David Juce

A professor quit a high-paying consulting job to teach math to seventh graders in a New York public school, and what she saw in that classroom launched the most important research on human achievement of the last 30 years. Her name is Angela Duckworth, and the question that haunted her from day one was deceptively simple: why do some kids succeed and others don't? It wasn't IQ. She could see that immediately. Some of her sharpest students were underperforming. Some of her slowest were grinding past everyone else. The variable she couldn't name was right in front of her face and it took her a decade of research at Penn and Stanford to finally pin it down. Here is what she found, and why it should change how you think about every hard thing you are trying to build. She started by going back to a famous experiment from the late 1960s. A Stanford psychologist named Walter Mischel brought four-year-olds into a small room one at a time, placed a marshmallow in front of them, and told them he had to leave. If they waited until he returned, they'd get two marshmallows. If they couldn't wait, they could ring a bell and eat the one in front of them right now. Most kids lasted about thirty seconds. But what happened over the next decade is what made Mischel's study famous. When he tracked those same children down years later, the ones who had waited the longest had SAT scores 210 points higher on average than the ones who rang the bell immediately. Self-control at age four predicted academic outcomes that most educators couldn't explain even after years of watching the kids up close. Duckworth was fascinated but she was after something deeper. Self-control explained part of the picture. It didn't explain everything. She thought about her own career early, scattered, unfocused by her own admission and compared it to people she knew who had found a mission at twenty-two and never let go of it. They weren't smarter than her. They weren't working harder than her in any obvious sense. They had something else. She called it grit. And the definition matters, because the word has been diluted into a motivational poster cliché that misses the point entirely. Grit, in Duckworth's framework, is not toughness. It is not working long hours. It is not refusing to quit when things get hard, although that is part of it. Grit is the combination of passion and persistence aimed at a single long-term goal over years and sometimes decades. The passion part is often misunderstood. She does not mean excitement or enthusiasm. She means the sustained fascination with a specific problem. The thing you keep returning to even when you don't have to. She built a twelve-question test to measure it. The Grit Scale. And then she took it into the field. At the University of Pennsylvania, students with high grit scores earned higher GPAs than their peers, even when those peers had entered college with stronger test scores. At the National Spelling Bee, grit scores predicted which children survived to the later rounds more accurately than hours of practice alone. But the finding that stopped the room every time she presented it came from West Point. Every year, West Point runs thousands of incoming cadets through a brutal summer training course called Beast Barracks. The military had developed its own complex evaluation tool called the whole candidate score to predict who would make it through. It factored in academic grades, physical fitness, leadership potential. Admissions teams had been refining it for years. Duckworth gave her twelve-question grit test to over twelve hundred cadets as they arrived. Her test outpredicted the whole candidate score. The cadets who dropped out weren't the weakest physically or the least intelligent academically. They were the ones who scored lowest on passion and persistence toward a long-term goal. The ones who made it through were the ones who had a reason to be there that was bigger than any single difficult day. The finding that most people miss when they hear about this research is the distinction Duckworth draws between motivation and volition. Motivation is wanting something. Volition is the ability to keep moving toward it when the wanting isn't strong enough to carry you on its own. You can be extremely motivated to build something and still quit at the first serious obstacle because you never developed the second thing. The marshmallow kids who waited the longest weren't the ones who wanted two marshmallows more desperately. They were the ones who had learned to redirect their attention, to think abstractly about the goal, to make the immediate discomfort feel smaller than the long-term payoff. That skill is trainable. That is the part that almost never makes it into the summary. Duckworth's research shows grit is only faintly related to IQ. There are brilliant people with almost no grit and ordinary people with extraordinary amounts of it. The raw intelligence gets you to the starting line. What happens after that is almost entirely determined by whether you have the combination of a goal worth caring about for years and the discipline to keep working toward it on the days when nothing is going well. Her TED Talk on this has been watched over 17 million times, which means the idea has clearly landed somewhere real in people. But the part that usually gets quoted is the definition. The part that actually matters is harder to talk about. You cannot manufacture grit by deciding to be grittier. What you can do is find the problem you are genuinely willing to be obsessed with for a decade. Not excited about. Obsessed with. And then build the systems around that obsession that make daily persistence the default, not the exception. The marshmallow test did not sort brave children from cowardly ones. It sorted children who had already learned that discomfort is temporary from children who hadn't learned that yet. Every gritty person you have ever admired figured out one thing the rest of the room hadn't: the goal on the other side of the hard stretch is more real to them than the discomfort standing between them and it. That is not a personality type. That is a decision, made early and remade every day.

A professor quit a high-paying consulting job to teach math to seventh graders in a New York public school, and what she saw in that classroom launched the most important research on human achievement of the last 30 years. Her name is Angela Duckworth, and the question that haunted her from day one was deceptively simple: why do some kids succeed and others don't? It wasn't IQ. She could see that immediately. Some of her sharpest students were underperforming. Some of her slowest were grinding past everyone else. The variable she couldn't name was right in front of her face and it took her a decade of research at Penn and Stanford to finally pin it down. Here is what she found, and why it should change how you think about every hard thing you are trying to build. She started by going back to a famous experiment from the late 1960s. A Stanford psychologist named Walter Mischel brought four-year-olds into a small room one at a time, placed a marshmallow in front of them, and told them he had to leave. If they waited until he returned, they'd get two marshmallows. If they couldn't wait, they could ring a bell and eat the one in front of them right now. Most kids lasted about thirty seconds. But what happened over the next decade is what made Mischel's study famous. When he tracked those same children down years later, the ones who had waited the longest had SAT scores 210 points higher on average than the ones who rang the bell immediately. Self-control at age four predicted academic outcomes that most educators couldn't explain even after years of watching the kids up close. Duckworth was fascinated but she was after something deeper. Self-control explained part of the picture. It didn't explain everything. She thought about her own career early, scattered, unfocused by her own admission and compared it to people she knew who had found a mission at twenty-two and never let go of it. They weren't smarter than her. They weren't working harder than her in any obvious sense. They had something else. She called it grit. And the definition matters, because the word has been diluted into a motivational poster cliché that misses the point entirely. Grit, in Duckworth's framework, is not toughness. It is not working long hours. It is not refusing to quit when things get hard, although that is part of it. Grit is the combination of passion and persistence aimed at a single long-term goal over years and sometimes decades. The passion part is often misunderstood. She does not mean excitement or enthusiasm. She means the sustained fascination with a specific problem. The thing you keep returning to even when you don't have to. She built a twelve-question test to measure it. The Grit Scale. And then she took it into the field. At the University of Pennsylvania, students with high grit scores earned higher GPAs than their peers, even when those peers had entered college with stronger test scores. At the National Spelling Bee, grit scores predicted which children survived to the later rounds more accurately than hours of practice alone. But the finding that stopped the room every time she presented it came from West Point. Every year, West Point runs thousands of incoming cadets through a brutal summer training course called Beast Barracks. The military had developed its own complex evaluation tool called the whole candidate score to predict who would make it through. It factored in academic grades, physical fitness, leadership potential. Admissions teams had been refining it for years. Duckworth gave her twelve-question grit test to over twelve hundred cadets as they arrived. Her test outpredicted the whole candidate score. The cadets who dropped out weren't the weakest physically or the least intelligent academically. They were the ones who scored lowest on passion and persistence toward a long-term goal. The ones who made it through were the ones who had a reason to be there that was bigger than any single difficult day. The finding that most people miss when they hear about this research is the distinction Duckworth draws between motivation and volition. Motivation is wanting something. Volition is the ability to keep moving toward it when the wanting isn't strong enough to carry you on its own. You can be extremely motivated to build something and still quit at the first serious obstacle because you never developed the second thing. The marshmallow kids who waited the longest weren't the ones who wanted two marshmallows more desperately. They were the ones who had learned to redirect their attention, to think abstractly about the goal, to make the immediate discomfort feel smaller than the long-term payoff. That skill is trainable. That is the part that almost never makes it into the summary. Duckworth's research shows grit is only faintly related to IQ. There are brilliant people with almost no grit and ordinary people with extraordinary amounts of it. The raw intelligence gets you to the starting line. What happens after that is almost entirely determined by whether you have the combination of a goal worth caring about for years and the discipline to keep working toward it on the days when nothing is going well. Her TED Talk on this has been watched over 17 million times, which means the idea has clearly landed somewhere real in people. But the part that usually gets quoted is the definition. The part that actually matters is harder to talk about. You cannot manufacture grit by deciding to be grittier. What you can do is find the problem you are genuinely willing to be obsessed with for a decade. Not excited about. Obsessed with. And then build the systems around that obsession that make daily persistence the default, not the exception. The marshmallow test did not sort brave children from cowardly ones. It sorted children who had already learned that discomfort is temporary from children who hadn't learned that yet. Every gritty person you have ever admired figured out one thing the rest of the room hadn't: the goal on the other side of the hard stretch is more real to them than the discomfort standing between them and it. That is not a personality type. That is a decision, made early and remade every day.

A professor quit a high-paying consulting job to teach math to seventh graders in a New York public school, and what she saw in that classroom launched the most important research on human achievement of the last 30 years. Her name is Angela Duckworth, and the question that haunted her from day one was deceptively simple: why do some kids succeed and others don't? It wasn't IQ. She could see that immediately. Some of her sharpest students were underperforming. Some of her slowest were grinding past everyone else. The variable she couldn't name was right in front of her face and it took her a decade of research at Penn and Stanford to finally pin it down. Here is what she found, and why it should change how you think about every hard thing you are trying to build. She started by going back to a famous experiment from the late 1960s. A Stanford psychologist named Walter Mischel brought four-year-olds into a small room one at a time, placed a marshmallow in front of them, and told them he had to leave. If they waited until he returned, they'd get two marshmallows. If they couldn't wait, they could ring a bell and eat the one in front of them right now. Most kids lasted about thirty seconds. But what happened over the next decade is what made Mischel's study famous. When he tracked those same children down years later, the ones who had waited the longest had SAT scores 210 points higher on average than the ones who rang the bell immediately. Self-control at age four predicted academic outcomes that most educators couldn't explain even after years of watching the kids up close. Duckworth was fascinated but she was after something deeper. Self-control explained part of the picture. It didn't explain everything. She thought about her own career early, scattered, unfocused by her own admission and compared it to people she knew who had found a mission at twenty-two and never let go of it. They weren't smarter than her. They weren't working harder than her in any obvious sense. They had something else. She called it grit. And the definition matters, because the word has been diluted into a motivational poster cliché that misses the point entirely. Grit, in Duckworth's framework, is not toughness. It is not working long hours. It is not refusing to quit when things get hard, although that is part of it. Grit is the combination of passion and persistence aimed at a single long-term goal over years and sometimes decades. The passion part is often misunderstood. She does not mean excitement or enthusiasm. She means the sustained fascination with a specific problem. The thing you keep returning to even when you don't have to. She built a twelve-question test to measure it. The Grit Scale. And then she took it into the field. At the University of Pennsylvania, students with high grit scores earned higher GPAs than their peers, even when those peers had entered college with stronger test scores. At the National Spelling Bee, grit scores predicted which children survived to the later rounds more accurately than hours of practice alone. But the finding that stopped the room every time she presented it came from West Point. Every year, West Point runs thousands of incoming cadets through a brutal summer training course called Beast Barracks. The military had developed its own complex evaluation tool called the whole candidate score to predict who would make it through. It factored in academic grades, physical fitness, leadership potential. Admissions teams had been refining it for years. Duckworth gave her twelve-question grit test to over twelve hundred cadets as they arrived. Her test outpredicted the whole candidate score. The cadets who dropped out weren't the weakest physically or the least intelligent academically. They were the ones who scored lowest on passion and persistence toward a long-term goal. The ones who made it through were the ones who had a reason to be there that was bigger than any single difficult day. The finding that most people miss when they hear about this research is the distinction Duckworth draws between motivation and volition. Motivation is wanting something. Volition is the ability to keep moving toward it when the wanting isn't strong enough to carry you on its own. You can be extremely motivated to build something and still quit at the first serious obstacle because you never developed the second thing. The marshmallow kids who waited the longest weren't the ones who wanted two marshmallows more desperately. They were the ones who had learned to redirect their attention, to think abstractly about the goal, to make the immediate discomfort feel smaller than the long-term payoff. That skill is trainable. That is the part that almost never makes it into the summary. Duckworth's research shows grit is only faintly related to IQ. There are brilliant people with almost no grit and ordinary people with extraordinary amounts of it. The raw intelligence gets you to the starting line. What happens after that is almost entirely determined by whether you have the combination of a goal worth caring about for years and the discipline to keep working toward it on the days when nothing is going well. Her TED Talk on this has been watched over 17 million times, which means the idea has clearly landed somewhere real in people. But the part that usually gets quoted is the definition. The part that actually matters is harder to talk about. You cannot manufacture grit by deciding to be grittier. What you can do is find the problem you are genuinely willing to be obsessed with for a decade. Not excited about. Obsessed with. And then build the systems around that obsession that make daily persistence the default, not the exception. The marshmallow test did not sort brave children from cowardly ones. It sorted children who had already learned that discomfort is temporary from children who hadn't learned that yet. Every gritty person you have ever admired figured out one thing the rest of the room hadn't: the goal on the other side of the hard stretch is more real to them than the discomfort standing between them and it. That is not a personality type. That is a decision, made early and remade every day.

🚨THIS IS WILD🚨 CBC's Rosemary Barton started out celebrating Mark Carney’s majority. Then a reporter called him “autocratic”… live on air. Watch what happens when he backs it up with receipts.