It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
In line with this hypothesis, two experiments with 4- to 7-year-olds demonstrated that the children performed more poorly after they were exposed to information that associated success on a given task with membership in a certain social group, regardless of whether the children themselves belonged to that group.
"These findings suggest we should be cautious in making pronouncements about the abilities of social groups such as boys and girls," Cimpian said. "Not only is the truth of such statements questionable, but they also send the wrong message about what it takes to succeed, thereby undermining achievement -- even when they are actually meant as encouragement."
Originally posted by jimmiec
reply to post by Merriman Weir
It is what it is. Everyone has something that they can excell at. We need to do a better job pinpointing that something that makes them special instead of the cookie cutter mold currently used.
Originally posted by Merriman Weir
For a single winner, there's got to be many losers
Originally posted by Skyfloating
Originally posted by Merriman Weir
For a single winner, there's got to be many losers
Really? Suppose I succeed ("win") at selling my car at original value. That means I win, the buyer wins, my family wins, his family wins. That could be a dozen people winning because I won.
Originally posted by Merriman Weir
But that doesn't have the competitive context that's being talked about above.
I'm sure you're aware of that, or else you'd have not drawn attention to the way you were having to use the word 'win' by using quotes.