The Secret To Raising Smart Kids Analysis

The key difference between Walter Isaacson’s, author of “The Genius of Jobs”, and Carol Dweck’s, author of “The Secret to Raising Smart Kids”, perspective of intelligence lies in their thought of inherent ability; Isaacson believes that intelligence is a natural gift that can be expanded upon, but Dweck would respond by agreeing to a degree but believing that the beauty of intelligence lies in that expansion.
Isaacson and Dweck begin and would agree with a similar base that intelligence, to a `certain point, is innate upon those who society sees as intelligent. Isaacson proves his viewpoint by exploring the mind of Steve Jobs, someone that most would consider to be the pinnacle of intelligence, and stating that “His imaginative leaps were instinctive, unexpected, and at times magical. They were sparked by intuition, not analytic rigor” (Isaacson 3). By emphasizing

Jobs’ instinct and intuition, he proves that he believes in the power of one’s inherent ability. To a point, Dweck would agree with this notion of innate intelligence, which is evident in saying that “Mozart, Edison, Curie, Darwin and Cézanne were not simply born with talent; they cultivated it through tremendous and sustained effort” (Dweck 22). In the particular word choice of “cultivated”, she is able to express her belief that, while certain and varying levels of intelligence are granted to each among birth, they must regulate their mental exercise and strength to achieve great results. While Dweck and Isaacson share this commonality and Dweck would respond to this statement with a degree of agreeance, there is little else they would agree on.
Isaacson later showcases his belief that the inherent intelligence is more important than hard work, something that Dweck would profoundly disagree with. Isaacson quotes Jobs, someone he believes to have an accurate view of intelligence, saying “‘Intuition is a very powerful thing, more powerful than intellect, in my opinion. That’s had a big impact on my work’” (Isaacson 4). In quoting an explicit statement that intuition, something he believes you are born with, outweighs the growth a person works to experience, it is proven that he agrees with it. Dweck, however, writes directly contradictory statements such as “our studies show that teaching people to have a ‘growth mind-set,’ which encourages a focus on ‘process’ (consisting of personal effort and effective strategies) rather than on intelligence or talent, helps make them into high achievers in school and in life” (Dweck 4). This proves that she believes a higher success rate, and thus higher intelligence, comes to those who focus on process rather than capturing their innate intelligence. Dweck would directly oppose Isaacson on this matter.
One of the final and key similarities that lie between Dweck and Isaacson, however, is their view of experiential wisdom.

Isaacson bases much of his text upon this, with sentences directly stating “Mr. Jobs’s intuition was based not on conventional learning but on experiential wisdom. He also had a lot of imagination and knew how to apply it. As Einstein said, ‘Imagination is more important than knowledge.’” (Isaacson 5). In referencing someone as intelligent as Jobs to have only gained that through experience, it is shown that he supports this theory. However, Dweck also supports the theory that knowledge does originate from experience in that she says that when “confronted by a setback such as a disappointing test grade, students with a growth mind-set said they would study harder or try a different strategy for mastering the material” (Dweck 13). Due to the knowledge and experience that they gain from having gone through a process like a test, they were able to expand upon their intelligence. Clearly, this proves a line of connection to exist between Dweck and Isaacson’s viewpoints on

education.
When analyzed, this leaves a simple truth: while Isaacson and Dweck possess their fair share of differences, their viewpoints do not have to be contradictory. Through the existence of inherent intelligence are the basis for all growth mindsets formed, proving a commonality between the perspectives of the authors. Though their points conflict at their opinions of the dominance of inherent intelligence versus hard work, they converge again at their shared belief that experiential wisdom plays a key role in the intelligence of a person.