Frgdfgd

[pic]I got a question from Diego over at Metacool this morning about conditions under which people are “less smart” can outperform people who are “more smart.” I wrote Diego a long rant about topics ranging from teams dynamics to wisdom, but I realized that probably the single most important point I made was stolen from my Stanford colleague Carol Dweck, a psychologist who has been studying beliefs about intelligence for decades. Check out her book, Mindset, for the complete story.  But the headlines from her research have profound implications for everything from whether we should classify people as smart or dumb to whether it is wise or unwise to encourage people to do things where they are likely to fail.

We talk about Dweck’s research a lot in Hard Facts, as it raises questions about what it means to be smart or talented – and for much the same reason – Malcolm Gladwell raises it in his fantastic New Yorker essay on the Talent Myth, which asks: Are Smart People Overrated?

Here is Dweck’s Main point (This is a condensed and edited version of what we say in Hard Facts):   When talent or IQ is believed to be fixed, this assumption can cause people to believe that it just isn’t worth trying hard because they – or the people they lead – are naturally smart or not, and there is little, if anything, anyone can do about it. BUT raw cognitive ability isn’t nearly as difficult to enhance as many people think. When people believe they can get smarter, they do. BUT – and this is very important – when people believe that cognitive ability is difficult or impossible to change, they don’t get smarter.

Dweck’s numerous studies show that when people believe their IQ level is unchangeable, “they become too focused on being smart and looking smart rather than on challenging themselves, stretching and expanding their skills, becoming smarter.”   Dweck finds that most people either believe that intelligence is fixed or it can be improved through effort and practice....