Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/72251/

I noticed that Opheliac (the reader) and yayfulness both mentioned being known as "the smart one" and how that added extra pressure and guilt when they did badly in school. I don't know if I've brought up Carol Dweck on this forum before, but she's a psychologist who studies motivation and has done some interesting research on motivation in children.

She did an interesting study where she gave a math test to a group of elementary school children, then she split up the group and told half of them that they'd done well on the test because they were smart and she told the other half that they'd done well on the test because they had worked hard. She then gave the entire group another, harder math test. She discovered that the "smart" kids did more poorly on the math test than the "hard working" kids. Because of this and other studies, she theorizes that, although people intend "smart" as a compliment, labeling kids as "smart" can backfire in a number of ways. We think of "smart" as a quality that is beyond a person's control—you either have it or you don't—so kids who are labeled as "smart" can be afraid to take risks because they're afraid to fail and lose their "smart" status. (And, as the question-asker demonstrated, "smart" kids can be devastated by failure and not have the resources to understand how to pick up the pieces and keep moving forward.)

As in her study, Dweck suggests teaching kids to think of themselves as "hard workers," because that is something that is more under their control, and it gives kids (and adults) a better framework for dealing with failure and not being afraid to take risks in the first place.

I think that was one of the hardest things for me growing up. I got labeled as the smart one as well, and even though my grades are pretty good this semester, there's still a significant part of me that feels like I failed--that I didn't do good enough; that my smartness wasn't enough.

I'm trying to overcome it, mainly by focusing on the work that I put into something, not by any source of innate intelligence.

Although Katya, I think the concept has far more to do with Western education than particular labels. It is also interesting to note that children who are more likely to self-identify as iconoclasts (even if they may not know that word) seem to be less susceptible to the "fear of failure" dynamic.

This concept applies to me, but I think since I actively eschewed most of the traditional assumptions of intelligence, I avoided many of the typical pitfalls you've described.

yeah, I love that study! I went to a really competitive high school so I wasn't ever the smart one (except maybe to my ward), but at least I worked hard.

Marduk wrote:Although Katya, I think the concept has far more to do with Western education than particular labels. It is also interesting to note that children who are more likely to self-identify as iconoclasts (even if they may not know that word) seem to be less susceptible to the "fear of failure" dynamic.

This concept applies to me, but I think since I actively eschewed most of the traditional assumptions of intelligence, I avoided many of the typical pitfalls you've described.

Plus, you're really humble.

No, I think I get what you're saying about Western education, but would you care to be more specific?

I think identity is a really interesting concept, in general. I'm especially intrigued by more fragile identities and more robust ones. (It also affects how I think about feminism and I hope that it makes me a nicer person.)

I mean that our kudos and accolades are given as a result of success no matter how it is derived, rather than the endeavors and struggles to achieve those results. Your "smart" vs "hardworking" is a microcosm of this concept, I think. Rather than switching from calling someone "smart" we have to redefine what we call "success" particularly for young students, focusing less on the final result and more on the failures that it took to achieve. (side note for Whistler: this brings us full circle into how video games make the world a better place.)

As far as the "humble" identity concept goes: I believe in accurate portrayal and representation of one's own abilities, which includes acknowledging one's weaknesses AS WELL AS one's strengths. So called "humility" is an intensely harmful concept in this regard, particularly for women.

Marduk wrote:As far as the "humble" identity concept goes: I believe in accurate portrayal and representation of one's own abilities, which includes acknowledging one's weaknesses AS WELL AS one's strengths.

I know, and I don't mean to sound critical. You just crack me up with your you-ness, on occasion.

Marduk wrote:So called "humility" is an intensely harmful concept in this regard, particularly for women.

I don't disagree with this, but the reality of navigating this sort of thing as a women is much more complicated than most men realize.

Yeah, its a complicated issue that I didn't want to sidetrack the original thread with.

Suffice it to say, I think it also plays into the original concept: this "fear of failure" seems to be a more feminine failing (no offense to yay.)

Katya wrote:http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/72251/

I noticed that Opheliac (the reader) and yayfulness both mentioned being known as "the smart one" and how that added extra pressure and guilt when they did badly in school. I don't know if I've brought up Carol Dweck on this forum before, but she's a psychologist who studies motivation and has done some interesting research on motivation in children.

She did an interesting study where she gave a math test to a group of elementary school children, then she split up the group and told half of them that they'd done well on the test because they were smart and she told the other half that they'd done well on the test because they had worked hard. She then gave the entire group another, harder math test. She discovered that the "smart" kids did more poorly on the math test than the "hard working" kids. Because of this and other studies, she theorizes that, although people intend "smart" as a compliment, labeling kids as "smart" can backfire in a number of ways. We think of "smart" as a quality that is beyond a person's control—you either have it or you don't—so kids who are labeled as "smart" can be afraid to take risks because they're afraid to fail and lose their "smart" status. (And, as the question-asker demonstrated, "smart" kids can be devastated by failure and not have the resources to understand how to pick up the pieces and keep moving forward.)

As in her study, Dweck suggests teaching kids to think of themselves as "hard workers," because that is something that is more under their control, and it gives kids (and adults) a better framework for dealing with failure and not being afraid to take risks in the first place.

But what if you're like me and not that hard of a worker? I did the typical bright-kid-kills-herself-studying-in-high-school bit to maintain my glory, impress a guy, and get college paid for, but I am much brighter than I am hardworking. Should we lie?

Marduk wrote:this "fear of failure" seems to be a more feminine failing (no offense to yay.)

do you know any male entrepreneurs??

Er, right, that proves my point. (either that or I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.)

A paralyzing fear that leads one to not risk for fear of failure. An entrepreneur, by definition, is not paralyzed away from risk.

I love Carol Dweck.

There's also the problem of what happens with kids who work hard and STILL don't succeed. (I felt like I experienced a little bit of that last summer, when an organization I was working with told me that my students weren't succeeding because I wasn't trying hard enough. I was working probably 14 hour days at that point.)

Marduk wrote:we have to redefine what we call "success" particularly for young students, focusing less on the final result and more on the failures that it took to achieve

Popular culture wrote:

Portia wrote: But what if you're like me and not that hard of a worker? I did the typical bright-kid-kills-herself-studying-in-high-school bit to maintain my glory, impress a guy, and get college paid for, but I am much brighter than I am hardworking. Should we lie?

I don't think so. But I think her point is to focus more on actions/process than outcomes. If you're smart and lots of academic things come easily, sometimes you don't have the opportunity to learn what to do in a situation when they don't. And I think that's where the whole "avoiding hard things because of fear of failure" comes in. At least that's how it played out for me. I'm still inclined to avoid things that don't come naturally to me because I hate to look like I don't know what I'm doing. (I remember coming home crying from a dance class at BYU because I seriously sucked. It was one of the first times I had to stick it out with something I was bad at. And... plenty of crying was involved).

To contrast that, my husband was always praised for his work ethic, but not so much for his smarts. I'm pretty sure if you asked him if he was smart, he would say no. But he's not really afraid of trying anything. I think he just grew up with different expectations for himself - that things would not come easily, that he'd have to try repeatedly, that he could improve with effort. I don't know that "smart kids" believe that.

Marduk wrote: As far as the "humble" identity concept goes: I believe in accurate portrayal and representation of one's own abilities, which includes acknowledging one's weaknesses AS WELL AS one's strengths. So called "humility" is an intensely harmful concept in this regard, particularly for women.

I agree with that, but I think a lot of "smart kids" struggle with self-awareness. If all you're ever told is that you're this one thing (smart), how are you supposed to learn your specific strengths and weaknesses? I saw that a lot when I worked with academic advising. Students really clung to things like the MBTI (or the Strong/Campbell) to "tell" them who they were.

Anyway, tl;dr
I think smart kids have a hard time adjusting when they find themselves in a situation where they aren't competent, so they start avoiding them. I think it's also hard for them to develop an identity outside of their intelligence.

It seems to me that praising a kid for hard work only works if the kid actually did work hard, and a lot of smart kids don't really have to work in school. When I got praised for being hard-working after I aced a test without any effort, I only learned that (1) being smart is a great substitute for being hard-working, and adults can't seem tell the difference; (2) it's easy to fool people into thinking you have other positive attributes so long as you're smart; and (3) sticking with things you're naturally good at gives you praise without the effort that would otherwise apparently be required. I was smart enough to know that my success derived from natural ability, not application, and adults lying to me about it just made me doubt their perceptiveness.

Marduk wrote:So called "humility" is an intensely harmful concept in this regard, particularly for women.

Katya wrote: I don't disagree with this, but the reality of navigating this sort of thing as a women is much more complicated than most men realize.

I was thinking about this, and I think there's a counterpoint here worth sussing out. Namely, that for men it is the inverse, which includes a bevy of its own complications. Specifically, men are taught to take action, be aggressive, and get things done. If a man thinks insufficient of his own capability, he is seen as weak or incompetent. We tell our women to beware of pride and they are often paralyzed with a fear of failure, and we tell our men they are responsible to always be strong and capable, and then they cannot rest or connect emotionally.

At the risk of throwing this thread into entirely different tangents, it seems like men are often a lot more complicated than we are given credit for. A woman often wants a man who will understand her, but does not appreciate the full meaning of understanding him.

Marduk wrote:Suffice it to say, I think it also plays into the original concept: this "fear of failure" seems to be a more feminine failing (no offense to yay.)

Or, if you flip it around, risk taking isn't rewarded / admired in female culture, so fear of failure is all that's left.

Portia wrote:But what if you're like me and not that hard of a worker? I did the typical bright-kid-kills-herself-studying-in-high-school bit to maintain my glory, impress a guy, and get college paid for, but I am much brighter than I am hardworking. Should we lie?

The point is not to pretend that you're a hard worker if you're not. The point is to be aware that you can succeed through hard work as much as (or more than) you can succeed through innate intelligence, and hard work is much more under your control. Being aware of that can help you from getting discouraged and give you a plan for moving forward if and when you encounter academic failure.

In your case, though, I don't think your goal is to be "the smart one," I think your goal is to be the one who gets attention, and being academically successful was the easiest way of accomplishing that. But if the ROI (in terms of attention) for hard work isn't high enough, then no, you won't be motivated to work hard, regardless.