As a social construct, grit is accorded inflated significance for several reasons. For one thing, grit leans on popularized books like Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers with small population sizes, focusing on niche groups like music and chess, engagements with skills that are hardly reflective of the broader human experience.
Behaviorist economics goal is to remind us that we are irrational. There is likely both a halo effect and sunk cost around grit. Nevertheless, many people are heavily invested in the idea of grit, from buying books (e.g., Angela Duckworth’s Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance) to listening to podcasts and using that thinking to justify our actions, mainly because it’s a trait that we want to be known for (per Duckworth), “possessing courage, resilience, and unwavering determination to sustain efforts in the face of challenges and setbacks.”
But can we always trust the research we read? There is the Sokal hoax, in which a paper was submitted and accepted. Then, Brian Nosek and the Center for Open Science (COS) team had their paper retracted from publication. So, to properly evaluate the merit of skills like grit and practice, we considered them in the context of two of the most prominent research studies in sociology and psychology: Pavlov’s experiments on human conditioning and the Milgram experiments.
Pavlov’s experiments demonstrated that animals (and ultimately humans) can be conditioned. In the context of grit, these experiments raise concerns about the physiological consequences of prolonged exposure to grit in the military, sports, or high-stress corporate jobs. Milligram asked participants to continue shocking people who were noncompliant with demands. Surprisingly, many continued to do so to a degree that would have caused significant harm should the expert have been conducted on real people, not actors.
In the same way, we are asking people in our society to “grit” out situations that are not healthy. That approach has the potential to condition them in potentially unexpected ways. It may also create wiring (myelinization), which promotes aggression and anger while diminishing glial cells. This could impact the brain in ways we do not understand or consider, especially in self-awareness and restraint.
Let me be unequivocal: grit is not a reliable predictor of success. Likewise, neither is practice. In groundbreaking research with collaborators from Baylor and Ohio State, we delved into the darker side of grit, expanding beyond Duckworth’s narrow focus. Our more extensive population study across diverse demographics revealed that grit in sports can paradoxically undermine the benefits of participation, leaving some worse off. Future inquiries will explore the intricate links between injuries, political affiliations, loneliness, criminality, and grit—intuitively linked facets of the human experience.
So, what’s the way forward? Life is, in essence, an impromptu game with elastic rules. People’s play is related to their values and experiences. Fundamental values are fixed, whereas the principles of grit and practice are not.
In the short term, or when applied in moderation, there are no effects of using some grit or practice. In the short term, it likely leads to some dopamine and personal status faction. However, grit and practice can have negative consequences in the long term, such as indifference to the rules and pushing forward when you shouldn’t.
Success lies not in aspiring to transform everything into a competition but in the exact opposite: treating others as you wish to be treated. In moments of difficulty, the world doesn’t need grit or practice; it requires genuine care, grace, and humility. In life, grit is a slippery slope that justifies indifference if you want to be successful.
So next time you have the urge to be gritty or outwork someone, you will likely be better off if you spend time reflecting and thinking about other tactics to achieve your goal. You will be better off for it, and so will everyone else.
