Perhaps you should lookup what Carol Dewek means by "achievement mindset" and "growth mindset". I don't think the way you are using it is the same that she is using it.
Self-confidence, self-esteem that is built from a process of intrinsic motivation is different than self-esteem built from extrinsic motivation. The self-esteem built from extrinsic motivation is shaky, and requires a constant feeding of validation.
The mainstream culture is such that kids, many parents, and some teachers understand self-esteem as you do, without making a distinction between how it is developed.
> Cultural change needs to be deeply informed by psychology to be effective.
I'm not arguing with you there. An individual is nested within the community. It also means you cannot really separate psychology from culture either.
Keep in mind, I have not once advocated that we change the culture. I am simply stating that the culture matters.
> People are emotionally unhealthy, and the culture reflects that. Culture is downstream from psychology. Cultural change can address it, but only by causing psycohlogical change, not merely cultural change.
That's an assumption that is not necessarily true. Psychology can also reflect culture, and it is not such a straightforward cause-and-effect. It's easy to see it as a hierarchical relationship (downstream vs. upstream), and to the extent that individuals are nested within a community, that's true. However, there are complex interaction between individuals and the communities they nest within. Just as you see that psychological changes must be taken into consideration for cultural change to be effective, cultural changes must be taken into consideration too as the context of that change. A tree is not just the trunk, the branches, the roots and the trees; it is also the sunlight, the soil, the wind, the seasons, the people ...
The way you talk about culture and culture change seems like a cynical observation of business buzzspeak. The way I have been talking about culture and culture change is more along the lines of sociology.
> Buddhists had it right all along.
That's a rabbit hole all on its own. Psychological changes are difficult to enact without mindfulness ... likewise, there's a collective consciousness (culture) in which changees are difficult to enact without mindfulness. Metta (loving-kindness) is powerful transformative, and the Mahayana practitioners ardently go all the way with that ... but what's also transformative is a neutral, agnostic attitude of "let the cosmos decide". Not everyone, even within the diverse practices of Buddhism, aspires to be a Bodhisattva. And then I can get into the whole bit about "consensus" or "nice" Buddhism that seems to be the Western, pop understanding of Buddhism ... And then there is also how Buddhist practices cultivates a non-dual perspective, in which no single part can be completely separated from the Whole. You can't separate the tree from the sun or the land. That there is a seamless Whole is the basis for metta in the first place ...
> Is that clearer?
Are you asking if you are communicating your point of view clearer, or are you saying that your point of view is more correct than mine's, and asking me if that correctness is clearer?
> Perhaps you should lookup what Carol Dewek means by "achievement mindset" and "growth mindset". I don't think the way you are using it is the same that she is using it.
No, I meant confidence comes from achievements, not "achievement mindset" (maybe you mean "fixed mindset"? Dweck never talked about "achievement mindset"). "A process of intrinsic motivation" is fuzzy-thinking gibberish to me. Confidence is the belief that you can accomplish things to an acceptable level, which comes from setting goals and achieving them. If you think I agree with "mainstream culture" on self-esteem then you clearly completely misunderstand me. Mainstream culture seems barely aware that self-esteem exists, and TFA is a perfect example.
>> Cultural change needs to be deeply informed by psychology to be effective.
>I'm not arguing with you there.
Then the rest of your post seems like a disagreement on semantics, because that's my entire point. People who try to address psychological problems on a solely cultural level are causing harm. People who address psychological problems through psychological changes accomplished through cultural changes are effective; but academia today, including most psychologists, rely on such fuzzy thinking and poor logic that they don't even realize the difference.
> Are you asking if you are communicating your point of view clearer, or are you saying that your point of view is more correct than mine's, and asking me if that correctness is clearer?
Obviously the former, because we're clearly talking past each other.
Confidence coming from achievements is a terrible foundation for real confidence.
I did all kinds of things, and still found ways to doubt myself or think my purpose was exhausted.
Confidence from enjoying growth and knowing I can improve and be valuable no matter what the outcome of what I'm doing now is a much more solid footing. Plus, it makes me try harder, too, instead of having my "achievements" called into question by each failure.
> Obviously the former, because we're clearly talking past each other.
While this happens sometimes, that doesn't look like what's happening here. The other party here is incorporating your ideas into their framework to try to create a combined vision; you're mostly just disagreeing, sometimes with hostility.
Perhaps you should lookup what Carol Dewek means by "achievement mindset" and "growth mindset". I don't think the way you are using it is the same that she is using it.
Self-confidence, self-esteem that is built from a process of intrinsic motivation is different than self-esteem built from extrinsic motivation. The self-esteem built from extrinsic motivation is shaky, and requires a constant feeding of validation.
The mainstream culture is such that kids, many parents, and some teachers understand self-esteem as you do, without making a distinction between how it is developed.
> Cultural change needs to be deeply informed by psychology to be effective.
I'm not arguing with you there. An individual is nested within the community. It also means you cannot really separate psychology from culture either.
Keep in mind, I have not once advocated that we change the culture. I am simply stating that the culture matters.
> People are emotionally unhealthy, and the culture reflects that. Culture is downstream from psychology. Cultural change can address it, but only by causing psycohlogical change, not merely cultural change.
That's an assumption that is not necessarily true. Psychology can also reflect culture, and it is not such a straightforward cause-and-effect. It's easy to see it as a hierarchical relationship (downstream vs. upstream), and to the extent that individuals are nested within a community, that's true. However, there are complex interaction between individuals and the communities they nest within. Just as you see that psychological changes must be taken into consideration for cultural change to be effective, cultural changes must be taken into consideration too as the context of that change. A tree is not just the trunk, the branches, the roots and the trees; it is also the sunlight, the soil, the wind, the seasons, the people ...
The way you talk about culture and culture change seems like a cynical observation of business buzzspeak. The way I have been talking about culture and culture change is more along the lines of sociology.
> Buddhists had it right all along.
That's a rabbit hole all on its own. Psychological changes are difficult to enact without mindfulness ... likewise, there's a collective consciousness (culture) in which changees are difficult to enact without mindfulness. Metta (loving-kindness) is powerful transformative, and the Mahayana practitioners ardently go all the way with that ... but what's also transformative is a neutral, agnostic attitude of "let the cosmos decide". Not everyone, even within the diverse practices of Buddhism, aspires to be a Bodhisattva. And then I can get into the whole bit about "consensus" or "nice" Buddhism that seems to be the Western, pop understanding of Buddhism ... And then there is also how Buddhist practices cultivates a non-dual perspective, in which no single part can be completely separated from the Whole. You can't separate the tree from the sun or the land. That there is a seamless Whole is the basis for metta in the first place ...
> Is that clearer?
Are you asking if you are communicating your point of view clearer, or are you saying that your point of view is more correct than mine's, and asking me if that correctness is clearer?