<i>The implied message, that one should advocate the malleability of IQ not because it's true but because it's motivational, is a little troubling.</i><p>I'm not troubled by this at all. Here's why. First of all, malleability of IQ is true. And the research finding that advocating the malleability of IQ is motivational and thus leads to better performance is a replicated research finding.<p>In the fall semester of 2009 I participated in the University of Minnesota Department of Psychology Psychology 8935: Readings in Behavioral Genetics and Individual Differences Psychology journal club with leading researchers on human behavioral genetics such as Tom Bouchard, Matt McGue (the chairman of the journal club), Irving Gottesman, Wendy Johnson, and other colleagues and graduate students of theirs. At the end of the semester, Matt McGue asked each participant what their conclusion was about what could be done to boost IQ and academic achievement, and he noted that as a parent he will be speaking more often to his children about their ability to raise their own level. This is from a researcher who has spent years calculating figures for heritability of various behavioral traits from studies of twins and other studies with genetically sensitive designs. After reading the research and discussing it with his colleagues, he is convinced that even though monozygotic twins resemble each other more closely than other siblings as to IQ (this is what heritablity means, and it is ALL that heritability means), it is still possible for a mindset intervention to improve IQ.<p>Here's another article about Carol Dweck's research, which I think has been submitted to HN before:<p><a href="http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2007/marapr/features/dweck.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2007/marapr/feat...</a>