Scan barcode
yuzujam's review against another edition
4.0
Read for HGSE summer reading
I do not read many books on education- I much prefer fiction, fantasy books. However, I am glad I read this book- I was not very mindful of identity contingencies and really, how much of an impact they have on performance.
In writing about his own journey in the field, Claude Steele was able to make me follow in depth the subtle nuances of the topic. At one point, I thought how it may have been better if the book had been more concise and covered more studies and topics (such as more specifics on how to address these issues). However, because I followed his story, I feel that I gained a deeper understanding as well as connection to the topic. His story definitely stands alone as one book- ways to deal with the issue can be covered in another book. For those who already knew and strongly believed in identity contingencies may probably not have found this book super useful.
This book is definitely a good read for those entering education research as well as perhaps a good review for those already advanced in the field. But of course, this is just the beginning for me, I need to read more books.
PS: This was interesting to read after I read about the Global Achievement Gap. The common Achievement Gap would definitely benefit from addressing the identity contingency. How to address the Global Gap though?
I do not read many books on education- I much prefer fiction, fantasy books. However, I am glad I read this book- I was not very mindful of identity contingencies and really, how much of an impact they have on performance.
In writing about his own journey in the field, Claude Steele was able to make me follow in depth the subtle nuances of the topic. At one point, I thought how it may have been better if the book had been more concise and covered more studies and topics (such as more specifics on how to address these issues). However, because I followed his story, I feel that I gained a deeper understanding as well as connection to the topic. His story definitely stands alone as one book- ways to deal with the issue can be covered in another book. For those who already knew and strongly believed in identity contingencies may probably not have found this book super useful.
This book is definitely a good read for those entering education research as well as perhaps a good review for those already advanced in the field. But of course, this is just the beginning for me, I need to read more books.
PS: This was interesting to read after I read about the Global Achievement Gap. The common Achievement Gap would definitely benefit from addressing the identity contingency. How to address the Global Gap though?
metalphoenix's review against another edition
3.0
The premise of this book is really interesting and thought-provoking. The writing is terrible. I had a later edition and there were still multiple typos and errors. The same point is repeated over and over again; I assume in attempt to fill pages.
The run on sentences that somehow were still fragments, the never ending lists, the references back to earlier parts of the sentence in an attempt to reframe the sentence that was a run on and yet were fragments and repeated the words in a later part of the sentence, the overly convoluted phrasing (and parenthetical asides that unnecessarily prolonged the conclusion of the point) attributed to the sense that, there may have been no editor, and that, this author just stream of conscious-ed the whole thing, and that led to long sentences that had no point and could have made the non-existent point clearer given an editor.
Did you get lost in that? Imagine it for 200+ pages.
I just flipped to a random page and here’s a taste:
“Both psychology majors, who were under stereotype threat, and science majors, who were under less stereotype threat during this IQ test, seemed to be bearing a substantial cognitive load. It was something else that distinguished the two groups: the relationship between their heartbeat interval and how well they performed. The harder the science majors (under less stereotype threat) thought, as indicated by a more stable heartbeat interval, the better they did. But the harder the psychology majors (at risk of confirming the stereotype) thought, the more stable their heartbeat interval, the worst they did. Hard thinking for the science majors, under little stereotype pressure, reflected constructive engagement with the test. Hard thinking for the psychology majors, at risk of confirming the stereotype, reflected performance-worsening rumination.”
Another:
“For example, if alleviating stereotype threat in college led stereotyped students to “overperform” there in comparison to nonstereotyped students, it would mean that their underperformance in more typical college environments was likely due to the stereotype threat in those environments depressing their grades. It would also suggest that the earlier test of their potential, say, the SAT, underestimated their true potential since they actually got higher grades than the test would have predicted when stereotype threat was reduced in their later college environment—higher grades than nonstereotype students with the same SAT scores, for example”
It’s worth a read, but get ready to skim.
The run on sentences that somehow were still fragments, the never ending lists, the references back to earlier parts of the sentence in an attempt to reframe the sentence that was a run on and yet were fragments and repeated the words in a later part of the sentence, the overly convoluted phrasing (and parenthetical asides that unnecessarily prolonged the conclusion of the point) attributed to the sense that, there may have been no editor, and that, this author just stream of conscious-ed the whole thing, and that led to long sentences that had no point and could have made the non-existent point clearer given an editor.
Did you get lost in that? Imagine it for 200+ pages.
I just flipped to a random page and here’s a taste:
“Both psychology majors, who were under stereotype threat, and science majors, who were under less stereotype threat during this IQ test, seemed to be bearing a substantial cognitive load. It was something else that distinguished the two groups: the relationship between their heartbeat interval and how well they performed. The harder the science majors (under less stereotype threat) thought, as indicated by a more stable heartbeat interval, the better they did. But the harder the psychology majors (at risk of confirming the stereotype) thought, the more stable their heartbeat interval, the worst they did. Hard thinking for the science majors, under little stereotype pressure, reflected constructive engagement with the test. Hard thinking for the psychology majors, at risk of confirming the stereotype, reflected performance-worsening rumination.”
Another:
“For example, if alleviating stereotype threat in college led stereotyped students to “overperform” there in comparison to nonstereotyped students, it would mean that their underperformance in more typical college environments was likely due to the stereotype threat in those environments depressing their grades. It would also suggest that the earlier test of their potential, say, the SAT, underestimated their true potential since they actually got higher grades than the test would have predicted when stereotype threat was reduced in their later college environment—higher grades than nonstereotype students with the same SAT scores, for example”
It’s worth a read, but get ready to skim.
megryanreally's review against another edition
4.0
Might be interpreted as far fetched. Some may say it's impossible to isolate a factor like "stereotype threat" and control that in a lab, but across an array of studies inside and outside the lab, Steele convinces me that stereotype threats may have enough of an effect to not allow the person in question to do their best on any given task that is ability-stereotyped. I experienced this as the sole woman in a philosophy class and tried to understand why my ability seemed to lessen given one philosophy professor versus another. One gave me high praises, told me that I was fit for the major. While this lifted me up, it also made me feel skeptical. Can I trust his praise (women are often stereotyped as less able in philosophy and math like majors and careers)? I then performed significantly worse with a professor who I intuitively felt thought less of my abilities. Once he actually stated that I may be unfit, I began to prove him wrong (was it his acknowledgment of threat that allowed me to in turn acknowledge it and then gain power over it to defeat it?) Part of that is the narrative that was propagated and the way the feedback was delivered. There are huge implications in my role as a white teacher of majority black scholars. The narrative I elicit about themselves from them, the narratives I speak, my deliverance of feedback (meant to grow them into my high expectations), the ways I allow them to acknowledge stereotypes and offer another narrative IS huge. The idea that acknowledgment or simply stating a truth (reality of a threat) can actually diminish that threat or we can say, fear (speak it to gain power over it) is SIMPLE but completely LOGICAL and reproducible in Steele's studies and relevant in defeating the predicament of underperforming students (these students aren't lesser abled but so many other factors are at work to keep them there, one may being stereotype threat).
haleytaryn's review
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
4.0
A must read for folks on a justice-oriented journey.
lgmaxwell722's review against another edition
3.0
I appreciated he Steele made his research accessible in Whistling Vivaldi. This book looked at how stereotypes have a greater impact on our performance than we think, especially if that stereotype is negative, "women are not good at math." It made me think of the stereotypes we carry about ourselves and others and how it affects our interactions. I found the last section a bit hard to follow. Even if you are not a social psychologist like Steele I would still recommend this book if you are curious about stereotypes and the intersection of performance.
jwinchell's review
4.0
Stereotype threat has changed how I think about myself and others in social contexts. I see it in literature now- entire novels are written about how a character overcomes the debilitation of stereotype threat. After so many studies and so much nuance, I appreciated the concrete ideas educators can use to mitigate the threat and affirm multiple, intersecting identities.
mmuutthh's review against another edition
5.0
As I was finishing this book it made me wonder how many white people who, in 2020, made the motions to pick up Black literature and anti-racist texts have actually read any of them. I’m sure some have. But I bet we can guess what the majority’s answer would be.
All that to not quite pat myself on the back but just to say how continually reading these words by non-white people rewires the brain to consider these things. That is the goal right? So it’s in that vein that reading this book felt both enlightening and, similarly to reading James Baldwin or W.E.B. Du Bois, in seeing just how the lessons haven’t been learned; depressing. At least, unlike (but not wrongly) so many other books, Whistling Vivaldi looks to give evidence and signposts (not solutions!) that can be marked to make some headway.
Naturally with any science I would say I’d like to follow up on what this book presents, seeing as it’s from 2010, to see if any further evidence has been found to support or refute what is seen here. But nothing the book reports seems out of line. With the only issue really being how early in the book Steele points out someone calling him out on not including disabilities as a contingent identity, and he failed to include that on the multitudes of identities on the cover I have. It’s a nitpick but in this world of attempting to make people welcome — of equity — it’s also important.
But it’s a fascinating book and I would recommend anyone read it. Steele keeps it engaging and presents each of his colleagues in a slight, but painted imagery that individualizes them and helps to feel like I’m in the lab and finding these data with them.
All that to not quite pat myself on the back but just to say how continually reading these words by non-white people rewires the brain to consider these things. That is the goal right? So it’s in that vein that reading this book felt both enlightening and, similarly to reading James Baldwin or W.E.B. Du Bois, in seeing just how the lessons haven’t been learned; depressing. At least, unlike (but not wrongly) so many other books, Whistling Vivaldi looks to give evidence and signposts (not solutions!) that can be marked to make some headway.
Naturally with any science I would say I’d like to follow up on what this book presents, seeing as it’s from 2010, to see if any further evidence has been found to support or refute what is seen here. But nothing the book reports seems out of line. With the only issue really being how early in the book Steele points out someone calling him out on not including disabilities as a contingent identity, and he failed to include that on the multitudes of identities on the cover I have. It’s a nitpick but in this world of attempting to make people welcome — of equity — it’s also important.
But it’s a fascinating book and I would recommend anyone read it. Steele keeps it engaging and presents each of his colleagues in a slight, but painted imagery that individualizes them and helps to feel like I’m in the lab and finding these data with them.