Slashdot Mirror
Education Debate: Which Is More Important - Grit, Or Intelligence?
HughPickens.com writes Anna North writes in the NYT that self-control, curiosity, and "grit" may seem more personal than academic, but at some schools, they're now part of the regular curriculum. Some researchers say personality could be even more important than intelligence when it comes to students' success in school. "We probably need to start rethinking our emphasis on intelligence," says Arthur E. Poropat citing research that shows that both conscientiousness and openness are more highly correlated with student performance than intelligence. "This isn't to say that we should throw intelligence out, but we need to pull back on thinking that this is the only game in town." The KIPP network of charter schools emphasizes grit along with six other "character strengths," including self-control and curiosity. "We talk a lot about them as being skills or strengths, not necessarily traits, because it's not innate," says Leyla Bravo-Willey. "If a child happens to be very gritty but has trouble participating in class, we still want them to develop that part of themselves."
But the focus on character has encountered criticism. "To begin with, not everything is worth doing, let alone doing for extended periods, and not everyone who works hard is pursuing something worthwhile" says Alfie Kohn. "On closer inspection, the concept of grit turns out to be dubious, as does the evidence cited to support it. Persistence can actually backfire and distract from more important goals." There's other evidence that grit isn't always desirable. Gritty people sometimes exhibit what psychologists call "nonproductive persistence": They try, try again, says Dean MacFarlin though the result may be either unremitting failure or "a costly or inefficient success that could have been easily surpassed by alternative courses of action."
But the focus on character has encountered criticism. "To begin with, not everything is worth doing, let alone doing for extended periods, and not everyone who works hard is pursuing something worthwhile" says Alfie Kohn. "On closer inspection, the concept of grit turns out to be dubious, as does the evidence cited to support it. Persistence can actually backfire and distract from more important goals." There's other evidence that grit isn't always desirable. Gritty people sometimes exhibit what psychologists call "nonproductive persistence": They try, try again, says Dean MacFarlin though the result may be either unremitting failure or "a costly or inefficient success that could have been easily surpassed by alternative courses of action."
intelligence = engine
grit = tires
personality=gas type (ethanol, diesel, electric, etc)
in this road of life...(get it? get it?)
I have known many persistent idiots. Things would have been much better for all concerned if they would have just quit trying and ask for help.
Balance. Intelligence is knowing when to give up and go back to the drawing board.
...
Without persistence, intelligence is an unfulfilled and wasted gift. Without intelligence, persistence is an exercise in futility. Which is why less intelligent people depend on social feedback to make decisions.
It's not hard.
Psychologists relearning what has been known for centuries. Someone didn't read their own textbooks
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
grit is essentially determination - the will to continue despite your feelings. This has certainly seen many a job finished that would otherwise not even have been started. We combat this in life by waving money around, and this seems to get things moving! Grit, is the ability to do that to yourself. Although not directly an attribute of intelligence, it does mean someone may study something longer and harder, and discover more about it. That's pretty important, and will help someone less intelligent to possibly discover something more that an intelligent person was too keen to dismiss, or perhaps did not occur to them.
Sounds to me like your personality type is 'thinks he is better than everyone else and blames others for his failings.'
One of the greatest tragedies in our times is the idea that all children should get the same education. It is the oddest thing. We all admit that children actually start off at different levels.
But rather than do what is best for each child, we pretend there is some sort of universal curriculum that all children should follow. It's just not the case.
Grit, self-control, curiousity are probably very important if your main goal is to get a job and provide for your family.
I was a teacher for a while, and this was the most frustrating things. Having to teach kids in a 'non-academic neighborhood' for lack of a better term, as I taught in both inner-city type schools as well as rural 'trashy' schools. I'm up there teaching math these kids couldn't care about and is going to be of little use to any of them in their future. Yet, that is the curriculum, because it is standardized and they happen to be in grade 10.
To these kids, teaching them some grit, self-control, curiosity would probably benefit them 1000x more and improve their life and the next generation.
Yet, somehow it is considered unfair if we did that because then we'd be admitting they are not as advanced as other kids. Yes, they're not. That is why people would classify them as a trouble neighborhood or whatever.
Then of course you have other kids who might not suffer the same problem and maybe for them you need to focus more on intelligence and academics.
Ultimately, I'd rather have the school system deal with the reality of children by using different methods on different groupings of children as opposed to pretending everyone is the same when they're not.
And no, I'm not saying there aren't any brilliant kids in a ghetto school. They do exist. One might say, I was one of them. I'm saying it is pretty easy to keep us happy. Just having academic streams in high school or give us other classes. Maybe school wasn't optimized for me, but in the end, I have a decent job and make decent money. Let's face it, how many children from ghetto neighborhoods are working at Google?
But as far as social issues go, our biggest problems are not optimizing intelligence for advanced R&D here. It's the basics for most of the population and it is there that grit, self-control, curiosity are really much better.
And yes, maybe that formalizes the reality that if you're in a ghetto school, you would be more educated to just get a job. And if you are in a rich area, you are more educated to do advanced academic work.
Yes, maybe it formalizes it. But it's not like without that formalization, it isn't true today.
But I guess, that's political correctness. Better to have poor people suffer, than formalize that they're different in this time and place.
Intelligence stays with you as long as you are above ground and cannot be taken away.
You're not 50 yet, are you?
That razor sharp intelligence is only marginally less fleeting than beauty.
What Poropat, Duckworth, and others suggest is that multiple traits - including "grit" - contribute to success. He even provides evidence to back up that hardly-surprising conclusion. So how does Kohn respond? By immediately projecting a "one trait uber alles" mentality onto the grit proponents. To be even more clear, he's attributing to them exactly the idea they're trying to refute. Then he cherry-picks examples of excessive persistence leads to adverse outcomes, ignoring the issue of whether those outcomes would be likely to occur in people who had developed other traits such as curiosity and openness. In the end he only demonstrates further the problems with any single-trait theory of learning, supporting exactly the point he meant to oppose.
Maybe his parents or teachers should have helped Kohn develop some more of those other traits. Like honesty.
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
That being said, never praise a kid for being smart. Always praise hard work.
*** Don't be dull.***
I never studied. My phenomenal raw intelligence got me through. I could listen to the lecture, instantly digest the material, and understand it better than most of my classmates did even after they spent the evenings poring over books and lectures. Could I have done better if I studied? Absolutely. Would I have had nearly as much fun hanging out at the local watering hole during the evenings? No way. Grades are fleeting. Intelligence stays with you as long as you are above ground and cannot be taken away.
Taking you at face value, I would advise that you can only cruise for so long. At some point you have to combine a bit of work with that awesome mind to progress.
Given that there is some evidence that this 'grit' can be modified, potentially even at school age and during the course of school, is this really a question worth asking?
Barring advances that team neurology and team psychopharmacology have been rather less than inspiring about, 'intelligence' is what you are stuck with(or without). We know some things about what not to screw up if you want a better shot at it(lead is bad, childhood malnutrition isn't so good, etc.); but by the time kiddo hits school, your options have closed substantially.
So, instead of navel gazing about 'is grit or intelligence more important?', wouldn't it make more sense to suck it up, deal with the intelligences that you have, not those you may want or wish to have at some future time, and ask 'what is this 'grit' and how favorably does attempting to develop it compare to other possible uses of time?'
Being a member of mensa, in my personal experience, makes you an insufferable ass who wants to brag about your IQ. Because everyone I've ever met who said they were in it, was an insufferable ass who wanted to brag about their IQ.
I have yet to meet a single person who joined who didn't come across as a complete tool.
I've been in a room full of nerds and geeks, and one person stated proudly they were in mensa, as if the rest of us should care.
The mocking was pretty incessant as everyone else let it be known how little they cared or respected that claim.
I find mensa far more interesting for the sheer number of incredibly smart people I've known who want nothing to do with it.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Neither of those is important. What's important is how wealthy your parents are. That's the biggest determining factor in your success in education.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I would hazard a guess that your curiosity drove you to spend time doing things (reading, playing with computers, etc) that others considered work. They certainly did for me. It didn't FEEL like work, but it's the reason college was so easy for me.
As a 32 year classroom teacher I agree that intelligence alone isn't a good measure. Given a dozen 'gifted' kids and a problem to be solved you end up with a dozen gifted kids and a problem. Given a dozen kids who know how to work and there will be progress on solving the problem (and a dozen kids who are better for having struggled with it).