# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nature vs. Nurture: Why Are You Introverted?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Based on: http://www.psych2go.net/psychology-of-introversion/ More videos on http://www.youtube.com/psych2gotv Contact us at psych2go@outlook.com if you're interested in being a part of our growing team. Psych2Go's mission is to make psychology more accessible for everyone in a way that's fun and engaging.

# data[].attributes.body
Nurture

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Opinion

For many years, I secretly worked on my research. I say "secretly" because, once upon a time, researchers simply published their research in professional journals-and there it stayed.

However, my colleagues and I learned things we thought people needed to know. We found that students' mindsets-how they perceive their abilities-played a key role in their motivation and achievement, and we found that if we changed students' mindsets, we could boost their achievement. More precisely, students who believed their intelligence could be developed (a growth mindset) outperformed those who believed their intelligence was fixed (a fixed mindset). And when students learned through a structured program that they could "grow their brains" and increase their intellectual abilities, they did better. Finally, we found that having children focus on the process that leads to learning (like hard work or trying new strategies) could foster a growth mindset and its benefits.

So a few years back, I published my book Mindset: The New Psychology of Success to share these discoveries with educators. And many educators have applied the mindset principles in spectacular ways with tremendously gratifying results.

This is wonderful, and the good word continues to spread. But as we've watched the growth mindset become more popular, we've become much wiser about how to implement it. This learning-the common pitfalls, the misunderstandings, and what to do about them-is what I'd like to share with you, so that we can maximize the benefits for our students.

A growth mindset isn't just about effort. Perhaps the most common misconception is simply equating the growth mindset with effort. Certainly, effort is key for students' achievement, but it's not the only thing. Students need to try new strategies and seek input from others when they're stuck. They need this repertoire of approaches-not just sheer effort-to learn and improve.

We also need to remember that effort is a means to an end to the goal of learning and improving. Too often nowadays, praise is given to students who are putting forth effort, but not learning, in order to make them feel good in the moment: "Great effort! You tried your best!" It's good that the students tried, but it's not good that they're not learning. The growth-mindset approach helps children feel good in the short and long terms, by helping them thrive on challenges and setbacks on their way to learning. When they're stuck, teachers can appreciate their work so far, but add: "Let's talk about what you've tried, and what you can try next."

Recently, someone asked what keeps me up at night. It's the fear that the mindset concepts, which grew up to counter the failed self-esteem movement, will be used to perpetuate that movement. In other words, if you want to make students feel good, even if they're not learning, just praise their effort! Want to hide learning gaps from them? Just tell them, "Everyone is smart!" The growth mindset was intended to help close achievement gaps, not hide them. It is about telling the truth about a student's current achievement and then, together, doing something about it, helping him or her become smarter.

I also fear that the mindset work is sometimes used to justify why some students aren't learning: "Oh, he has a fixed mindset." We used to blame the child's environment or ability.

Must it always come back to finding a reason why some children just can't learn, as opposed to finding a way to help them learn? Teachers who understand the growth mindset do everything in their power to unlock that learning.

A few years ago, my colleague in Australia, Susan Mackie, detected an outbreak of what she called "false growth mindset." She was seeing educators who claimed to have a growth mindset, but whose words and actions didn't reflect it. At first, I was skeptical. But before long, I saw it, too, and I understood why.

In many quarters, a growth mindset had become the right thing to have, the right way to think. It was as though educators were faced with a choice: Are you an enlightened person who fosters students' well-being? Or are you an unenlightened person, with a fixed mindset, who undermines them? So, of course, many claimed the growth-mindset identity. But the path to a growth mindset is a journey, not a proclamation.

Let's look at what happens when teachers, or parents, claim a growth mindset, but don't follow through. In recent research, Kathy Liu Sun found that there were many math teachers who endorsed a growth mindset and even said the words "growth mindset" in their middle school math classes, but did not follow through in their classroom practices. In these cases, their students tended to endorse more of a fixed mindset about their math ability. My advisee and research collaborator Kyla Haimovitz and I are finding many parents who endorse a growth mindset, but react to their children's mistakes as though they are problematic or harmful, rather than helpful. In these cases, their children develop more of a fixed mindset about their intelligence.

Kathy Liu Sun: Stop Killing Kids' Math Curiosity

How can we help educators adopt a deeper, true growth mindset, one that will show in their classroom practices? You may be surprised by my answer: Let's legitimize the fixed mindset. Let's acknowledge that (1) we're all a mixture of fixed and growth mindsets, (2) we will probably always be, and (3) if we want to move closer to a growth mindset in our thoughts and practices, we need to stay in touch with our fixed-mindset thoughts and deeds.

If we "ban" the fixed mindset, we will surely create false growth-mindsets. (By the way, I also fear that if we use mindset measures for accountability, we will create false growth mindsets on an unprecedented scale.) But if we watch carefully for our fixed-mindset triggers, we can begin the true journey to a growth mindset.

What are your triggers?
Watch for a fixed-mindset reaction when you face challenges. Do you feel overly anxious, or does a voice in your head warn you away? Watch for it when you face a setback in your teaching, or when students aren't listening or learning. Do you feel incompetent or defeated? Do you look for an excuse? Watch to see whether criticism brings out your fixed mindset. Do you become defensive, angry, or crushed instead of interested in learning from the feedback? Watch what happens when you see an educator who's better than you at something you value. Do you feel envious and threatened, or do you feel eager to learn? Accept those thoughts and feelings and work with and through them. And keep working with and through them.

My colleagues and I are taking a growth-mindset stance toward our message to educators. Maybe we originally put too much emphasis on sheer effort. Maybe we made the development of a growth mindset sound too easy. Maybe we talked too much about people having one mindset or the other, rather than portraying people as mixtures. We are on a growth-mindset journey, too.

Published in Print: September 23, 2015, as Growth Mindset, Revisited

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
Back to Top

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Carol Dweck Revisits the 'Growth Mindset'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Opinion For many years, I secretly worked on my research. I say "secretly" because, once upon a time, researchers simply published their research in professional journals-and there it stayed. However, my colleagues and I learned things we thought people needed to know.

# data[].attributes.headline
A closer look at athleticism and diets...

# data[].attributes.subject
A closer look at athleticism and diets...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Olympic Journey: Born Winners
BBC Two, 16:00 BST on Sunday, 10 May (19:30 on BBC Two Scotland)

By Gabby Logan, BBC Sport presenter & ex-Wales Commonwealth Games gymnast

At 42 years old you don't get to find out too many new things about yourself so it's been an exciting, albeit slightly nervy week for me.

Perhaps I should explain. Last week my family and I - husband Kenny and my children, Lois and Reuben - sent off a swab to be DNA tested to find out about our genetic make-up.

The test would look at genes that affect fitness and health, what foods we respond best to and perhaps which sports we're most likely to be good at. If we have the sprinter genes, for example.

It was all very simple. We placed our swabs in test tubes, posted them to a laboratory in London and, seven days later, the results arrived.

Media playback is not supported on this device

By the way, this isn't part of a grand plan to turn Lois and Reuben into Olympic champions but for a programme called The Olympic Journey: Born Winners, broadcast on BBC Two this Sunday.

The overarching question we asked was: how much of our sporting talent boils down to what we are born with.

People have asked if I was faced with a moral dilemma over whether to include my children in the process, and the answer is I didn't. They took one minute to do the swab and then had their breakfast, so it wasn't intrusive and their genetic make-up, our genetic make-up, isn't any different now we've done the tests. Their world hasn't changed.

Although that doesn't mean I'm not going to tell my children everything I know about their tests.

I'll admit the results were intriguing. I always knew I wasn't a natural marathon runner, but I've discovered I'm slightly more of an endurance athlete than a power athlete - though there's not much in it. My son, however, is more power than endurance.

My VO2 max potential (the maximum volume of oxygen a person can use) is high and my injury risk is also high so, looking back at my time as a gymnast, maybe I would have changed the way I warmed-up, or taken care of my body slightly differently.

I would definitely have had a better diet, but I didn't need a DNA test to tell me that, I just know so much more about nutrition than I did then.

Would it have made a difference? Would I have been more successful? I don't know, but it would have been interesting to make those modifications.

I should point out that these tests aren't solely geared towards elite athletes. They can also be useful for those who want to get the most from exercising and want to know why their bodies don't work well with certain food groups.

The test will reveal whether they're sensitive to saturated fat or carbohydrates. It's about tweaking your diet to suit your genes.

I was told I have a very high sensitivity to carbohydrates and should only have 8% of my calories from refined carbs. My metabolism doesn't process alcohol quickly apparently, which means I'm not at my best once I've had more than one or two glasses of wine. I knew that though, through trial and error.

There's also a certain enzyme missing from my system which means I should eat more cruciferous vegetables, such as cauliflower, cabbage, broccoli, kale and other green leaf veg, which improve my cardiovascular health.

It was fascinating to learn which foods work and don't work well for me. Although, interestingly, the diet I was being advised was best for my genetic make-up is one I have come to eat and enjoy over the years anyway as my body and health feels better for it.

There isn't a broad brush with which I can paint these results because they've looked into a myriad of things: from my body's propensity to absorb nutrients to its ability to heal from tissue injuries and detoxify.

My children seemed to be under the impression they were going to be advised on what specific sport they should do, but that's not how it works. Even if it was I would never tell them to do one sport above another and, at nine years old, they should be enjoying a whole range of sports.

Perhaps if my son was desperate to be the 100m Olympic champion but had none of the sprinter genes it might be kinder to manage his expectations at some point.

In the UK population, 18% have none of the sprinter genes, but luckily for Reuben, who quite fancies himself as a rugby union winger, he does. That doesn't mean he is fast, simply he has the potential to be faster than he is.

My daughter's passion is horse riding, she wants to be a show jumper. As long as I didn't come home and say 'you are allergic to horses' she didn't mind what I said. She seems to be a fairly even mix of both our genes, but who she is and what she will become is down to her.

Yes, if you want to be in the 100m Olympic final you have to have a certain kind of fast-twitch muscle fibre gene, which means you have the potential to run quickly, but if you don't go out on the track, if you don't train, you will never make it.

There could be men and women with very similar genetic make-up to Usain Bolt sitting in an office right now and, either because they didn't have the desire or maybe didn't have the coaching or environment to be a champion, they didn't use nature's gifts. There are so many factors which can contribute to sporting success.

Kenny's success on the rugby field, as a winger for Wasps and Scotland, did not stem entirely from his genetic make-up. He achieved international success because he wanted it badly, trained harder than his peers and was given the chance to play the sport because he came from a rugby-playing family.

Sir Clive Woodward, one of the contributors to the show, believes you can coach everything from attitude to skill, but one of the common factors he has noticed in sporting success, both in his time as England rugby union coach and as director of performance for the British Olympic Association, is how the very best use disappointment and failure. He saw time and again athletes who had been told they wouldn't make it, or had failed on a big stage, learning to use those experiences to drive them on to greatness.

There isn't a gene responsible for that. There are so many factors, so many building blocks, that need to be in place for someone to reach the pinnacle of their chosen sport.

If you want to be at the top of the sporting tree there has to be passion, there has to be desire. There also has to be the right coaching set-up, the right motivation and the ability to work harder than your rivals.

I don't know of any sporting examples, not in this ultra-competitive world, where an athlete has become the best on genetic make-up or raw talent alone. But, on the flip side, why would a top-class athlete not want to learn more about their susceptibility to injuries and how, potentially, to prevent them? If that knowledge adds just 1% to their performance it could be the difference between gold and silver and no true winner would turn their nose up at that.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nature or nurture? Are sporting champions born to win?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Does sporting ability depend on our genetic make-up? Gabby Logan and her family had DNA tests to find out.

# data[].attributes.body
An article about genetics in men. We discussed this earlier in the year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A new hypothesis suggests that men's aggressive fight-or-flight responses to stress boil down to the role of a single gene.

Credit: dundanim, Shutterstock

When men get stressed, their bodies get more revved up than women's. Now, two Australian researchers have a theory as to why - and it all boils down to a single gene.

The classic "fight-or-fight" response to stress is controlled by the sympathetic nervous system - the part of our nervous system that deals with automatic functions such as breathing. Under stress, this system goes wild, increasing heart rate and blood pressure, hastening breathing, and otherwise readying you to face down your enemy or to run.

But most of the research that established this fight-or-flight paradigm was done on men. About 12 years ago, researchers started to pull together evidence from that women don't respond to stress in the same way. In fact, they found, women do show a fight-or-flight response to immediate stress, but it's dampened by a tendency to "tend and befriend," or to seek out social support in stressful times.

Neuroscientist Joohyung Lee of Prince Henry's Institute of Medical Research in Melbourne, Australia, and his colleague Vincent Harley of Monash University in Melbourne now suspect that a Y-chromosome gene called SRY may be at the root of why men's response to stress is more aggressive than women's. [ 6 Gender Myths Busted]

The gene is known for its role in prenatal testes development; without it, the testes don't form. But new research has shown that SRY plays a role in the heart, lungs and brain. It's involved in the release of the neurotransmitter dopamine, which is crucial to movement. It also shows up in the adrenal glands, which secrete norepinephrine and epinephrine. All three chemicals are important in regulating how our bodies respond to stress.

This male-only SRY gene may "prime" the male body for a more aggressive stress response, Lee and Harley reported March 7 in the journal BioEssays. Their idea is still speculative. To find out if it's true, researchers will need to determine how SRY acts in the brain and in other tissues. They'll need to find out what happens when the SRY gene is blocked from being expressed. And they'll have to study other sex-linked genes to understand how they work in tandem with gonadal (sex) hormones, to create sex differences in the brain.

If their hypothesis is right, the researchers wrote, SRY could have medical implications. Disorders such as Parkinson's disease, autism, attention deficit/hyperactive disorder and schizophrenia are all more common in men than in women, and they all involve alterations in the body chemicals, such as dopamine, that the SRY gene influences.

"Better understanding the degree and nature of interactions between the sex-specific genes, gonadal hormones and epigenetic pathways will undoubtedly shed light on what predisposes men or women to certain behavioral phenotypes and neuro-psychiatric disorders," the researchers wrote.

You can follow LiveScience senior writer Stephanie Pappas on Twitter . Follow LiveScience for the latest in science news and discoveries on Twitter @livescience and on .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Single Gene May Drive Men's Aggressive Stress Response

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When men get stressed, their bodies get more revved up than women's. Now, two Australian researchers have a theory as to why - and it all boils down to a single gene. The classic "fight-or-fight" response to stress is controlled by the sympathetic nervous system - the part of our nervous system that deals with automatic functions such as breathing.

# data[].attributes.body
An argument for genetics (an intro)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- There's a number of symptoms that have been linked to CTE.

"Poor impulse control, depression ... Confusion, memory loss, poor judgment," said Upstate Concussion Center Program Director Brian Rieger.

But at this stage in the game, experts can only connect the dots, as Rieger says, "in people who went on to be diagnosed post-mortem."

CTE: Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy, three letters making headlines more and more over the past decade -- most recently with former New England Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez, who was serving life in prison for murder. After his jail-cell suicide, the ex-NFL player's brain is expected to be donated to CTE research.

"I don't think we can automatically assume that football makes you that way," Rieger said. "However, there's certainly the case that in some cases, people's behavior moved outside of the norm and they went on to have diagnosed CTE."

So then it's back to nature versus nurture.

"We don't want to jump to the conclusion that, 'oh, that's a football player, that must be why this person engaged in violent behavior or why they became depressed.' We don't have the ability to make those connections yet," said Rieger.

But before you pull your child from a sport that they love, Rieger says to look again at the progress of safety in the game.

"In hockey, they've changed the age at which you can start checking to try to reduce the incidents of head trauma, and it's been effective," said Rieger. "In football, they're trying to teach better tackling techniques."

Which is why, when Rieger hears from concerned parents, he opens the discussion.

"It's not black and white; it's a conversation," said Rieger. "And we all need to educate ourselves with what we're learning, but until we have guidelines, we're guessing."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nature or Nurture: How CTE Can Affect Athlete Behaviors

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On Sunday, we took a look at how news of ex-NFL star Aaron Hernandez's murder conviction and jail-cell suicide can be difficult for parents to explain to their kids. But it could also be a chance to talk with young athletes about mental health.

# data[].attributes.body
An argument for Genetics (Nature)...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Scientists studying head injuries have found something surprising: Genes may make some people more susceptible to concussion and trauma than others. A person's genetic makeup, in fact, may play a more important role in the extent of injury than the number of blows a person sustains.

While this research is still in its infancy, these scientists are working toward developing a blood test that may one day help a person decide - based on his her or her genetic predisposition - whether to try out for the football team, or perhaps take up swimming or chess instead.

"Until now, all the attention has been paid to how hard and how often you get hit," said Thomas McAllister, a professor of clinical psychiatry at the Indiana University School of Medicine. "No doubt that's important. But it's also becoming clear that's it's probably an interaction between the injury and the genetics of the person being injured."

This research is being spurred by fears that some athletes and many returning soldiers may face a lifetime of problems from head injuries. The National Football League agreed to settle a class-action concussion lawsuit by retired players last August for $765 million, although a judge rejected the agreement. In addition, the Pentagon estimates that 294,000 troops, many of whom served in Iraq and Afghanistan, suffered some kind of brain injury since 2000.

"More and more we are noticing our servicemen are coming home with significant problems with brain function," said Daniel Perl, a neuropathologist at the Center for Neuroscience and Regenerative Medicine at the Pentagon's Uniformed Services University for Health Sciences in Bethesda. "We don't know much about the biology of this. We need to get down to cellular level of resolution, how the brain starts to repair itself."

The genes that scientists are looking at may also be related to the development of Alzheimer's disease. These genes encode for the production of proteins that may affect the ability to bounce back from a blow to the head, either from a collision on the playing field or a bomb blast in a war zone.

Some of these genes are key to cleaning up damaged brain cells, while others are important for retention of memory and attention afterward.

Two of the genes involved in recovery after a brain injury may be tau and APOE. Last April, researchers looking at a group of college athletes presented a paper showing a link between the players' reaction time and a particular variation of each of those genes. The study, which included 3,218 football players and male and female soccer players, did extensive testing on 131 of them.

All people carry the APOE gene, which has many variations. A 2010 study found that athletes carrying three of the gene's four minor variations were 10 times aslikely as those who did not to have reported a concussion and more than eight times as likely to have suffered brain injury as a result.

'Punch-drunk' syndrome

Scientists have known about the dangers of getting hit on the head since the 1920s, when they diagnosed a form of dementia in boxers. They called it dementia pugilistica or "punch-drunk syndrome." In recent years, the same condition has become known as chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE.

Last year, McAllister and his colleagues completed a study comparing college football players with a group of track and field athletes from the same university. They tested both groups for cognition and memory, and they performed sophisticated imaging that measured changes in their brain cells from the beginning of the season to the end. While the two groups scored equally on the tests, they found that about one in five football players experienced changes to the corpus collossum, a bundle of neural fibers that facilitates communication between the brain's hemispheres. The brains of the track and field athletes did not show such changes.

McAllister said the degree of change was related to how hard and how often the football players had been hit during the season, something measured with small accelerometers implanted in their helmets.

"We don't know if we studied them five or 10 years later if they would be doing all right," McAllister said. "It's possible [the changes] may heal or reverse themselves during the offseason, but we don't know."

The types of athletes discovered to be developing CTE have expanded in recent years to include hockey stars, NASCAR drivers and baseball players. This year, Major League Baseball instituted a rule to reduce collisions between base runners and catchers at home plate.

People with CTE have an abnormal buildup of a protein that can block or disable neural pathways controlling such things as memory, judgment and fear. CTE can be diagnosed only after death and has been linked to psychological problems including depression, anxiety and substance abuse.

But researchers still don't know whether athletes should be worried about big hits that cause concussions, or smaller "pre-concussive" collisions that occur as a routine part of contact sports.

McAllister said that the new genetic research may answer some questions about which genes can make CTE worse or prevent it from developing.

What prompts risky activity

Some researchers caution that it's too early to connect genes and susceptibility to brain trauma. One of them is Vassilis Koliatsos, a neurologist at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. He notes that doctors can't diagnose CTE unless they examine the patient's brain after death - and that makes it hard to figure out how it developed in the first place.

Koliatsos also says that many athletes - and soldiers - get hit on the head and recover without developing a degenerative disease such as CTE. But the interplay between genes and behavior is hard to pin down. People who have a more risk-taking personality, for example, are likely to take part in activities that may expose them to collisions and accidents that lead to concussions.

"You may be a quick gun and have gotten into fights," Koliatsos said. "You may like to drink." It's "not only genes," he says, "but experience."

Koliatsos and others say that until there's a better way to predict who will suffer long-term brain injuries based on their genetic makeup, it may be a good step to prevent more injuries in the meantime by developing a better test for concussions using biomarkers, or bits of protein the brain produces when its injured.

Currently, doctors and athletic trainer's check for a player's concussion based on symptoms such as loss of consciousness, confusion and headache. But it can be subjective and inaccurate, making it difficult to determine which players should come out of a game. A more accurate rapid blood test for biomarkers could help coaches and trainers make better decisions more easily.

"Some of this demographic may not be compatible with playing sports, period," Koliatsos said.

Swedish researchers reported in March that they had found elevated levels of total tau, or T-tau, in the blood of hockey players after they had taken blows to the head. Some U.S. biotech firms are working with Pentagon funding to develop such a test for soldiers as well.

Until researchers can better determine the biology and genetics of what happens when our brains get rattled, Koliatsos said there are some simple rules to prevent long-term injuries.

"If you had one concussion, make sure you recover fully before you have another one. Or if you have too many, that you stop altogether. It's common sense."

Related:

Soccer star confronts the concussion that killed her career

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Finding a link between genes and brain injury: Are some people predisposed to trauma?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Genes may play a more important role in the extent of injury than the number of blows a person sustains.

# data[].attributes.body
A study of twins looks at genes and environments

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nature or Nurture - Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman | Science

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Twins offer an amazing opportunity to study the effects of genetics versus environment. Professor Eric Turkheimer studies the genetics of complex human behavior. What role do individual genes play in our paths in life?

# data[].attributes.body
An argument for natural talents (Nature)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Yet other researchers think that different factors, such as the quality and timing of practice, matter most

smithsonian.com

In 1993, a group of researchers found that practice accounts for 80 percent of the difference between elite and average musicians. This finding, says the New York Times, kicked off the idea of the so-called " 10,000 hour rule" - the time needed to expertly master a skill - as popularized by author Malcolm Gladwell.

In truth, however, the science of what it takes to be the very best ( like no one ever was) is much shakier than popular understanding would imply. Since that landmark paper came out more than two decades ago, researchers have continued to debate what matters most to real mastery: practice or innate talent.

Now, a new study that tried to analyze all of the relevant research on the topic has come down squarely in the "natural ability" camp.

As the Times writes, the paper analyzed the results of nearly 90 other studies carried out across disciplines ranging from sports to the arts to academia. The authors found that practice only justifies at most 20 to 25 percent of the difference between elite performers and those who are good, but not great. Natural talent, those authors concluded in their study, is more important than practice.

We found that deliberate practice explained 26% of the variance in performance for games, 21% for music, 18% for sports, 4% for education, and less than 1% for professions. We conclude that deliberate practice is important, but not as important as has been argued.

Other researchers, however, cry foul. Some say that the authors didn't define practice clearly enough, lumping in casual play with serious lessons and thus diluting true practice's effect. Others say that there are important factors that the literature doesn't capture very well, such as the age at which someone began learning a new skill; whether they have a driven personality; and the number of tournaments, tests, performances or other by-memory challenges that people put themselves through. Still others, the Times continues, say that varying the location and timing of practice can make a difference in how effective it is.

The authors of the new paper, however, are sticking to their findings. They say that those nuances don't change the results. As the Times writes: "Like most branches of the nature-nurture debate, this one has produced multiple camps, whose estimates of the effects of practice vary by as much as 50 percentage points."

Like this article?
SIGN UP for our newsletter

About Rachel Nuwer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
No Matter How Much You Practice, If You Don't Have Natural Talent You Still Might Never Be the Best, Some Experts Think

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Yet other researchers think that different factors, such as the quality and timing of practice, matter most

# data[].attributes.body
Do your research! Watch a video, or read an article, and take notes on at least 2 sources. No more than 3 peeps to a group.

# data[].attributes.body
"My brother is better at math than me."
"My son is more motivated than my daughter. I don't know why, he just is."

Nature versus Nurture. The age-old debate. Is it out genes that affect our lifestyles or is our environments that shapes who we are?

Were the boys destined to death and betrayal in Lord of the Flies or was it their environment that turned them savage? Read the excerpt on your table.   Think about the questions in bold and discuss them with your group.