be, "The absolute most important factor of success is effort." When I was in school, I got top scores on all the standardized tests without working a bit. Because of this, I got all kinds of rewards and accolades for "my hard work". Instead of teaching me to value working hard and challenging myself, it taught me to expect honors and recognition without having to do anything for it.
I think it was lucky for me that:
At college I gradually had less accolades for not doing anything special, and gradually had to work harder to do well; so I never "hit a wall" where I thought I was dumb. I did feel jealous for awhile of other people who got rewards for actually going over and above; but I just had to suck it up and tell myself that they were rewarded because they put in extra effort, and I'm not being rewarded because I didn't.
TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.