
Paul Buchheit: Beliefs, intelligence, and failure - brett
http://paulbuchheit.blogspot.com/2007/05/beliefs-intelligence-and-failure.html
======
sri
Everyone should read Mindset by Carol Dweck <http://www.amazon.com/Mindset-
Psychology-Success-Carol-Dweck/dp/1400062756>

I think that it is a very important book. It is like a self-help book --
without the fluff and with science behind it. It talks about "growth-oriented
mindset" (who focus on learning) versus "fixed mindset" (who think that
intelligence is a fixed thing). And most people have both mindsets in
different areas. And main point is you can change your mindset and what a
difference that makes: you aren't afraid of looking bad (for a fixed mindset
person, looking bad will amount to "i'm stupid", "i don't have it"). But for a
growth minded person, looking bad simply means that they haven't put in the
necessary time/effort to get better.

This is why you should never praise a child's intelligence. Eventually the
child will think that "I was born with this talent" and will stop putting in
the effort, and will become stuck -- that is, they were prodigies while
growing up. But now, as an adult, they haven't progressed any further.

A really great book!!

------
ecuzzillo
I've heard this a lot, particularly on the old reddit, and it never really fit
with my experience. I was told that I was precocious from when I was about
three. I was never particularly risk-averse academically; I sought out books
and courses at the highest level I could, which was sometimes too high. I
skipped into courses up to five years ahead of where I was officially, and
probably didn't do quite as well as I could have, but I wanted to know it NOW,
dammit! I have learned to be somewhat risk-averse because I have been trying
to optimize admissions chances to various places, but other than consciously
doing that, I've never noticed myself shying away from difficult things.

~~~
Prrometheus
On the other hand, I saw myself and my struggles very clearly in this article.
Maybe because I wasn't allowed to skip classes in government school, I made
all A's very easily and was never really challenged. The real world has been
difficult and frustrating for me because I am not used to failure. Try "acing"
Unix the first time you attempt to learn it! I still fight with the little boy
inside who cringes at disapproval from teacher every time my rails app serves
up an error. Hopefully, being aware of my problem will enable me to eventually
develop the Edisonian-tinkerer mentality that all the successful hackers seem
to have.

I am sure that many other hackers, being bright people, share this problem as
well.

------
coolnewtoy
another article that supports this idea:

<http://nymag.com/news/features/27840/>

"...a growing body of research - and a new study from the trenches of the New
York public-school system - strongly suggests it might be the other way
around. Giving kids the label of "smart" does not prevent them from
underperforming. It might actually be causing it."

------
fruscica
From <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias:>

In January 2006, Drew Westen and a team from Emory University announced at the
annual Society for Personality and Social Psychology conference in Palm
Springs, California the results of a study[2] showing the brain activity for
confirmation bias. Their results suggest the unconscious and emotion-driven
nature of this form of bias.

The study was carried out during the pre-electoral period of the 2004
presidential election on 30 men, half who described themselves as strong
Republicans and half as strong Democrats. During a functional magnetic
resonance imaging (fMRI) scan, the subjects were asked to assess contradictory
statements by both George W. Bush and John Kerry. The scans showed that the
part of the brain associated with reasoning, the dorsolateral prefrontal
cortex, was not involved when assessing the statements. Conversely, the most
active regions of the brain were those involved in processing emotions
(orbitofrontal cortex), conflict resolution (anterior cingulate cortex) and
making judgment about moral accountability (posterior cingulate cortex).[3]

Dr. Westen summarised the work:

"None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly
engaged. Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive
kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get
massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states
and activation of positive ones....

Everyone from executives and judges to scientists and politicians may reason
to emotionally biased judgments when they have a vested interest in how to
interpret 'the facts'."[4]

\---end of wikipedia excerpt---

As nearly as I can tell, this kind of bias afflicts most/all of the folks who
frequent YC News. To understand why I think this, review my previous
submissions and the non-response each received. It seems that (aspiring)
entrepreneurs who are pure tech (I'm a hybrid of comp sci & comedy writing)
just don't want to believe that, going forward, their companies will probably
have to market _profitably_ to be competitive.

------
Prrometheus


------
leisuresuit
I don't think it's quite that simple. You're probably born with a base level
of intelligence that you can improve to a certain level.

It's like with chess. As you play, you get better and better until you
plateau, and that becomes your rank.

~~~
whacked_new
As I have wrote in response to this article:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/comments?id=18973>

You need to be careful in using the word "intelligence," because it means
different things to different people. Paul's post doesn't explicitly address
this, but he doesn't need to. The point is the "I can improve" attitude can
strongly influence your chances of success.

You are born not with a base level of "intelligence." You are born with
natural tendencies to excel at certain domains. You can be an excellent
mathematician but find poetry opaque. In that case your Chess analogy holds.
Where the tendency isn't immediately obvious though, is where hard work is the
determining factor. Some people never seem to hit plateaus, but for those who
do, it's the effort that pushes you across it. This is very well investigated
by KA Ericsson; it's called "deliberate practice" or something, and the theory
is actually quite simple.

Also, brain connections are malleable after adulthood, albeit less dramatic
than those of kids, but significant enough to turn an OCD patient into a
normal person. Jeffrey Schwartz if you're interested.

man, i kinda miss reading this stuff.

