I recently read Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, by Carol Dweck, first published in 2007. The book is organized around the central concept of fixed versus growth mindset. Basically, do you say, “I failed” or “I’m a failure”? The former is a growth mindset, the latter a fixed mindset. A fixed mindset leads you to think you have an unchanging stock of some quantity (intelligence, athleticism, skill in relationships, business savvy), a growth mindset leads you to think that you have the capacity to improve. Fixed mindset teachers say “that kid’s dumb,” whereas growth mindset teachers storm underfunded schools, say, “I believe in you,” and get 4th grade kids living in deep poverty to read Chaucer. Fixed mindset athletes say “I’m talented or I’m not” and flame out. Growth mindset athletes focus on improving their craft and win six NBA championships. Fixed mindset children will do one puzzle over and over. Growth mindset children will move onto harder puzzles, saying very realistic things like, “I enjoy pursuing new opportunities to push myself! I am passionate about situating myself into new opportunities for productive failure!”
I did a bunch of rigorous research on a weekend trip while visiting family. It seems that it…kind of…replicates. But not for everyone, mostly for marginalized kids. And only with certain types of training. And the effect size is super small…like, changing one multiple choice answer on the SAT from a random guess to a correct answer. And it’s really only about the education setting. This is a great example frequently brought up by Andrew Gelman, one of the big players pushing back against overhyped and fragile psychology research, of research trying to measure the weight of a feather held by a kangaroo bouncing on a scale.
I definitely think there’s something to be said for thinking of our endeavors as relatively plastic. To think of ourselves as able to achieve new things, learn new things. To not think of ourselves and others as unchanging stocks of stuff. Most of the book seems to mostly be about the importance of good motivation and on tactics for how not to be an asshole, either to yourself or to others.
While growth mindset effects in their natural habitat seem to have extraordinarily minuscule effects, a growth mindset is probably nice to have, perhaps makes you a bit more likely to try Zumba, and might make life marginally more pleasant. So it’s so darned fascinating to read a full-throttle psychology book from the hypercharged go go early aughts era of TED talks, airport books, and suckers up and down the ranks of folks who consider themselves learned and lettered.
I had a lot of fun reading a book that I knew was way overhyped, because it let me observe where and how I get suckered. But also where my normal bullshit detectors actually seemed to work. Here are a few observations that I made while reading the book:
Growth mindset was simultaneously way, way too big, and way, way too small. Dweck and her husband went on a fancy vacation to Italy and France. Dweck lists an anecdote about the broad culinary systems of France and Italy, saying the former is rooted in a fixed mindset and the latter in a growth mindset. Dweck lists an anecdote about a kid starting kindergarten. The kid asks two questions, “why are the paintings here so ugly,” and “why are the toys broken.” Fixed mindset mom gave a one sentence response that demotivated the kid to attend kindergarten. Growth mindset teacher gave a one sentence answer that motivated the kid to attend kindergarten. The kid happily went into the class. These anecodtes don’t represent the core of Dweck’s argument, but they illustrate how wildly totalizing growth mindset is pitched to be. Every utterance we make can change the trajectory of a child. Political economies are explainable and sorted by growth mindset. Perhaps she’s more careful in her academic research, but presumably you wouldn’t write these kinds of things in a published book if you didn’t believe them to represent the scope of your concept. My lesson: be very skeptical of someone casually willing to apply a bounded concept across all domains of life, even if the justification is, “hey, this is my public facing book!”
Dweck leans heavily on stereotype threat on her education chapter. Stereotype threat is another concept that doesn’t replicate. I have no empirical basis for this, but I feel that flimsy concepts tend to be quite attracted to other flimsy concepts. Lesson: be very skeptical of someone who buys bad arguments that are not core to their main argument.
Dweck spends a lot of time in her sports chapter discussing Michael Jordan. He’s a growth mindset person who was devoted to improving his game. And he won six championships. Patrick Ewing didn’t want to play center and never won a championship. Keyshawn Johnson was a talented wide receiver who was self centered, said “I” a lot, and never won a super bowl. Tiger woods had a growth mindset working on his game, Sergio Garcia lost his temper and did not win. Later on in her chapter on teachers, she discussed Bobby Knight, the college basketball coach. Even though he won multiple championships, he had a fixed mindset and was cruel to his team, expecting perfection.
I don’t even know where to begin with this. Michael Jordan, while an extraordinary basketball player, was a pretty famous tyrant to his teammates in practice. He may have undermined the #1 pick, Kwame Brown’s, career with the Wizards. He was at least as negative a force as Bobby Knight. But Knight is demonized for his fixed expectation for others’ perfection…which seems like a very accurate description of Michael Jordan as well?
I think it’s pretty clear Michael Jordan needed perhaps the most generous and zen superstar of all time, Scottie Pippen, to win. In fact, the Bulls were a bounce or two away from winning the championship without him when he retired. I think they were at least as close as the fixed mindset Patrick Ewing. The evidence of labeling Ewing’s fixed mindset was extremely weak. He came very close on multiple occasions to winning the championship. Sometimes it’s a make or miss league, meaning that some success is the outcome of randomness.
Why didn’t Jordan’s growth mindset translate into his baseball career, where he floundered? This isn’t explained very well, but it seems that an athletic-specific growth mindset shouldn’t be contextually bounded to basketball among someone with Michael Jordan’s ability.
Does growth mindset place individuals at risk of succumbing to addiction? Jordan was a well known gambling addict. In fact, many think that his retirement was a secret suspension for his gambling. Tiger Woods also had many serious addictions come to light after the publication of Mindset. Perhaps the ever present future possibilities of a big payoff with something like a gambling addiction is a major downside of the growth mindset, with its emphasis on becoming?
Keyshawn Johnson’s selfishness and self-centeredness is a terrible example, in my opinion. Similar “divas,” like Earl Thomas and Antonio Brown, were key players in championship runs. Selection selection selection.
I feel like Dweck goes a little easy on her concepts. She pitches it as a universal thing, explaining France’s political economy to Michael Jordan to Babe Ruth to underperforming poor schools. What would happen if a “pray away the gay” clinic took up the growth mindset? “Oh, you think you’re a gay man, but that’s a faulty form of thinking of yourself as a fixed quantity. You can change with the right growth mindset, where you can always ‘improve’ and change yourself.” I think this is horrid and wrong, but it seems to fold quite straightforwardly into Dweck’s broad argument, were it not misaligned with her sensibilities and values. But that suggests to me that there are in fact parts of a person that might be fixed quantities (e.g. we can’t, and shouldn’t, pray away somebody’s not-straight sexuality).
I end with a personal worry. I think in the right time and the right circumstance, I would have thoughtlessly gone along with the book’s main thrust. “Yeah, improve yourself, allow yourself top grow and improve. Awesome!” And even now, I feel pretty sympathetic to the very broad idea of the growth mindset. I’d like to think that I can improve myself, change myself, and work to be more open to new situations, new lessons, etc. But as far as I can tell, growth mindset is in fact pretty overhyped and underperforming. And my life probably will change for the worse if I simply accept uncritically ideas that sound broadly correct. This is a call for me to not let my BS detector’s sirens go unheeded. I should probably work harder to think that something is not true and be convinced otherwise. Easier said than done, but something to work towards nonetheless.
Lessons
Don’t accept something because it sounds broadly reasonable.
If some concept/argument is argued to work across all layers of society, it’s probably wrong.
If somebody argues for some concept while uncritically accepting some other argument/concept/finding I know to be flimsy, I should probably become extra skeptical.
Find some point of integration with an argument/concept where I can be confident that my preexisting knowledge stock can be used to assess the quality of the empirical argument presented. If the argument doesn’t hold up, be very skeptical of it more broadly.
Find an edge case where the argument’s conclusion would cut against the proponent’s moral values and sensibilities. Apply the logic of the argument to reach a conclusion the proponent would find distasteful. If that results in uncomfortable post hoc reasoning, why isn’t the whole thing post hoc reasoning?