A syllabus

[Exodus]

Welcome to [Literature 102]! As your Instructor, I am responsible for designing and running the recitation section and evaluating your work. The goals of this course are many: to make you better readers, better writers, and better thinkers, while we explore together some great works of literature.

Attendance and active participation in section are mandatory, and will count toward your grade. If you are unable to attend a class for some good reason, please contact me in advance to make your excuses and come to my next office hours to find out what you have missed. Bring your books to class every day (not all of them, of course : ) ).

The goal of the recitation is a lively and interesting discussion. My role is to lead the discussion, not to lecture. Come to section with something to say: a question, a comment, a disagreement, or some connection you have made. If discussion is boring you, don't fall asleep, object. Tell us what you think really matters. Challenge us to look at the book in a different way. Every comment counts; don't be intimidated to speak in class. I conduct classes in a very informal manner and may appear to ignore your comment. This is done to keep us on track. Make sure your comments do not make us digress. If they do, I, as a leader, may have to take law in my own hands and interrupt you and get straight to the point. Remember: this is done for organization purposes, and in no way for preventing you from speaking.

I think y'all should be able to easily determine the instructor's type, even based on such a short piece of writing.

Your analyses will be graded.

(note: I changed the name of the course for privacy.)

[aestrivex]

rational.

[Exodus]

rational.

D for effort. Please explain your reasoning...

[aestrivex]

appears to be highly focused on laying down the law, organizing everything, and being very up front about this organization.


nonetheless, i could see multiple types doing that. and this is not much information in and of itself.

[FDG]

Sounds like somebody I wouldn't get along with at all.

[Exodus]

Sounds like somebody I wouldn't get along with at all.

Ironic.

appears to be highly focused on laying down the law, organizing everything, and being very up front about this organization.


nonetheless, i could see multiple types doing that. and this is not much information in and of itself.

It's more than you might think. You are describing him well.

I believe he is ESTp. You can see he freely refers to Se concepts (challenge, intimidation) in the relatively generic context of a classroom discussion. He also values Fe in trying to create "lively discussion", and wants people to actively participate in a typical Beta way, voicing their opinions confidently.

I guess ISTj could also seem possible based on the syllabus, but his use of Se is far more prominent than his use of Ti (which is mostly limited to stating the basic - and non-negotiable - requirements of the class), and it's typical ExTp to say "If discussion is boring you, don't fall asleep, object." Also, to "conduct classes in a very informal manner" is not very IJ, and especially not ISTj.

Finally, you can see the conflict between Ti and Fi in the last few sentences.

It's funny, I think most of the discussion leaders for this class are probably Beta, since they are most likely hand-picked by the lecturer, who is ENFj. My last discussion leader was INFp, and the ESTp one had this to say about him: "you'll find that the pace of his class is a bit slower than mine..." (to which I replied: "what pace? ")

[FDG]

I actually though he was ESTp, too, from what I read.

I'm sure I'd butt heads a lot with a professor like this. Also, ignore comments? That's rude.

[aestrivex]

i don't agree that we should have been able to tell that from the pittance of information that we have here.

[Exodus]

? There is more than enough information; his personality is in practically every other word. I would argue that the last paragraph alone would be enough.

People vastly overestimate the amount of information necessary for typing. The real problem is to identify the information elements correctly.

[Wittmont]

Hmm, are you sure? I'm not sure I'd like an environment like the one the lecturer describes. There is something of a straightjacket and force feeding mindset there, that I don't feel is beta at all. The lecturer pretends he/she is a leader of the discussion instead of a lecturer, but says he/she will instantly revert back to the lecturer role and smack down any "unapproved" discussion (whereas I think a beta would revel in finding common ground and similarites in such a situation, and make their point that way). You can practically feel the imaginary ruler in the hands of the lecturer ready to hit you over the fingers with. To me this sounds like an ESTj or something pretending to be an easy going beta. (Make the GOOOOD choice, not the BAAAAD choice). Any beta trying to create a positive Fe learning environment this way would probably end up with students stewing in misery, instead of a positive learning environment.

[aestrivex]

? There is more than enough information; his personality is in practically every other word. I would argue that the last paragraph alone would be enough.

People vastly overestimate the amount of information necessary for typing. The real problem is to identify the information elements correctly.

you are vastly underestimating the complexity of people as people, and not as types.

[Exodus]

you are vastly underestimating the complexity of people as people, and not as types.

What makes you so sure? I am usually able to determine my professors' types within one meeting. Granted, professors are in a position where their type is even more obvious, since they basically have complete control over classroom interactions and how the class is taught. But people on this forum get caught up in interpretational issues that make socionics seem far more complicated and obscure than it really is. Rick made this clear in New York.

Hmm, are you sure? I'm not sure I'd like an environment like the one the lecturer describes. There is something of a straightjacket and force feeding mindset there, that I don't feel is beta at all. The lecturer pretends he/she is a leader of the discussion instead of a lecturer, but says he/she will instantly revert back to the lecturer role and smack down any "unapproved" discussion (whereas I think a beta would revel in finding common ground and similarites in such a situation, and make their point that way). You can practically feel the imaginary ruler in the hands of the lecturer ready to hit you over the fingers with. To me this sounds like an ESTj or something pretending to be an easy going beta. (Make the GOOOOD choice, not the BAAAAD choice). Any beta trying to create a positive Fe learning environment this way would probably end up with students stewing in misery, instead of a positive learning environment.

I'm not sure what to say other than his philosophy (as well as your exaggerated description of it) is obviously rooted in Beta values - all of them. People enjoy his class for the stimulating arguments and the funny stories.

The stuff you are looking for (finding common ground, a "positive" learning environment) sounds more like Fi and Ne than Fe and Ni. And he is anything but easygoing - typically Beta.

[aestrivex]

What makes you so sure? I am usually able to determine my professors' types within one meeting. Granted, professors are in a position where their type is even more obvious, since they basically have complete control over classroom interactions and how the class is taught. But people on this forum get caught up in interpretational issues that make socionics seem far more complicated and obscure than it really is. Rick made this clear in New York.

you are basically spewing bullshit.

i don't feel particularly compelled to continue this scintillating discussion.

[Exodus]

LOL, ok.

[Wittmont]

I'm not sure what to say other than his philosophy (as well as your exaggerated description of it) is obviously rooted in Beta values - all of them. People enjoy his class for the stimulating arguments and the funny stories.

The stuff you are looking for (finding common ground, a "positive" learning environment) sounds more like Fi and Ne than Fe and Ni. And he is anything but easygoing - typically Beta.

Well then it appears his approach is working, despite the rather austere course description. This is the type of environment I was looking for when I said positive learning environment - a stimulating Fe (happy and entusiastic) environment.

[Exodus]

ok, that makes more sense.

I was talking to another INTj in the class and he noticed how his discussion leader last semester was much more boring and formal than the ESTp one. It's probably an Fe/Fi quadra value thing.

[Expat]

I had no problem at all to see him as Beta; not so sure about ESTp specifically.

[Wittmont]

Aye, maybe that lecturer has simply learned to curb overenthusiastic students, and keep them from slacking

I do notice they laugh about the poor unorganized INFp teacher too >_<

[Rick]

LSI?

I noticed the emphasis on "my role is this, your role is that. My goal is this, your goal is that."

[Kim]

Compare:

This class needs your contributions and ideas to reach its full potential, so don’t be shy to share your insights. We will have small and big group discussions and hopefully a friendly class atmosphere will make everyone feel comfortable enough to participate. All contributions are welcomed as long as they are delivered in a respectful manner and at least in some way related to the course content.

[Kim]

LSI?

I noticed the emphasis on "my role is this, your role is that. My goal is this, your goal is that."

To me it indicates that the instructor is not flexible when it comes to group discussions. He probably cannot easily make connections between topics and issues and needs to stay on track to not venture into unknown territory. So an Ne PoLR makes a lot of sense to me. Making connections and welcoming different approaches, even if they seem unrelated, is what I most enjoy about teaching literature - students can come up with amazing stuff. My preference for Ne is probably uber-obvious when I teach.

[tcaudilllg]

Either ESTj or ISTj. I can't tell... it depends on whether or not the discussion was intended in as a general proposition or as an enforcement of the id's motives. "some great works of literature" sounds ESTj, because they are exhalting the literature as "great" without having a lot of confidence in thei exhaltation. Also he's conscious about limited time: his enforcement of his opinion is his means of making up for the limited classtime offered by the class.

[tereg]

I'm going to give an analysis, but I'm not confident enough in assigning IM elements for each part, but I think this might lend to them if I actually think after it's written out. Anyways, I'll do this paragraph by paragraph with things I feel like it's saying under the surface.

Welcome to [Literature 102]! As your Instructor, I am responsible for designing and running the recitation section and evaluating your work. The goals of this course are many: to make you better readers, better writers, and better thinkers, while we explore together some great works of literature.

In other words, the instructor is taking on the brunt of responsibility on their shoulders and is making this known to other people. They are staking claim to the boundaries, and will not accept them being crossed. The instructor's goal is not just contained within presenting the literature by itself, but to improve the skills of the students through it. The underlying subject matter and motivation of the teacher has been stated that the instructor wants the students to grow in skill sets, rather than simply presenting literature that the instructor thinks is necessary.

Attendance and active participation in section are mandatory, and will count toward your grade. If you are unable to attend a class for some good reason, please contact me in advance to make your excuses and come to my next office hours to find out what you have missed. Bring your books to class every day (not all of them, of course : ) ).

More stating clearly what the boundaries will be. But what's added here is the active participation. The instructor is actively going to get the students involved. This suggests to me a smaller sized, intimate classroom. The instructor obviously feels that vocal communication and participation by the student will facilitate the learning process that the instructor wants to achieve.

The goal of the recitation is a lively and interesting discussion. My role is to lead the discussion, not to lecture. Come to section with something to say: a question, a comment, a disagreement, or some connection you have made. If discussion is boring you, don't fall asleep, object. Tell us what you think really matters. Challenge us to look at the book in a different way. Every comment counts; don't be intimidated to speak in class. I conduct classes in a very informal manner and may appear to ignore your comment. This is done to keep us on track. Make sure your comments do not make us digress. If they do, I, as a leader, may have to take law in my own hands and interrupt you and get straight to the point. Remember: this is done for organization purposes, and in no way for preventing you from speaking.

The instructor has made it clear that they will be a mediator and a moderator. The instructor is obviously very comfortable in this role. The instructor is encouraging the discussion of different and opposing points of view, even ones that might appear hostile.

Ok, I might go back and figure out IM elements later, but I just wanted to type that out.

[tereg]

So, I guess that means SEI.

[Exodus]

tereg, you started off well, but where did you get the impression of a mediator? He is obviously not concerned with avoiding conflict (like an ISFp would be), but is willing to actively create it if necessary.

I had no problem at all to see him as Beta; not so sure about ESTp specifically.

His idea of Fi would be pretty hard for an ethical type to justify.

LSI?

I noticed the emphasis on "my role is this, your role is that. My goal is this, your goal is that."

I think it still points as a whole to ESTp. The syllabus format lends itself more easily to the use of rational elements (since it's about goals and things like that anyway).

[tcaudilllg]

Hey UDP, does that syllabus sound LSE to you?

[tereg]

tereg, you started off well, but where did you get the impression of a mediator? He is obviously not concerned with avoiding conflict (like an ISFp would be), but is willing to actively create it if necessary.

I think what my mind was trying to think of was something that described an overseer, and mediator came to mind. Being involved, but letting others carry the bulk of the process.

But then I thought of moderator.

I think it was just a matter of me using the wrong word for the situation I was trying to describe.

[anon50557]

hm, I guess I'd have to lean towards SEE on this one. Definately extraverted. There seems to be a lack of logic and intuition. and he doesn't seem to value extraverted ethics very much, which would exclude ESE.

[Wittmont]

I concur with LSI for this one. I have a LSI friend who is a part time police officer because he loves that job. He loves to talk about, and want to show, various baton grips to keep people down lol.

"As a manager he tends to put the screws on. He is tactful, sympathetic to people; however, he treats them rather like instruments." (socioniko.net)

[anon50557]

hm, except this guy has no "screws" to put on. The tough act is just an act, and he doesn't care much for either tact nor sympathy, preferring to incite argument where he perceives the "liveliness" in the discussion to be lacking, and in general provoking a reaction from people.