Reply to comment

I think that Dweck's sample group is highly biased by how they're being asked the experimental questions upon which Dweck's theory is based.  Of course a child is going to say that they would like to try an easier puzzle if the one in front of them is difficult.  This doesn't mean that a child is not is not going to be a successful, creative thinker later in life.  I agree with the comments above that a continuous, reinforcing voice in a child's life may lead them to think that they are smart (or not smart), but I think that Dweck's research excludes the most valuable interactions that children have that also shape who they become as adults, such as how they interact and communicate with adults, peers, and siblings in a variety of situations, not just in one where they are asked to solve a puzzle.  Most interesting, and telling of Dweck's theory in my opinion, would be a child's interactions with their peers and siblings.  If a controlled longitudinal study could be set up where a cohort of children are studied from pre-K thru high school, each of which were fed different feedback from parents, teachers, peers, and siblings, I wonder what would happen then.  I would think that Dweck's theory wouldn't hold that there is not a clearly distinguishable line between "fixed" or "growth" learners.  Learning is an evolution; just because a child is labeled as a "fixed" learner when they're six years old doesn't mean that they wouldn't have the opportunity to become a "growth" learner by the time they're in college (or vice versa).  Maybe I am too much of an optimist, but I believe that there are too many factors to control for here in a study to make the conclusions that Dweck does and to assert that parents (and other adults) should not praise children because it may damage their ability to problem solve later in life.