Children

[maze]

=)

[Joy]

when I was in first grade, I had so much trouble with timed tests that I was pulled out of school...

I was capable of doing mathmatic equations years beyond my classmates, but when asked to solve 2+2... in 30 seconds... I would end up in a hysterical crying fit. I don't recall much of what happened, other than doing many standardized and puzzle type tests at a psychologists office, and then being put of medication for a few years. My mother later told me that my first grade teacher was fired for the way she handled me.

[Fermi]

your mother lied

[Rocky]

I was capable of doing mathmatic equations years beyond my classmates,

but when asked to solve 2+2... in 30 seconds... I would end up in a hysterical crying fit.

This shows two things;

1) Women can deceive themselves if it makes them feel better.

2) Women shouldn't be allowed to take math with the guys.

[Kristiina]

This shows two things;

1) Women can deceive themselves if it makes them feel better.

2) Women shouldn't be allowed to take math with the guys.

hahaha... lol!


maizemedley, it's really cood to imagine the little boy being so happy.

[maze]

=)

[discojoe]

Children are a waste of life.

[maze]

=)

[Rocky]

In my mind, if ya know it...you should show it. I don't get how people are bad test takers. Never understood that.

lol, true. I think what it means is that they *think* they knew something until they were shaken out of their comfort zone. If you really, really know something, a test would be a walk in the park. For me, it's more of making the material a part of my world, and trying to get inside of it with the same understanding as say, riding a bike (do you ever forget how to ride a bike when you're timed?).


As for Darkside... I (hope?) what he meant was that youth is wasted on the young.

[discojoe]

No, I mean that little kids are an annoying burden. I wouldn't feel bad if my parents say they wish they had never had me.

[Joy]

1.) I'm a great test taker

2.) It was a private school

3.) My mother wouldn't lie if her life depended on it

[vague]

[Joy]

Children are a waste of life.

You will make a good father.

actually, he will

[Kristiina]

No, I mean that little kids are an annoying burden. I wouldn't feel bad if my parents say they wish they had never had me.

Some kids are simply adorable! Well... some aren't. I wanna have 3 or 4 adorable children, if they aren't, I'll push them back in. :wink:

I swear, I'm all about rush of accomplishment and moving on to another activity/learning experience. And there are kids that thrive on that. But it's those that don't that I'm like...WHAT DO I DO THEN??!!

I have no advice for you. I get all nervous and get the feeling "what the hell am I going to do?!", when a kid comes very close like she's trying to give me a hug. My first instinct (thought) tells me "get away from my personal space!" They probably sense it because it happens a lot more often to my ENFj (INFp) sister and she finds it really sweet and adorable.

[Joy]

Children are drawn to me. I love talking to them and teaching them things.

[Megan]

@maizemedley
Is it really a good idea to be typing (labelling) little children, especially other people's children who you are supposed to be teaching? This practice, I have to admit makes me extremely uncomfortable. If I had a child and I found out you were doing this to them, I would get very angry and take strong action against you...seriously.

Is there not a way to acknowledge and enhance the natural tendency of children without applying a label to them which could result in them acting out self-fulfilling prophecies and various restrictions? We can label ourselves whatever type we feel we could be but is it really beneficial to do this to children?

I do not even think it is possible to type children, I think personality takes a while to develop and become clear most times. The personality I myself have today is not the one I had when I was seven. I would have really hated it if my teacher was essentially trying to put me in a little box in her mind marked ESFp etc at that time.

Gosh maize, just acknowledge the children for who and what they are without labels. Is that so hard? Many teachers do an excellent job daily without the possible detrimental effects of these broad typings and the expectations and limits attached to them.

[Joy]

I've become addicted to labeling people (socionics)

[Kristiina]

I see nothing wrong with labeling people! Everyone does it anyway so what's the problem. If it's not socionics then it's stereotypes and that's much worse! :wink:

[Kim]

I see nothing wrong with labeling people! Everyone does it anyway so what's the problem. If it's not socionics then it's stereotypes and that's much worse! :wink:

I think Megan has a point here:

Is there not a way to acknowledge and enhance the natural tendency of children without applying a label to them which could result in them acting out self-fulfilling prophecies and various restrictions?

[FDG]

Girls, big time paranoia won't lead us anywhere. It's useless to scream "danger! danger! she typed a child". It's just a friggin socionics type, lol. No big deal. She just used it to explain to us better their behaviour. How can you infer that she has put them in a box, closed the box and already set the path for the ENTp to be an useless philosopher, for the ESFp to be a man-eater, for the INFj to die of martyrdom etc etc?????? It makes absolutely no sense. Look at the facts.

[Kristiina]

At least the child can't really understand socionics.

If you look at a kid and think, "mhh, that's the most Fe kid ever!" then other people just think, "such a little princess." (pink dress, lots of dolls...) And that does affect the kid. It's better to give them a label they would never understand. Pink is more of a Fi-color, but the kid who wears lots of pink is outgoing and has lots of friends and she was probably shaped by her parents who already stereotyped her. Knowing about socionics changes very little.

[FDG]

At least the child can't really understand socionics.

If you look at a kid and think, "mhh, that's the most Fe kid ever!" then other people just think, "such a little princess." (pink dress, lots of dolls...) And that does affect the kid.

Right. Most of the times, socionics is useful for NOT condamning the differences in beavihour, which are usually imputed to "she's too reserved" "he's too absent minded" "he's too emotional" and crap like that.

If I had a child and I found out you were doing this to them, I would get very angry and take strong action against you...seriously.

And this is the kind of crap that makes me want to scream. Instead of being happy that the teacher tries to find a medium in order to understand better, we just let the paranoia of anything new drive our actions, with the outcome of pejoring the life of both the teacher and our child, and possibly our own, too. Great.

[Rocky]

Knowing about socionics changes very little.

Agreed. People (teachers) formulate opinions about kids with or without socionics.

[Megan]

I see nothing wrong with labeling people! :

I am sure you really do not see anything wrong with labelling people .

Everyone does it anyway so what's the problem.

Because everyone does it does not mean there is no problem with it

If it's not socionics then it's stereotypes and that's much worse! :wink

Do we only have socionics and stereotypes available to us to make assesments of others? Can we just not engage with them and get to know them for who they really are if we really want to know them as unique individuals and not just some "type" of person?

[FDG]

Can we just not engage with them and get to know them for who they really are if we really want to know them as unique individuals and not just some "type" of person?

Duh, clearly the types are not done in order to figure out a person before getting to know him/her. That's lame. First you know the person, and then when problems arise you might assess their type in order to communicate more proficiently. And in no way pertaining to a certain set of behaviour makes anyone less unique, since the set is indeed really large, and still leaves out a big part of the personality.

[Joy]

I can't picture maizemedley treating a child in a way that is bad for that child because she think's he's an XXXx or whatever... her typing of these children seems to be more of an observational thing that she wouldn't hesitate to throw out the window if appropriate. I trust her Fe. Seems to me that in her particular case, it may even be a positive thing because she may be able to offer each child more appropriate stimulation with ideas that may not have come to her if she didn't have an awareness of functions. The little boy that made the pattern... would she have been as quick to praise him for that if she did not know anything about any of the personality theories? Maybe, maybe not.

[Kim]

Girls, big time paranoia won't lead us anywhere. It's useless to scream "danger! danger! she typed a child". It's just a friggin socionics type, lol. No big deal. She just used it to explain to us better their behaviour. How can you infer that she has put them in a box, closed the box and already set the path for the ENTp to be an useless philosopher, for the ESFp to be a man-eater, for the INFj to die of martyrdom etc etc?????? It makes absolutely no sense. Look at the facts.

There is no big time paranoia on my part, but I have a niece (3) and a nephew (8) who I have typed as ESTp and ENFj, respectively. And guess what, if you are as preoccuppied with Socionics as we are, it's easy to fall into the trap of "this should work with her Se" or "I should talk to him this way because xyz." I'm now making a conscious effort not to do that because it gets into the way of my natural interaction with them and could lead to the self-fullfilling prophecies mentioned by Megan. Plus it's pointless. I don't think anyone wanted to accuse Maize of having closed the box, but I, too, think typing children and being too aware of their types when interacting with them and when watching them interact is dangerous. Wouldn't the ESTp get away with stuff because s/he is Se-dominant while the ENFp would be considered mean (because out of character) doing the same things? And so on and so forth. I would not want my children typed by teachers.

I'm not saying there was any harm done (not at all), but I think there is a potential for a bunch of problems.

[Kim]

Seems to me that in her particular case, it may even be a positive thing because she may be able to offer each child more appropriate stimulation with ideas that may not have come to her if she didn't have an awareness of functions. The little boy that made the pattern... would she have been as quick to praise him for that if she did not know anything about any of the personality theories? Maybe, maybe not.

We don't know enough of Socionics and it's validity and credibility to use it in such a way. You cannot offer praise based on type...

[FDG]

Wouldn't the ESTp get away with stuff because s/he is Se-dominant while the ENFp would be considered mean (because out of character) doing the same things?

Why? You have to provide the motivation. If not, they're off-base, unsupported possibilties, that have as result only feeding useless paranoia.

[FDG]

Seems to me that in her particular case, it may even be a positive thing because she may be able to offer each child more appropriate stimulation with ideas that may not have come to her if she didn't have an awareness of functions. The little boy that made the pattern... would she have been as quick to praise him for that if she did not know anything about any of the personality theories? Maybe, maybe not.

We don't know enough of Socionics and it's validity and credibility to use it in such a way. You cannot offer praise based on type...

Maize was using the types to make us understand better the story. It's horrible to read into her story some kind of monstruos fiction of her ripping the ENTp's child brain in order to sell it to the black market for scientits, or something similar.

[Kim]

Wouldn't the ESTp get away with stuff because s/he is Se-dominant while the ENFp would be considered mean (because out of character) doing the same things?

Why? You have to provide the motivation. If not, they're off-base, unsupported possibilties, that have as result only feeding useless paranoia.

I have explained to you how easy it is to apply Socionics to kids and why I think it is problematic. I might be more forgiving when my niece gets aggressive because she is ESTp and scold my nephew because he is ENFj and supposedly Fe-dominant (I never would). Muster some Ne here, Fabie. There is certainly a distinct possibility that teachers will treat children differently based on type. Joy has pointed out such a possibility. It's not much of an issue at this point where teachers do not know Socionics usually. But I keep it out of my classroom for a reason and I wouldn't want my kids to be typed and observed as types. It's not useless paranoia, it's raising a valid concern.

[Megan]

Seems to me that in her particular case, it may even be a positive thing because she may be able to offer each child more appropriate stimulation with ideas that may not have come to her if she didn't have an awareness of functions. The little boy that made the pattern... would she have been as quick to praise him for that if she did not know anything about any of the personality theories? Maybe, maybe not.

We don't know enough of Socionics and it's validity and credibility to use it in such a way. You cannot offer praise based on type...

And we do not really know maizemedley and even whether she is an type and how she judges appropriateness. I like her too but that does not prevent me from wondering if what she is doing is serving the best interests of her pupils in the long term and if better methods are not available to help her achieve her goals without potential harm to her students.

[Kim]

Maize was using the types to make us understand better the story. It's horrible to read into her story some kind of monstruos fiction of her ripping the ENTp's child brain in order to sell it to the black market for scientits, or something similar.

Chill, nobody did that. My concern is not even directed at her per se. It's just an issue that came up.

[Joy]

Seems to me that in her particular case, it may even be a positive thing because she may be able to offer each child more appropriate stimulation with ideas that may not have come to her if she didn't have an awareness of functions. The little boy that made the pattern... would she have been as quick to praise him for that if she did not know anything about any of the personality theories? Maybe, maybe not.

We don't know enough of Socionics and it's validity and credibility to use it in such a way. You cannot offer praise based on type...

I agree. I wasn't suggesting that the praise was based on type, but merely that maizemedley's awareness of what Ne is allowed her to instantly notice what he had done and praise him for it. I guess I'm saying that an awareness of functions and of how different people use these functions allows us to be more openminded about the values of other people.

[Kim]

DANGER



Megan and Kim at work!

:wink:

[Joy]

And we do not really know maizemedley

oic

I've talked to her in PMs, so I'm more comfortable with placing this confidence in her.

[Megan]

And we do not really know maizemedley

oic

I've talked to her in PMs, so I'm more comfortable with placing this confidence in her.

I have talked to her in PM too. I still cannot say that I know her. I have a good impression of her and I suspect her intentions are good but I do not think that is enough. Who we are here on this forum is not always who we really are as people in real life.

[Joy]

this is true. I still do not worry much that harm will be done, though with a lot of people I would have that concern.

[maze]

=)

[aestrivex]

its interesting that you say that your knowledge of socionics benefits your tolerance of these students. in particular, its interesting because, as these are 5 or 6 year olds you're working with, its not really clear how much of that child's true personality will actually appear. the development of functions over time is not really documented in socionics that i know of, but considering the possibility that these children are less developed than their older type counterparts, its strange that you think of them as definite types and perhaps treat the types differently because of differences.

it occurs to me that so much development is occurring in children at that time, and they are gaining their experience of the world, so i tend to suspect that the differences you perceive are not really based on type but just on the experiences which these children have held prior.


anyway, this is not to say that any of what you're doing is negative. it's probably a very good thing to reach out to the children that are not really responding to your instruction, and if the influence of socioncs types helps you do this, keep typing.