Sender: 1.0 (spamval) -- NONE
In-Reply-To: <1acf35a70702132328y5d0c159udd7cfcd8b983a6f1 &AElig mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0702141105490.9705 &AElig samba>
References: <1acf35a70702132328y5d0c159udd7cfcd8b983a6f1 &AElig mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="8323328-2035159397-1171444100=:9705"
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:08:20 +0200 (EET)
To: Daniel Reeves <dreeves &AElig umich.edu>
cc: improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu
From: Uluc Saranli <saranli &AElig cs.bilkent.edu.tr>
Subject: Re: how not to talk to your kids

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

--8323328-2035159397-1171444100=:9705
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-9; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE


Dan, but you're so smart! How can we not tell you? :)

Good article though. Thanks for sending it.

- Uluc.

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007, Daniel Reeves wrote:

> I found this enlightening: http://nymag.com/news/features/27840/Take home=
=20
> message:Do not tell your kids they are smart. (Praise them for hard work.=
)Do=20
> not praise them constantly. (They'll become praise junkies and befrustrat=
ed=20
> when rewards aren't immediate.)
> Full text:
> How Not to Talk to Your KidsThe Inverse Power of Praise.
>    * By Po Bronson
>
> What do we make of a boy like Thomas?
> Thomas (his middle name) is a fifth-grader at the highly competitiveP.S. =
334,=20
> the Anderson School on West 84th. Slim as they get, Thomasrecently had hi=
s=20
> long sandy-blond hair cut short to look like the newJames Bond (he took a=
=20
> 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: Fr=
ank=20
> Zappa. Thomas hangs out withfive friends from the Anderson School. They a=
re=20
> "the smart kids."Thomas's one of them, and he likes belonging.
> Since Thomas could walk, he has heard constantly that he's smart. Notjust=
=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 t=
op=20
> one percent of all applicants, and an IQ test is required.Thomas didn't j=
ust=20
> score in the top one percent. He scored in the topone percent of the top =
one=20
> percent.
> But as Thomas has progressed through school, this self-awareness thathe's=
=20
> smart hasn't always translated into fearless confidence whenattacking his=
=20
> schoolwork. In fact, Thomas's father noticed just theopposite. "Thomas di=
dn't=20
> want to try things he wouldn't be successfulat," his father says. "Some=
=20
> things came very quickly to him, but whenthey didn't, he gave up almost=
=20
> immediately, concluding, 'I'm not goodat this.'" With no more than a glan=
ce,=20
> Thomas was dividing the worldinto twothings he was naturally good at and=
=20
> things he wasn't.
> For instance, in the early grades, Thomas wasn't very good atspelling, so=
 he=20
> simply demurred from spelling out loud. When Thomastook his first look at=
=20
> fractions, he balked. The biggest hurdle camein third grade. He was suppo=
sed=20
> to learn cursive penmanship, but hewouldn't even try for weeks. By then, =
his=20
> teacher was demandinghomework be completed in cursive. Rather than play=
=20
> catch-up on hispenmanship, Thomas refused outright. Thomas's father tried=
 to=20
> reasonwith him. "Look, just because you're smart doesn't mean you don't=
=20
> haveto put out some effort." (Eventually, he mastered cursive, but notwit=
hout=20
> a lot of cajoling from his father.)
> Why does this child, who is measurably at the very top of the charts,lack=
=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 10perc=
ent=20
> on aptitude tests) severely underestimate their own abilities.Those affli=
cted=20
> with this lack of perceived competence adopt lowerstandards for success a=
nd=20
> expect less of themselves. They underratethe importance of effort, and th=
ey=20
> overrate how much help they needfrom a parent.
> When parents praise their children's intelligence, they believe theyare=
=20
> providing the solution to this problem. According to a surveyconducted by=
=20
> Columbia University, 85 percent of American parents thinkit's important t=
o=20
> tell their kids that they're smart. In and aroundthe New York area, accor=
ding=20
> to my own (admittedly nonscientific)poll, the number is more like 100=20
> percent. Everyone does it,habitually. The constant praise is meant to be =
an=20
> angel on theshoulder, ensuring that children do not sell their talents sh=
ort.
> But a growing body of researchand a new study from the trenches ofthe New=
=20
> York public-school systemstrongly suggests it might be theother way aroun=
d.=20
> Giving kids the label of "smart" does not preventthem from underperformin=
g.=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 doze=
n=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. O=
nce=20
> the child finished the test, the researchers told eachstudent his score, =
then=20
> gave him a single line of praise. Randomlydivided into groups, some were=
=20
> praised for their intelligence. Theywere told, "You must be smart at this=
=2E"=20
> Other students were praisedfor their effort: "You must have worked really=
=20
> hard."
> Why just a single line of praise? "We wanted to see how sensitivechildren=
=20
> were," Dweck explained. "We had a hunch that one line mightbe enough to s=
ee=20
> an effect."
> Then the students were given a choice of test for the second round.One ch=
oice=20
> was a test that would be more difficult than the first, butthe researcher=
s=20
> told the kids that they'd learn a lot from attemptingthe puzzles. The oth=
er=20
> choice, Dweck's team explained, was an easytest, just like the first. Of=
=20
> those praised for their effort, 90percent chose the harder set of puzzles=
=2E Of=20
> those praised for theirintelligence, a majority chose the easy test. The=
=20
> "smart" kids tookthe cop-out.
> Why did this happen? "When we praise children for their intelligence,"Dwe=
ck=20
> wrote in her study summary, "we tell them that this is the nameof the gam=
e:=20
> Look smart, don't risk making mistakes." And that's whatthe fifth-graders=
 had=20
> done: They'd chosen to look smart and avoid therisk of being embarrassed.
> In a subsequent round, none of the fifth-graders had a choice. Thetest wa=
s=20
> difficult, designed for kids two years ahead of their gradelevel.=20
> Predictably, everyone failed. But again, the two groups ofchildren, divid=
ed=20
> at random at the study's start, respondeddifferently. Those praised for t=
heir=20
> effort on the first test assumedthey simply hadn't focused hard enough on=
=20
> this test. "They got veryinvolved, willing to try every solution to the=
=20
> puzzles," Dweckrecalled. "Many of them remarked, unprovoked, 'This is my=
=20
> favoritetest.'" Not so for those praised for their smarts. They assumed=
=20
> 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 g=
ave=20
> all the fifth-graders a final round of tests that wereengineered to be as=
=20
> 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 wassurprised=
 by=20
> the magnitude of the effect. "Emphasizing effort gives achild a variable =
that=20
> they can control," she explains. "They come tosee themselves as in contro=
l of=20
> their success. Emphasizing naturalintelligence takes it out of the child'=
s=20
> control, and it provides nogood recipe for responding to a failure."
> In follow-up interviews, Dweck discovered that those who think thatinnate=
=20
> intelligence is the key to success begin to discount theimportance of eff=
ort.=20
> I am smart, the kids' reasoning goes; I don'tneed to put out effort.=20
> Expending effort becomes stigmatizedit'spublic proof that you can't cut i=
t on=20
> your natural gifts.
> Repeating her experiments, Dweck found this effect of praise onperformanc=
e=20
> held true for students of every socioeconomic class. Ithit both boys and=
=20
> girlsthe very brightest girls especially (theycollapsed the most followin=
g=20
> failure). Even preschoolers weren'timmune to the inverse power of praise.
> Jill Abraham is a mother of three in Scarsdale, and her view istypical of=
=20
> those in my straw poll. I told her about Dweck's researchon praise, and s=
he=20
> flatly wasn't interested in brief tests withoutlong-term follow-up. Abrah=
am=20
> is one of the 85 percent who thinkpraising her children's intelligence is=
=20
> important. Her kids arethriving, so she's proved that praise works in the=
=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 troubleputting=
 it=20
> into practice. Sue Needleman is both a mother of two and anelementary-sch=
ool=20
> teacher with eleven years' experience. Last year,she was a fourth-grade=
=20
> teacher at Ridge Ranch Elementary in Paramus,New Jersey. She has never he=
ard=20
> of Carol Dweck, but the gist ofDweck's research has trickled down to her=
=20
> school, and Needleman haslearned to say, "I like how you keep trying." Sh=
e=20
> tries to keep herpraise specific, rather than general, so that a child kn=
ows=20
> exactlywhat she did to earn the praise (and thus can get more). She=20
> willoccasionally tell a child, "You're good at math," but she'll nevertel=
l a=20
> 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, andsometi=
mes=20
> she hears herself saying, "You're great. You did it. You'resmart." When I=
=20
> press her on this, Needleman says that what comes outof academia often fe=
els=20
> artificial. "When I read the mock dialogues,my first thought is, Oh, plea=
se.=20
> How corny."
> No such qualms exist for teachers at the Life Sciences SecondarySchool in=
=20
> East Harlem, because they've seen Dweck's theories appliedto their=20
> junior-high students. Last week, Dweck and her prot=E9g=E9e, LisaBlackwel=
l,=20
> published a report in the academic journal ChildDevelopment about the eff=
ect=20
> of a semester-long intervention conductedto improve students' math scores=
=2E
> Life Sciences is a health-science magnet school with high aspirationsbut =
700=20
> students whose main attributes are being predominantlyminority and low=20
> achieving. Blackwell split her kids into two groupsfor an eight-session=
=20
> workshop. The control group was taught studyskills, and the others got st=
udy=20
> skills and a special module on howintelligence is not innate. These stude=
nts=20
> took turns reading aloud anessay on how the brain grows new neurons when=
=20
> challenged. They sawslides of the brain and acted out skits. "Even as I w=
as=20
> teaching theseideas," Blackwell noted, "I would hear the students joking,=
=20
> callingone another 'dummy' or 'stupid.'" After the module was=20
> concluded,Blackwell tracked her students' grades to see if it had any eff=
ect.
> 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 =
that=20
> intelligence can be developed. They improved theirstudy habits and grades=
=2E In=20
> a single semester, Blackwell reversed thestudents' longtime trend of=20
> 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: =
that=20
> the brain is a muscle. Giving it a harder workoutmakes you smarter. That=
=20
> alone improved their math scores.
> "These are very persuasive findings," says Columbia's Dr. GeraldineDowney=
, a=20
> specialist in children's sensitivity to rejection. "Theyshow how you can =
take=20
> a specific theory and develop a curriculum thatworks." Downey's comment i=
s=20
> typical of what other scholars in thefield are saying. Dr. Mahzarin Banaj=
i, a=20
> Harvard social psychologistwho is an expert in stereotyping, told me, "Ca=
rol=20
> Dweck is a flat-outgenius. I hope the work is taken seriously. It scares=
=20
> 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 mostimporta=
nt=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 =
were=20
> frowned upon. Soccer coaches stoppedcounting goals and handed out trophie=
s to=20
> everyone. Teachers threw outtheir red pencils. Criticism was replaced wit=
h=20
> ubiquitous, evenundeserved, praise.
> Dweck and Blackwell's work is part of a larger academic challenge toone o=
f=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 15,=
000=20
> scholarly articles written on self-esteemand its relationship to=20
> everythingfrom sex to career advancement. Butresults were often contradic=
tory=20
> or inconclusive. So in 2003 theAssociation for Psychological Science aske=
d=20
> Dr. Roy Baumeister, then aleading proponent of self-esteem, to review thi=
s=20
> literature. His teamconcluded that self-esteem was polluted with flawed=
=20
> science. Only 200of those 15,000 studies met their rigorous standards.
> After reviewing those 200 studies, Baumeister concluded that havinghigh=
=20
> self-esteem didn't improve grades or career achievement. Itdidn't even re=
duce=20
> alcohol usage. And it especially did not lowerviolence of any sort. (High=
ly=20
> aggressive, violent people happen tothink very highly of themselves,=20
> debunking the theory that people areaggressive to make up for low=20
> self-esteem.) At the time, Baumeisterwas quoted as saying that his findin=
gs=20
> were "the biggestdisappointment of my career."
> Now he's on Dweck's side of the argument, and his work is going in asimil=
ar=20
> direction: He will soon publish an article showing that forcollege studen=
ts=20
> on the verge of failing in class, esteem-buildingpraise causes their grad=
es=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 t=
hat=20
> 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 researc=
hers=20
> tested praise's efficacy on a losing collegehockey team. The experiment=
=20
> worked: The team got into the playoffs.But all praise is not equaland, as=
=20
> Dweck demonstrated, the effects ofpraise can vary significantly depending=
 on=20
> the praise given. To beeffective, researchers have found, praise needs to=
 be=20
> specific. (Thehockey players were specifically complimented on the number=
 of=20
> timesthey checked an opponent.)
> Sincerity of praise is also crucial. Just as we can sniff out the truemea=
ning=20
> of a backhanded compliment or a disingenuous apology,children, too,=20
> scrutinize praise for hidden agendas. Only youngchildrenunder the age of=
=20
> 7take praise at face value: Older childrenare just as suspicious of it as=
=20
> adults.
> Psychologist Wulf-Uwe Meyer, a pioneer in the field, conducted aseries of=
=20
> studies where children watched other students receivepraise. According to=
=20
> Meyer's findings, by the age of 12, childrenbelieve that earning praise f=
rom=20
> a teacher is not a sign you didwellit's actually a sign you lack ability =
and=20
> the teacher thinks youneed extra encouragement. And teens, Meyer found,=
=20
> discounted praise tosuch an extent that they believed it's a teacher's=20
> criticismnotpraise at allthat really conveys a positive belief in a=20
> 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 further=
=2E
> New York University professor of psychiatry Judith Brook explains thatthe=
=20
> issue for parents is one of credibility. "Praise is important, butnot vac=
uous=20
> praise," she says. "It has to be based on a realthingsome skill or talent=
=20
> they have." Once children hear praise theyinterpret as meritless, they=20
> 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 an=
d=20
> lack perceived autonomy. The scholars found consistentcorrelations betwee=
n a=20
> liberal use of praise and students' "shortertask persistence, more=20
> eye-checking with the teacher, and inflectedspeech such that answers have=
 the=20
> intonation of questions."
> Dweck's research on overpraised kids strongly suggests that imagemaintena=
nce=20
> becomes their primary concernthey are more competitiveand more interested=
 in=20
> tearing others down. A raft of very alarmingstudies illustrate this.
> In one, students are given two puzzle tests. Between the first and thesec=
ond,=20
> they are offered a choice between learning a new puzzlestrategy for the=
=20
> second test or finding out how they did compared withother students on th=
e=20
> first test: They have only enough time to do oneor the other. Students=20
> praised for intelligence choose to find outtheir class rank, rather than =
use=20
> the time to prepare.
> In another, students get a do-it-yourself report card and are toldthese f=
orms=20
> will be mailed to students at another schoolthey'll nevermeet these stude=
nts=20
> and don't know their names. Of the kids praisedfor their intelligence, 40=
=20
> percent lie, inflating their scores. Of thekids praised for effort, few l=
ie.
> When students transition into junior high, some who'd done well inelement=
ary=20
> school inevitably struggle in the larger and more demandingenvironment. T=
hose=20
> who equated their earlier success with their innateability surmise they'v=
e=20
> been dumb all along. Their grades neverrecover because the likely key to=
=20
> their recoveryincreasingeffortthey view as just further proof of their=20
> failure. In interviewsmany confess they would "seriously consider cheatin=
g."
> 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 t=
o=20
> believe failure is something so terrible, thefamily can't acknowledge its=
=20
> existence. A child deprived of theopportunity to discuss mistakes can't l=
earn=20
> from them.
> My son, Luke, is in kindergarten. He seems supersensitive to thepotential=
=20
> judgment of his peers. Luke justifies it by saying, "I'mshy," but he's no=
t=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, na=
vy=20
> pants), and he loves that hischoice of clothes can't be ridiculed, "becau=
se=20
> then they'd be teasingthemselves too."
> After reading Carol Dweck's research, I began to alter how I praisedhim, =
but=20
> not completely. I suppose my hesitation was that the mind-setDweck wants=
=20
> students to havea firm belief that the way to bounce backfrom failure is =
to=20
> work hardersounds awfully clich=E9d: Try, try again.
> But it turns out that the ability to repeatedly respond to failure byexer=
ting=20
> more effortinstead of simply giving upis a trait wellstudied in psycholog=
y.=20
> People with this trait, persistence, reboundwell and can sustain their=20
> motivation through long periods of delayedgratification. Delving into thi=
s=20
> research, I learned that persistenceturns out to be more than a conscious=
 act=20
> of will; it's also anunconscious response, governed by a circuit in the=
=20
> brain. Dr. RobertCloninger at Washington University in St. Louis located =
the=20
> circuit ina part of the brain called the orbital and medial prefrontal=20
> cortex.It monitors the reward center of the brain, and like a switch,=20
> itintervenes when there's a lack of immediate reward. When it switcheson,=
=20
> it's telling the rest of the brain, "Don't stop trying. There'sdopa [the=
=20
> brain's chemical reward for success] on the horizon." Whileputting people=
=20
> through MRI scans, Cloninger could see this switchlighting up regularly i=
n=20
> 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 bycarefu=
lly=20
> not rewarding them when they get to the finish. "The key isintermittent=
=20
> reinforcement," says Cloninger. The brain has to learnthat frustrating sp=
ells=20
> can be worked through. "A person who grows upgetting too frequent rewards=
=20
> will not have persistence, becausethey'll quit when the rewards disappear=
=2E"
> 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 bra=
in=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 f=
irst=20
> stage, I fell off the wagon around other parentswhen they were busy prais=
ing=20
> their kids. I didn't want Luke to feelleft out. I felt like a former=20
> alcoholic who continues to drinksocially. I became a Social Praiser.
> Then I tried to use the specific-type praise that Dweck recommends. Iprai=
sed=20
> Luke, but I attempted to praise his "process." This was easiersaid than d=
one.=20
> What are the processes that go on in a 5-year-old'smind? In my impression=
, 80=20
> percent of his brain processes lengthyscenarios for his action figures.
> But every night he has math homework and is supposed to read a phonicsboo=
k=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 br=
eak.=20
> If he listened to instructions carefully, I praisedhim for that. After so=
ccer=20
> games, I praised him for looking to pass,rather than just saying, "You pl=
ayed=20
> great." And if he worked hard toget to the ball, I praised the effort he=
=20
> applied.
> Just as the research promised, this focused praise helped him seestrategi=
es=20
> he could apply the next day. It was remarkable hownoticeably effective th=
is=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 prais=
e=20
> junkie in the family. Praising him for just a particularskill or task fel=
t=20
> like I left other parts of him ignored andunappreciated. I recognized tha=
t=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 i=
t up=20
> a notch when we get home. In those few hourstogether, we want them to hea=
r=20
> the things we can't say during thedayWe are in your corner, we are here f=
or=20
> you, we believe in you.
> In a similar way, we put our children in high-pressure environments,seeki=
ng=20
> out the best schools we can find, then we use the constantpraise to softe=
n=20
> the intensity of those environments. We expect somuch of them, but we hid=
e=20
> our expectations behind constant glowingpraise. The duplicity became glar=
ing=20
> 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 o=
wn=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 to=
=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 toscho=
ol:=20
> "What happens to your brain, again, when it gets to thinkabout something=
=20
> hard?"
> "It gets bigger, like a muscle," he responded, having aced this one befor=
e.
> -- http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -  search://"Daniel Reeves"
>
>
--8323328-2035159397-1171444100=:9705--