
Believe you can change   - bensw
http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/dweck
======
nqureshi
An experience I had as a teenager really drove this lesson home for me, and is
partly responsible for successes I’ve had since.

My Dad had copy of ‘Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain’ by Betty Edwards
lying around. I’d always been really bad at drawing - never progressed beyond
the kids-drawing phase, got bad feedback on drawing at school, so stopped.

Anyway, Edwards’s theory is that ‘bad’ drawers don’t look at the thing itself
and draw its shape, they translate reality into abstract concepts first and
then draw what that concept visually looks like. So I’ll look at a face, then
decide I’ll draw the ‘eye’ first, query my mind to see what an ‘eye’ looks
like, then draw the generic 'eye' shape that everyone draws.

Whereas a skilled artist looks at the eye in front of them - which looks
nothing like the standard symbol for ‘eye’ - and draws THAT.

Edwards has a bunch of exercises to prove this, and one of them triggered a
massive epiphany for me.

She had a Picasso sketch in the book which was printed upside down on the
page. Her instructions were to copy the drawing, keeping it upside down, and
never naming the limb/whatever you’re drawing, and never turning your drawing
right-side-up until it’s complete.

I was sceptical, but decided to test her theory. So I started copying this
upside-down drawing, fully expecting it to turn out even worse than usual.

When I finished, I couldn't believe it. The drawing was AMAZING. It looked
like someone else had done it. The figure I’d drawn looked alive.

I went on to learn to draw pretty well. So after that, my mind always looked
back and thought - well, if I can learn to DRAW, and I was so BAD at drawing
initially, I can pretty much learn to do anything.

~~~
sown

        ... well, if I can learn to DRAW, and I was so BAD 
        at drawing initially, I can pretty much learn to do 
        anything.
    

I used to think like that. If I tried hard and applied myself I could do just
about anything...until that sort of thing stopped working. It certainly helped
but it won't take you to the stars. It just seemed that no matter how hard I
tried, I never got better at what I had in mind.

I think this kind of thinking is helpful but it has its ultimate limits, which
seem to be set to 'low' for me.

~~~
ohgodthecat3
Well I think most of it is time, the whole 10,000 hours thing.

Since we are talking about drawing take a look at MindCandyMan on
conceptart.org (His journey sketchbook
<http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=870>)

Post of an example of how far he has come:
[http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1789531#po...](http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1789531#post1789531)

His website showcasing his work:
<http://www.jonathanhardesty.com/paintings.htm>

~~~
heretohelp
>Well I think most of it is time, the whole 10,000 hours thing.

Please stop repeating Gladwell's pseudo-scientific BS.

Putting in a lot of hours is necessary but not sufficient to become excellent
at something.

~~~
ohgodthecat3
I'll be honest I've never read his book but the 10,000 hours fits as an
analogy to the hard work that one must put in to be an expert.

Sure 10,000 hours isn't going to make you excellent but focused hard work can
and most of the time does.

You can become good in under 10,000 hours I just used it for reference. Maybe
you would have preferred this: <http://norvig.com/21-days.html>

------
sown
I think this isn't a good demonstration of trying hard. These little puzzles
only went on for a few hours so a person who is highly intelligent but perhaps
not so diligent over a long time won't see bad results in this test. The
comments here demonstrates survivor bias.

Furthermore, it's easy to quote Alan Kay about perceiving reality, or non-
verifiable comments about 80 IQ points, etc, but what about all the Alan Kay-s
who failed that you never heard of, that tried harder or were smarter? What
about them? What if no matter how hard you try, how long you try, you still
fail?

What about people with learning disabilities? What about people who might be
mutants? I.e., in the same way our nearest primate relatives are a few
percentage points of DNA different from humans, what if having a few
hundredths of a percentage point difference in the right direction, away from
me, makes the difference? A thousand years of chimp intellect won't produce an
aircraft. A thousand hours of me contemplating won't be the same as someone
else who is smarter and contemplates for just ten hours. That's just the way
it is. I feel like I know this because I'm on the wrong side of that few-
hundredths of a percentage points.

Trying hard _is_ important, and trying hard over many years is also important.
But for someone like me, the window is permanently shut as far as what ever
biology I have been born with compared to people who excel in ways I simply
cannot. Not that I haven't tried. It's just that there are limits on all of
us, and this method. Some people, fortunately, have less limits on what they
can do.

~~~
mej10
There are limits. You cited some very obvious ones.

I have no idea why you think that you are among the "catastrophically limited"
as I will call them.

You presumably can program a computer based on your comment history. This puts
you firmly in the "not really limited by IQ" camp. You may never be a Terrance
Tao of John von Neumann, but every other level of achievement is probably
available to you.

Even your own self knowledge of skills puts you above most people I work with.
When it comes to overall competency, knowing that you aren't very good at
programming puts you above many programmers I know.

Just browsing through your comment history it really seems more like you lack
direction for getting better.

You didn't even answer someone's direct question toward you, a question that
can really help you focus and find the direction you need to improve: "What
are you working on now?"

Assuming that you don't have an answer for that question: I think I found your
problem.

~~~
sown
> You didn't even answer someone's direct question toward you, a question that
> can really help you focus and find the direction you need to improve: "What
> are you working on now?"

I didn't see it.

My day job leaves me pretty drained. Aside from that, I've been learning more
about web-app programming. I allegedly do embedded and kernel work now for a
large network hardware vendor so I realized a while ago I need to spread my
wings so to speak.

~~~
ZoFreX
Embedded and kernel work? I do web-app programming because I thought I wasn't
smart enough to do that stuff!

~~~
sown
It's mostly commoditized work where I am as well as throughout industry. The
glory days of being a branch maintainer are over but there are still device
drivers to be made for custom hardware, but a lot of consumer hardware is
covered.

But it's mostly patch slavery. You ever wonder why old android phones don't
get newer versions of android on them? One reason is that maintaining device
drivers across kernel patches is a serious problem. I know of a product that
is still using the 2.6.10 kernel because they have changed so much code they
can't port it. iPhone doesn't have this problem since there are only, what?
Five of them at any time? I guess they could but that's too much effort
(slightly above 'breaking a sweat') so OEMs won't do it.

Doing anything with an embedded system always takes a long time. Even moving,
adding or changing a single file into a packaged file where a bootable system
lives can take a good 20-30 minutes depending on how much has to be rebuilt
and how crappy the build system is (always). The deadlines are always short
and immediate, too.

My job is mostly herding patches with an antiquated versioning system that
never makes any sense, trying to herd machines to duplicate a 1:10,000 bug.
Stuff I could have done when I was in school. I think I made a mistake
agreeing to work here.

------
fsniper
Sometimes I believe, Hacker News should have more of this kind of "self
hacking" articles. It may seem more like reddit, but it is surely not.

I normally hate self respect, self development books. I feel they are mostly
bullshit. HN main page is a great filter for bullshit so I really like these
more.

And thinking about change, I also had the introvert/extrovert change for
myself. But this was not just me, my friends helped me a lot. If they were not
telling me that I was not a problem, but my attitude is a problem. I would
never have enough self confidence and would not ever change.

Sometimes I get more introvert, but I know, this is just because I want to be.
And whenever I want, I can change.

~~~
gliese1337
I've also gone through the same process of being a strong introvert and
learning to be more sociable. And I thought that was a really excellent
application of the idea of the growth mindset for the article to point out.
But I've gotta take issue with the idea that learning to be sociable is the
same as learning to be an extrovert. It's just learning good social skills and
learning to enjoy using them _despite_ being an introvert.

I'm pretty well convinced that introversion vs. extroversion is just a part of
everyone's neural anatomy, as much as being right-handed or left-handed is.
That is somewhat plastic, but it takes fantastic levels of effort to
fundamentally change. In/extroversion is a matter of how you think and what
drains or recharges your mental energy, not how good you are at interacting in
social groups; those things happen to be correlated, but there are some really
awkward extroverts as well as really sociable introverts.

~~~
fsniper
I believe you have pinpointed the issue here. I learned to be more sociable
and I'm still introvert. Making the distinction is important. Thank you.

But while having transitions, sometimes I really became extrovert. Mostly I
like to hold my issues to myself. But sometimes - with the help of booze -
letting go of my thoughts is easier.

------
is74
These findings should not be misinterpreted, since it is indeed impossible to
reach any goals. A person in their late 20s is extremely unlikely to become an
olympic swimmer or a squash player because of physical limitations. And some
people will relentlessly try and never succeed.

But believing that you can change is useful because it makes it easier to
persist in my efforts to change. Because if I believed that change is
impossible, I'd give up on the spot.

I found that I simply cannot believe a statement like "I can get much smarter"
or "I can get much better at X", but I found that I can easily (fully,
honestly, without reservations) believe that "I can get a bit more smarter",
or "my intelligence is sufficient for mastering this material, so I need to
push harder", or "I can get at least a bit better socially." These beliefs
motivate me and make it easy for me to do the work even when it looks like
progress is nonexistent. This is the meaning of believing that you can change.

------
thesash
I wonder if the phenomenon of growth-mindset vs. fixed mindset is related to
an ability to delay gratification, (another trait with a high correlation to
succes in children [1]). That is, the "growth-minded" individuals are willing
to slog through frustration and failure, because they know the payoff will be
greater in the long run, while the "fixies" can't look past the immediate
sense of frustration

[1][http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/18/090518fa_fact_...](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/18/090518fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=all)

~~~
rrmm
I think it's not just slogging through it, but associating the slogging
through it with success. That is at the end to enjoy slogging through it, or
at least embrace it as part of the process. That way you don't have to delay
gratification completely, just change your attitude towards what is
gratifying.

------
mej10
I actually just read this book due to you, aaronsw. Your post on LessWrong
where you mentioned it caused me to go out and read it.

I am now aware that ~90% of the people I associate with are very much in the
"fixed mindset". It is kind of sad, honestly, because they are all bright
people, but you can tell they have essentially stagnated because of their
mindset. This includes myself, of course, but I have been slowly realizing the
usefulness of the "growth mindset" over the last several years. Now I have a
name for it.

Thanks for this. I will be sending your write-up to several of them.

------
wmat
"Mindset" by Carol Dweck is one of the greatest books I've ever read. Sadly
though, I didn't discover it until the age of 41.

Of equal value is "the War of Art" by Steven Pressfield.

In my opinion, these are the only two "self help" styled books anyone needs.

~~~
Apocryphon
What's the latter book about?

~~~
salemh
The creative process of writing, which trends to anything creative which needs
"shipping." The difference between an "amateur" who dabbles at writing, and a
professional, the power of pushing through and consistency to complete
projects (ship). Additionally, a theory on why we try to hard to procrastinate
away from the things we either know, or want, we would do.

Very direct, a bit of "muse" hokiness which most readers I've given the book
to can deal with or understand (it is a foil for the author, not a belief). He
was a man who failed until his late 40's? or some such, and it is extremely
motivating and direct in its instructions.

from Amazon:

"Drawing on his many years' experience as a writer, Pressfield (The Legend of
Bagger Vance) presents his first nonfiction work, which aims to inspire other
writers, artists, musicians, or anyone else attempting to channel his or her
creative energies. The focus is on combating resistance and living the destiny
that Pressfield believes is gifted to each person by an all-powerful deity.
While certainly of great value to frustrated writers struggling with writer's
block, Pressfield's highly personal philosophy, soundly rooted in his own
significant life challenges, has merit for anyone frustrated in fulfilling his
or her life purpose. Successful photographer Ulrich (photography chair, Art
Inst. of Boston; coeditor, The Visualization Manual) explores the creative
impulse and presents an approach to developing creativity that, like
Pressfield's, will be relevant to artists and others. He identifies and
explains seven distinct stages of the creative process: discovery and
encounter, passion and commitment, crisis and creative frustration, retreat
and withdrawal, epiphany and insight, discipline and completion, and
responsibility and release. He also develops his view of the three principles
of the creative impulse, which include creative courage, being in the right
place at the right time, and deepening connections with others. Rooted in
Eastern philosophy, Ulrich's fully developed treatise nicely updates the solid
works of Brewster Ghiselin (The Creative Process), Rollo May (The Courage To
Create), and Julia Cameron (The Artist's Way). It also supplements
Pressfield's inspirational thoughts on overcoming resistance through
introspective questions and practical exercises that further elaborate the
creative process. Both books are recommended for public libraries needing
additional works on creativity."

------
Alex3917
Of the dozens of articles on Carol Dweck that I've read, this is by far the
best one. Awesome writeup Aaron.

------
SoftwareMaven
When I read about this research, it changed the way I raise my kids. Given our
society's emphasis on intelligence (and the fact my kids are smart), it was
natural to complement them on that. I now go to great efforts to make sure
they know that smart alone isn't enough and, when they are putting good effort
into something, I acknowledge the effort and not the results. Hopefully it is
pushing them towards being "growthies".

------
swanson
Aside from the book recommended in the post, Learned Optimism by Seligmen is
another dealing with "learned helplessness" and how to combat pessimism. It
frames the struggle as optimist vs pessimist instead of growth vs fixed
mindset.

------
datalus
I don't know if anyone else has had this experience, but for awhile in my
teens to early 20s, I strived really hard to be a good musician. Everytime I
would notice a marked improvement, I would have this almost excruciating sense
of being overwhelmed. It was like almost forcing me out of reality, because I
couldn't simply believe it. Sure enough, though, the next day I'd work on
music I would be at a different level of sorts and would be on to tackling the
next challenge.

Due to the fact that music doesn't really pay all that well, and I went for a
comp. sci. degree, I've ended up as a software developer. What I'm starting to
notice now, though, is that I haven't really had the same experience with
developing my technical chops as a developer. I think I need to find more
interesting projects outside of work to really scratch that creative itch.

~~~
jerf
This is where the "learn a language in a different paradigm" advice comes in.
And do a non-trivial project in it. It shouldn't be _enormous_ , but it needs
to be non-trivial.

~~~
datalus
Yep, I just started diving into Clojure. It's really been a shift for me, even
though I took a class in Haskell. I still haven't totally internalized the
functional paradigm. I'm really eager to see how it changes my understanding
of the current crop of languages I use (C#, Java, Ruby).

------
espeed
This is a great read, and I believe it's spot on. It's also a perfect example
of what Alan Kay means when he says, "We see things not as they are but as we
are"..."We can't learn to see until we admit we are blind"..."A change in
perspective is worth 80 IQ points."

Humility is a key ingredient because it saves you from the mindset of "Success
comes from proving how great you are. Effort is a bad thing — if you have to
try hard and ask questions, you obviously can’t be very good."

------
Millennium
The most important meme for success is agency: you can make a difference in
your life.

But this one -adaptability- is not far behind it. You can make a difference in
yourself.

------
fatalerrorx3
Awesome article.

I started learning to program when I was in middle school and since that I've
pretty much always messed around in the same programming language and it was
always fun because I was always learning new and challenging things. Recently
though I've found that I wasn't learning as many new things (as frequently) as
I once used to and no longer had the same level of excitement that I used to
have doing it, so I decided to make a change.

I've always been somewhat afraid of learning new programming languages because
it's "new" and "different" and "I might not understand or be able to get it
the first time around" but what made me do it is remembering back to when I
didn't know anything about computers and how without any books or any help I
was able to learn some really cool stuff. I'm now taking that same approach to
learn Ruby on Rails, Python, and iOS and plan to go back to school next year
to get a degree in Computer Science.

As the saying goes: "If you're not learning, you're dead"

------
scotch_drinker
This reminds me a lot of what I learned from the book, Flow. That author talks
about what makes people happy and the common thread is intrinsic motivation to
continually learn and grow. This current article isn't saying that anything is
possible if you work hard. I like to think we all have an achievement
continuum given to us by our genes that is unfortunately then artificially
restricted when we say "I can't" or "I never had a good rememory". If you set
your personal goals somewhere outside your physically possible achievement
continuum, no amount of work will ever result in success. But identifying your
continuum and then being aware enough to approach roadblocks as growth
opportunities will result in great success. I think the chance of ever
reaching the end of your physically capable achievement continuum is far more
rare than those of us who spend large amounts of time artificially restricting
that continuum by not even trying.

------
prophetjohn
I think it's important for a lot of people to realize that it's possible to be
a growther in certain aspects of your life and a fixie in others. As I was
reading the article, I thought about how I approached problems like learning
new programming languages and solving logic puzzles and such and I thought to
myself "cool, I'm totally a growther!" But as I read on and read about the
authors social growth and realization that "introverted" is not a permanent
state of being, I realized that in this area I'm a complete fixie. My next
growth project should probably be to convince myself that a compiler error
message is no less offensive than acting awkward in a group of people you
don't know.

------
bitsoda
I keep an image in my Pinboard that reminds me of this whenever I begin
slipping into the fixed mindset. I think it succinctly summarizes Dweck's
observations.

<http://i.imgur.com/QUsvJ.jpg>

------
andrelaszlo
_You know how some people just seem to succeed at everything they do, while
others seem helpless, doomed to a life of constant failure?_

I never noticed that, except in greek tragedies.

------
turner_erin
Great summary and how to apply it to your own life. I find this particularly
relevant for entrepreneurs where you must either love the challenge of
learning/failure or you will be miserable.

------
opminion
_Carol Dweck was obsessed with failure. [...] So she began watching kids
[...]_

Scientists rarely proceed that way.

------
ntide
This article precisely explains what John Carmack was like as a kid.

