Mindset -- Carol Dweck -- Lukewarm

I think my disappointment with this book can be mostly explained by my high expectations. I heard rave things about it from a variety of people I admire and I was expecting some grand new ideas. But In the words of Jim Rohn, “You've got to be a little suspicious of someone who says, ‘I've got a new fundamental.’”

The book is implicitly about nature vs. nurture. Dweck adds nuance to the conversation by sidestepping the question of “how much is nature and how much is nature” in favor of “how much do you believe isn’t nature?” She neatly demonstrates across a variety of settings that the more you believe you can change (growth mindset) the more successful you will be. It doesn’t matter how much is nature, believing that you can do it anyway seems to make a real difference.
The basic idea is at least 2000 years old “If you can believe, all is possible” (Mark 9:23) and more recently “If you can dream it, you can become it” (Walt Disney). I think Dweck’s rise to prominence on this idea stems from two basic aspects of her writing position. One, she brings PhD credentials and substantial research to the table; two, she applies it to many situations that people may not have thought of before.

I didn’t find her credentials, or the evidence presented, particularly paradigm-changing. The evidence was decent, just not earth-shattering causal inference stuff. The book isn’t peer-reviewed research (that’s probably a good thing) and it’s got some gaps that a rigorous examination would call in to question. Similarly, her credentials are quite good (Yale-educated Stanford professor of Psychology), but not sterling (it’s psychology, what can I say! 😉).


The application aspect of the book is the most interesting. Again, I didn’t feel like most of the content was new, but there were some areas that were new to me (application in marriage and interpersonal relationships was an aspect that I hadn’t considered.) The content application stories just managed to eek the book into the inspirational half of my magic quadrant.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The righteous mind — Jonathan Haidt — Recommend with salt

Image
  The book in a nutshell is captured by the subheading "why good people are divided by politics and religion". The book can be roughly divided into thirds. The first half of the book is about the origins of morality. Where did it come from? Haidt touches on some philosophical works and debates and ultimately concludes that morality provides evolutionary advantages, and it supersedes reason. He uses an elephant and a rider analogy, morality, roughly equated to emotion, is the elephant. He also uses a president and press secretary metaphor, which I found helpful, reason's primary function is to rationalize the conclusions of the subconscious. I'm not sure this story fully explains morality. I think it could explain some of it, and it provides some satisfying guidance but tas far as I can tell it does not obviate the need for extra-human deliberate construction of morality. Second, he outlines what morality is and isn't. He rejects utilitarianism and deontology as to
Read more

The Sum of All Fears-- Tom Clancy

Image
The Sum of all fears  It’s classic Clancy. This one is particularly interesting in terms of the breadth of the problem and players. It’s very human and the technical details are as compelling as always. It also highlights the potential danger of MAD (mutually assured destruction) policy in a very penetrating way.  Check out my general Clancy post for a broader take on this series. Verdict Recommend
Read more

Foundation -- Isaac Asimov -- Lukewarm

Image
I read this because people I admire talked about it (Elon musk, Orson Scott Card, Ben Shapiro). It's classic science fiction in an ancient context. It was published in the 50s, 15 years before the earliest start trek, 25 years before star wars, and 35 years before Enders game, all of which are ancient history. In many ways, it belongs to the era of   Edgar Rice Burroughs'  Prince of Mars or even H.G. Well's War of the Worlds more than it does modern science fiction. That being said, there are some truly brilliant ideas explored in the text. First, the book doesn't follow a protagonist, which means no character development and no human story. Instead, Asimov overtly follows humanities' story, jumping from viewpoint to viewpoint and century to century in galactic civilization. In some ways, it reads more like a collection of short stories in Sanderson's Cosmere or perhaps even something from the MCU, but the novel still manages to drive a narrative crafted aro
Read more