I started to read it, realized how long it was, saw that skimming it would probably be really hard, and then just gave up...

Actually, I had read it a short time ago and thought it was really good. It resonated with me in a way that I know will cause it to resurface in my psyche later for better or for worse. 

posted by natedogg at 10:55PM CST on May 24

This was really interesting, thanks.

I worry a bit about the lack of double-blinding in the Dweck study -- the one where students are praised as either smart or hard-working -- especially because "Dweck had suspected that praise could backfire, but .. was surprised by the magnitude of the effect."

Wouldn't it be nice if science reporters treated us like adults and gave citations/hyperlinks at the end of their articles? Why is this situation OK? Of course, it doesn't help when scientists don't make articles available online. Anyway, I'd try to figure out whether that research is worth a damn but I don't have journal access any more. 

posted by mrflip at 09:47AM CST on May 25

Yeah, it doesn't look like it was controlled for. Still, good stuff. 

posted by mrflip at 10:37AM CST on May 25

another interesting psych article. Also lacks citations (instead including fake links), but at least it describes the double blinding protocols.

ps triple post. 

posted by mrflip at 11:41AM CST on May 25

My take on these (for what it's worth) is that parents need to understand what it is they want from/for their children.
Applying any technique without understanding your own motivation for doing so just won't be enough.
Then ya need to check in with the little booger factories and find out how they're doing.
One great technique for treating children involves playing with the kids for just 20 minutes each evening without giving any direction to their play. It's amazingly powerful, but parents will say "I just don't have time for that."
Yeah, 20 minutes of 1on1 time with your child each day IS asking a lot. 

posted by TheWestIsTheBest at 03:16PM CST on May 27