Why Mindset Is Critical in Successful Relationships
Whether you have a fixed or growth mindset affects the quality (and future) of your relationships.
Since the publication of her book, Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, Stanford psychologist Carol Dweck’s theories on fixed and growth mindsets have made an important impact on education nationwide, even if some of her advice was drastically misunderstood.
Of equal importance is her chapter on relationships. Perhaps because education is quantifiable the focus of mindsets has gone there. Regardless of means of measurement—common core is one juggernaut of controversy, for example—how we educate children and young adults will most likely always be measured in some manner.
That begs the question: Why do we stop educating ourselves as adults?
Of course, many of us learn until the day we die. Yet I know intelligent people who are emotional catastrophes when it comes to relationships. Part of this might just reside in the fact that love is not treated as a topic of study in our earlier years. This is tragic. I acquired many useless skills and much irrelevant knowledge during the first two decades of my life, but never was how to deal with a partner scrawled on a blackboard.
And so it is that many friends keep dating the 'same person,' over and over, or so they claim. Dweck’s fixed mindset basically states that the cards are stacked against you, so don’t even bother; or, from another angle, you’re not cut from the same cloth as people who can accomplish the task you’re attempting. Try as you might, the stars are just not aligned in your favor.
Growth mindset-oriented people add the word ‘yet’ to challenges. Over my dozen years as an instructor numerous gym-goers and friends have told me they don’t practice yoga because they’re not flexible (fixed). Dweck would argue that to achieve a growth mindset, simply state, ‘I’m not flexible yet.’
Obviously this implies action, an uncomfortable one at that, given how daunting a task a new physical endeavor first appears. In relationships another person enters the picture, which can actually triple the challenge. As Dweck writes,
Now you can have a fixed mindset about three things. You can believe that your qualities are fixed, your partner’s qualities are fixed, and the relationship’s qualities are fixed—that it’s inherently good or bad, meant-to-be or not meant-to-be.
The ‘meant-to-be’ approach to relationships can be filed into the same magical thinking category as the ‘everything happens for a reason’ theory. The notion that life is a journey to one person works well in fairy tales, though not real life. Not only does it create false expectations, it does nothing to aid you when inevitable conflict arises in the relationship. As Dweck states,
Just as there are no great achievements without setbacks, there are no great relationships without conflicts and problems along the way.
There’s also the self-defeating attitude lurking from the start, such as, ‘well, the last five didn’t work out, so why bother?’ This stems from thinking that your personal qualities are permanent, or by believing the same of your partner’s qualities. Successful relationships thrive on each individual changing, but the other has to be on board for what emerges. If one person is open to change and the other opposed, an impasse is guaranteed.
The ‘afraid of change’ mentality sometimes collides with superiority complexes, in which a victory for your partner is irrelevant or even damaging if you yourself have not experienced some sort of gain from it. If your initial reaction to your partner’s good news is ‘how is this going to affect me?’ rather than ‘good for you!’ bitterness and envy will dominate. There is nothing sustainable about being with someone who tries to drag you down instead of lifting you up.
In a culture dominated by starter marriages and celebrity break-up gossip, we at least can hope to learn from past mistakes. Changing them is the key. As Dweck notes, all of us have some fixed and some growth mindsets. The goal is to focus on the latter. In terms of relationships, her four pieces of advice are time-tested ways of keeping not only your relationship moving forward, but your own self-value.
First, she asks, what have you learned from past rejections? Is there vengeance in your blood, or can you forgive and move on? How you leave one relationship will invariably influence your next; we all carry baggage along. Letting go of bitterness before engaging with your next partner is critical for the success of that relationship.
Do you enter a relationship believing there will never be any conflict, that everything will be perfect from day one? If so, Dweck asks you to rethink that. Using problems as a "vehicle for developing greater understanding and intimacy" will serve you better than folding when the pressure begins. Listening and responding honestly, from a place of caring, is the key to getting closer to your partner.
Is blame an ever-present theme in your relationships? Dweck created a third character, Maurice, in her marriage. When issues between her and her husband arise, instead of blaming the other person, they blame Maurice. Then they discuss how Maurice would best grow from the situation. This creates an emotional and cognitive distance from blaming the other as well as self-blame. Critical thinking is important in matters of the heart, but always playing the victim (or victimizing the other) keeps you mired in the fixed mindset.
Shyness is a high hurdle for many. Yet, Dweck argues, shy people are perfectly suited for the growth mindset. Using your shyness for social engagement and learning instead of self-criticism helps you grow as a person, as well as being open and honest with your partner. It’s important to remember that this is a practice; no one is naturally born with the gift of being the center of attention. You might not want to strive for such attention, but speaking your mind and making yourself present is important.
Image: Orlando / Getty Images
Derek Beres is a Los-Angeles based author, music producer, and yoga/fitness instructor at Equinox Fitness. Stay in touch @derekberes.
It's just the current cycle that involves opiates, but methamphetamine, cocaine, and others have caused the trajectory of overdoses to head the same direction
- It appears that overdoses are increasing exponentially, no matter the drug itself
- If the study bears out, it means that even reducing opiates will not slow the trajectory.
- The causes of these trends remain obscure, but near the end of the write-up about the study, a hint might be apparent
Through computationally intensive computer simulations, researchers have discovered that "nuclear pasta," found in the crusts of neutron stars, is the strongest material in the universe.
- The strongest material in the universe may be the whimsically named "nuclear pasta."
- You can find this substance in the crust of neutron stars.
- This amazing material is super-dense, and is 10 billion times harder to break than steel.
Superman is known as the "Man of Steel" for his strength and indestructibility. But the discovery of a new material that's 10 billion times harder to break than steel begs the question—is it time for a new superhero known as "Nuclear Pasta"? That's the name of the substance that a team of researchers thinks is the strongest known material in the universe.
Unlike humans, when stars reach a certain age, they do not just wither and die, but they explode, collapsing into a mass of neurons. The resulting space entity, known as a neutron star, is incredibly dense. So much so that previous research showed that the surface of a such a star would feature amazingly strong material. The new research, which involved the largest-ever computer simulations of a neutron star's crust, proposes that "nuclear pasta," the material just under the surface, is actually stronger.
The competition between forces from protons and neutrons inside a neutron star create super-dense shapes that look like long cylinders or flat planes, referred to as "spaghetti" and "lasagna," respectively. That's also where we get the overall name of nuclear pasta.
Caplan & Horowitz/arXiv
Diagrams illustrating the different types of so-called nuclear pasta.
The researchers' computer simulations needed 2 million hours of processor time before completion, which would be, according to a press release from McGill University, "the equivalent of 250 years on a laptop with a single good GPU." Fortunately, the researchers had access to a supercomputer, although it still took a couple of years. The scientists' simulations consisted of stretching and deforming the nuclear pasta to see how it behaved and what it would take to break it.
While they were able to discover just how strong nuclear pasta seems to be, no one is holding their breath that we'll be sending out missions to mine this substance any time soon. Instead, the discovery has other significant applications.
One of the study's co-authors, Matthew Caplan, a postdoctoral research fellow at McGill University, said the neutron stars would be "a hundred trillion times denser than anything on earth." Understanding what's inside them would be valuable for astronomers because now only the outer layer of such starts can be observed.
"A lot of interesting physics is going on here under extreme conditions and so understanding the physical properties of a neutron star is a way for scientists to test their theories and models," Caplan added. "With this result, many problems need to be revisited. How large a mountain can you build on a neutron star before the crust breaks and it collapses? What will it look like? And most importantly, how can astronomers observe it?"
Another possibility worth studying is that, due to its instability, nuclear pasta might generate gravitational waves. It may be possible to observe them at some point here on Earth by utilizing very sensitive equipment.
The team of scientists also included A. S. Schneider from California Institute of Technology and C. J. Horowitz from Indiana University.
Check out the study "The elasticity of nuclear pasta," published in Physical Review Letters.
Scientists think constructing a miles-long wall along an ice shelf in Antarctica could help protect the world's largest glacier from melting.
- Rising ocean levels are a serious threat to coastal regions around the globe.
- Scientists have proposed large-scale geoengineering projects that would prevent ice shelves from melting.
- The most successful solution proposed would be a miles-long, incredibly tall underwater wall at the edge of the ice shelves.
The world's oceans will rise significantly over the next century if the massive ice shelves connected to Antarctica begin to fail as a result of global warming.
To prevent or hold off such a catastrophe, a team of scientists recently proposed a radical plan: build underwater walls that would either support the ice or protect it from warm waters.
In a paper published in The Cryosphere, Michael Wolovick and John Moore from Princeton and the Beijing Normal University, respectively, outlined several "targeted geoengineering" solutions that could help prevent the melting of western Antarctica's Florida-sized Thwaites Glacier, whose melting waters are projected to be the largest source of sea-level rise in the foreseeable future.
An "unthinkable" engineering project
"If [glacial geoengineering] works there then we would expect it to work on less challenging glaciers as well," the authors wrote in the study.
One approach involves using sand or gravel to build artificial mounds on the seafloor that would help support the glacier and hopefully allow it to regrow. In another strategy, an underwater wall would be built to prevent warm waters from eating away at the glacier's base.
The most effective design, according to the team's computer simulations, would be a miles-long and very tall wall, or "artificial sill," that serves as a "continuous barrier" across the length of the glacier, providing it both physical support and protection from warm waters. Although the study authors suggested this option is currently beyond any engineering feat humans have attempted, it was shown to be the most effective solution in preventing the glacier from collapsing.
Source: Wolovick et al.
An example of the proposed geoengineering project. By blocking off the warm water that would otherwise eat away at the glacier's base, further sea level rise might be preventable.
But other, more feasible options could also be effective. For example, building a smaller wall that blocks about 50% of warm water from reaching the glacier would have about a 70% chance of preventing a runaway collapse, while constructing a series of isolated, 1,000-foot-tall columns on the seafloor as supports had about a 30% chance of success.
Still, the authors note that the frigid waters of the Antarctica present unprecedently challenging conditions for such an ambitious geoengineering project. They were also sure to caution that their encouraging results shouldn't be seen as reasons to neglect other measures that would cut global emissions or otherwise combat climate change.
"There are dishonest elements of society that will try to use our research to argue against the necessity of emissions' reductions. Our research does not in any way support that interpretation," they wrote.
"The more carbon we emit, the less likely it becomes that the ice sheets will survive in the long term at anything close to their present volume."
A 2015 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine illustrates the potentially devastating effects of ice-shelf melting in western Antarctica.
"As the oceans and atmosphere warm, melting of ice shelves in key areas around the edges of the Antarctic ice sheet could trigger a runaway collapse process known as Marine Ice Sheet Instability. If this were to occur, the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) could potentially contribute 2 to 4 meters (6.5 to 13 feet) of global sea level rise within just a few centuries."
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.