Chelsea Eareckson- The Entity Parasite (Chapter 3)

The Entity Parasite 

“I’m just not good at math!” I told my tutor after an exhausting session of trying to get through the standard homework assignment in my high school calc class. That statement is something I believed deeply, and it greatly affected my attitude toward the class. Confusion was debilitating for me because it emphasized that I was not good at math, that I could not keep up in the high level coursework. That class was the first time I felt like I was dumb, and it destroyed my self confidence. Yesterday, thinking about my calc class would have filled me with resentment. Today, after reading Carol S. Dweck’s essay, I am thinking about that class in a whole new light.

Three times must be the charm, because the third chapter in Why Aren’t More Women in Science? by Ceci and Williams has been by far my favorite. Carol S. Dweck takes a unique approach in trying to understand the sex discrepancy in the math and science fields in her essay, “Is Math a Gift? Beliefs that Put Females at Risk.” Dweck examines the effect of confusion on male and female students and found that “bright girls did not cope at all well with this confusion” (Dweck 47). Dweck also discovered that intelligent girls crumbled when they ran into difficulty. Difficulty and confusion undermines the intelligent girl’s confidence in her abilities. Men, on the other hand, aren’t nearly as phased by difficulty which could explain why there are more men in the top of science. Confusion is inevitable as you move up through the math and sciences, and men can overcome it and push on while women fall away, according to Dweck’s studies.

Dweck had another interesting idea, one involving the entity vs. incremental theories. She had found through previous research that entity thinking, or believing that traits are fixed and cannot be improved, “led students to question that ability and lose motivation when they encountered setbacks” (Dweck 48). Students who believe in the entity theory will be much more vulnerable to confusion because difficulty will tell them that they “just aren’t good at that subject.” However, incremental theory, thinking that traits are changeable and can be improved, “led them [students] to seek active and effective remedies in the face of difficulty” (Dweck 48). Students who believe they can improve know they will encounter difficulty because that’s what brings about improvement and therefore are motivated by the challenge. A series of studies provides evidence to this hypothesis. When a group of junior high students was taught entity theory and then given a math test, boys scored much better than girls. When a different group of junior high students was taught incremental theory and then given a math test, the reverse happened (Dweck 51). The girls scored much better than the boys in math, the thing that boys are supposed to be better act because of their better spatial ability. So are girls just more vulnerable to entity thinking? I think yes, because of stereotypes in place. Girls are taught to believe that they aren’t as smart as boys, so when difficulty arises, they believe that they just can’t do it, they aren’t “gifted” with the ability. Boys never encounter this kind of stereotyping and are much more likely to believe the incremental theory. I am making an assumption here based on my own feelings and experiences, but I feel this assumption is thought provoking and could bring about some interesting research on why people believe in a certain theory. Toward the end of the essay, Dweck made some assumptions as well. She claims that people “put high achievers on a pedestal and see them as different from others” (Dweck 53) because most people believe that intelligence is an innate ability that doesn’t have to be worked at. To me, this is a large jump with a significant message about society. Because she makes this large assumption, it takes away from her credibility slightly.

If you had asked me yesterday if I was an incremental theorist, I would have said “Of course.” Entity theory seems backwards to me, and in my high school career, I improved on many intellectual skills. On the other hand, my statement at the beginning of the blog (“I’m just not good at math”) is a very entity-like thing to say. My attitude was synonymous with the one described of girls who believe entity theory also; my confidence in my abilities was destroyed when I ran into difficulty. I realize now that entity theory has ingrained itself in my subconscious, and that scares me. Entity theory is a dangerous thing to believe, and I will actively work to change my thinking and work through confusion. My whole career could depend on it.

 

Works Cited

 

Ceci, Stephen J., and Wendy M. Williams. Why Aren’t More Women in Science?: Top Researchers Debate the Evidence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2007. Print.