Sender: 1.0 (spamval) -- NONE
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0702141105490.9705 &AElig samba>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0702140413500.7360 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>
References: <1acf35a70702132328y5d0c159udd7cfcd8b983a6f1 &AElig mail.gmail.com>  <Pine.LNX.4.64.0702141105490.9705 &AElig samba>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-712164092-1662961797-1171444952=:7360"
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 04:22:32 -0500 (EST)
To: improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu
From: Daniel Reeves <dreeves &AElig umich.edu>
Subject: Re: how not to talk to your kids
Status: O

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

---712164092-1662961797-1171444952=:7360
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE

Also, I take back everything good I said about gmail.  I used it to send=20
this article since pine loses non-ascii text when you paste it in (fancy=20
apostrophes and such).  Gmail did much worse, eating newlines.=20
Unacceptable!

Here's the non-mangled url to the article:

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

Take home message again:
  Do not tell your kids they are smart. (Praise them for hard work.)
  Do not praise them constantly. (They'll become praise junkies and=20
be frustrated when rewards aren't immediate.)


> On Wed, 14 Feb 2007, Daniel Reeves wrote:
>
>> I found this enlightening: http://nymag.com/news/features/27840/Take hom=
e=20
>> message:Do not tell your kids they are smart. (Praise them for hard=20
>> work.)Do not praise them constantly. (They'll become praise junkies and=
=20
>> befrustrated when rewards aren't immediate.)
>> Full text:
>> How Not to Talk to Your KidsThe Inverse Power of Praise.
>>    * By Po Bronson
>>=20
>> What do we make of a boy like Thomas?
>> Thomas (his middle name) is a fifth-grader at the highly competitiveP.S.=
=20
>> 334, the Anderson School on West 84th. Slim as they get, Thomasrecently =
had=20
>> his long sandy-blond hair cut short to look like the newJames Bond (he t=
ook=20
>> a photo of Daniel Craig to the barber). UnlikeBond, he prefers a uniform=
 of=20
>> cargo pants and a T-shirt emblazonedwith a photo of one of his heroes:=
=20
>> Frank Zappa. Thomas hangs out withfive friends from the Anderson School.=
=20
>> They are "the smart kids."Thomas's one of them, and he likes belonging.
>> Since Thomas could walk, he has heard constantly that he's smart. Notjus=
t=20
>> from his parents but from any adult who has come in contact withthis=20
>> precocious child. When he applied to Anderson for kindergarten,his=20
>> intelligence was statistically confirmed. The school is reservedfor the =
top=20
>> one percent of all applicants, and an IQ test is required.Thomas didn't=
=20
>> just score in the top one percent. He scored in the topone percent of th=
e=20
>> top one percent.
>> But as Thomas has progressed through school, this self-awareness thathe'=
s=20
>> smart hasn't always translated into fearless confidence whenattacking hi=
s=20
>> schoolwork. In fact, Thomas's father noticed just theopposite. "Thomas=
=20
>> didn't want to try things he wouldn't be successfulat," his father says.=
=20
>> "Some things came very quickly to him, but whenthey didn't, he gave up=
=20
>> almost immediately, concluding, 'I'm not goodat this.'" With no more tha=
n a=20
>> glance, Thomas was dividing the worldinto twothings he was naturally goo=
d=20
>> at and things he wasn't.
>> For instance, in the early grades, Thomas wasn't very good atspelling, s=
o=20
>> he simply demurred from spelling out loud. When Thomastook his first loo=
k=20
>> at fractions, he balked. The biggest hurdle camein third grade. He was=
=20
>> supposed to learn cursive penmanship, but hewouldn't even try for weeks.=
 By=20
>> then, his teacher was demandinghomework be completed in cursive. Rather=
=20
>> than play catch-up on hispenmanship, Thomas refused outright. Thomas's=
=20
>> father tried to reasonwith him. "Look, just because you're smart doesn't=
=20
>> mean you don't haveto put out some effort." (Eventually, he mastered=20
>> cursive, but notwithout a lot of cajoling from his father.)
>> Why does this child, who is measurably at the very top of the charts,lac=
k=20
>> confidence about his ability to tackle routine school challenges?
>> Thomas is not alone. For a few decades, it's been noted that a=20
>> largepercentage of all gifted students (those who score in the top=20
>> 10percent on aptitude tests) severely underestimate their own=20
>> abilities.Those afflicted with this lack of perceived competence adopt=
=20
>> lowerstandards for success and expect less of themselves. They underrate=
the=20
>> importance of effort, and they overrate how much help they needfrom a=20
>> parent.
>> When parents praise their children's intelligence, they believe theyare=
=20
>> providing the solution to this problem. According to a surveyconducted b=
y=20
>> Columbia University, 85 percent of American parents thinkit's important =
to=20
>> tell their kids that they're smart. In and aroundthe New York area,=20
>> according to my own (admittedly nonscientific)poll, the number is more l=
ike=20
>> 100 percent. Everyone does it,habitually. The constant praise is meant t=
o=20
>> be an angel on theshoulder, ensuring that children do not sell their=20
>> talents short.
>> But a growing body of researchand a new study from the trenches ofthe Ne=
w=20
>> York public-school systemstrongly suggests it might be theother way arou=
nd.=20
>> Giving kids the label of "smart" does not preventthem from underperformi=
ng.=20
>> It might actually be causing it.
>> For the past ten years, psychologist Carol Dweck and her team atColumbia=
=20
>> (she's now at Stanford) studied the effect of praise onstudents in a doz=
en=20
>> New York schools. Her seminal worka series ofexperiments on 400=20
>> fifth-graderspaints the picture most clearly.
>> Dweck sent four female research assistants into New York=20
>> fifth-gradeclassrooms. The researchers would take a single child out of=
=20
>> theclassroom for a nonverbal IQ test consisting of a series=20
>> ofpuzzlespuzzles easy enough that all the children would do fairlywell.=
=20
>> Once the child finished the test, the researchers told eachstudent his=
=20
>> score, then gave him a single line of praise. Randomlydivided into group=
s,=20
>> some were praised for their intelligence. Theywere told, "You must be sm=
art=20
>> at this." Other students were praisedfor their effort: "You must have=20
>> worked really hard."
>> Why just a single line of praise? "We wanted to see how sensitivechildre=
n=20
>> were," Dweck explained. "We had a hunch that one line mightbe enough to =
see=20
>> an effect."
>> Then the students were given a choice of test for the second round.One=
=20
>> choice was a test that would be more difficult than the first, butthe=20
>> researchers told the kids that they'd learn a lot from attemptingthe=20
>> puzzles. The other choice, Dweck's team explained, was an easytest, just=
=20
>> like the first. Of those praised for their effort, 90percent chose the=
=20
>> harder set of puzzles. Of those praised for theirintelligence, a majorit=
y=20
>> chose the easy test. The "smart" kids tookthe cop-out.
>> Why did this happen? "When we praise children for their intelligence,"Dw=
eck=20
>> wrote in her study summary, "we tell them that this is the nameof the ga=
me:=20
>> Look smart, don't risk making mistakes." And that's whatthe fifth-grader=
s=20
>> had done: They'd chosen to look smart and avoid therisk of being=20
>> embarrassed.
>> In a subsequent round, none of the fifth-graders had a choice. Thetest w=
as=20
>> difficult, designed for kids two years ahead of their gradelevel.=20
>> Predictably, everyone failed. But again, the two groups ofchildren, divi=
ded=20
>> at random at the study's start, respondeddifferently. Those praised for=
=20
>> their effort on the first test assumedthey simply hadn't focused hard=20
>> enough on this test. "They got veryinvolved, willing to try every soluti=
on=20
>> to the puzzles," Dweckrecalled. "Many of them remarked, unprovoked, 'Thi=
s=20
>> is my favoritetest.'" Not so for those praised for their smarts. They=20
>> assumed theirfailure was evidence that they weren't really smart at all.=
=20
>> "Justwatching them, you could see the strain. They were sweating=20
>> andmiserable."
>> Having artificially induced a round of failure, Dweck's researchersthen=
=20
>> gave all the fifth-graders a final round of tests that wereengineered to=
 be=20
>> as easy as the first round. Those who had beenpraised for their effort=
=20
>> significantly improved on their firstscoreby about 30 percent. Those who=
'd=20
>> been told they were smart didworse than they had at the very beginningby=
=20
>> about 20 percent.
>> Dweck had suspected that praise could backfire, but even she wassurprise=
d=20
>> by the magnitude of the effect. "Emphasizing effort gives achild a varia=
ble=20
>> that they can control," she explains. "They come tosee themselves as in=
=20
>> control of their success. Emphasizing naturalintelligence takes it out o=
f=20
>> the child's control, and it provides nogood recipe for responding to a=
=20
>> failure."
>> In follow-up interviews, Dweck discovered that those who think thatinnat=
e=20
>> intelligence is the key to success begin to discount theimportance of=20
>> effort. I am smart, the kids' reasoning goes; I don'tneed to put out=20
>> effort. Expending effort becomes stigmatizedit'spublic proof that you ca=
n't=20
>> cut it on your natural gifts.
>> Repeating her experiments, Dweck found this effect of praise onperforman=
ce=20
>> held true for students of every socioeconomic class. Ithit both boys and=
=20
>> girlsthe very brightest girls especially (theycollapsed the most followi=
ng=20
>> failure). Even preschoolers weren'timmune to the inverse power of praise=
=2E
>> Jill Abraham is a mother of three in Scarsdale, and her view istypical o=
f=20
>> those in my straw poll. I told her about Dweck's researchon praise, and =
she=20
>> flatly wasn't interested in brief tests withoutlong-term follow-up. Abra=
ham=20
>> is one of the 85 percent who thinkpraising her children's intelligence i=
s=20
>> important. Her kids arethriving, so she's proved that praise works in th=
e=20
>> real world. "Idon't care what the experts say," Jill says defiantly. "I'=
m=20
>> livingit."
>> Even those who've accepted the new research on praise have troubleputtin=
g=20
>> it into practice. Sue Needleman is both a mother of two and=20
>> anelementary-school teacher with eleven years' experience. Last year,she=
=20
>> was a fourth-grade teacher at Ridge Ranch Elementary in Paramus,New Jers=
ey.=20
>> She has never heard of Carol Dweck, but the gist ofDweck's research has=
=20
>> trickled down to her school, and Needleman haslearned to say, "I like ho=
w=20
>> you keep trying." She tries to keep herpraise specific, rather than=20
>> general, so that a child knows exactlywhat she did to earn the praise (a=
nd=20
>> thus can get more). She willoccasionally tell a child, "You're good at=
=20
>> math," but she'll nevertell a child he's bad at math.
>> But that's at school, as a teacher. At home, old habits die hard.=20
>> Her8-year-old daughter and her 5-year-old son are indeed smart,=20
>> andsometimes she hears herself saying, "You're great. You did it.=20
>> You'resmart." When I press her on this, Needleman says that what comes=
=20
>> outof academia often feels artificial. "When I read the mock dialogues,m=
y=20
>> first thought is, Oh, please. How corny."
>> No such qualms exist for teachers at the Life Sciences SecondarySchool i=
n=20
>> East Harlem, because they've seen Dweck's theories appliedto their=20
>> junior-high students. Last week, Dweck and her prot=E9g=E9e, LisaBlackwe=
ll,=20
>> published a report in the academic journal ChildDevelopment about the=20
>> effect of a semester-long intervention conductedto improve students' mat=
h=20
>> scores.
>> Life Sciences is a health-science magnet school with high aspirationsbut=
=20
>> 700 students whose main attributes are being predominantlyminority and l=
ow=20
>> achieving. Blackwell split her kids into two groupsfor an eight-session=
=20
>> workshop. The control group was taught studyskills, and the others got=
=20
>> study skills and a special module on howintelligence is not innate. Thes=
e=20
>> students took turns reading aloud anessay on how the brain grows new=20
>> neurons when challenged. They sawslides of the brain and acted out skits=
=2E=20
>> "Even as I was teaching theseideas," Blackwell noted, "I would hear the=
=20
>> students joking, callingone another 'dummy' or 'stupid.'" After the modu=
le=20
>> was concluded,Blackwell tracked her students' grades to see if it had an=
y=20
>> effect.
>> It didn't take long. The teacherswho hadn't known which students hadbeen=
=20
>> assigned to which workshopcould pick out the students who hadbeen taught=
=20
>> that intelligence can be developed. They improved theirstudy habits and=
=20
>> grades. In a single semester, Blackwell reversed thestudents' longtime=
=20
>> trend of decreasing math grades.
>> The only difference between the control group and the test group weretwo=
=20
>> lessons, a total of 50 minutes spent teaching not math but asingle idea:=
=20
>> that the brain is a muscle. Giving it a harder workoutmakes you smarter.=
=20
>> That alone improved their math scores.
>> "These are very persuasive findings," says Columbia's Dr. GeraldineDowne=
y,=20
>> a specialist in children's sensitivity to rejection. "Theyshow how you c=
an=20
>> take a specific theory and develop a curriculum thatworks." Downey's=20
>> comment is typical of what other scholars in thefield are saying. Dr.=20
>> Mahzarin Banaji, a Harvard social psychologistwho is an expert in=20
>> stereotyping, told me, "Carol Dweck is a flat-outgenius. I hope the work=
 is=20
>> taken seriously. It scares people when theysee these results."
>> Since the 1969 publication of The Psychology of Self-Esteem, in=20
>> whichNathaniel Branden opined that self-esteem was the single mostimport=
ant=20
>> facet of a person, the belief that one must do whatever hecan to achieve=
=20
>> positive self-esteem has become a movement with broadsocietal effects.=
=20
>> Anything potentially damaging to kids' self-esteemwas axed. Competitions=
=20
>> were frowned upon. Soccer coaches stoppedcounting goals and handed out=
=20
>> trophies to everyone. Teachers threw outtheir red pencils. Criticism was=
=20
>> replaced with ubiquitous, evenundeserved, praise.
>> Dweck and Blackwell's work is part of a larger academic challenge toone =
of=20
>> the self-esteem movement's key tenets: that praise,self-esteem, and=20
>> performance rise and fall together. From 1970 to2000, there were over=20
>> 15,000 scholarly articles written on self-esteemand its relationship to=
=20
>> everythingfrom sex to career advancement. Butresults were often=20
>> contradictory or inconclusive. So in 2003 theAssociation for Psychologic=
al=20
>> Science asked Dr. Roy Baumeister, then aleading proponent of self-esteem=
,=20
>> to review this literature. His teamconcluded that self-esteem was pollut=
ed=20
>> with flawed science. Only 200of those 15,000 studies met their rigorous=
=20
>> standards.
>> After reviewing those 200 studies, Baumeister concluded that havinghigh=
=20
>> self-esteem didn't improve grades or career achievement. Itdidn't even=
=20
>> reduce alcohol usage. And it especially did not lowerviolence of any sor=
t.=20
>> (Highly aggressive, violent people happen tothink very highly of=20
>> themselves, debunking the theory that people areaggressive to make up fo=
r=20
>> low self-esteem.) At the time, Baumeisterwas quoted as saying that his=
=20
>> findings were "the biggestdisappointment of my career."
>> Now he's on Dweck's side of the argument, and his work is going in asimi=
lar=20
>> direction: He will soon publish an article showing that forcollege stude=
nts=20
>> on the verge of failing in class, esteem-buildingpraise causes their gra=
des=20
>> to sink further. Baumeister has come tobelieve the continued appeal of=
=20
>> self-esteem is largely tied toparents' pride in their children's=20
>> achievements: It's so strong that"when they praise their kids, it's not=
=20
>> that far from praisingthemselves."
>> By and large, the literature on praise shows that it can beeffectivea=20
>> positive, motivating force. In one study, University ofNotre Dame=20
>> researchers tested praise's efficacy on a losing collegehockey team. The=
=20
>> experiment worked: The team got into the playoffs.But all praise is not=
=20
>> equaland, as Dweck demonstrated, the effects ofpraise can vary=20
>> significantly depending on the praise given. To beeffective, researchers=
=20
>> have found, praise needs to be specific. (Thehockey players were=20
>> specifically complimented on the number of timesthey checked an opponent=
=2E)
>> Sincerity of praise is also crucial. Just as we can sniff out the=20
>> truemeaning of a backhanded compliment or a disingenuous apology,childre=
n,=20
>> too, scrutinize praise for hidden agendas. Only youngchildrenunder the a=
ge=20
>> of 7take praise at face value: Older childrenare just as suspicious of i=
t=20
>> as adults.
>> Psychologist Wulf-Uwe Meyer, a pioneer in the field, conducted aseries o=
f=20
>> studies where children watched other students receivepraise. According t=
o=20
>> Meyer's findings, by the age of 12, childrenbelieve that earning praise=
=20
>> from a teacher is not a sign you didwellit's actually a sign you lack=20
>> ability and the teacher thinks youneed extra encouragement. And teens,=
=20
>> Meyer found, discounted praise tosuch an extent that they believed it's =
a=20
>> teacher's criticismnotpraise at allthat really conveys a positive belief=
 in=20
>> a student'saptitude.
>> In the opinion of cognitive scientist Daniel T. Willingham, a teacherwho=
=20
>> praises a child may be unwittingly sending the message that thestudent=
=20
>> reached the limit of his innate ability, while a teacher whocriticizes a=
=20
>> pupil conveys the message that he can improve hisperformance even furthe=
r.
>> New York University professor of psychiatry Judith Brook explains thatth=
e=20
>> issue for parents is one of credibility. "Praise is important, butnot=20
>> vacuous praise," she says. "It has to be based on a realthingsome skill =
or=20
>> talent they have." Once children hear praise theyinterpret as meritless,=
=20
>> they discount not just the insincere praise,but sincere praise as well.
>> Scholars from Reed College and Stanford reviewed over 150 praisestudies.=
=20
>> Their meta-analysis determined that praised students becomerisk-averse a=
nd=20
>> lack perceived autonomy. The scholars found consistentcorrelations betwe=
en=20
>> a liberal use of praise and students' "shortertask persistence, more=20
>> eye-checking with the teacher, and inflectedspeech such that answers hav=
e=20
>> the intonation of questions."
>> Dweck's research on overpraised kids strongly suggests that=20
>> imagemaintenance becomes their primary concernthey are more competitivea=
nd=20
>> more interested in tearing others down. A raft of very alarmingstudies=
=20
>> illustrate this.
>> In one, students are given two puzzle tests. Between the first and=20
>> thesecond, they are offered a choice between learning a new puzzlestrate=
gy=20
>> for the second test or finding out how they did compared withother stude=
nts=20
>> on the first test: They have only enough time to do oneor the other.=20
>> Students praised for intelligence choose to find outtheir class rank,=20
>> rather than use the time to prepare.
>> In another, students get a do-it-yourself report card and are toldthese=
=20
>> forms will be mailed to students at another schoolthey'll nevermeet thes=
e=20
>> students and don't know their names. Of the kids praisedfor their=20
>> intelligence, 40 percent lie, inflating their scores. Of thekids praised=
=20
>> for effort, few lie.
>> When students transition into junior high, some who'd done well=20
>> inelementary school inevitably struggle in the larger and more=20
>> demandingenvironment. Those who equated their earlier success with their=
=20
>> innateability surmise they've been dumb all along. Their grades=20
>> neverrecover because the likely key to their recoveryincreasingeffortthe=
y=20
>> view as just further proof of their failure. In interviewsmany confess t=
hey=20
>> would "seriously consider cheating."
>> Students turn to cheating because they haven't developed a strategyfor=
=20
>> handling failure. The problem is compounded when a parent ignoresa child=
's=20
>> failures and insists he'll do better next time. Michiganscholar Jennifer=
=20
>> Crocker studies this exact scenario and explains thatthe child may come =
to=20
>> believe failure is something so terrible, thefamily can't acknowledge it=
s=20
>> existence. A child deprived of theopportunity to discuss mistakes can't=
=20
>> learn from them.
>> My son, Luke, is in kindergarten. He seems supersensitive to thepotentia=
l=20
>> judgment of his peers. Luke justifies it by saying, "I'mshy," but he's n=
ot=20
>> really shy. He has no fear of strange cities ortalking to strangers, and=
 at=20
>> his school, he has sung in front of largeaudiences. Rather, I'd say he's=
=20
>> proud and self-conscious. His schoolhas simple uniforms (navy T-shirt, n=
avy=20
>> pants), and he loves that hischoice of clothes can't be ridiculed, "beca=
use=20
>> then they'd be teasingthemselves too."
>> After reading Carol Dweck's research, I began to alter how I praisedhim,=
=20
>> but not completely. I suppose my hesitation was that the mind-setDweck=
=20
>> wants students to havea firm belief that the way to bounce backfrom fail=
ure=20
>> is to work hardersounds awfully clich=E9d: Try, try again.
>> But it turns out that the ability to repeatedly respond to failure=20
>> byexerting more effortinstead of simply giving upis a trait wellstudied =
in=20
>> psychology. People with this trait, persistence, reboundwell and can=20
>> sustain their motivation through long periods of delayedgratification.=
=20
>> Delving into this research, I learned that persistenceturns out to be mo=
re=20
>> than a conscious act of will; it's also anunconscious response, governed=
 by=20
>> a circuit in the brain. Dr. RobertCloninger at Washington University in =
St.=20
>> Louis located the circuit ina part of the brain called the orbital and=
=20
>> medial prefrontal cortex.It monitors the reward center of the brain, and=
=20
>> like a switch, itintervenes when there's a lack of immediate reward. Whe=
n=20
>> it switcheson, it's telling the rest of the brain, "Don't stop trying.=
=20
>> There'sdopa [the brain's chemical reward for success] on the horizon."=
=20
>> Whileputting people through MRI scans, Cloninger could see this=20
>> switchlighting up regularly in some. In others, barely at all.
>> What makes some people wired to have an active circuit?
>> Cloninger has trained rats and mice in mazes to have persistence=20
>> bycarefully not rewarding them when they get to the finish. "The key=20
>> isintermittent reinforcement," says Cloninger. The brain has to learntha=
t=20
>> frustrating spells can be worked through. "A person who grows upgetting =
too=20
>> frequent rewards will not have persistence, becausethey'll quit when the=
=20
>> rewards disappear."
>> That sold me. I'd thought "praise junkie" was just an=20
>> expressionbutsuddenly, it seemed as if I could be setting up my son's br=
ain=20
>> for anactual chemical need for constant reward.
>> What would it mean, to give up praising our children so often? Well,if I=
 am=20
>> one example, there are stages of withdrawal, each of themsubtle. In the=
=20
>> first stage, I fell off the wagon around other parentswhen they were bus=
y=20
>> praising their kids. I didn't want Luke to feelleft out. I felt like a=
=20
>> former alcoholic who continues to drinksocially. I became a Social Prais=
er.
>> Then I tried to use the specific-type praise that Dweck recommends.=20
>> Ipraised Luke, but I attempted to praise his "process." This was easiers=
aid=20
>> than done. What are the processes that go on in a 5-year-old'smind? In m=
y=20
>> impression, 80 percent of his brain processes lengthyscenarios for his=
=20
>> action figures.
>> But every night he has math homework and is supposed to read a phonicsbo=
ok=20
>> aloud. Each takes about five minutes if he concentrates, but he'seasily=
=20
>> distracted. So I praised him for concentrating without askingto take a=
=20
>> break. If he listened to instructions carefully, I praisedhim for that.=
=20
>> After soccer games, I praised him for looking to pass,rather than just=
=20
>> saying, "You played great." And if he worked hard toget to the ball, I=
=20
>> praised the effort he applied.
>> Just as the research promised, this focused praise helped him seestrateg=
ies=20
>> he could apply the next day. It was remarkable hownoticeably effective t=
his=20
>> new form of praise was.
>> Truth be told, while my son was getting along fine under the newpraise=
=20
>> regime, it was I who was suffering. It turns out that I was thereal prai=
se=20
>> junkie in the family. Praising him for just a particularskill or task fe=
lt=20
>> like I left other parts of him ignored andunappreciated. I recognized th=
at=20
>> praising him with the universal"You're greatI'm proud of you" was a way =
I=20
>> expressed unconditionallove.
>> Offering praise has become a sort of panacea for the anxieties ofmodern=
=20
>> parenting. Out of our children's lives from breakfast todinner, we turn =
it=20
>> up a notch when we get home. In those few hourstogether, we want them to=
=20
>> hear the things we can't say during thedayWe are in your corner, we are=
=20
>> here for you, we believe in you.
>> In a similar way, we put our children in high-pressure environments,seek=
ing=20
>> out the best schools we can find, then we use the constantpraise to soft=
en=20
>> the intensity of those environments. We expect somuch of them, but we hi=
de=20
>> our expectations behind constant glowingpraise. The duplicity became=20
>> glaring to me.
>> Eventually, in my final stage of praise withdrawal, I realized thatnot=
=20
>> telling my son he was smart meant I was leaving it up to him tomake his =
own=20
>> conclusion about his intelligence. Jumping in with praiseis like jumping=
 in=20
>> too soon with the answer to a homework problemitrobs him of the chance t=
o=20
>> make the deduction himself.
>> But what if he makes the wrong conclusion?
>> Can I really leave this up to him, at his age?
>> I'm still an anxious parent. This morning, I tested him on the way=20
>> toschool: "What happens to your brain, again, when it gets to thinkabout=
=20
>> something hard?"
>> "It gets bigger, like a muscle," he responded, having aced this one befo=
re.
>> -- http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -  search://"Daniel Reeves=
"
>>=20
>

--=20
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -  search://"Daniel Reeves"

"When you're swimming in a creek,
  And an eel bites your cheek--
  That's a moray!"

---712164092-1662961797-1171444952=:7360--