Francis Galton, the 19th century British polymath spent decades amassing biographical information on the lives of eminent judges, politicians, poets, musicians and wrestlers. Although Galton hoped to identify the hereditary origins of genius – he wanted to lend support to his cousin Charles Darwin’s new theory of evolution – he eventually concluded that innate intelligence was not sufficient for high-achievement. Rather, these successful men needed to also be blessed with “zeal and with capacity for hard labour.”
(Recent brain studies indicate) these diligent souls seem to get a bit more pleasure from the possibility of reward, but they also seem less sensitive to their inner complainer, that disruptive voice reminding them that minesweeper is more fun than editing, or that the ballgame on television is much more entertaining than their homework. At any given moment, there is a tug of war unfolding in our head, determining whether or not we’re willing to put in the effort.
Jonah Lehrer
Showing posts with label work. Show all posts
Showing posts with label work. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
The Path to Greater Success
Why are some people so much more effective at learning from their mistakes? After all, everybody screws up. The important part is what happens next. Do we ignore the mistake, brushing it aside for the sake of our self-confidence? Or do we investigate the error, seeking to learn from the snafu?
(A new study detailed in Psychological Science) is premised on the fact that there are two distinct reactions to mistakes, both of which can be reliably detected using EEG. The first reaction is called error-related negativity (ERN). It appears about 50 milliseconds after a screw-up . The second signal, which is known as error positivity (Pe), arrives anywhere between 100-500 milliseconds after the mistake and is associated with awareness. It occurs when we pay attention to the error, dwelling on the disappointing result. In recent years, numerous studies have shown that subjects learn more effectively when their brains demonstrate two properties: 1) a larger ERN signal, suggesting a bigger initial response to the mistake and 2) a more consistent Pe signal, which means that they are probably paying attention to the error, and thus trying to learn from it.
(note: This finding has a practical implication. Studies show that when students are praised for their intelligence rather than their hard work, they will choose easier paths in order to maintain that success. But students who are told their success is the result of hard work are more likely to select more difficult pathways. They possess greater confidence that a similar effort of hard work will bring them continued success - Stephen Goforth).
Praising kids for their innate intelligence — the “smart” compliment — misrepresents the psychological reality of education. It encourages kids to avoid the most useful kind of learning activities, which is when we learn from our mistakes. Because unless we experience the unpleasant symptoms of being wrong — that surge of Pe activity (in the brain) a few hundred milliseconds after the error), directing our attention to the very thing we’d like to ignore — the mind will never revise its models. We’ll keep on making the same mistakes, forsaking self-improvement for the sake of self-confidence.
Jonah Lehrer writing in Wired Magazine
(A new study detailed in Psychological Science) is premised on the fact that there are two distinct reactions to mistakes, both of which can be reliably detected using EEG. The first reaction is called error-related negativity (ERN). It appears about 50 milliseconds after a screw-up . The second signal, which is known as error positivity (Pe), arrives anywhere between 100-500 milliseconds after the mistake and is associated with awareness. It occurs when we pay attention to the error, dwelling on the disappointing result. In recent years, numerous studies have shown that subjects learn more effectively when their brains demonstrate two properties: 1) a larger ERN signal, suggesting a bigger initial response to the mistake and 2) a more consistent Pe signal, which means that they are probably paying attention to the error, and thus trying to learn from it.
(note: This finding has a practical implication. Studies show that when students are praised for their intelligence rather than their hard work, they will choose easier paths in order to maintain that success. But students who are told their success is the result of hard work are more likely to select more difficult pathways. They possess greater confidence that a similar effort of hard work will bring them continued success - Stephen Goforth).
Praising kids for their innate intelligence — the “smart” compliment — misrepresents the psychological reality of education. It encourages kids to avoid the most useful kind of learning activities, which is when we learn from our mistakes. Because unless we experience the unpleasant symptoms of being wrong — that surge of Pe activity (in the brain) a few hundred milliseconds after the error), directing our attention to the very thing we’d like to ignore — the mind will never revise its models. We’ll keep on making the same mistakes, forsaking self-improvement for the sake of self-confidence.
Jonah Lehrer writing in Wired Magazine
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
