Something I have run across in my reading on Effectiveness are two theories entitled Entity & Incremental, from an article by Daniel Molden and Carol Dweck entitled "Finding "Meaning" in Psychology." Entity Theory is about set knowledge, previous programming and having an end in mind that is already determined. Incremental Theory speaks to developmental growth, and an understanding that you don't know everything but are capable of learning new things as you go. Therefore when one walks into an experience, the outcome of their success depends on if they have a set belief that will allow them only to succeed or fail based on how the environment connects with that belief, vs. someone who is open to exploring, seeing possibilities and is confident that they will figure it out as they go.
This has made me think about how so much of my work has been a struggle with one set of beliefs, perceptions and inner dialogue about what I can and can't do, rather than an exercise in experimentation. It makes me think of a need for trial and more trial rather than my standard approach of applying my current set of tools to ONE BIG TRY which either ends in success or failure.
In working on my research question, I wish I had one set end goal that would open all doors to my effectiveness. I can't figure out if I should focus on time, task, bigger mission, daily self-regulation, efficacy, reflection or something else entirely. My challenge is to feel like I choose the things that I care about and continue to work on them regularly. To Bill's entry on daVinci, do I focus on many things, completing one, or just be in the learning process as an end in itself?
I originally came up with a focus on time because that is controllable. I can go out and run for 50 minutes much more easily than convincing myself to run 6 miles, which makes the run about one end goal. I can get up and read for 20 minutes, but not be nearly as effective in motivating myself to read a full article. It is more in discipline to sit down than in task that I am initially successful, despite research that says time is irrelevant.
I feel like the answer to my longer-term success is some big mystery but maybe I need to continue to explore with the hat of incremental theory rather than my current entity theory approach.
2 comments:
There's a series of books by Tim Gallwey on the "Inner Game of..." (tennis, business, golf... and others by people influenced by him... on coaching, music). One of his big points is the same as yours... trying leads to the possibility of failing; putting effort toward something allows me to ask simply, 'on an (arbitrary) scale of 1 - 5, where how did things come out this time relative to the last or the one 4 times ago, whatever? What... and where.. .did I feel the effort this time... and now that I see it was '4', let's say, maybe I should simply put effort to recreating the feeling rather than the act itself.
What is really interesting.. and I don't remember if I mentioned this in class, so if I did, go on to something more interesting... is how he started down the 'inner game ..' trail. He was a junior tennis star, playing in a championship match... match point. An easy shot came over the net at him.. one that he had seen and returned a thousand times before. He hit it right into the net. How could that happen, he asked after getting over being pissed. Answer turned out simple... because he went after the ball thinking; he went after the ball trying to get it back. Trust yourself and put full effort... bingo, the inner game was born and the rest is post-partum.
Morry. Thanks for this Thought. Just re-read and realize its relevance for my effectiveness. There is a simplicity to it that allows me to be natural, rather than forced as well as experimental/curious rather than evaluating as a one time all or nothing event. This is pretty crucial for my mental game, so thank you for your insight investment!!!
Post a Comment