CYBERIADS

I think a lot about GRIT, and even more about the dollar number of Angela Duckworth's fee every time she is invited to tell some of the highest-paid people in the country how they can become even more highly-paid; the (unintended, I think, I hope) implication is that they've gotten where they are because of something inside them. they have grit, and others don't.

do you think we've lost something by turning psychology into a numbers game? "Luria had the right idea," I remember texting my mother, soon after (perhaps during, in which case: she scolded me for texting during class) the guest lecture during which I got this impression; during which Angela Duckworth showed us (with the best of intentions) that academic research, too, can get you to Wall Street. I don't really take issue with Duckworth herself. she acknowledges the many limitations of grit, especially as "measured" by a questionnaire; she has discussed her issues with the very idea of "measurement," re: what ought and ought not to be "measurable." opening a lecture to an Intro to Psych class with a reference to the career path that (one could be forgiven for assuming) so many in the ultra-high-capacity auditorium might aspire to — maybe it was an attempt to meet students where they were at. the problem lies with those who interpret concepts like grit for their own benefit, which is surely how Duckworth ended up talking to a bunch of investment bankers in the first place.

all this is to say that I finished The Mismeasure of Man recently and I'm growing more and more suspicious of numbers. they'll provide an almost transcendental backing for anything!