Grit: The Power of Passion & Perseverance by Angela Duckworth (eBook)

abstractedpudding

Jun 16, 2026 11:05 PM

1.5K Comments

Joined Jun 2013

abstractedpuddingJun 16, 2026 11:05 PM

1.5K Comments

While this book was a pop psy/ed sci darling about a decade ago, subsequent analysis (especially from the Harvard School of Education) has not been as kind. Somebody might still find it as a great motivational tale, but it does have its shortcomings.

Last edited by abstractedpudding June 16, 2026 at 08:20 PM.

Slickdeezee

Jun 16, 2026 11:15 PM

4.5K Comments

Joined Feb 2006

SlickdeezeeJun 16, 2026 11:15 PM

4.5K Comments

Quote from abstractedpudding

:

While this book was a pop psy/ed sci, darling about a decade ago, subsequent analysis (especially from the Harvard School of Education) has not been as kind. Somebody might still find it as a great motivational tale, but it does have it short comings.

What's their issue with the book? I read it awhile ago, my take away was persistent hard work trumps innate talent when it comes to achieving your goals. Seemed logical to me.

Last edited by Slickdeezee June 16, 2026 at 05:23 PM.

1

SeriousCreator6505

Jun 16, 2026 11:28 PM

7 Comments

Joined Jul 2023

SeriousCreator6505Jun 16, 2026 11:28 PM

7 Comments

Is this more about hard work or sticktuitiveness?

1

abstractedpudding

Jun 16, 2026 11:32 PM

1.5K Comments

Joined Jun 2013

abstractedpuddingJun 16, 2026 11:32 PM

1.5K Comments

Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank abstractedpudding

Quote from Slickdeezee

:

What's their issue with the book? I read it awhile ago, my take away was persist hard work trumps innate talent when it comes to achieving your goals. Seemed logical to me.

I was a university professor at the time this book was popular, and everyone was trying to work the concept of teaching/instilling grit it into curriculum and the subsequent backlash. It's been awhile, but I will try summarize. Basically they thought that Grit's main problem is that it oversells a thin finding. Duckworth's grit scale only weakly predicts outcomes, and a lot of what looks like "grit" overlaps with conscientiousness, a trait psychology already had. The samples she draws on (West Point cadets, spelling bee kids) are survivors who'd already cleared other filters, so it's hard to separate grit from privilege or talent. And the book's "just try harder" framing tends to wave away how much money, access, and circumstance actually shape who gets to succeed.

6

1

FlyingAvatar

Jun 17, 2026 12:23 AM

12 Comments

Joined Feb 2015

FlyingAvatarJun 17, 2026 12:23 AM

12 Comments

Quote from Slickdeezee

:

What's their issue with the book? I read it awhile ago, my take away was persist hard work trumps innate talent when it comes to achieving your goals. Seemed logical to me.

It is logical. The problem is that's the only salient point in the book. Take it away from your summary instead, and you've saved everyone $3.

1

Slickdeezee

Jun 17, 2026 1:14 AM

4.5K Comments

Joined Feb 2006

SlickdeezeeJun 17, 2026 1:14 AM

4.5K Comments

Quote from abstractedpudding

:

I was a university professor at the time this book was popular, and everyone was trying to work the concept of teaching/instilling grit it into curriculum and the subsequent backlash. It's been awhile, but I will try summarize. Basically they thought that Grit's main problem is that it oversells a thin finding. Duckworth's grit scale only weakly predicts outcomes, and a lot of what looks like "grit" overlaps with conscientiousness, a trait psychology already had. The samples she draws on (West Point cadets, spelling bee kids) are survivors who'd already cleared other filters, so it's hard to separate grit from privilege or talent. And the book's "just try harder" framing tends to wave away how much money, access, and circumstance actually shape who gets to succeed.

I see. Seems like a chicken or egg debate. How do you even measure innate talent in the first place? I don't see the logic though in the argument against working hard. Give me a group of low income students with the same circumstances, separate them into two groups with one believing the deck is stacked against them and there's nothing they can do and the other believing that their hard work will determine their future success, I'm pretty confident which group will have higher chance of succeeding.

Slickdeezee

Jun 17, 2026 1:16 AM

4.5K Comments

Joined Feb 2006

SlickdeezeeJun 17, 2026 1:16 AM

4.5K Comments

Quote from FlyingAvatar

:

It is logical. The problem is that's the only salient point in the book. Take it away from your summary instead, and you've saved everyone $3.

I think that's most self help books. Hundreds of filler pages for main points you could summarize in a page or two.

Last edited by Slickdeezee June 16, 2026 at 09:02 PM.

Krillin6z

Jun 17, 2026 1:49 AM

16 Comments

Joined Oct 2009

Krillin6zJun 17, 2026 1:49 AM

16 Comments

I've read it, and I enjoyed it. I think all books like this will have their shortcomings, but there's also plenty of good to take away from it. I'd say it's worth giving it a go, especially for $3. Read a book!

2

LivelyFlower6140

Jun 17, 2026 1:56 AM

14 Comments

Joined May 2024

LivelyFlower6140Jun 17, 2026 1:56 AM

14 Comments

Just like michael jackson, baby. Hard work and grit

capheine

Jun 17, 2026 3:29 AM

146 Comments

Joined May 2004

capheineJun 17, 2026 3:29 AM

146 Comments

The "If Books Could Kill" podcast absolutely tore this book a new one. And with good reason!

2

ChiefAlchemist

Jun 17, 2026 10:46 AM

3K Comments

Joined Sep 2008

ChiefAlchemistJun 17, 2026 10:46 AM

3K Comments

It's been a while since I've read this. Sure it's pop psychology but it was helpful. In short, talent and intelligence, etc are overrated.
Worth $3? Sure, why not?
But I would read "The Anxious Generation" (note: it's not only about Gen Z, it's about all of us), as well as "Thinking in Bets." I would describe these two as more important and more impactful

Slick Mick

Jun 17, 2026 2:39 PM

233 Comments

Joined Jan 2007

Slick MickJun 17, 2026 2:39 PM

233 Comments

Quote from Slickdeezee

:

I see. Seems like a chicken or egg debate. How do you even measure innate talent in the first place? I don't see the logic though in the argument against working hard. Give me a group of low income students with the same circumstances, separate them into two groups with one believing the deck is stacked against them and there's nothing they can do and the other believing that their hard work will determine their future success, I'm pretty confident which group will have higher chance of succeeding.

There's a pretty straightforward problem with trying to layer a veneer of science on top of that. Obviously people that stop trying are not going to succeed, and some portion that do try will succeed. The book tries to suggest there is some innate quality in the latter group, but you just end up using success to define itself.

You frame this with "low income students" which is where this thinking becomes extremely toxic. You can objectively say that children of lower-income families perform worse academically than those of higher-income families, and that is straightforwardly because those parents buy access to better schools. Highlighting some lower-income kids who succeed anyway is a tacit implication that those who don't are responsible for their own failures, rather than structural inequity.

1

Slickdeezee

Jun 17, 2026 11:14 PM

4.5K Comments

Joined Feb 2006

SlickdeezeeJun 17, 2026 11:14 PM

4.5K Comments

Quote from Slick Mick

:

There's a pretty straightforward problem with trying to layer a veneer of science on top of that. Obviously people that stop trying are not going to succeed, and some portion that do try will succeed. The book tries to suggest there is some innate quality in the latter group, but you just end up using success to define itself.

You frame this with "low income students" which is where this thinking becomes extremely toxic. You can objectively say that children of lower-income families perform worse academically than those of higher-income families, and that is straightforwardly because those parents buy access to better schools. Highlighting some lower-income kids who succeed anyway is a tacit implication that those who don't are responsible for their own failures, rather than structural inequity.

There's nothing toxic about it, it's just common sense. People have a responsibility for their own failures, to blame it all on structural inequity will never solve the problem in fact it will make it worse. The quality of the school is not going to matter when the student doesn't have the work ethic. You assume high income equals better performing but there are countries with schools with low and middle income students I'd wager would score higher than the better schools with high income student bodies in the US you are referring to due to work ethic.

Last edited by Slickdeezee June 17, 2026 at 04:29 PM.

Slick Mick

Jun 18, 2026 3:43 PM

233 Comments

Joined Jan 2007

Slick MickJun 18, 2026 3:43 PM

233 Comments

Quote from Slickdeezee

:

There's nothing toxic about it, it's just common sense. People have a responsibility for their own failures, to blame it all on structural inequity will never solve the problem in fact it will make it worse. The quality of the school is not going to matter when the student doesn't have the work ethic. You assume high income equals better performing but there are countries with schools with low and middle income students I'd wager would score higher than the better schools with high income student bodies in the US you are referring to due to work ethic.

If barriers to achievement exist for anything, some will overcome them and some will not. People with the wealth to do so remove these barriers for their own children by sending them to better funded schools. They will then turn to the children of other people and declare the school funding is unimportant because a few kids succeed despite it. This is what is cynical and toxic.

Slickdeezee

Jun 18, 2026 6:44 PM

4.5K Comments

Joined Feb 2006

SlickdeezeeJun 18, 2026 6:44 PM

4.5K Comments

Quote from Slick Mick

:

If barriers to achievement exist for anything, some will overcome them and some will not. People with the wealth to do so remove these barriers for their own children by sending them to better funded schools. They will then turn to the children of other people and declare the school funding is unimportant because a few kids succeed despite it. This is what is cynical and toxic.

Your theory isn't supported by facts. NY spends more per student than any other state and their results aren't any better. Some universities removed the SAT/ACT from admissions due to equity reasons in the past few years, that resulted in poorer performance in the classroom so they are looking into bringing back the SAT/ACT. These are some of the finest institutions in the world, simply putting a student in the best school won't suddenly make them perform better. So I don't see the schools themselves as being most responsible for students under performing and therefore throwing more money at it won't ever solve the problem.

Grit: The Power of Passion & Perseverance by Angela Duckworth (eBook)

$3.00

$15

Editor's Notes

Original Post

Editor's Notes

Original Post

Community Voting

Top Comments

Join The Conversation

15 Comments

Join The Conversation

Related Searches

Popular Deals

Trending Deals