A Stanford psychology lab in the 1990s. Ten-year-olds sit at small desks, pencils in hand, working through puzzles. The researcher, Carol Dweck, watches from across the room. Most of the children get about eight out of ten correct, which is exactly what Dweck designed the test to produce.
Then she walks to each desk with their results.
“Wow, you got eight right. That’s a good score,” she tells every child. But she adds one sentence that splits the room in two. To some children: “You must be smart at this.” To others: “You must have tried hard.”
Six words. The gap between them seems trivial. What happened next changed how we understand human potential.
The Fork in the Road
Dweck offered each child a choice. She had easier problems they could work on, or she had harder problems where they’d make mistakes but learn something new.
The children praised for being “smart” chose easy. Most of them. They wanted to keep looking smart, and they were nobody’s fools. Why risk their reputation on something that might expose them?
The children praised for effort chose hard. They wanted to learn. Mistakes didn’t scare them.
But Dweck wasn’t finished. She gave every child the same set of problems next, and these were designed to be too difficult for anyone to solve.
The “smart” children struggled, then crumbled. They assumed they weren’t as intelligent as they’d been told. Their confidence collapsed.
The “effort” children struggled too. But they assumed they needed different strategies. They leaned in. Some of them said the hard problems were their favorites.
Then came the final round. Dweck gave everyone problems as easy as the first set.
The “smart” children performed worse than when they started. Their scores dropped. The experience of failing had damaged something.
The “effort” children performed better. Their scores went up. The experience of failing had taught them something.
Same children. Same problems. Same lab. One sentence made the difference.
Two Legends, Two Responses
Carol Dweck tells this story in Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, and she doesn’t stop at the lab. She follows this pattern into the lives of people operating at the highest levels of performance, where the stakes make the psychology impossible to ignore.
In 1979, John McEnroe stepped onto the court at Wimbledon. He was ranked third in the world and heavily favored to dominate mixed doubles. He and his partner lost in three straight sets. McEnroe didn’t play mixed doubles again for twenty years.
Twenty years of avoidance because one loss threatened who he believed he was. And this became his pattern. Despite seven Grand Slam titles and a number-one ranking, McEnroe blamed his failures on the weather and on bad calls. He even blamed his own fame. Years later, he admitted something striking: “I didn’t fulfill my potential because I lacked confidence and self-esteem.”
Now picture fifteen-year-old Michael Jordan scanning the varsity basketball roster at his high school. His name isn’t there. The future greatest player of all time just got cut from the team.
Jordan’s response was the opposite of McEnroe’s. Being cut became fuel. He practiced obsessively, asked coaches what to improve, and studied the players who made varsity to understand what they had that he didn’t.
This defined his entire career. Couldn’t beat Detroit with finesse? He added fifteen pounds of muscle over a summer. Age slowing him down? He developed his fadeaway jumper. Someone once described Jordan as “a genius who constantly wants to upgrade his genius.”
McEnroe treated every loss as a verdict on his identity. Jordan treated every setback as information.
The Researcher’s Own Reckoning
Here is where Dweck’s book takes its most honest turn. She had spent decades studying what makes people thrive. She had run the experiments, documented the difference between fixed and growth mindsets in thousands of people. And then she had to face an uncomfortable realization.
She was trapped in a fixed mindset herself.
Her awakening started at Harvard, a place you might expect to be a temple of intellectual curiosity. Instead, Dweck watched brilliant researchers more concerned with protecting their reputations than discovering new truths. She saw people so afraid of being wrong that they stopped asking interesting questions. The institution that should have celebrated learning was stuck.
As she observed these patterns, she recognized something she didn’t want to see. The same patterns lived inside her. The woman who spent her career proving she was smart had to learn that being smart wasn’t the point.
She had a confession to make. While she had dreamed of a perfect life, she struggled for years to find real satisfaction in her work. The world’s foremost researcher on growth mindset had been operating from a fixed one.
The change didn’t happen overnight. It was gradual. Dweck had to catch herself, again and again, choosing the safe path over the honest one. She had to notice when she was performing intelligence rather than pursuing it.
The breakthrough came when she could say, in the same breath: “This is hard! This is fun!” Those five words became her signal that something had shifted. Difficulty was no longer a threat to her competence. It was a sign she was growing. The researcher who discovered that mindsets could change had to change her own first.
What This Has to Do with the Rest of Our Lives
I’ve been sitting with Dweck’s work for weeks now, and what I keep coming back to is how often we carry a fixed mindset into places we don’t expect.
Careers and health. Relationships. And yes, our financial lives.
Think about how most people react when the market drops or a financial plan hits an unexpected turn. There’s a version of that reaction that looks like McEnroe. The setback feels like proof that something is wrong, that the plan was flawed, that we should have known better. That reaction can lead to avoidance, to panic selling, to abandoning a sound long-term strategy because the short-term discomfort feels like a judgment.
And there’s a version that looks like Jordan: the setback is information. What does it tell us? What might we adjust? What can we learn from this that makes us more prepared for the next time?
Neither response guarantees a particular financial outcome. Markets are unpredictable, and no mindset can control what happens to the global economy. But how we respond to uncertainty shapes the decisions we make inside that uncertainty. And decisions, accumulated over years and decades, matter.
Dweck’s research suggests something I find both humbling and freeing. The way we interpret difficulty is not fixed. The ten-year-olds in that Stanford lab weren’t born with a fixed or growth mindset. They were steered toward one by a single sentence. Which means we can steer ourselves, too, if we’re willing to notice where we’ve gotten stuck.
The Question Worth Sitting With
The thing I keep thinking about is Dweck’s moment at Harvard. She had spent her professional life studying the thing she most needed to learn. She already knew the research. She’d published the papers. And she was still caught in the pattern.
Knowing isn’t the same as doing.
So maybe the question for this month isn’t whether you believe in growth mindset. Most of us would say we do. The question is where you’re still operating from a fixed one without realizing it. Where is difficulty still a threat instead of a signal? Where have you been avoiding the mixed doubles for twenty years?
Dweck’s own answer took years to find. But it started with five words that I think are worth borrowing.
This is hard. This is fun.
If you’d like to explore how any of this connects to your own financial picture, we’d be glad to talk.
Lifeworks is a registered investment advisor. Information presented is for educational purposes only and does not intend to make an offer or solicitation for the sale or purchase of any specific securities, investments, or investment strategies. Investments involve risk and, unless otherwise stated, are not guaranteed. Be sure to first consult with a qualified financial advisor and/or tax professional before implementing any strategy discussed herein. Past performance is not indicative of future performance.