Paul Buchheit: Beliefs, intelligence, and failure

http://paulbuchheit.blogspot.com/2007/05/beliefs-intelligence-and-failure.html

by brett • 19 years ago

17 9 19 years ago

paulbuchheit.blogspot.com

sri• 19 years ago

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!!

coolnewtoy• 19 years ago

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."

leisuresuit• 19 years ago

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.

nostrademons• 19 years ago

I look at it this way:

Intelligence is nothing more or less than a certain set of behaviors. Things like curiosity, experimentation, analysis & reflection, precision of thought, voracious reading, etc. It's genetic because behavior is genetic. But genetic != immutable: it's possible to change your intelligence by changing your behavior.

It's really habits that matter. Somebody could be born predisposed towards learning lots of things, and then gradually become unintelligent because they believe it just doesn't matter. Or they could be born frighteningly intelligent and then gradually go crackpot by falling victim to confirmation bias and only seeking out information that fits their pre-existing mental models (Noam Chomsky and Stephen Wolfram fit this description, and IMNSHO a prominent YC founder is in danger of going down this road). Or they could be born normal, but have parents that encourage them to try things out and explore the world around them. Or they could be born dumb, but choose to adopt habits that involve taking in prodigious amounts of information.

whacked_new• 19 years ago

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.

fruscica• 19 years ago

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.

ecuzzillo• 19 years ago

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.

Prrometheus2• 19 years ago

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.

Prrometheus2• 19 years ago

Paul Buchheit: Beliefs, intelligence, and failure

Related Stories