Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

It's pretty bad when after 15 pages, I want to fling a book away in disgust. But I kept reading. (Okay, it turned into skimming pretty quickly). And it DIDN'T GET BETTER.

I've read several thoughtful and interesting pieces of journalism lately referencing the general thesis of this book that were really thought provoking. But the book itself is just empty tripe and cliches, without adding any content of interest to bolster the general idea that it's more important to foster a growth mindset over a static mindset in people, so that they can better cope with and adapt to situations in which they are not just naturally talented. I'm actually very sympathetic to this general idea, but the book was just terribly written, and in fact made me wonder if I should rethink my agreement with her.

Here is just a small sampling of ridiculousness that is within the pages of this book:

- A section is literally begun with the words "Since the dawn of time." Your average ninth grader should be aware that this is a terrible idea.

- An extensive summary of the movie "Groundhog's Day" is given as support for a theory of psychology.

- Half the book is filled with "interesting trivia" that suggest that people who begin stupid can work hard and be AMAZING!!! For example, did you know people thought Einstein was slow as a child?! - Yes, everybody knows that piece of faux-trivia. And it's not even true - real evolutionary psychologists believe that Einstein's brain was larger than average in areas that encourage spatial reasoning and an intuitive grasp of numbers. (Steven Pinker told me that in _The Blank Slate_. After about three pages of this book, it was not hard to decide which author I find more credible.)

- So many ridiculous cliches (introduced as ARGUMENTS and EVIDENCE) that it would be impossible to catalogue them all. This book is practically an encyclopedia of phrases like "nothing ventured, nothing gained!" and "if at first you don't succeed, try, try again."

- The explanations of the research projects that created these "findings" make it obvious that you cannot trust these results. For instance, they presented kindergarteners with a test that they said was "very important." Before administering the test, they asked followup questions of the five year olds: "Do you think this test will measure how smart you are?" and "Do you think this test will measure how smart you will be as a grown-up?" Almost all of them said yes, except for one five year old I am certain is fictional, who responded "No way! Ain't no test that can measure that!" If you ask a FIVE YEAR OLD an extremely leading question who has been given no information, you are almost guaranteed to get a shower of "yes!" answers. The fact that they didn't immediately display suspiciousness toward researchers and critically deconstruct their questions is evidence of nothing. At best, it's evidence that children respond to leading questions and/or don't listen and think very deeply or carefully when asked leading questions.

- There is one section that is full of reports about "genius children" to suggest that some of them turned out well (the ones who still applied hard work) and some who didn't (because they just rested on their natural proclivities). All of these stories feel impossible to believe the way they are presented. The author read a book once that told a story about a four month old baby who asked his parents "Mom and Dad, what are we eating for dinner tonight?" This is third-hand, not cited, and completely un-credible. (Even if a baby was genius enough to speak in full sentences at four months old, he cannot eat solid food yet, so why on earth does he care what they are making for dinner?).




In short, this might be the worst book I've ever read. Before reading it, I was very persuaded by its premise. After reading it and discovering that at least this explanation of the thesis is the opposite of convincing, I will approach all writers who accept this theory with a huge degree of distrust and suspicion.