Is INTP the fastest learner?

[bcct]

Many people including INTP think Ti is the function that makes a type intelligent (generally). This is not really true. From my experience, the quick learners in my life are usually INFJ/ INTJ or ENFJ.

From the book "People Types and Tiger Stripes" by Gordon Lawrence,

- All Ss are linear/ sequence learners, i.e. ESTP, ISTP, ESTJ, ISTJ, ESFP, ISFP, ESFJ & ISFJ.

- All types with Ne function are system/ global learners, i.e. ENTP, ENFP, INTP & INFP.

- All types with Ni function are capable of BOTH linear and system learning, i.e. INTJ, INFJ, ENTJ & ENFJ. Therefore they are quick learners and intelligent expecially INTJ & INFJ where their dominant function is Ni.

Ni is the function that responsible for learning. The process of learning a new subject usually begins with
1. step-by-step/ peice-by-peice learning (in sequence), then
2. understading of the overall picture (system/ global).

As an INTP I found my learning speed is generally slower that my INxJ friends.

xSxx will not find problem in item 1, but will have tough time understand further when they come to item 2. (with exception for ISFP/ ISTP whose tertiary function is Ni)

xNxP will find difficulty concentrating on item 1. But will do well/ or understanding well once they overcome the opening hurdle and plunge into item 2.

For xNxJ, with Ni, they are capable of both sequence and gloable learning, therefore facing no problem with both item 1 and 2. And therefore learn fast.

This is my observations backed by the book that I read. What is your opinion?

[Maniac]

Faster learning is only half the equation. Retention is just as important, if not moreso.

[jyakulis]

First to think last to know.

I've thought about this a lot.

I think in class I understand things pretty much instantly. But then as I think of it more Ne starts perceiving all these other possiblities and I start to confuse myself trying to learn every possible angle. Trying to organize everything that Ne perceives into my little computer of knowledge that is Ti. It seems like Ni is more like you ask an INTJ a question they process it and then communicate out to you through Te why or why it couldn't work. But at the same time they don't attempt to perceive all the possibilities like an NTP would do.

I think the main problem that arises from having Ti-Ne is that Ni-Te is just so much more efficient at communicating ideas. An INTP or ENTP is going to try to communicate through intuition which is unclear and very hard to transfer to paper. Where as an INTJ will be able to write very clear and precise statements using Te. Also, I find myself leaving out important details on for instance short answer questions. The most frustrating thing about it isn't that I didn't know, but rather I thought it was too obvious to add or just overlooked it as unimportant. I just feel like telling my teachers DUHHHH sometimes. But I think it's an effect of Ne being a sketchy form a communication because it will leave steps out and what not.

But conversely NTP's are would make great inventors and idea people. Here is how I look at the process. Theorizing is ordering ideas an organized manner that can be fully understood in all it's complexity. An INTP will love to do this so may get stuck on theorizing and Ne will always feed it with everything Ti needs to complete the analysis. Conversely with an ENTP, I would think he would see a world of possibilities. He would be less likely to get caught up in analysis and constantly chase down lil Ne possibilities until he may find something worse while and THEN work it through with Ti. As an INTP I find I tend to get stuck on a couple internal ideas and always look for new possibilities. I would suspect it would be a tad different for an ENTP.

Ohh and I find INxJ or what have you even ISTJ to be much better test takers. I don't know if it's the Ni-Te dyamic or the fact I'm a visual spatial learner. It's just very difficult for me to transfer what's in my head to paper. It's a very time consuming process and usually not enough time for me. However, I've found when the teacher put no time limit on our tests I would always get the high score. It just takes me awhile to get it out of my head heh.

[ApeTheDog]

I think we doubt least of all - except when it comes to other people. (and this because we don't understand their doubts)

That is to say... we doubt about a lot of things, but when we know something, we are sure - we don't second-guess what we know. Just what we don't know.

[Nadiar]

I've always felt the strength of INTx's was in their problem solving skills. The disparate knowledge and objective nature allows us to reach conclusions faster.

[nottaprettygal]

Ni is the function that responsible for learning. The process of learning a new subject usually begins with
1. step-by-step/ peice-by-peice learning (in sequence), then
2. understading of the overall picture (system/ global).


I can only speak for myself, but I learn quite fast, usually using a combination of the two methods. First I usually focus on understanding the overall picture because internally that's the way I like to think. Then I focus on the pieces, and I'm very good at determing the pieces that are important and the pieces that are not.

When I'm learning, I always ask, "Ok, how does this apply to the real world?" and I take the overall concept and break it down. I do this not only for myself, but for others because I don't think larger picture thinking is understood well. So, if I want to be understood (by other students moreso then professors) I need to provide a step-by-step breakdown.

[eyebyte_atWork]

Many people including INTP think Ti is the function that makes a type intelligent (generally). This is not really true. From my experience, the quick learners in my life are usually INFJ/ INTJ or ENFJ.

From the book "People Types and Tiger Stripes" by Gordon Lawrence,

- All Ss are linear/ sequence learners, i.e. ESTP, ISTP, ESTJ, ISTJ, ESFP, ISFP, ESFJ & ISFJ.

- All types with Ne function are system/ global learners, i.e. ENTP, ENFP, INTP & INFP.

- All types with Ni function are capable of BOTH linear and system learning, i.e. INTJ, INFJ, ENTJ & ENFJ. Therefore they are quick learners and intelligent expecially INTJ & INFJ where their dominant function is Ni.

Ni is the function that responsible for learning. The process of learning a new subject usually begins with
1. step-by-step/ peice-by-peice learning (in sequence), then
2. understading of the overall picture (system/ global).

As an INTP I found my learning speed is generally slower that my INxJ friends.

xSxx will not find problem in item 1, but will have tough time understand further when they come to item 2. (with exception for ISFP/ ISTP whose tertiary function is Ni)

xNxP will find difficulty concentrating on item 1. But will do well/ or understanding well once they overcome the opening hurdle and plunge into item 2.

For xNxJ, with Ni, they are capable of both sequence and gloable learning, therefore facing no problem with both item 1 and 2. And therefore learn fast.

This is my observations backed by the book that I read. What is your opinion?



I like where you are going with this... which book did you read?

I would ilke to read it too (only the useful parts ofcourse)

[Eileen]

Faster learning is only half the equation. Retention is just as important, if not moreso.

This is very true (it's one of my greatest frustrations as a teacher). But are you saying, by implication or defense, that INTPs retain more information?

This is interesting to me because I can see it being true in some INTPs I know (my father's brain is like a sponge), but my boyfriend is always complaining that his memory is terrible (though, in fact, I think he is very hard on himself).

[Crazy]

I can only speak for myself, but I learn quite fast, usually using a combination of the two methods. First I usually focus on understanding the overall picture because internally that's the way I like to think. Then I focus on the pieces, and I'm very good at determing the pieces that are important and the pieces that are not.

When I'm learning, I always ask, "Ok, how does this apply to the real world?" and I take the overall concept and break it down. I do this not only for myself, but for others because I don't think larger picture thinking is understood well. So, if I want to be understood (by other students moreso then professors) I need to provide a step-by-step breakdown.I'm the same way. All I have to know is where the big picture is, then I can fill in the details myself, without having to learn them. Therefore, I only need a rough outline, and then the details become clear that those are the only ones that fit. If there is a variable option, I just learn that one, or use trial and error. I've aced literature tests this way. All I have to know is the gist of the story, and some of the main characters, and I'll pass the test, even in essay format. Take for instance, I've never read "To Kill A Mockingbird" but I aced the test, which had some essay questions. Why? I paid enough attention to get the main plot points together, and filled in the rest by knowing the system, most stories work the same way, predictable.

[nottaprettygal]

Take for instance, I've never read "To Kill A Mockingbird" but I aced the test, which had some essay questions. Why? I paid enough attention to get the main plot points together, and filled in the rest by knowing the system, most stories work the same way, predictable.

Yes. I did the same thing in school. I rarely read the books that were assigned, but I always aced the tests. I think it was more about writing skills then anything. Plus, students never get that teachers hate fluff. We grow up with the mentality that longer means better.

That being said, I think I learn how to succeed in the system faster, but as I have difficulty retaining information years later. Honestly, I couldn't even tell you what "To Kill A Mockingbird" is about. My long-term memory is horrible.

[waxwing]

Many people including INTP think Ti is the function that makes a type intelligent (generally). This is not really true. From my experience, the quick learners in my life are usually INFJ/ INTJ or ENFJ.

From the book "People Types and Tiger Stripes" by Gordon Lawrence,

- All Ss are linear/ sequence learners, i.e. ESTP, ISTP, ESTJ, ISTJ, ESFP, ISFP, ESFJ & ISFJ.

- All types with Ne function are system/ global learners, i.e. ENTP, ENFP, INTP & INFP.

- All types with Ni function are capable of BOTH linear and system learning, i.e. INTJ, INFJ, ENTJ & ENFJ. Therefore they are quick learners and intelligent expecially INTJ & INFJ where their dominant function is Ni.

Ni is the function that responsible for learning. The process of learning a new subject usually begins with
1. step-by-step/ peice-by-peice learning (in sequence), then
2. understading of the overall picture (system/ global).

As an INTP I found my learning speed is generally slower that my INxJ friends.

xSxx will not find problem in item 1, but will have tough time understand further when they come to item 2. (with exception for ISFP/ ISTP whose tertiary function is Ni)

xNxP will find difficulty concentrating on item 1. But will do well/ or understanding well once they overcome the opening hurdle and plunge into item 2.

For xNxJ, with Ni, they are capable of both sequence and gloable learning, therefore facing no problem with both item 1 and 2. And therefore learn fast.

This is my observations backed by the book that I read. What is your opinion? I learn by looking for common themes. While reading James Joyce's Ulysses in a college literature course, I remember spending at least one entire class period looking through the entire book for quotes that would help me understand the concept of parallax. All my teacher had to do was mention the idea in passing, and I was reminded of quote upon quote that would give me that desired epiphany moment. I always thought those epiphany moments in class were primariily Ni fed by Ne and Ti. Definitely not a lot of Te going on, though.

So, by the end of the book and all the class discussion, I had a really solid grasp on a few themes (sometimes obscure ones such as parallax) but couldn't remember too many small details that would have helped me do well on daily reading quizzes. This is typical of my learning. I would often raise my hand and ask my teachers what seemed like random questions, but to me they were those questions that would allow me to plug the Light Bright in, so to speak. Or, I would raise my hand and say something like, "Oh, parallax. That's like the idea of ______ on page 456....Uhhm, nevermind."

I am interested to see where you are going with this Ni and INXJ theory. I confess that I read your post several times and am still not sure how Ni correlates to both linear and system learning, although I could think of a few INXJs I know and agree with that idea.

[lexiphanic]

Probably the best knowledge learners. When it comes to application we can get flustered pretty easily.

[C.J.Woolf]

I learn better when the knowledge is applied. In college I took a course on probability which was just math and I struggled with it; but later I took a course on network theory, which was mostly applied probability, and I aced it.

Does that knock down my INTP cred? (According to the test I might be borderline INTJ anyway.)

I also learn relationally. I'm big on analogies and metaphors. When I learn something new I want to know two things: what is it like, and what is it not like? I realize that you can fall into the logical trap of false relation, but for me it works more often than not.

[lexiphanic]

I learn better when the knowledge is applied. In college I took a course on probability which was just math and I struggled with it; but later I took a course on network theory, which was mostly applied probability, and I aced it.

Does that knock down my INTP cred? (According to the test I might be borderline INTJ anyway.)

I also learn relationally. I'm big on analogies and metaphors. When I learn something new I want to know two things: what is it like, and what is it not like? I realize that you can fall into the logical trap of false relation, but for me it works more often than not.

I wouldn't think so. I kind of meant that I could read a book, and answer anything about the book if it was asked in multiple choice form. I'm guessing other intps have similar experience. However, when attempting physical tasks after learning about them for days in a classroom, I am at first somewhat inept. Aka I was never good at chem labs. :)

[Hexchild]

I'm a way slower learner than my INTJ friend. On the other hand, once I've learned something I usually have a way deeper understanding of it.

[illi]

xNxP will find difficulty concentrating on item 1. But will do well/ or understanding well once they overcome the opening hurdle and plunge into item 2.

I can definitely relate to that. And on retention, I understand things pretty much straight off, but remembering the details(particularly in maths, steps in solving things, and noticing when to apply it) psshh, forget it. Although, I remember useless things I find fascinating well.


How annoying >__>

[Xander]

It's interesting that the method used to teach is not being discussed. Most people are not INTP and most people wouldn't have a clue how to teach one. Because we internalise almost all of our thinking and can't express what we are doing with information easily it makes it a very hard task to teach one, or so I'm told.
Also it may be that J types seem to learn easier because they will accept judgement more readily. For example if you said that nothing can go faster than the speed of light then that will be retained as fact, my girlfriend does this and its amaxing the absorption without question. Give the same information to an INTP and you'll likely be asked why, shortly followed by theoretical testing of the theory in the head of the INTP which will relate to seemingly unconnected information. It is then much more difficult to retain the origional piece of information as we have just had a thousand thoughts/ questions/ counter theories.
However because we always try to get all the information so we can understand the "fact" being put across we usually end up understanding the information and not just retaining it. An INTP that likes a subject will deour any and all knowledge on the subject which can make them a very fast learner. On a subject they have no interest in will be a hard slog.
For example I don't learn as fast as my girlfriend if its a subject like history. I just don't retain the knowledge and have no real desire to learn it and so my brain switches to low power which halts the really good questions. However I am a gun nut and within half an hour of reading a book listing statistics of guns I can pretty much recite the best ones, that is the best according to me.
Another good example is that my father is a well educated man who can learn very well and quite rapidly. But. You ask him to buy a set of speakers, for instance, and he will go to a couple of shops and usually return with an expensive set under the theory you get what you pay for. He will not know much about the speakers base response or what kind of connectors it has. Myself, I will go onto the internet or get a magazine and I will make sure that I learn all I can about speaker technology then buy the one I think is the best for the job.
I appologise if I am being unclear but I have yet to find much on this Ne etc stuff so I can't really use that.
All I know is that my girlfriend is a more common and extroverted type, can't remeber which one exactly, and she got into private school and got higher grades than me. She repeated this at both college and university. Yet if you were to just chat to the pair of us then you, as most do, will think that I am the better qualified and more intelligent. Though she can retain information and regurgitate it for a test she does not always understand the information or realise why she needs to. This can lead to her formulating ridiculous theories based on "facts" but ignoring the actual situation. Makes for great fun.
I suppose you'd have to define the limits of learning to actually be able to say with any confidence that one type learns faster than another. Though this all rellies on being able to find out what it is that makes us learn and in doing so you'd already know which type is faster. Errm babling now..
Conclusion. It is impossible to say who learns quickest unless you constrain the circumastances into a test environment where you can say with these paramaeters this type was fastest.
On instinct however I'd say Js learn quicker because they find definitions easier to accept and work with. Ps spend too much time arguing with the text books!!!

[illi]

My maths teacher is awesome

"I could just give you the equation, but it's important that you know the working behind it"

Most of the other maths teachers at school will just give you the equation and steps and tell you it works.

But why does it work?

A P trait?

[eyebyte_atWork]

My maths teacher is awesome

"I could just give you the equation, but it's important that you know the working behind it"

Most of the other maths teachers at school will just give you the equation and steps and tell you it works.

But why does it work?

A P trait?


an N Trait (underlying nature - metaphore - analogy)

[Zephyrus055]

I'm a way slower learner than my INTJ friend. On the other hand, once I've learned something I usually have a way deeper understanding of it. Me too. And once I have that global schematic map in my mind, I can make an even bigger web, one of discovery. Muahahaha! I'm like, "if this, it follows that this may be true or this is true."

[Tensore]

My experience, there are 4 steps for life

creating things

expanding on these things

maintaining these things

completing these things

As INTPs, our strengths are creating and expanding.

[eyebyte_atWork]

I think the main difference between INTJ and INTP is that an INTJ will want to find an application for knowledge while the consider more of the possibilites - but I also think that both tend to learn the subject material with equal depth - but the concentration is different.

Examples

- Newton (INTJ) - wanted to explain things he saw - he used his NT skills and came up with Calculus, Diff EQ and Physics. His goals led his research.

- Einstein (INTP) - he allowed his mind to explore many possibilties - and let his free thoughts lead his research and yielded a new age of understanding.

Both are great contributors - INTP see all the possibilities even if there does not seem to be any usability to them (at least at first) while INTJ's need it to mean something useful. Both need to understand the underlying nature.

[Xander]

My experience, there are 4 steps for life

creating things

expanding on these things

maintaining these things

completing these things

As INTPs, our strengths are creating and expanding.
Where does learning fit into this?
Presumably alongside it as it is needed for each stage to be carried out with competance.

[Tensore]

Where does learning fit into this?
Presumably alongside it as it is needed for each stage to be carried out with competance.

Sorry, forgot some important parts :ph34r:

I meant creating ideas, expanding on ideas... you get the point.

Its applied to the learning aspect by the fact that learning is part of creating, as well as learning someone elses created idea and expanding on that.

[nihilist]

I can always gaze at the big picture in a qualitative framework like philosophy, literature, and soft sciences, but I am not sure whether I am a global learner in the more quantitative sciences. Currently a CS major, it's easy for me to devise a rough outline of for instance, the intricacies of a language, but implentation of those little programs assigned in college is excruciating. This is exacerbated by my inadequate long term memory, especially for details which don't fit into any conceptual context. It's so bad that I always carry around a concise Unix manual for reference.


It's, however, math that ultimately brings about my downfall into a black hole of low self esteem, forcing me to question my intelligence and competence. It's not that I am a slow learner, but I am not sure whether I learn at all. Eventually, to pass the course, I am forced to venture the path of rote thinking/memorization, something which almost always results in self hatred.

[C.J.Woolf]

This is exacerbated by my inadequate long term memory, especially for details which don't fit into any conceptual context. It's so bad that I always carry around a concise Unix manual for reference.
Knowing where to look it up is as good as knowing it. (Better, in fact.) That's the basis of most of my professional knowledge.

[Zephyrus055]

It's, however, math that ultimately brings about my downfall into a black hole of low self esteem, forcing me to question my intelligence and competence. It's not that I am a slow learner, but I am not sure whether I learn at all. Eventually, to pass the course, I am forced to venture the path of rote thinking/memorization, something which almost always results in self hatred. Math is taught sequentially, not globally. According to the person who posted this thread, INTPs are global learners and lack the ability to learn sequentially. It makes sense, for me anyway. And when my dad, an INTJ, gives me his methodical and sequential understanding of something, my brain starts to fry and explode in stress.

[panda]

Math is taught sequentially, not globally.
I've had several professors who taught mathematics in a "global" style. Very refreshing.

[eyebyte_atWork]

I think mathematics is both global and sequential - I also think that a good teacher can teach in a style where both points of views are achieved. Most, but not all, highschool math teachers teach in the SJ style which makes it harder for a NT to learn. It wasn't until I dropped out of school that I was able to learn mathematics properly (and enjoyably) - but then again the people outlining the curriculum are mainly SJ types anyway.

btw - I think ENTJ's are the fastest learners - because they think and talk out their problems.

[Zephyrus055]

I've had several professors who taught mathematics in a "global" style. Very refreshing. I brought this thread up to my INTJ professor today, and she claimed that it's impossible to teach mathematics globally, except in a few instances.

[panda]

I brought this thread up to my INTJ professor today, and she claimed that it's impossible to teach mathematics globally, except in a few instances.
Well, that's just dumb. I suppose it depends upon how you define "globally", though.

*instantly suspicious of your INTJ professor*

[Zephyrus055]

I think mathematics is both global and sequential - I also think that a good teacher can teach in a style where both points of views are achieved. Most, but not all, highschool math teachers teach in the SJ style which makes it harder for a NT to learn. It wasn't until I dropped out of school that I was able to learn mathematics properly (and enjoyably) - but then again the people outlining the curriculum are mainly SJ types anyway.

btw - I think ENTJ's are the fastest learners - because they think and talk out their problems. Yeah, maybe I should just study math independently, I dunno, lol.

[eyebyte_atWork]

Yeah, maybe I should just study math independently, I dunno, lol.



Worked for John Nash and Einstein (and for that matter most ground breaking mathematicians).

[MySavior]

Ni -- with T, then about systems, and how they can make use of them. These are second place behind the Ne dominant.. they don't learn as fast, IMO, but what they DO learn is more complete.
Ne -- Dominant Ne are probably the fastest. With T, probably the fastest book learners.. with F, probably the fastest at sizing up people. they "bite off a big chunk, but don't chew, or swallow." When they go to process to refine what they "know" they probably find it harder than most other types.
Si -- nit picky. Good at learning facts.
Se -- Fastest at learning the facts, and the state of a given situation. Similar to Ne's when it comes to the _complete_ understanding though.

Fastest "book learner:" ENTP
Most complete knowledge knowledge of a "book based" system: INTP (I'm INTP, just so you see that I'm propping myself ;))
Fastest at learning about people: ENFP.
Most complete in their knowledge of people: INFJ.
Fastest at learning facts, and sizing up the situation: ESxP.
Most complete knowledge of the facts: ISxJ.

The word choice isn't the best, but hopefully you get what I am saying.

[Zephyrus055]

Worked for John Nash and Einstein (and for that matter most ground breaking mathematicians). http://forums.intpcentral.com/images/smilies/smile.gif. That would be great... I can imagine math being very useful for my pursuit of precision in things. I'll do that, since it seems to have worked for two INTPs already, tehe (I think Nash is an INTP).

[ptGatsby]

I would of thought that INTPs are much broader learners, just from personal expierence. I couldn't really agree with they don't learn as fast, IMO, but what they DO learn is more complete. except that 'complete' may mean 'more varied'.

Isn't it a hallmark that INTPs know everything, but are experts in nothing?

[Zephyrus055]

I would of thought that INTPs are much broader learners, just from personal expierence. I couldn't really agree with they don't learn as fast, IMO, but what they DO learn is more complete. except that 'complete' may mean 'more varied'.

Isn't it a hallmark that INTPs know everything, but are experts in nothing? We're too lazy to do anything of significance?

[Ivy]

Here's a related question (albeit, one maybe only the parents here will be interested in)-- how do we best approach the teaching of children, before we know their types? If little future SJs learn best sequentially and future NTs learn best globally, how do we teach them both in the same classroom?

[eyebyte_atWork]

I would of thought that INTPs are much broader learners, just from personal expierence. I couldn't really agree with they don't learn as fast, IMO, but what they DO learn is more complete. except that 'complete' may mean 'more varied'.

Isn't it a hallmark that INTPs know everything, but are experts in nothing?


I can definitly see that - I tend to focus on a more specific aspect of an understanding - and not the broader aspects.

In Math - I tend to like very specific areas - those that cross physics - and not so much on the "pure mathematical" areas.

[MySavior]

Here's a related question (albeit, one maybe only the parents here will be interested in)-- how do we best approach the teaching of children, before we know their types? If little future SJs learn best sequentially and future NTs learn best globally, how do we teach them both in the same classroom?hit all the bases.

Nice warm welcoming environment, with implied rules, and an opportunity to express self.

Talk about the theory, where it came from, then delve into its original reason for being created, its current uses, and how it may evolve in the future. Allow students to either work at putting the concept into practice, prepare an essay detailing their understanding of the idea, or make a visual and auditory presentation.

But thats about letting people develop what they already have.. there'd have to be a leaning on unfamiliar territory, and reasons they need to be, if at best, partially explored, so that the learners don't lose complete balance, understanding, or appreciation for most things.

LOL.

[eyebyte_atWork]

Here's a related question (albeit, one maybe only the parents here will be interested in)-- how do we best approach the teaching of children, before we know their types? If little future SJs learn best sequentially and future NTs learn best globally, how do we teach them both in the same classroom?


Classroom?? Ha ha ha ha... sorry I had to laugh. Schools arent generally interested in teaching in any style outside their own.

I have pondered your question before as I have children (1 duaghter, 2 nehpews, 2 nieces) and have read the books on type and children... and here's what sense I have made of it.


NT children (both I and E) - interactive decision making - every lesson have to have this. NT's have to draw conclusions and interative llearning helps this.

SJ children (both I and E) - Make duty lists and challenge them to complete them with the reward of aknowledgment. SJ children live to contribute - aknowlegding their contributions makes them strive for more.

SP Children (both I and E) - Make learning fun and encourage their individualistic characters - as these will be their tools in the future.

NF Children (both I and E) - These are the hardest to "teach". Take NT teaching and add SJ teaching then subtract any critism (or hint of it) and finally - be prepared to listen to them for many hours of discussion. They crave attention like no other.

Again - this is what I have extracted from reading the books and have implemented with "my" kids.

If you cannot decern what type your child is, as is the case most of the time, try all of these and the child will let you know which works best for them.

[Ivy]

hit all the bases.

Nice warm welcoming environment, with implied rules, and an opportunity to express self.

Talk about the theory, where it came from, then delve into its original reason for being created, its current uses, and how it may evolve in the future. Allow students to either work at putting the concept into practice, prepare an essay detailing their understanding of the idea, or make a visual and auditory presentation.


Good ideas. Let each child work in the style that best suits him or her, and present information in multiple ways. One question-- do you think kids are able to disregard the methods of presentation that don't work for their particular learning style, or do you think that it could be confusing to some? I can see some children imagining that they need to master all the methods that have been presented to them.



But thats about letting people develop what they already have.. there'd have to be a leaning on unfamiliar territory, and reasons they need to be, if at best, partially explored, so that the learners don't lose complete balance, understanding, or appreciation for most things.

LOL.

I was with you until this paragraph. I'm just a sensor-- you superior intuitors need to explain these things to me. :) Can you elaborate?

[Ivy]

Classroom?? Ha ha ha ha... sorry I had to laugh. Schools arent generally interested in teaching in any style outside their own.

I have pondered your question before as I have children (1 duaghter, 2 nehpews, 2 nieces) and have read the books on type and children... and here's what sense I have made of it.


NT children (both I and E) - interactive decision making - every lesson have to have this. NT's have to draw conclusions and interative llearning helps this.

SJ children (both I and E) - Make duty lists and challenge them to complete them with the reward of aknowledgment. SJ children live to contribute - aknowlegding their contributions makes them strive for more.

SP Children (both I and E) - Make learning fun and encourage their individualistic characters - as these will be their tools in the future.

NF Children (both I and E) - These are the hardest to "teach". Take NT teaching and add SJ teaching then subtract any critism (or hint of it) and finally - be prepared to listen to them for many hours of discussion. They crave attention like no other.

Again - this is what I have extracted from reading the books and have implemented with "my" kids.

If you cannot decern what type your child is, as is the case most of the time, try all of these and the child will let you know which works best for them.

I think you're right about trying all the methods. I want to put in a plug for nontraditional schooling-- my daughter's school teaches like you describe. I've been there for "math class" and they play games with manipulatives, and are then asked to record their findings in whatever way makes sense to them (she usually draws pictures of cats or pink hairbows or something else equally frilly to illustrate the numbers, LOL-- other kids use traditional math language & symbols, still others use words). I do think more mainstream schools are taking an interest in "multiple intelligences," too-- it may take some time to trickle down into every classroom, but fortunately, it is no longer unheard of. :cheer:

[Zephyrus055]

Here's a related question (albeit, one maybe only the parents here will be interested in)-- how do we best approach the teaching of children, before we know their types? If little future SJs learn best sequentially and future NTs learn best globally, how do we teach them both in the same classroom? Since NTs compose of such a small minority of the population, it shouldn't be hard to design schools particular to NT learning.

[eyebyte_atWork]

Since NTs compose of such a small minority of the population, it shouldn't be hard to design schools particular to NT learning.


Yeah - that would be something - "The NT Institute"

[Zephyrus055]

Yeah - that would be something - "The NT Institute" Haha, yeah. That would be awesome!
And then they can give us a free education that instructs us in how to be the next leaders of the country - to depose the SJ plutocratic elite, muhahahaha!

[eyebyte_atWork]

Haha, yeah. That would be awesome!
And then they can give us a free education that instructs us in how to be the next leaders of the country - to depose the SJ plutocratic elite, muhahahaha!


Funny you say that - I suspect that the most powerful people in our government are NT's - and they play chess by moving around all other people (the men/women behind the curtain)

[MySavior]

Good ideas. Let each child work in the style that best suits him or her, and present information in multiple ways. One question-- do you think kids are able to disregard the methods of presentation that don't work for their particular learning style, or do you think that it could be confusing to some? I can see some children imagining that they need to master all the methods that have been presented to them.



I was with you until this paragraph. I'm just a sensor-- you superior intuitors need to explain these things to me. :) Can you elaborate?
In the second of your quotes, I was saying that letting each child develop their strong points is good, but they should still have to deal with what they aren't good at. That is, there shouldn't be a complete acceptance of who a child is.. they should be exposed to their weaknesses in a nurturing environment, and be told very clearly that its ok, and that they should.. "work on their strengths, but not lose sight of what they need to work on"

Yea.. some children just reject the idea of learning all together, when a teacher presents material in a way they can't understand.. some get depressed.. and the others tune in when something interests them, and then slips away when its no longer "interesting" to them.

"Interesting" can be of many forms. One child could be interested in the theory, another child in the reasons that built up to its development, another in the failures of the method, another in how it could help them in the current situation, etc..

I don't know a good method of teaching, really, but this is what I've put together from looking back at the style of teaching of those teachers that reached everyone in their class.

1. attitude.
2. presentation.
3. stability/consistency (even the wildest, most authority despising child seems to fare better when they are surrounded by stability).
4. allowance of freedom, without letting the children do whatever they want.
5. understanding.

[Ivy]

Since NTs compose of such a small minority of the population, it shouldn't be hard to design schools particular to NT learning.

Who do you recommend be in charge of typing the children? I've always heard it's difficult to know even the NT/NF/SJ/SP type of children.

[panda]

Who do you recommend be in charge of typing the children? I've always heard it's difficult to know even the NT/NF/SJ/SP type of children.
Let the children decide which style they prefer.

[eyebyte_atWork]

Who do you recommend be in charge of typing the children? I've always heard it's difficult to know even the NT/NF/SJ/SP type of children.


Intraversion vs Extra Version is the easiest when typing children - everything else is much harder. Even text book symtoms can be misleading - case in point - I am not sure what my nephew is - he tend to say what is one his mind - no matter how trivial. My first guess was that he is extraverted - but then he shy's away from meeting new people - NF children also speak their minds (to no end). I will watch him as he grows but it will be a while before we know for sure.

[Eileen]

I've heard of sort of an "intro to personality type" approach for kids in which you use the temperaments and talk about heroes and stuff. I will try to find information on it later. I really want to use type in my classroom, but I find it very difficult to do. When I did it with one of my classes and about twenty percent of them came out INTP, I knew that something was terribly inaccurate...

[nihilist]

I brought this thread up to my INTJ professor today, and she claimed that it's impossible to teach mathematics globally, except in a few instances.

Mathematics is taught sequentially, but global learners are astute enough to extract the big picture. Intuitives don't rely on the formulaic methods teachers use to solve a problem. Instead, they like to understand a problem from its roots.

[Ivy]

In the second of your quotes, I was saying that letting each child develop their strong points is good, but they should still have to deal with what they aren't good at. That is, there shouldn't be a complete acceptance of who a child is.. they should be exposed to their weaknesses in a nurturing environment, and be told very clearly that its ok, and that they should.. "work on their strengths, but not lose sight of what they need to work on"

Oh, I gotcha now-- and very good point. This would be my major issue with a pull-out program for the different learning styles.

[Ivy]

Let the children decide which style they prefer.

Suppose they pick one that sounds fun or easier, but it turns out not to be the way they learn best? (I'm asking specifically about the idea of splitting them up into different classes or schools, by the way-- in a streamlined classroom I would say the same thing you do.)

[Nadiar]

I brought this thread up to my INTJ professor today, and she claimed that it's impossible to teach mathematics globally, except in a few instances.

I disagree.

The point of us learning things globally is that we learn faster if you show us the destination, and then start teaching us how to get there. If we know how to apply what we are learning to things we've learned in the past, we can absorb it faster. I failed Calculus multiple times when I was in college. My school had 1 Calculus teacher. She was huge on systematic learning. I would learn something, but couldn't retain the nuances of what I learned. When we would get tests, they would be worth 30% of our grade, and would be word problems that were easily solved by looking at the problem logically (in my opinion, since the other students couldn't figure out how I was solving them maybe it wasn't so easy). Of course, the correct answer and the wrong work = 0 points.

Then they had too many people taking Calc one semester and had an Astrophysicist teaching. After 5 weeks the other instructor came in in the middle of class and started screaming at the new Prof, saying he was doing everything wrong, and wasn't giving his students enough homework, and he flipped out and said "You fucking hag, I'm quitting right now." Then he walked out the door.

I learned more in that 5 weeks than I had in 3 semesters with her.

[Nadiar]

This is what I get for going to lunch mid post :(

Good ideas. Let each child work in the style that best suits him or her, and present information in multiple ways. One question-- do you think kids are able to disregard the methods of presentation that don't work for their particular learning style, or do you think that it could be confusing to some? I can see some children imagining that they need to master all the methods that have been presented to them.
Its pretty easy to teach both. You just have to make sure you explain the global system thats going on so that the NT's can understand, then you can teach systematically.

Its important to understand that NT's still need to learn the fundamentals. You can't teach Calculus to someone who hasn't passed Algebra.

The NT's will grasp the Global system, and just need some of the details. Using Algebra (since its easy) as an example, an explanation that "2 + 2 = _" is an algebra equation should pretty much be enough to get the ball rolling. Maybe toss in a "2 + _ = 4" and from that point on you should have the wheels turning.


Intraversion vs Extra Version is the easiest when typing children - everything else is much harder. Even text book symtoms can be misleading - case in point - I am not sure what my nephew is - he tend to say what is one his mind - no matter how trivial. My first guess was that he is extraverted - but then he shy's away from meeting new people - NF children also speak their minds (to no end). I will watch him as he grows but it will be a while before we know for sure.
Shyness is a symptom of something else than I/E. My brother is an E, and he used to get anxiety attacks around large groups of people. Lots of comedians (all blatantly E's) will talk about childhood shyness being a problem. Shyness is a problem with fearing you won't be accepted. E's will find that just as terrifying as an I would.

I think this is the worst problem with I's while growing up. E's that were shy have overcome their shyness and become partiers/public speakers, so other E's go "they did it, why can't you?"

[Rhu]

I disagree.

The point of us learning things globally is that we learn faster if you show us the destination, and then start teaching us how to get there. If we know how to apply what we are learning to things we've learned in the past, we can absorb it faster. I failed Calculus multiple times when I was in college. My school had 1 Calculus teacher. She was huge on systematic learning. I would learn something, but couldn't retain the nuances of what I learned. When we would get tests, they would be worth 30% of our grade, and would be word problems that were easily solved by looking at the problem logically (in my opinion, since the other students couldn't figure out how I was solving them maybe it wasn't so easy). Of course, the correct answer and the wrong work = 0 points.

Then they had too many people taking Calc one semester and had an Astrophysicist teaching. After 5 weeks the other instructor came in in the middle of class and started screaming at the new Prof, saying he was doing everything wrong, and wasn't giving his students enough homework, and he flipped out and said "You fucking hag, I'm quitting right now." Then he walked out the door.

I learned more in that 5 weeks than I had in 3 semesters with her.
Now there's something I can identify with. I bounced from school to school for my first few semesters of college and finally settled on a state school because it was cheap.

In scholastic experience, there were some professors that I just couldn't learn from. I tended to realize this rather quickly, but always refused to admit defeat. No class would keep me down!

I did best with professors who took a more developmental approach to mathematics. A concept was introduced and proven. A problem somewhat related to the problem would be introduced that the former concept couldn't quite solve. Something new would have to be developed to solve the problem, and the class was asked to actively participate in helping to develop the new technique or theorem to solve the problem.

I adored this approach. It seemed so right. I wanted to get to the next plateau of understanding. In these classes I never needed to take notes or do homework--the concepts were clear enough due to the building of the logical framework on top of other, simpler concepts.

I thought I could approach all math classes and professors in this way, so I did. It didn't work all the time. There was one particular professor who simply developed the course by introducing ideas but never explaining the why. I kept up and developed what links I could--she once said that my intuitive grasp of mathematics was the second best she had ever seen.

Tests for her didn't work for me, though. The usual format was a series of problems for which we would have to have the statistical distributions memorized (I never could get the hang of memorization) as well as the relevant theorems for the chapter. In every problem, I knew what distribution to use and what theorems applied, but I'd get lost in the details. I got an F. It was a high level course and my last semester of school, so there was nothing I could do about it.

Being a stubborn ass with something to prove, I decided that when I went back to grad school at the same university that I'd try my hand at it again. My study habits had improved somewhat, after all, and I felt that I genuinely understood Mathematical Statistics, anyway. I successfully proved something--that I could fail that course twice. A big mess followed where I got kicked out of grad school and got denied on my appeal to be let back in.

I followed up my denied appeal by explaining my situation to a couple of my professors and got a phone call from the dean's office the day following that with an apology and a probation that would last the three weeks that it took to get my GPA back up to 3.0.

I was still at an all time low as far as confidence was concerned for a long while, though problems with the opposite sex were a contributing factor to this. I like to think that the explanation above isn't just a shallow rationalization of failure but it still haunts me sometimes.

However, what doesn't haunt me is the fact that I went a little off topic in this post. I think there is at least a little bit of on-subjectness here.

[bcct]

I like where you are going with this... which book did you read?

I would ilke to read it too (only the useful parts ofcourse)

"People Types and Tiger Stripes" by Gordon Lawrence.

In the book, Gordon Lawrence did not use function dynamics. He merely listed down the types that are capable of sequential learning, global learning and both. I noticed the types listed with both sequential and global learning are all with Ni as their either dominant or auxiliary function.

I also notice some of my ISTP & ISFP friends are generally good in academic/ test take. Their tertiary function is Ni.

[bcct]

I am interested to see where you are going with this Ni and INXJ theory. I confess that I read your post several times and am still not sure how Ni correlates to both linear and system learning, although I could think of a few INXJs I know and agree with that idea.

I don't have a theory to back it up on "how Ni correlates to both linear and system learning". Gordon did not write on how he arrived on the types who have both sequential and global learning styles.

Unprofessionally I think,

Ti breaks down the current chain of logic of existing conceptual framework, slot in the new ideas (which fit).
Ni could simply open to new conceptual possibility without referring to the existing framework of knowledge.

So I assert people with Ni learn faster, academically. :)

[bcct]

I'm a way slower learner than my INTJ friend. On the other hand, once I've learned something I usually have a way deeper understanding of it.

This is how I understand my learning styles too.

But for the purpose of academic/ examination, such deeper understanding seldom materialized becuase it was always too late like "oh there are few more chapters to go but tomorrow is the test"...

[bcct]

I think mathematics is both global and sequential - I also think that a good teacher can teach in a style where both points of views are achieved. Most, but not all, highschool math teachers teach in the SJ style which makes it harder for a NT to learn. It wasn't until I dropped out of school that I was able to learn mathematics properly (and enjoyably) - but then again the people outlining the curriculum are mainly SJ types anyway.

btw - I think ENTJ's are the fastest learners - because they think and talk out their problems.

And do you realised ENTJ has Ni as their auxiliary function?

It is Ni at work.

[bcct]

I brought this thread up to my INTJ professor today, and she claimed that it's impossible to teach mathematics globally, except in a few instances.

It is a hurdle (sequential learning) that we, INTP, has to overcome...may be some discipline on our side to spend more time on the initial part of learning math. The moment we are familiar with the basic (where sequential learning applies), math is just wonderful.

What I mean is, for math, you cannot bring in the system without first learning the steps, e.g. memorizing the basic of calculus, etc...

It is only up to a stage that we realise all that we learned are connected. It will be also helpful to to note down all the variations and to have an overview of the steps.

[bcct]

I disagree.

The point of us learning things globally is that we learn faster if you show us the destination, and then start teaching us how to get there. If we know how to apply what we are learning to things we've learned in the past, we can absorb it faster.

You are right on this I think. If there are 6 basic variations (rules) of calculus, tell us there are 6, upfront. (There are more when it comes to sin/cos/tan). Always keep the 6 variations in sight, even when you are teaching the first basic variation. (Mind mapping is helpful even for math.)

What are the differences among these 6 variations? In what circumstances (formula structure) we should use variation 1? In what circumstances (formula structure) we should use variation 2? etc...

When you are teaching variation 3, so how is variations 3 differ from variation 1 & 2? Why variation 3 is necessary, while variations 1 & 2 seem to tackle the issue well? etc.

I think this is system way of learning math. It takes more works for teachers to redraft teaching materials, to identify the differences of each variations, to teach by adding up layers with explanation on how it connects to previous layer. I am speculating from my own experience of learning...

[KuJo]

Im going to have to agree with INTJs being fast learners. Everyone one i have met has trampled me in memorizing formulas and applying them successfully. They seem to understand physics better than other types for some reason.

[eyebyte_atWork]

"People Types and Tiger Stripes" by Gordon Lawrence.

In the book, Gordon Lawrence did not use function dynamics. He merely listed down the types that are capable of sequential learning, global learning and both. I noticed the types listed with both sequential and global learning are all with Ni as their either dominant or auxiliary function.

I also notice some of my ISTP & ISFP friends are generally good in academic/ test take. Their tertiary function is Ni.


Thanks - I will read it. (How did I miss this one??)