ORIGINAL(1)

Today we live in a world divided. Partisanship in America has never been so intense and violent as we have seen through the many protests from a number of groups representing both sides of the aisle. In the past, one was not so defined by their political and social beliefs. Lukianoff and Haidt write, “Republicans and Democrats have never particularly liked each other, but survey data going back to the 1970’s show that on average, their mutual dislike used to be surprisingly mild.” The significant increase of division among political parties we’ve seen in the last few decades is called “affective partisan polarization.” The result of this is two parties constantly demonizing and scrutinizing each other to make themselves look better, and in turn, causing any sort of political compromise to be harder to achieve. But how does this connect to Dweck and the idea of a fixed mindset? In one study, Dweck remarks, “after a failure, [students with a fixed mindset] looked for someone who did worse than they did so they could feel really good about themselves.” (1:51) Affective partisan polarization is representative of this principle. This is what we see when a politician is criticized for a policy and says that it’s really the other party’s fault. Of course, looking for others to blame is not confined to politics. When students file complaints on their professor’s use of language, despite the legitimacy of the claim, they feel good about what they did because from their emotional reasoning the professor is part of the problem and they want to remove the problem. Except, in reality, it causes distrust between the professors and students, division within the class between the students who see either side, and may not even make any change in the professors way of thinking. Instead, a student should talk to that professor outside of class, bring up what that professor said, and have a discussion about how it made them feel in relation to the objective facts. Using a growth mindset won’t make everyone see eye to eye, it is not the solution to world peace, but by thinking critically about our actions we can have a significant effect on the division in society today.

REVISED(1)

Today we live in a world divided. Partisanship in America has never been so intense and violent as we have seen through the many protests from groups representing both sides of the aisle. In the past, one was not so defined by their political and social beliefs. Lukianoff and Haidt write, “Republicans and Democrats have never particularly liked each other, but survey data going back to the 1970’s show that on average, their mutual dislike used to be surprisingly mild” (para. 13). The significant increase of division among political parties we’ve seen in the last few decades is called “affective partisan polarization” (para. 13). The result of this is two parties constantly demonizing and scrutinizing each other to make themselves look better, and in turn, causing any sort of political compromise to be harder to achieve. But how does this connect to Dweck and the idea of a fixed mindset? In one study, Dweck remarks, “after a failure, [students with a fixed mindset] looked for someone who did worse than they did so they could feel really good about themselves” (1:51). Affective partisan polarization is representative of this principle. This is what we see when a politician is criticized for a policy, and they say that “it’s the other party’s fault.” Of course, looking for others to blame is not confined to politics. When students file complaints on their professor’s use of language – regardless of the claim’s legitimacy – they feel good about what they did. From their emotional reasoning, the professor is part of the problem, and they want to remove the problem. In reality, it causes distrust between the professors and students and creates a division between the students in the class who see either side. It may not even make any change in the professor’s way of thinking. Instead, a student should talk to that professor outside of class, bring up what that professor said, and discuss how it made them feel concerning the objective facts. Talking about controversy is necessary because it creates room to grow. If we want people to understand their impact on others, we cannot figuratively put a gun to their head and tell them not to make a mistake. Using a growth mindset won’t make everyone see eye to eye; it is not the solution to world peace. Still, by thinking critically about our actions, we can significantly affect the division in society today.   

In this paragraph, I added more clarifying information. Alex commented on my paper, “I think you should try and explain more what we should take away from this quote more specifically. How does this political divide and tension relate to the effects on learning that you’re trying to talk about?” I did this mostly in my closing of the paragraph by explaining why talking about controversy is necessary.

ORIGINAL(2):

A vital aspect of having a growth mindset is the ability to think critically. Lukianoff and Haidt talk about this many times in their article and define it as “grounding one’s beliefs in evidence rather than in emotion or desire, and learning how to search for and evaluate evidence that might contradict one’s initial hypothesis.” Critical thinking is essential when talking about controversial or sensitive topics. When allowing yourself to think objectively, you are using the rational part of your brain rather than the emotional part that creates unnecessary unhappiness. Both Dweck and Lukianoff and Haidt are seeing critical thinking replaced by emotional reasoning. In “The Coddling,” the authors describe how emotional reasoning is increasingly seen as objective rather than subjective. If a professor were to say something offensive, it is acceptable to use your feelings as evidence in a file against that professor. These kinds of instances represent what it is like to have a fixed mindset. Dweck presents this through two pictures that show electrical activity in the brain: “on the left, you see the fixed-mindset students. There’s hardly any activity. They run from the error. They don’t engage with it. But on the right, you have the students with the growth mindset, the idea that abilities can be developed. They engage deeply. Their brain is on fire with yet.” (1:51) Because kids and adults alike are refusing to think critically about controversial topics, they strengthen the fear and mistrust that is instigating this phenomenon, resulting in division among society.

REVISED(2):

A vital aspect of having a growth mindset is the ability to think critically. Lukianoff and Haidt talk about this many times in their article and define critical thinking as “grounding one’s beliefs in evidence rather than in emotion or desire, and learning how to search for and evaluate evidence that might contradict one’s initial hypothesis” (para. 22). Critical thinking is essential when talking about controversial or sensitive topics. When allowing yourself to think objectively, you are using the rational part of your brain rather than the emotional part that creates unnecessary unhappiness. Both Dweck and Lukianoff and Haidt are seeing critical thinking replaced by emotional reasoning, which is defined by David Burns (who is quoted in “The Coddling”) as “assuming ‘that your negative emotions necessarily reflect the way things really are’” (para. 25). In “The Coddling,” the authors describe how emotional reasoning is increasingly seen as an objective perspective rather than subjective. If a professor were to say something offensive, it is acceptable to use your feelings as evidence in a file against that professor. We also see the censoring of content in anticipation that someone who sees it will feel distraught. This action is called “fortune-telling” and, in schools, provides no room for students to explore these delicate topics to learn from them. These kinds of instances represent what it is like to have a fixed mindset. Dweck presents what this mindset looks like through two pictures that show electrical activity in the brain: “on the left, you see the fixed-mindset students. There’s hardly any activity. They run from the error. They don’t engage with it. But on the right, you have the students with the growth mindset, the idea that abilities can be developed. They engage deeply. Their brain is on fire with yet” (1:51). Because kids and adults alike are refusing to think critically about controversial topics, they strengthen the fear and mistrust instigating this phenomenon, resulting not just in ignorance but also in divisions throughout society. 

In this paragraph, I made some revisions mainly around clarifying my ideas for the reader to better support my points. First, I used “The Coddling” to better define what emotional reasoning is and how it is very similar to a fixed mindset. I also inserted a sentence about fortune telling as it is an effect of emotional reasoning and provides a basis for another point I make later in the essay. Lastly, I clarified my closing sentence so that it flows more smoothly into the next paragraph.