HN Books @HNBooksMonth

You might want to read Grit: https://www.amazon.com/Grit-Passion-Perseverance-Angela-Duck...

They probably read this book that could have been a tweet:

https://www.amazon.com/Grit-Passion-Perseverance-Angela-Duck...

>These are things like persistence, self-control, curiosity, conscientiousness, grit, and self-confidence (there are a lot more, too).

Side note... The author repeatedly mentioning "grit" and "self-control" seems to be citing (maybe subconsciously) Angela Duckworth's research[1]. As an fyi, there has been criticism of her study:

http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/05/25/479172868/angela-d...

If Duckworth's research is flawed (e.g. IQ is still the #1 statistical correlation we have of a measured trait and economic outcomes), it means the blog author's paragraph is wrong:

>Most people think that IQ, the ability to memorize, etc., are the key metrics for determining the future of a child. These are what economists call "cognitive skills" and it turns out they are not very good predictors of future success. What are good predictors are what's known as "non-cognitive skills." These are things like persistence, self-control, curiosity, conscientiousness, grit, and self-confidence (there are a lot more, too).

[1] book: https://www.amazon.com/Grit-Passion-Perseverance-Angela-Duck...

other writings: https://www.macfound.org/fellows/889/

⬐ Spooky23

IQ is a proxy for lots of other things. There have been twin studies where reading skills, including early childhood reading skills accounted for a lot of perceived IQ differences.

Early childhood engagement is incredibly important. We attribute many things to genetics that are outgrowths of a child's home environment. Parents stuck in cycles of inattentive or abusive family situations, over-reliance on shitty daycare vs. early childhood education, etc make a huge impact.

⬐ jasode

>IQ is a proxy for lots of other things. [...] Early childhood engagement is incredibly important.

Yes I agree that's very true but it's not relevant to the author's specific paragraph I was highlighting. Your particular statement can be true while simultaneously, Koichi's paragraph is false.

This doesn't have to be some larger debate about nature-vs-nurture. Instead, I'm pointing out an example of reading a paragraph with a critical eye.

⬐ Spooky23

I think that you're missing my point. Those "non cognitive" skills tend to be correlated with high cognitive ability. But they aren't exclusive to it.

Frankly it depends on your definition of success. In an extreme example, we had a young man with Down's syndrome who cleaned our office and did some maintenance a few years ago. He demonstrated all of those non-cognitive characteristics, lived independently and seemed to be happy. I would argue that despite a fundamental deficit in cognitive ability and a corresponding low IQ, he was a successful adult.

In the context of a conversation about Japan, where success is getting into a school and becoming a salaryman, those non-cognitive skills (which were broader than just the much-hyped "grit") are meaningful once you hit some average threshold of brainpower.

⬐ cylon781

Salarymen make up a small portion of the Japanese workforce... much smaller than blue collar workers, part-time workers etc. This may be seen as THE path to success by some, but not everyone, especially in rural areas and among younger cohorts.

⬐ unabst

It's not that simple.

> Most people think that IQ, the ability to memorize, etc., are the key metrics for determining the future of a child.

In Japan this is definitely true. It's what most people think, as dictated by what is common sense.

All the while, the mother with the tensai (genius) child will have instilled good studying habits, focus, prep, etc, and still believe her child is just smart for having good grades.

So Koichi's paragraph is not false. Or rather, there is truth there. If you wish to highlight the falseness then that is possible too, but taking an entire paragraph and trying to equate it as true or false is not that simple.

⬐ jasode

>In Japan this is definitely true.

To be clear, I included that 1st sentence there for context so the subsequent sentences make sense. Same contextual reason for sentence #4. Yes, Japanese people may think that and yes, non-cognitive skill includes persistence, etc.

>, but taking an entire paragraph

When I'm saying "paragraph" may be false, I'm talking about sentences #2 and #3 and not #1 and #4.