To the extent that you can do some of this in your parenting, it's between net positive and neutral, but unlikely to be too harmful. "Have high expectations but be supportive" can't be a bad thing and certainly feels better than the other three quadrants, as long as your high expectations are something your child can actually achieve at their current level (psychologists also call this the "zone of proximal development").

That said, there are some giant red flags for this not being real science. Carol Dweck's Growth Mindset (linked at the bottom) famously doesn't replicate and is considered, in some cognitive psychology circles, like their version of homeopathy. A TED talk, a popular science book but no peer-reviewed paper behind it is a common sign of a particular kind of work.

For someone interested in digging deeper on a similar topic, I recently read the Psmiths' review of "Math from Three to Seven" https://www.thepsmiths.com/p/review-math-from-three-to-seven... about Alexander Zvonkin's attempt to teach children more advanced math. He got a group of children together, devised puzzles and experiments and games, and tutors and mentors a group of children for four years and it goes really well and he describes his methods and approaches in detail.

It's all both demanding and supportive, and works wonderfully. Has he found THE METHOD? The one in the appendix on "How to teach this stuff" in Erdos' vision of God's book ?

The punchline is that he tries it again with a different group of kids, and it completely fails.

The reviewers sum it up with a reflection on their own experience:

> This is just an extreme version of the universal experience of being the parent of more than one child.

Have a healthy distrust for any book that comes even close to suggesting a way that works for all children, everywhere.