- Joined
- Oct 3, 2004
- Messages
- 9,474
- Reaction score
- 350
I was previously familiar with research suggesting that intelligence only accounts for ~60% of achievement, but I found this pretty interesting.
One often purported interpretation of the world is that people are helpless to their given life situation. This often comes up in discussions about income mobility and financial success. Statistics aside, I've always thought that perspective was pretty depressing. Not surprisingly, it's those who demonstrate self-efficacy who tend to be more successful, leaving those wallowing in self-pity behind.
In other words, your self-induced melancholy is what is holding you back, not the "man" or the 1%.
One of the most oft suggested reasons for the redistribution of income via social programs is the idea that successful people just happen upon their wealth via luck or chance, indicating "unfairness" and the need for government correction. But if people are more successful mostly because they work harder, how fair is it to take their money and give it to someone else who hasn't demonstrated the same pattern of effort?
Moreover, if grit is one of the best indicators of success, what does inhibiting it by redistributing that success mean? If we want more success from more people, it appears we are doing precisely the wrong thing by (1) removing the impetus to demonstrate grit (getting wealth without earning it) and (2) removing the natural reinforcement from people who do demonstrate grit.
More in the article.
http://www.businessinsider.com/grit-is-more-important-than-iq-2013-5
One often purported interpretation of the world is that people are helpless to their given life situation. This often comes up in discussions about income mobility and financial success. Statistics aside, I've always thought that perspective was pretty depressing. Not surprisingly, it's those who demonstrate self-efficacy who tend to be more successful, leaving those wallowing in self-pity behind.
In other words, your self-induced melancholy is what is holding you back, not the "man" or the 1%.
One of the most oft suggested reasons for the redistribution of income via social programs is the idea that successful people just happen upon their wealth via luck or chance, indicating "unfairness" and the need for government correction. But if people are more successful mostly because they work harder, how fair is it to take their money and give it to someone else who hasn't demonstrated the same pattern of effort?
Moreover, if grit is one of the best indicators of success, what does inhibiting it by redistributing that success mean? If we want more success from more people, it appears we are doing precisely the wrong thing by (1) removing the impetus to demonstrate grit (getting wealth without earning it) and (2) removing the natural reinforcement from people who do demonstrate grit.
Through her research at the University of Pennsylvania — and firsthand experience teaching in New York City's public schools —psychologist Angela Duckworth has found that the ability to withstand stress and move past failures to achieve a goal is the best indicator of future success.
After teaching in New York City, Duckworth went to graduate school to become a psychologist, where she studied what types of people were successful at West Point Military Academy, the National Spelling Bee, in classrooms, and beyond. Again, she said, "it wasn't social intelligence. It wasn't good looks, physical health, and it wasn't IQ. It was grit."
"What I do know is that talent doesn't make you gritty," Duckworth said in her TED talk. "Our data show very clearly that there are many talented individuals who simply do not follow through on their commitments. In fact, in our data, grit is usually unrelated or even inversely related to measures of talent."
More in the article.
http://www.businessinsider.com/grit-is-more-important-than-iq-2013-5
Last edited: