Children

[Megan]

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?

Good questions. I see better your fears and the potential problems that you see ensuing.

I am well pleased Maize that you see the potential problems I see. Knowing the potential dangers, I cannot offer you any encouragement to continue what you are doing.

I'm pretty shocked at how well Joy understood the purpose of my praise towards the little boy.

Maybe you are the INFj I think you are and Joy is the ESTj you think she is :wink: .

And understood how crappy I might have reacted to him had I not known about socionics. Pretty cool. Like Joy said, had I not known about socionics...I'm not so sure I would have been quick to acknowledge the little boy for making the pattern. I might have thought he was PLAYING with the bears and wasting precious time instead of practicing his addition problems and accomplishing the task at hand (MY value).

Why is it that as a teacher you are [potentially] reacting in a crappy manner to your students' behaviours that you do not understand or like?
Is there some sort of alternative reaction that might be more appropriate in dealing with small children and your own emotional reaction to their deviances?

I can understand if you lose your temper occasionally as it is human to do so but I think that in your position, negative emotionality and reactivity must be put aside to reason, patience and personal self control while you are with the children regardless of how hard that is and whether you understand them and their behaviours or not.


You seem to need socionics at least to some extent to tell you that children do not follow the rules and timelines adults set for them and how a patient and understanding teacher can appreciate this quality in a student and manage it to a child's advantage.
Also, you cannot really say with much authority that and being ENTp was the reason the child was exploring alternative activities than the one you wanted him to. He could just not have been interested in what you were teaching at the time and you needed to see this and find an alternative way to engage his attention.

However, because I knew about socionics, I sensed he would get bored quickly with the 10 problem worksheet and tune out. When I saw that he had engaged the bears and was making a pattern, I felt that would be a good opportunity to encourage his creativity. It wasn't until I came on this forum that I actually had a better sense of how totally different the ENTp and I engage the world.

Well if socionics was what you needed to tell you that ENTps and indeed all people, including those of the same socionics type as yourself, engage the world in a different way from you, then socionics has probably down one good thing for you.

I mean, the kids that flow with my style and learn from my lessons are easy and it all comes naturally. I'm a big ole goofball and they laugh and love it and engage my lessons. I only consciously conjure up/imagine types for the kids, like that little boy, who continuously take their attention away from the goal at hand and/or lesson I'm implementing. Those that do not naturally flow with my values are the ones that I imagine benefit from me wanting to incorporate their values.

Do you think that apart from the children you consciously try to type that you may also be sub-consciously typing the others as well?

Since most of us have learnt about socionics/MBTI or whatever typing system we seem to type everyone we meet and know almost unconsciously.

Without socionics in mind, I get all dictator-like in the classroom. That's what I'm more worried about actually.

Getting dictator-like with young children is indeed a bad idea. Did you really need socionics in mind to tell you that?

I suggest that you should also be worried about whether you can or have typed these children correctly. Maybe you are applying an ISFj programme to an ENTp child. You really do not know that you haven't done this for certain. Think of the negative consequences of incorrect typing. When we sit on this forum trying to type ourselves and our friends and family, that is one issue, but when we seek to type other peoples' vulnerable children and apply progammes and engagement with them based on that when so much in unknown about the theory and correctly typing people is so difficult well I have to wonder if you are doing these children a great service. You might also want to consider whether upon typing them correctly if the benefits of knowing their type outweigh the negative possibilities of you knowing their type. I think caring for children is a very big and risky job and I know it is difficult and you are trying to do the best you can, however too much is unknown about socionics to be applying it to impressionable young children when there are other perhaps better tested techniques available to aid you in the understanding of each individual child regardless of their type.

[maze]

=)

[maze]

=)

[Megan]

I'm not really keen on the individual child the way I sense you would be.

Really?

Are you saying you are not keen on the individual child or are you saying that you are keen on the indivual child but in a different way from myself? I wonder how it could be the latter as you do not how I would be keen on a child's individuality.

If it is the former option, how exactly do you care for each child's individuality?

I did not say or imply either that the children are not happy with you and your class. That really has nothing to do with whether or not what you are doing makes good sense and is fair to the children. This is not about any type of feel good issue.

Also, how do you proposed to overcome the problem of correctly typing the children if it is at all possible to type them?

What effects do you think incorrectly typing and therefore labelling the children may have on them?

Honestly, I just want to know, I am not attacking you.

[maze]

=)

[schrödinger's cat]

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?

Why is it that as a teacher you are [potentially] reacting in a crappy manner to your students' behaviours that you do not understand or like?
Is there some sort of alternative reaction that might be more appropriate in dealing with small children and your own emotional reaction to their deviances?

I can understand if you lose your temper occasionally as it is human to do so but I think that in your position, negative emotionality and reactivity must be put aside to reason, patience and personal self control while you are with the children regardless of how hard that is and whether you understand them and their behaviours or not.

You seem to need socionics at least to some extent to tell you that children do not follow the rules and timelines adults set for them and how a patient and understanding teacher can appreciate this quality in a student and manage it to a child's advantage.

Megan, ALL people "type" all other people. All the time. Everybody does it. Interacting with anyone (adult, child, whatever) without "typing" them sounds lofty, but it's impossible. There aren't any blank slates. No one, not one person on earth, is able to NOT react in a crappy manner to behaviour they don't understand or like. That crappy manner often has nothing to do with a lack of patience, reason, or self control. It can merely mean deciding to be extra patient with the poor little boy who evidently seems to be so slow and unable to understand the task. THAT can still be a "crappy manner" if the boy was, in fact, neither slow nor stupid, but merely bored.

I can't see how Maize was attaching a label to him, or how she was being dictatorial and unable to see that children get bored more quickly than adults. That boy got bored even more quickly than the other kids - that was the point. I assume that the task itself was as child-friendly as she could possibly make it. And even so he got bored and started playing around. Her knowledge of socionics helped her to understand why he did that. So she didn't have to label him as "gets bored quickly, is unable to focus on a task" or whatever. Her knowledge of functions enabled her to find potential good she'd have otherwise missed. As I see it, that was the whole point of her story.

Well if socionics was what you needed to tell you that ENTps and indeed all people, including those of the same socionics type as yourself, engage the world in a different way from you, then socionics has probably down one good thing for you.

Was this Megan's point? As I see it, what she was getting at - and I agree with her whole-heartedly - is that a knowledge of Socionics helps you to understand behaviour you'd otherwise misinterpret. Take the obvious example: Sensors might finally get that Intuitives are not, in fact, "defective Sensors" or "dreamy people who should learn how to focus and become more grounded". Socionics and other typologies also enable you to better see the hidden good in people.

Getting dictator-like with young children is indeed a bad idea. Did you really need socionics in mind to tell you that?

Were you ever in the position where you were alone with a number of young children and had to make sure they did certain tasks without in the process killing each other or ruining the furniture? It's not always done with a quiet smile and a "tsk tsk". Getting dictatorial is a side-effect of being firm and authoritative.

As to the dangers of typing children: true. They exist. You're right. The argument is incomplete, however, if we do not take into account the dangers of NOT typing children. The most likely risk is what Kiersey calls the "Pygmalion program", i.e. wanting your kids to conform to your own values and rules. That risk is significantly higher, I'd suggest, for people who judge a child's behaviour without knowing about the different types. "Typing" a child once and for all cannot and should not be done, of course. But an awareness of functions can help when it comes to interpreting a child's behaviour correctly.

Finally, you seem to presuppose that typing someone means labelling them once and for all, and subsequently interpreting all evidence in the light of that one decision. From my experience, Judgers are very likely to see it that way, perhaps because it's how they themselves function? Perceivers, however, aren't like that. If we type someone, it's done tentatively. We don't write with indelible ink or hew in stone - we scribble a note in faint pencil onto a post-it. We can say "he's probably an ENTP" and merely mean that this is our working hypothesis which we'll use for the moment until the evidence points to something else. So the problem isn't quite as huge for us.

[Olga]

Ther are many interesting thoughts in this thread.

I believe that type is given genetically and unchangable ...but, we need better to understand many of the differences - dimensions. for example child ISFJ may be similar in some ways and idfferent in ohter ways to adult ISFJ. WE should not forget the process of the development. Model B suggests;

1. that children suppose to be in the extraverted stage of their development, more active, more creative, short attention span. they rely a lot on environment to provide them with stimulation. that means they go through the process of collecting collective conscious about this world in order to develop their inne awareness of it - produce internal individula conscoius. As if they use lots of irrational functions to develop rationality.

This stage makes childern -children! They suppose to like bright warm colours: red - emotionality, green -full of life and joy, yellow -attention seeking, sensitivity and strive for power/leading, orange being smart, accurate, clever, organised.

Pink -is romantic, idealised colour of being the other-centred versus red -being self- centred. -more of Superego block.

My definitions of colours may sound for some didotic for others...may be... and myself I am not sure either untill we study the colours and psychological qualities. I only know that the time has come to look at irrationality more seriously - because this is the direction to go. We ignored this issue for a long time or did not give it enough attention. I suggest we go back to the roots. It would be interesting to see if there is a pattern of colour preference in children of the same and different age.

[aestrivex]

It would be interesting to see if there is a pattern of colour preference in children of the same and different age.

there definitely is a preference of some sort, as i remember keenly from my own days of school. i always liked the colors purple, orange, and green. in first or second grade, i remember that it was strange how many people preferred the color red to my colors. in fourth grade, everybody had switched their favorite color to blue. this process simply confused me, since everybody who had previously preferred red now had switched over to blue. if you did a survey of kids these ages i think the results you would find would be overwhelmingly similar.


nonetheless, i am not ready to attribute this unusual behavior to psychological unity. it's conceivable that this type of behavior is representative of psychology, but if so, it is more likely due to common experiences of around that age. obviously, not all of the large number of people who select red or blue as their favorite colors will be the same type, and it is not likely that their favorites will remain red and blue for twenty years after the fact.

but, at any rate, if this correlation in color preferences is in any way related to psychology, then this essentially demonstrates that children are too similar to really type precisely. there may have been characteristics of my type before about sixth grade, but it was not until around then that i became very withdrawn from everything and reflective, as might be expected of an INTp.

[Joy]

My son used to tell me that his favorite color was orange, but my exhusband's fvorite color is orange, so I suspect that this may have influenced his decision. My exhusband is very smart, accurate, clever, and organized.... my son is smart and clever and accurate in a way... but is by NO means organized. I asked him was his favorite color was just now. The conversation went like this:

"Travis, what's your favorite color?"

"Why? What are we having?"

"Nothing, I'm just curious."

"Um... I have a lot of favorite colors."

"If you HAD to pick just one, what would it be?"

(after a moment of silence) "Red."

"Okay, thanks honey."

[Joy]

And yes, he's a VERY emotional child.

[Mariano Rajoy]

i wanted to praise maizemedley for her handling of the situation.

i agree with megan that "typing" could be negative, as hindering certain behaviors because your typological model falls short of reality.

however, i agree with maize in the fact that having an understanding of human behaviors allows a more tolerant view even if it comes from the less respected socionics. everyone is guilty of judging, and in the case of instructors, chastizing because of misunderstanding. i think maize did the right thing, and is not guilty of anything in the fact that she would not have been as tolerant without socionics. that is true of most, if not everyone.

maize is a teacher, and as such she is right in discouraging any behaviors that inhibit learning. i think she is heads above other teachers that have no or poor understanding of learning. i might be wrong, but it seems to me that socionics allows at least some access to learning at a deeper psychological level that is not present in current pedagogy.

[Megan]

It is true that we judge and make assuptions about people all the time with or without socionics. I think it is always clever to test these assumptions against reality and with an open mind.

My final point here is that Maizemedley is engaging in typing children when none of us here can say with any certainty whether children can even be typed. If it is true that children cannot be typed and maizemedley persists in this activity then it could be seen to be fruitless and potentially harmful.

Why take that risk? Is it really necessary? Could her goals not be acheived with methods that have far less unknowns attached to them than socionics has at present? Would it not be better to wait until more is known before jumping ahead all enthusiastically but possibly harmfully. Our subjects here are helpless impressionable children. I think maizemedley is essentially expirimenting with these children without the consent or knowledge of their parents. A lot of what is known about socionics and the variants affecting its operations is just pure speculation at the present time.


Most of my teachers catered to my learning needs without knowledge of socionics/MBTI or whatever system. They observed and acknowledged my behavoiur and tendencies. They did not label me with a big old brush called ESFj when I could actually have been something else. They were for the most part tolerant of me even when I was disruptive. Most good teachers do not need socionics in mind to not respond crappily to their students' uniqueness or disruptiveness maizemedley.

Maizemedley still has not said how she can correctly claim to be typing these children? She still has not addressed the issue of how mistyping these children can lead to her designing a programme for them that is not appropriate to their type and their needs.

All I am hearing for her is that the children seem happy. Well my pet seems happy even though I have not fed him in a while. Does that mean that what I am doing is to his benefit? Children in my experience, often seem happy with people who are abusive to them. I do not think that the emotional reactions of little children is all that is needed to evaluate the results of what she is doing.

I question whether someone who needed socionics to help her see that people engage the world very differently from herself is who I can trust to judge appropriateness. We might all be impressed that socionics has made her more tolerant but that is still not enough. Just because one good thing has been achieved does not mean that overall what she is doing can be judged to be effective and to be of benefit to the children in the long or short term.

[Mariano Rajoy]

there is no risk. if socionics is just pure speculation and does not reflect reality, then i would agree that it could be fruitless, but there is no harm done if that is the case. what socionics allows is the acknowledgment of more subtle behaviors and tendencies that would have escaped attention (given the body of observations), especially in the case of a 25+ student class. while not arguing for the validity of socionics specifically, i think it ok to spend extra time trying to understand each student individually; and using the cumulative observations and dichotomies that socionics provides, devising a heuristic or tactic upon which to devise a plan of action to be used with the entirety of pedagogical knowledge. i suppose i don't harbor the same fears/expectations about socionics that you do.

[maze]

=)

[aestrivex]

Our subjects here are helpless impressionable children. I think maizemedley is essentially expirimenting with these children without the consent or knowledge of their parents. A lot of what is known about socionics and the variants affecting its operations is just pure speculation at the present time.

I question whether someone who needed socionics to help her see that people engage the world very differently from herself is who I can trust to judge appropriateness... Just because one good thing has been achieved does not mean that overall what she is doing can be judged to be effective and to be of benefit to the children in the long or short term.

this seems pretty ridiculous to me. maize is TYPING these children. she is not abusing them by typing them. she is merely looking for patterns in their interaction and activities. while i do believe that the accuracy of her findings is probably dubious given the young age of her subjects, i have no idea how you're jumping from that to the idea that this activity is somehow harmful to the students. Its effect upon them, if at all, is extremely minimal and would only be influenced in maize's treatment of them. even so, it is not necessarily the case that this change would be somehow malevolent or unproductive.

i do not really understand how you can claim that maize's actions have a solely negative effect on these children. in my opinion, if her ponderings and musings of the personalities of these children allows her to be more tolerant of them (which seems to be the case from her description of the situation), then by all means, think it through. of course this is not a professional assessment, and the data which maize collects is useless but for her own interpretation of the students. nonetheless, i still do not see how it could be perceived negatively.

[Olga]

I wonder what type is Megan? Her line of thinking seems to relate to or . I think the arguement is going around versus and versus .

Those types who respect the official knowledge, obedient to authority will be reluctant to use "unproved" product/knowldege especially in the area where they themselves do not feel confident. Their mission is then to worn about the possible dangers. Which is true to a degree and it is a good thing to be cautious. But on a large scale I don't think it will be able to stop those who has abilities to try it out - it will happen naturally. Once knowldege is in your head - it is working, it can be compared to a seed which falls into the compost. We all do mistakes - but this is just the way to progress - no other way. Shall we be scared about it?

If you really want to change the knowldege you should not be scared to take your feet from the ground, empty your mind from the burden of education and do it your own way. If you enjoy children's world - you must be a bit of a child yourself and if you have Love in your heart - nothing to worry then.

[Slacker]

I don't see any danger in trying to get an idea of what a child's type might be. It isn't like she's going to brand it onto their foreheads so everyone from now on will treat them in a particular way.

And if she guesses wrong and something doesn't work for a particular child, I imagine she'll keep wondering what that child's type is and try something else.

[Megan]

this seems pretty ridiculous to me. maize is TYPING these children. she is not abusing them by typing them. she is merely looking for patterns in their interaction and activities. while i do believe that the accuracy of her findings is probably dubious given the young age of her subjects, i have no idea how you're jumping from that to the idea that this activity is somehow harmful to the students.

Let me explain why I do not think it is ridiculous. Maizemedley is not yet a fully trained and qualified teacher. To me she is grasping for methods to help her understand her students better and this is admirable. You seem to think that what she is doing might be fruitless but not harmful. I think what she is doing is potentially fruitless but also potentially harmful. I do not know which of us is right but I prefer to be more cautious about things that relate to children. Socionics in my mind is a theory that has not been tested to any degree. That does not mean that the theory is without value. It just means that more work needs to be done on it before we start using it on children who are more vulnerable to labelling and acting out self-fullfiling prohecies than adults. I would not want a child to adopt and take on a personality or character potentially for life that is just not who they are simply because maizemedley influenced them to think they are what they are not with her faulty typing. Too many of us are already living out programmes given to us as children that do not reflect the reality of who we really are. This has all sorts of disastrous consequences in adulthood.

The imput determines the output usually. The dangers I see is that maizemedley might spend her time typing these children (when it is not even known if children can be typed) most likely incorrectly and then designing and implimenting a programme for them that does not meet their true needs and waste her time and theirs while doing it. While this is happening, the children's real educational and psychological needs will be partially or totally neglected by default. This is not a small matter in my mind. If incorrect information is used to design the programme then the results will reflect that.

Its effect upon them, if at all, is extremely minimal and would only be influenced in maize's treatment of them.

Please tell me how you know that? Are you not just speculating?

I would hate if someone had labelled me the one with the polr at 6 years old and treated me according to that assumption. At that stage of my life, it might have influenced and prevented me from doing many of the related things I have done and enjoyed. I would prefer if children and even adults discovered their limits and weaknesses naturally without some theory saying yes you have as a weakness when you in fact do not have this weakness or have found some way to overcome it.

Again, because most children are quite vulnerable and impressionable, I really do not think theories without a good evidence based should be used to try and understand or design programmes for them.

In the country where I currently live, educators decided to move away from the phonics method to teach children to read and began using others methods which were not very well tested but were advanced by some powerful educators with good intentions. After a few years of much testing, it has been shown that the new methods were associated with all sorts of unexpected negative effects upon the way most children learnt to read and that led to a higher rate of illiteracy in the adult population than would normally have been expected. They have now gone back to phonics to teach reading and have acknowledged that never again should unproven methods be used on unformed minds because of the disastrous results it produced.

even so, it is not necessarily the case that this change would be somehow malevolent or unproductive.

Personally, intentions are not that important to me in the long run...results are. Also, If she is going to use socionics on the children she needs to let the parents and the school administartors know so that they can decided for themselves if what she is doing is appropriate or not. I prefer to give responsible parents the power to decide what is right for their own offsprings.

i do not really understand how you can claim that maize's actions have a solely negative effect on these children.

I said potentially negative effects. You nor I know the consequences of maizemedley's actions. We have not done a risk/benefit study. Maizemedley is the only one seeing the effects (perhaps to a limited extent only) and all she is saying is that the children seem happy and nothing else as if that is all that mattered.

[anndelise]

Megan, don't teachers already respond to children based on the teacher's own understanding &/or perceptions of each child? Isn't that part of human nature? Don't each of us respond to other individuals/groups based upon our own understandings, perceptions, beliefs, etc.?

[aestrivex]

thank you for explaining yourself, megan. now i at least have some idea where you're coming from.

you seem to be suggesting that the treatment of these children in a particular manner will significantly influence their roles and activities in class, and the expectation of their behaviors will continue to influence them in the future.

i do not really agree with this. according to maize's descriptions, the actions that she seems to be taking is that of understanding the psychological motivation behind these children, as to why they do or do not participate in class, why they may be excelling in certain areas of study while lagging behind in others, etc.

i agree with you entirely that socionics is a mere unproven theory. however, i think it explains things more accurately than most other theories. nonetheless, i do not generally believe that things like the areas of study in which a student might excel can be successfully determined by their socionics type, or vice versa (even though these are children, whose minds and capacity for intellect may be better reflected by their personalities).

nonetheless, we obviously agree that the treatment of these children is differing at least slightly based on maize's observations. in my opinion, the effect of maize's conclusions will be rather minimal on her treatment. certainly, if i were in maize's position, given my interest in the field of socionics i would probably also type these children, but i would certainly not exclude them from any activity and would attempt to treat them the same as any other students, which would not be particularly difficult as the great majority of their instruction presumably comes from the addressing of the class as a whole. additionally, no students would be excused from any activity because "he's an ISFp, so his spatial reasoning is probably not well developed"

obviously i cannot say definitively that maize is taking this type of approach, but that was the impression i received from her description. based on this type of treatment of the students, i do not see how a negative connotation could be expressed.

[Rocky]

I wonder what type is Megan?

Umm... she's (hence the moral critiques).

[Megan]

@Rocky: I get very different impression or are you joking? I am very bad at understanding jokes by the way.

I understand worries of Megan and we all know very awfull examples from real life regarding puting children on the wrong direction. However,
in the Maze's case I feel only postitivity and would like to give her full support. Socionincs is not at the stage of telling people how to treat each other - that will depend on the quality of your soul which is not related or depend on how much knowldege is in your head and how much of that knowldege is officialy proved.

Socionics is at the moment giving you info about pleople, their possbile relationships and what I am doing or we are doing on this forum - is digging deeper for the answers. At the moment I am digging into collective unconscious by activating my individual unconscious and that of the others - interactive process which will hopefully will bring us some "fruits".

[Rocky]

@Rocky: I get very different impression or are you joking? I am very bad at understanding jokes by the way.

... no, I wasn't joking...

[Megan]

Actually, Rocky my criticism of Maize is not really based on what I think is the moral or good or bad here. I am more concerned about the effectiveness and benefit of her methods as applied to children given the little information currently available about socionics and its impact. I do not have anything against maizemedley personally either though some of the things she has said both on the open forum and in PM gives me the impression that she has a whole lot of real resentment towards certain logical types and delta members and I do wonder if she is able to manage her feelings when dealing with children she identifies as being of those types who might be her students.
She does seem, at least to me, to have some issues with emotional control as evidenced by her responding "crappily" to students that she did not understand before she gained knowledge of socionics. Why was there a need on her part to respond crappily to children she did not understand I wonder? Like I said before, I do not know the person she is in real life and so I do not feel that comfortable placing a lot of faith in her judgements. This is not about whether I like her personally or not. I get the impression that she is a honest, well intentioned person but that does not mean that she will not cause harm or pursue a wasteful, fruitless path inadvertently.

[Raver]

Personally I don't think Maize did anything wrong. I can't really see the fault of typing other people or your students if you keep it to yourself. Now, if she decided to stick real labels on the children with ENTp and ESTj on them and started calling them by those labels, that's a whole other story.

Being a swim instructor, I tend to refrain from typing my students, since I don't really find it would aid me in the teaching process. What tends to benefit me is understanding the manner in which they learn. Like for example, I can think to myself and realize that one student is a visual learner and another is a verbal learner. I try to implement more variety if a student despises repetition or I build structure if a student despises unpredictibility.

[Megan]

I can't really see the fault of typing other people or your students if you keep it to yourself.

Even if you keep it to yourself, your thoughts tend to be reflected by your actions towards others eventually.

Now, if she decided to stick real labels on the children with ENTp and ESTj on them and started calling them by those labels, that's a whole other story.

...But she did give the children these type labels and she did treat them according to these labels when she did not even know if they can be typed ...perhaps wasting her valuable and limited time and theirs in the process and almost covertly expirimenting on the children's mind.

Being a swim instructor, I tend to refrain from typing my students, since I don't really find it would aid me in the teaching process.

I think this is good idea... well at least until more is known about socionics and whether children can even be typed and the effects of this typing upon them and better methods exists for typing people correctly generally.

I think socionics may potentially be of value in education but I think more has to be known about its effects and efficacy first before applying it to young children just yet.
If maize was using this on adult learners who are less prone to the negative effects of mass psychological type labelling and potentially incorrect typing at that and could intervene if some ineffective method was being used on them, I would probably think what she is doing is more likely to be benign.

Also, when you think you know your own type other people now have a personal, subjective and systematic relationship to you, an ESTj child or adult for example, is not just an ESTj, he is also your conflictor or whatever. Maizemedley had knowledge of socionics when she wrote that about ESTjs "were attacking her soul" but it really did not make her more tolerant of their and it effects on her and so I question whether knowledge of socionics has truly made her more patient and tolerant of the qualities of certain types (even the children) that she has difficult relations with.

What tends to benefit me is understanding the manner in which they learn. Like for example, I can think to myself and realize that one student is a visual learner and another is a verbal learner. I try to implement more variety if a student despises repetition or I build structure if a student despises unpredictibility.

I think I basically like your method at least at first glance. It seems to display a degree of flexible responsiveness that actually considers the individual a bit more on several levels and I know that some credible research has been done on the learning styles of visual/verbal learners. I do hope the method benefits not just you but your students as well.

Please tell me, how do you know which are visual and which are verbal learners and do you see any "hybrids" of this style amongst your students?

[Olga]

Megan, I see a great potential in what you are writing. It does not feel though as if you are INFJ - to me - which is a great fun to understand what is it exactly goes on: what functions are at work?
You wish people consider more seriously what they are doing, you question their credibility and wish them to take responsibility for their actions. It is a critical position: you question what is right/not right to do and who should be responsible. I could go deeper into analysing this arguement but I am not really up to it.
I picked up on a different matter which is more interesting to me: the state of socionics at the moment. On one hand once you know types' description you can hardly distance yourself from not doing it at all. I rearily trust my feeling until I feel very certain. If I am not certain -I don't care to think about it. Only if it strikes me - the thought/feeling comes from nowhere(call it subcounscious?) - then I know it too (individual conscious) - but I do not always trust the feeling untill I can "touch it" :wink: + .
I think it woud be a good idea to take the negativie expression from the socionic theory and find more neutral wording for describing the intertype relationships. I find it disgusting to name somebody as conflictor or supervisor - this is already stereotyping in a very bad manner. I can not believe that I will have bad relationship with all my conflictors and supervisors. I think socionics miss on something very important: humans are not machines, their development is flexible and their personality can not be confined to one particular box and explained by the label on that box. The same is with the relationships. I have got a big family in Russia and I did get on very well with everybody: I loved them and they loved me, the type seems to be secondary to relationships in this case.

[Megan]

Megan, I see a great potential in what you are writing. It does not feel though as if you are INFJ - to me - which is a great fun to understand what is it exactly goes on: what functions are at work?

Really? Then you might want to tell me what type you think I might be then. I am open to your views. I think it is most likely that I am an INFj intuitive subtype but do remember that people are more than just a type. There are other factors that makes us who we are as people. I do not experience myself as being a ultra sweet, passive, touchy feely person if that is what an INFj is supposed to be. I do not really feel that passive is a good quality to have generally but most things are just not that significant to me to bring out the little I have and I do also think that emotional factors are not the only ones to consider in most situations. I think that is what you are picking up on.

I think it woud be a good idea to take the negativie expression from the socionic theory and find more neutral wording for describing the intertype relationships. I find it disgusting to name somebody as conflictor or supervisor - this is already stereotyping in a very bad manner. I can not believe that I will have bad relationship with all my conflictors and supervisors. I think socionics miss on something very important: humans are not machines, their development is flexible and their personality can not be confined to one particular box and explained by the label on that box.

Olga, I agree with you entirely on this. I cannot blame socionics for how some people have an exageratedly negative view of certain relationships or a certain socionics type based on a description. Personally, I sort of see the descriptions like some people see the bible (or any other religious book), that is, not everything that is written there should be taken absolutely literally.

[Raver]

...But she did give the children these type labels and she did treat them according to these labels when she did not even know if they can be typed ...perhaps wasting her valuable and limited time and theirs in the process and almost covertly expirimenting on the children's mind.

I understand what your trying to convey because labelling people without their knowledge is wrong if you treat them in a more negative fashion, but I highly doubt her intentions were for ill and that is why it doesn't matter.

Also, when you think you know your own type other people now have a personal, subjective and systematic relationship to you, an ESTj child or adult for example, is not just an ESTj, he is also your conflictor or whatever. Maizemedley had knowledge of socionics when she wrote that about ESTjs "were attacking her soul" but it really did not make her more tolerant of their and it effects on her and so I question whether knowledge of socionics has truly made her more patient and tolerant of the qualities of certain types (even the children) that she has difficult relations with.

Well, my best friend is an ESFp and that would lead me to stereotypically believe that our relationship is carefree and easy-going. However, it is not completely the case and it has been turbulent in cases where he would attack my mode of behaviour and statements I made. With my knowledge of socionics, I know this is and tension, therefore it helps me understand why he is doing it.

I think I basically like your method at least at first glance. It seems to display a degree of flexible responsiveness that actually considers the individual a bit more on several levels and I know that some credible research has been done on the learning styles of visual/verbal learners. I do hope the method benefits not just you but your students as well.

Please tell me, how do you know which are visual and which are verbal learners and do you see any "hybrids" of this style amongst your students?

Thanks, it does help the students because it enables them to comprehend what I am teaching them and it allows me to understand why they have difficulty attempting something one way. Deciphering between a visual and a verbal learner is relatively easy. I basically tend to demonstrate to them a technique visually. The same goes with me explaining it verbally. I would ask what was more understandable out of the two and they will tell me. If they cite neutrality or dual understanding then I will talk and display visually the procedure simultaneously. This one just one very small aspect about understanding types of learning and it is best to grasp the entire picture of learning in order to enable a fully immersive learning experience.

[Megan]

I understand what your trying to convey because labelling people without their knowledge is wrong if you treat them in a more negative fashion, but I highly doubt her intentions were for ill and that is why it doesn't matter.

What is that little old saying? "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" or something like that. Anyway, because a person's intentions are good that does not mean in the least that the actions arising from their intentions are good for or benefical to the other person(s) involved. I think you might have missed my point throughout because I have never been concerned about Maize's intentions or even whether she has a good personality. Assuming what she is doing is without a solid evidence base and potentially ineffective, an intrisically ineffective tool will not become more useful or powerful in the hands of a nice person. I am sure that you can think of numerous situations where good intentions led to harm. Also, I do not want reassurances of Maize's character because I do not need it and quite frankly, you cannot really provide it.

Well, my best friend is an ESFp and that would lead me to stereotypically believe that our relationship is carefree and easy-going. However, it is not completely the case and it has been turbulent in cases where he would attack my mode of behaviour and statements I made. With my knowledge of socionics, I know this is and tension, therefore it helps me understand why he is doing it.

And again you missed it. Sure socionics can be a tool to help a person be more tolerant but it is not always so and certainly not for everyone. Maize is still saying that ESTjs and their is "attacking her soul" even after knowledge of socionics. I think it is fair to question if with an attitude like that she has become as tolerant to the functions of others and there effects upon her as she thinks or whether she is still percieving the behaviour of others too personally.

Thanks, it does help the students because it enables them to comprehend what I am teaching them and it allows me to understand why they have difficulty attempting something one way. Deciphering between a visual and a verbal learner is relatively easy. I basically tend to demonstrate to them a technique visually. The same goes with me explaining it verbally. I would ask what was more understandable out of the two and they will tell me. If they cite neutrality or dual understanding then I will talk and display visually the procedure simultaneously. This one just one very small aspect about understanding types of learning and it is best to grasp the entire picture of learning in order to enable a fully immersive learning experience.

This is very interesting. Thanks for explaining it.

[Kim]

Megan, I see a great potential in what you are writing. It does not feel though as if you are INFJ - to me - which is a great fun to understand what is it exactly goes on: what functions are at work?
You wish people consider more seriously what they are doing, you question their credibility and wish them to take responsibility for their actions. It is a critical position: you question what is right/not right to do and who should be responsible. I could go deeper into analysing this arguement but I am not really up to it.

I'm very sure Megan is INFj and in this thread, she clearly shows how is at work with . I daresay that Megan is not out to question anyone's credibility or does not want anyone to take responsibility. It is rather about raising concern about what Megan (and I do, too) perceives as a potentially dangerous use of a half-baked theory.

And INFjs are anything but passive. Just look at Diana! :wink:

[Gilly]

God, you are SO PC it hurts.

[Kim]

God, you are SO PC it hurts.

Feel the pain, ENTp!

[Olga]

I do not like to suggest the type directly, especially when I know very litle about the person, it may be better to give it a time untill the person feels more certain herself/himself.

Yes, I do feel Megan as powerful and drawn to structural knowldege . I also can easily imagine her being in a autoritive position. She may have good organisational skills, ability to look after a "mechanism" in order to provide a proper/smooth work. This is just a feeling which can be wrong - I do know very little about Megan or Diana.

I dobt that INFJs can protect themselves with such a power or put their point across in this way?

[Slacker]

Kids are not that delicate. So long as teachers don't assume they are absolutely right, this could not possibly be a big deal. In fact, even if a teacher assumes he/she is right and therefore doesn't give a kid what he/she needs,it wouldn't destroy the kid's life. The next teacher around might "type" the child more accurately and meet the child's needs better.

The fact is that teachers have been "typing" students forever. Socionics typing isn't any more or less dangerous than any other assumptions or typing that have been done before.

I think if a teacher is trying to figure out how to communicate to a student in a way that works for the student, that's a good thing.

[Mariano Rajoy]

The fact is that teachers have been "typing" students forever. Socionics typing isn't any more or less dangerous than any other assumptionsor typing that have been done before.

well put. the limits of socionics, and teachers, should be made more explicit in this instance.

And again you missed it. Sure socionics can be a tool to help a person be more tolerant but it is not always so and certainly not for everyone. Maize is still saying that ESTjs and their is "attacking her soul" even after knowledge of socionics. I think it is fair to question if with an attitude like that she has become as tolerant to the functions of others and there effects upon her as she thinks or whether she is still percieving the behaviour of others too personally.

attacking your conflictor is one of the cathartic perks to socionics. it is not directed at a specific person, and other poeple can identify with you on this forum. no one on the forum faults maize for this because it is a part of the culture. relax. there are far less causal mechanisms at play that would warrant the concerns presented.

[Megan]

The fact is that teachers have been "typing" students forever. Socionics typing isn't any more or less dangerous than any other assumptionsor typing that have been done before.

well put. the limits of socionics, and teachers, should be made more explicit in this instance

I do not really think it is necessary to type people with broad general labels and design programmes for them based on these labels, people are far more complex than these labels imply.

I do know that some teachers have been applying stereotypical labels to children forever, I do know that we all "type" people (usually by applying some sort of inapparopriate and unrealistic stereotype) but I do not think that that argument can be used as a reason to continue doing so if we do not have to. I think it is better to look at each person as an individual with indivual needs and characteristics rather than as a person who is just like all those other person in a particular group.

I think it is broad general labels that led to things like sexism etc at its worst. The sort of thinking that says you are from this group so you are this kind of person and I will treat you accordingly.

attacking your conflictor is one of the cathartic perks to socionics.

Maybe you need other cathartic perks. I have no real reason to attack my conflictor, they are who they are as I am who I am. I feel responsible for myself and my own reactions to things and other people. I really try not to blame others for my shitty moods or whatever though I must confess that on a bad day it is difficult not to apply blame to others for my own reactions to them.

it is not directed at a specific person, and other poeple can identify with you on this forum. no one on the forum faults maize for this because it is a part of the culture.

Again, I do not understanding your reasoning. You seem to be saying that there is no problem with this because it is part of the culture. I see lots of problems with people just acting out whatever script is given to them culturally when perhaps some of these cultural characteristics do not serve our best interests and should be challenged.
I think it is only by challenging some of our cultural norms that they can be changed or improved.

there are far less causal mechanisms at play that would warrant the concerns presented.

I do not think you have any evidence except for your own opinion to support this assumption. I have however respectfully listened to your opinions but I disagree with them in the main for the reasons I have mentioned before.

[Slacker]

It isn't necessary. It also isn't "dangerous" as you said earlier. At least it isnt' any more dangerous than any other assumptions teachers have made about students over history.

[Megan]

It isn't necessary. It also isn't "dangerous" as you said earlier. At least it isnt' any more dangerous than any other assumptions teachers have made about students over history.

I did not say at any point that it was dangerous. I said it was potentially so. There is a difference.

I also do not remember using the word dangerous in any case but I cannot be bothered to go over this entire perhaps now boring to me topic to check.

I mainly said that it is perhaps useless and lacking in benefits and might actually lead to a neglect of the childrens' real needs if the typing is incorrect which it is very likely to be and this may be a waste of the children's time. I also said it might not be possible to even type children, again making the whole exercise fruitless.

We are not here discussing the merits of other systems or what other teachers have done in the past. I think you must be able to see that that has no direct relevance to this discussion about socionics and the education of children. Nevertheless, because some teachers are out there making all sorts of faulty assumptions does not mean we should add to that and incorporate socionics into education with no real evidence based indications of its effectiveness.

[Slacker]

I have a few thoughts.

My parents were teachers. I remember them going to an inservice about learning styles and being encouraged to "type" their students and figure out if they were visual learners or whatever. I don't see that as being substantially different than trying to figure out what socionics type a student is. If one kind of typing is encouraged in a school, then I don't see why another type of typing would be discouraged. One is not more or less dangerous than another. You say the fact that teachers have done this in the past doesn't matter. I think it does because not only has it happened, it is happening every day. And not just in schools but everywhere. We all type in some way or another and sometimes we are all wrong.

Also, I don't want my daughter's teachers to teach in the most safe way possible. I want them to be creative and to be allowed to think and try to reach students however they can. What kind of education would kids get from teachers who never did anything that could have any possible negative effect at all, not matter how small the chance of something bad happening.

Hmm I had another thought but I've lost it.

Oh, one thing was that I think you see socionics as being much more powerful than I see it. I don't think believing someone is one type or another is going to change diddly.