Is talent a destructive myth?

[Cortina]

Is talent a destructive myth?

Worth a listen, it's very short. See thread on Secondary education for more details. It's great Matthew Syed has agreed to answer our questions on Mumsnet. Also ties in to Gabby Logan sport Q&A session.

So many of us decide we have no aptitude for certain subjects/areas very early on...

Oh yes! How long have you got :)? Read Carol Dweck's Mindset and then distribute it to every primary & secondary school teacher in the country :). I'll let someone else explain but if you google 'growth mindset' you'll get the general picture and no doubt I won't be able to resist coming back on it as it's my favourite subject :). Misunderstandings about 'fixed ability' cause SO much damage in my opinion, and before anyone jumps on me, no that doesn't mean I think everyone can be a brain surgeon if they only try.

Talent isn't a myth. Some people are particularly gifted. Anyone who thinks this is a myth is taking egalitarianism to a deluded extreme.

wildstrawberryplace - I think that's absolutely right (re education). To a point.

I think there is nothing wrong with just doing something because you enjoy it, and by doing it get better at it (like me going running - I'm never going to be "good" at it as in fast or anything like that, but I'm good at plodding along and enjoying myself!)

Where the argument gets difficult, I think, is where you get to academic study at university level. If we go down the track of everyone can go if they can pay for it, we are seemingly in line with wildstrawberryplace's argument. But then, that is ignoring "talent" altogether. It changes the job of university lecturers. Maybe that's the intention?

The old and now dying model of trying to recognise talent (by imperfect means, most definitely) and for the state to then say that it's worth propagating that talent, the state as a whole will be better off if that is paid for. I know that the system never got it perfect and that a lot of people with the will and the talent to go to university were not able to go. But surely there is a sense in trying to make the system better?

Grimma, look at this quote from Matthew: it is true that hardware (inherited physical attributes) can make a different in certain sports. But in most sports, the limiting factor is not hardware, but software. See Chapter 1 of Bounce, which also looks at intelligence in sports (pattern recognition).

Maybe the hardware has to be just 'good enough' and the rest is then the software which effectively upgrades dramatically the more your practice?

Oh TheHugeManatee - I believe true giftedness and genius is extremely rare, lots of interesting posts on this thread (not my own) which are good illustrations why I think this way. I've also read widely around the subject. It's not about saying all can be rocket scientists if only they try hard enough if that's what you're driving at. I honestly believe we are not the prisoners of our genetic 'IQ'. The Q&A session with Matthew Syed is interesting, take a look if you've a moment, I'd be interested in your perspective. There are some powerful and resilient myths about intelligence.

Cortina, will Google as requested but just another quick Q:

I tell my DC that they are 'so clever' but they also know that I think all children are 'clever'. Am I doing them (my DC) a disservice?

Maybe the hardware has to be just 'good enough' and the rest is then the software which effectively upgrades dramatically the more your practice?

Yes - but I suspect that in quite a lot of fields (some sports, music, maths...) the 'just good enough' bar is high enough that to all intents and purposes it may be viewed as a 'talent'

Grimma...Hmm. I have to be honest and say that's what I'd always believed, especially when I think of those I know with sporting talent.

What I think is really interesting is that Matthew Syed, with much more sporting experience than me etc, would disagree I think. He really believes, provided the hardware isn't fundamentally flawed for the purpose, it really is all about practice. Seuna makes a good point on the Q&A thread about the Williams sisters etc, saying that aren't there others that practice all the time and fail and we just hear about the ones that succeed etc? He says he thought the same at first but his research has revealed it really comes down to hours of practice and that's it. Or that's how I interpreted it anyway.

If we believe the brain can develop too it's possible that barely adequate basic equipment pulls itself together over time and dramatic, unimaginable improvements are genuinely possible? That's unlikely to happen if you've been branded a no hoper though. A 'virtuous circle' scenario is more likely if you've got the 'good enough' hardware or a bit a better to begin with.

Perhaps the brain develops - thus improving the hardware/software - if the stakes are high enough also? You are not going to be too lazy to bother if your life depends on your success. I am thinking about the intricate documents WW2 prisoners of war planning the 'great escape' managed to forge with limited materials. J.K. Rowling was trying to escape unhappiness and poverty when she wrote Harry Potter. The French have an expression, 'le dent de la loup', or something like that (not a French scholar)! Meaning the 'wolf's tooth' and it describes the hunger that many believe you need to be successful.

I am happy to report that my DC are showing the signs of a growth mindset according to this.

I tell my DC that I love the way their brains work and for them being 'clever' means something akin to being 'engaged' and switched on I suppose.

The ability to concentrate is something that appears to be variable in DC with some being more easily distracted than others. IIRC introverts and extroverts react differently to background noise. I am sure that this must be a factor to consider in schools. I for one am much more easily distracted from a task if I am working in silence.

Off to Google data linking introvert/extrovert and intelligence/ability.

I said 'some sports' - it may be that something like tennis or golf the bar is lower than say gymnastics or sprinting. It seems to me that would be the case, those are the type of sport many people play for fun. Therefore, those who excel will be precisely those who put in the work, because that is the differentiator.

pickled siblings - it's about praising the process, the effort not the ability. The problem is if children grow to believe they are inherently able they may believe they've reached their limit when things get tough (fixed mindset). A person with a fixed mindset would think 'I am no good with numbers, I can never improve, maths is not my thing, I've reached my limit' etc. The danger is they then give up early on. A person with a growth mindset might think 'Crikey, these are tricky maths problems. No reason why I can't solve them though, what can I do I wonder as this method isn't working for me? Have a look online, go back and ask my maths teacher? Ring Fred etc'.

Dweck gave two groups of children a maths test. The first to a group of of fixed mindset, gifted mathematicians I believe - raised to believe they were more able. The same test was also given to a group of normal maths students with a growth mindset. The maths test had straightforward questions to begin with and then in the middle of the test some maths problems that no one has ever been able to solve! At the end the questions became straightforward again.

The able but fixed mindset group went through the first easy section very fast and felt very happy with everything. They then hit the middle section, they went to pieces. They either did badly in the last section or did not complete it. Perhaps they were not so able as everyone imagined? They secretly wondered.

The growth mindset group also struggled with the middle section but were able to complete the test, breezing through the easy questions at the end.

So it's better to praise tangible things your DCs have done. I'm trying with my son and it's beginning to inspire him in certain areas I think. I say 'I'd love to see your workbook, gosh you worked that out, I am so impressed there were lots of calculations involved but your hard work solved the problem! Oh look, a month ago you were struggling with this, look how far your hard work has taken you. You can get better, everyone can'. That sort of thing. I know if someone had tried this with me as a young child it would have made all the difference! I tell him that school teachers are not interested in judging his talent but teaching him.

Hope that helps.

Thanks a lot Cortina.

Why does being inherently able (as I believe all DC to be) equate with reaching a limit. Where does the idea that there is a limit come from?

Maybe the correlation is between giftedness and fixed mindset - ?

Um - that maths test to me sounds like the 'less gifted' simply looked at the impossible questions, went and skipped over them. Whereas the ones who thought they should be able to do anything in a test (not realising it was deliberately impossible) actually spent time trying. This anecdote proves that the exam advice to 'do what you can, then go back to anything you couldn't' is sound, but isn't conclusive of anything else.

Having nitpicked that though, you're quite right about most of the rest . Except I don't think any harm comes of a child knowing if they are innately able at something provided that when it gets harder they respond with something like: 'humph. I'm GOOD at this. If we're supposed to be able to do this then I'll be one of the ones who CAN' - and master it. I guess what I'm saying is that knowing you're able does not in any way mean you're going to have a fixed mindset - I think you've set up a bit of a false dichotomy on that side of the issue. (whereas being told you're not able is all too likely to induce a fixed mindset, unfortunately).

Most believe ability has a ceiling and some are not as able as others, some children are not 'clever' enough for Grammar as they never be academically able enough to benefit from this pathway etc. Sorry not sure what you're asking?

I think Pickled was referring to :

if children grow to believe they are inherently able they may believe they've reached their limit

I can't see why someone who thinks they are able is any more likely to think they've reached their limit than someone who thinks they're average.

I find this all very interesting and haven't done as much reading as many of you on the subject. Clearly a Growth Mindset is a good thing to have and a Fixed Mindset not. And clearly working very hard at anything makes it much more likely you'll be successful at it.

But I'm not sure I believe Matthew Syed's premise wholeheartedly - I think he talks a good act but downplays the limits of the hardware to make his point in a way that people find interesting and worth talking about.

The example of David Mitchell's way of working doesn't argue against talent, in my opinion; it's an example of a manifestation of talent.

Let me go back to the study and come back with the facts. Dweck or Claxton I think says that women in particular who have always been told they are 'gifted'/able are subsceptible to imposter syndrome. Believing that a position of particular power and responsibility might be undeserved when the going gets unfamiliarly tough.

Grimma, isn't it supposed to be because we tell able children they're clever rather than that they tried hard, so they are more likely to have a view of what that should mean? Actually, I see this to some extent in my younger son who's always found academic stuff easy (though I don't know why if it wasn't hardwired) but demonstrates many of Dweck's fixed mindset anxieties about that - doesn't like trying, thinks he shouldn't have to if he's clever etc.

He's not the only one Singersgirl, certainly not as far as the concept of 'learnable intelligence' and cognitive science are concerned. On another thread (think the AIBU re: tutoring one) I've pointed out why IMO such fixed views about unalterable intelligence remain so resilient.

What came first the fixed mindset or the giftedness when it comes to considering truly gifted individuals. Are there gifted individuals with growth mindsets? I am not so sure that the fixed mindset is a negative thing. Perhaps it has its place amongst certain SENs. However I will admit to knowing next to nothing about the whole thing. Interesting debate but I am not sure 'mindsets' hold the answer to the innateness or otherwise of talents.

Grimma - if a child is labelled gifted, things have come easy to them & they've been praised for their cleverness when they feel out of their depth they secretly feel they are not living up to their billing & this can have negative consequences. As Claxton said any ability label if you believe it to be valid and fixed will weaken commitment in the face of difficulty.

Just to clarify re: Dweck study, the pupils were mixed ability. The pupils who did worse on the do-able problems that followed the impossible ones were the normally high-achieving girls. Not being able to do the middle sums knocked their confidence very badly, so badly they lost the ability to solve problems they usually completed easily. Their achievement high but resilience low. When they didn't know what to do they gave up.

Yes, but that's just girls for you, not high achievers. High achievers are also people who realise the gradients of challenges and accept that some things are hard and they shouldn't be able to complete them and some are easier and they should. One of the problems with having high ability is that you can realise things that others don't and get frustrated at the slowness at which people who aren't gifted understand things - this puts 'talented' people up against block after block when weaker less talented people don't see their ability as 'talent' but as 'bullshit' or 'challenging authority' or 'making it up' or 'thinking they know it all'.

I'm not disputing that intelligence is alterable or that practising harder makes people better. I'm saying that the hardwiring is different in different individuals. So if everyone tried equally hard and put in an equal number of hours, some people would still end up better - at running, or art, or learning foreign languages, or maths, or writing poetry.

Not sure Singersgirl but I can see that might make sense, I need to understand more about cognitive science really. Thing is for many it's an either/or situation. You either have the 'hard wiring' ability/talent call it what you will or you expend effort. Fixed mindset people apparently think 'if you have to work at it you can't be any good'. 'Things come easily to those with real talent'.

Dweck says in her youth as assistant professor at the Illinois University. One night she saw a colleague burning the midnight oil in the library and thought to herself rather smugly 'He can't be as talented as me'. What didn't cross her mnd was her colleague could be just as talented/clever but more hard working! Gladwell has written that we value natural talent, ability and accomplishment as a society over achievement through effort. Researchers at Duke University were concerned at high levels of anxiety and depression amongst female undergraduates who were aspiring to 'effortless perfection'. Their comment 'They believe they should display perfect beauty, perfect womanhood, and perfect scholarship all without trying (or at least without appearing to try)' strikes a chord with me.

Just to revisit mindsets & give another illustration- although this is going off track a bit re: talent discussion I know. Dweck carried out a study of undergraduates taking a their first college chemistry course. This is a course it's vital to do well on as you need a good score to get onto the coveted pre-med curriculum.

At the start of the semester Dweck measured the students mindsets. She then followed them through the course asking about study methods, grades etc. Those with growth mindsets did better. When they did poorly on one test they bounced back with another. When students with a fixed mindset did badly on tests they often didn't recover.

Everyone studied on this course. Apparently those with a fixed mindset tended to try to learn things by rote. If they did poorly in chemistry they concluded they'd given it their best shot and failed so obviously not their subject etc.

Dweck says there was a remarkable difference in the way those with a growth mindset studied. They thought about their own learning and motivation, looked for themes, looked for common mistakes which they reviewed etc. Even when things got dull and difficult they didn't lose motivation. They were thinking more broadly that trying to 'ace the test' which is why they got higher scores. Dweck says those with the fixed mindset would do anything to get a good grade in the subject but didn't take charge of the process to make this happen.

Teachers with a fixed mindset believe that intelligence is unalterable whilst those with a growth mindset believe that pupils can get incrementally smarter.

said any ability label if you believe it to be valid and fixed will weaken commitment in the face of difficulty.

Surely its the 'and fixed' which is the problem, not the ability label itself.

Thing is for many it's an either/or situation. You either have the 'hard wiring' ability/talent call it what you will or you expend effort

Maybe this is why I'm (partially) at odds with you. Nearly everyone I work with is a PhD scientist - either/or doesn't cut it, which is why I'm seeing a false dichotomy.