Previously, this blog
reported on the work of Carol S. Dweck[1]
– see for example the posting, “Intelligence Is Changeable,” July 8, 2016. She introduced this writer to two views of intelligence: the entity and the incremental. From how they are described, this writer sees
this distinction as important when considering what is an appropriate mindset
when considering a federalist approach to civic affairs.
The
entity view sees intelligence as a fairly static quality of one’s mental
capacities – what is known and, more importantly, how one learns is not subject
to meaningful change. You’re either
smart or you’re not. On the other hand, the
incremental view is the opposite – it describes intelligence as malleable,
willfully changeable, and dynamic. These
are mutually exclusive views.
That previous posting made the point
that the incremental view is a significantly more democratic view. This blog, in other postings, has further indicated
that Dweck’s research has shown that an incremental view is reflective of how
the human mind can operate if the person has a belief in this ability to change
one’s intelligence.
This
writer has made the judgement that the incremental view is more supportive of a
federalist view in that it promotes an active, engaging citizenship within a
person or among a population. It also undergirds
the role of consent in the formation or maintenance of a federal union. Consent presupposes an active, evolving
mental capacity to handle the unknown. Think
of all the risk, all the unknowns involved in entering a marriage – a basic federal
union.
This posting picks up on this line of thought. It attempts to shed light on what apparently is
a cultural shift of sorts. It seems that
there is a changing perception on the whole idea of taking chances. More specifically, on taking chances regarding
business activities.
When
taking a chance – as when someone starts a business – he/she is betting that
his/her idea will make money. This type
of chance is always involved when one starts a business, tries a new line of
work, or accepts a job at a new place. Such
an effort has an experimental or “iffy” character to it. It might pay off or it might not; it might even
cost the person a significant amount. Hence,
it’s a bet one is consenting to take.
The
popular view is that this chance-taking has become more acceptable among the
population, though, on closer scrutiny there seems to be a limitation on that
trend. At least, that is what one observes
when one compares this type of chancy behavior among those who belong to Generation
X and those who are Millennials. Here is
what one journalist has to say about this comparison:
Every year, far more new entrepreneurs fail than
succeed. But if you aren’t one of the
lucky few, don’t despair: Failure has
transformed from a source of shame into a badge of honor. Today’s CEOs and thought leaders glorify
mistakes as key stepping stones to success – a sentiment that Generation X has
taken to a whole new level. In a recent
essay for the Washington Post,
Silicon Valley venture capitalist Geoff Lewis uses the phrase “failure porn” to
describe the eager repackaging of people’s lowest moment – the grislier, the
better. Older leaders are urging young
people to take risks when they’re most able – but this message is ill-suited
for [younger] Millennials, who would much rather get started on the right foot
than stumble and start again.[2]
Obviously,
in this description, Gen X exhibits a more incremental view and, Millennials
tend to exhibit an entity view. How? Well, if one sees failure as a stepping stone
to success, then failing becomes a learning experience. That is, one that can be used to derive the needed
information about oneself and the involved task – be it a business, a skill, or
a job – to be a success. But before one
can learn, one needs to believe one can
learn and that a failure is not an indication that one just doesn’t have what
it takes to succeed.
Apparently,
from this limited evidence, this distinction in how one views intelligence has
a cultural aspect to it. It seems, from
comparing these two generations, that a particular sense for whether these
possibilities exist or not are shared among age cohorts. In turn,
there are prevailing, consequential views over how one sees risk.
So,
how one accepts risk reflects on how one views intelligence. Risk is more acceptable when one believes one
can learn and change accordingly. Another
way to say this is to adhere to the old saying:
survive to fight another day. But
further, it also admonishes a failing party to learn from the failure. After all, one can do so if one has an
intelligence that is malleable, willfully changeable, and dynamic.
The
question remains: how can one encourage the
incremental view among the upcoming generation.
How does a nation encourage an incremental view of intelligence? This issue should be addressed directly and
not treated as an assumption one holds one way or another without any
possibility of changing it. The entity
view should be actively identified and undermined whenever possible. The incremental view should also be
identified, but, instead, supported whenever possible.
[1] Carol S. Dweck, Self-Theories: Their Role in Motivation,
Personality, and Development (Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press, 2000)
[2] Neil
Howe, “Millennials Don’t Want to ‘Embrace Failure,’” Forbes, February 11, 2015,
accessed December 28, 2017, https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2015/02/11/millennials-dont-want-to-embrace-failure/#4dfc3ceec19a.
No comments:
Post a Comment