Would it be advantageous and/or ethical to split students up in school by MBTI?

[INTP]

I dont think its a good idea, because of many reasons. For example people need to learn different learning styles(not just the ones that they like the most), school isnt just for learning facts from books. But learning human interaction as well and it would be really disadvantageous in this regard, as the kids would mostly just interact with people of their own temperament.

What needs to change is the teaching styles. Usually its most focused on certain learning styles, but needs to be broadened, so that all the types could learn easier. Luckily MBTI is used in teacher training, at least sometimes, but the MBTI training should be put more weight onto

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

no no no no no. fuck no. nope nope. bad idea. counterproductive. counterintuitive.

teamwork makes the dream work, or so a chinese fortune cookie once told me.

 

[ColonelGadaafi]

What a buffoonish question. No..... because there is no correlation between academic/intellectual functioning and MBTI. MBTI is not a measurement of how well you do in a maths/english class. It's simply a theory about personalities and cognitive inclinations. There is no evidence that you're going to do better in a calculus class as INTJ than a ESFP.

 

[Salomé]

^
Simply not true. There are stats, look them up.

I think INTPschool is a great idea, personally. I think minority types would really benefit from classes tailored to their needs, interests and learning styles, instead of everyone being subjected to the boring SJ left-brain bullshit most kids currently endure early in their education. You would see far fewer NP dropouts, I predict.

 

[ColonelGadaafi]

^
Simply not true. There are stats, look them up.

I think INTPschool is a great idea, personally. I think minority types would really benefit from classes tailored to their needs, interests and learning styles, instead of everyone being subjected to the boring SJ left-brain bullshit most kids currently endure early in their education. You would see far fewer NP dropouts, I predict.

What statistics? Post them here please. You realize it's a personality theory right? It's not a pedagog concept or even a scholastic one. It's used as a mainstream test, as a sort of approxomite yardstick by certain companies to gauge peoples social compatability in workplaces. It isn't a recognized educational concept.

 

[Lux]

I dislike the idea of a personality based system of learning. I do however think that tailoring learning toward an individual's cognitive preferences could be beneficial. I like the idea of a learning situation that focuses on utilizing natural abilities toward societal progression. I think that often times people confuse personality (which can be shaped by so many things or even a lie) and the way the brain naturally takes in and processes information. However, that being said, there would need to be more information available to construct a system.

 

[Salomé]

What statistics? Post them here please. You realize it's a personality theory right? It's not a pedagog concept or even a scholastic one. It's used as a mainstream test, as a sort of approxomite yardstick by certain companies to gauge peoples social compatability in workplaces. It isn't a recognized educational concept.

I have no interest in doing your research for you.
But it should come as no surprise to anyone who understands anything about this theory that different types tend to be drawn to (and consequently excel in) different fields.

 

[ColonelGadaafi]

I have no interest in doing your research for you.
But it should come as no surprise to anyone who understands anything about this theory that different types tend to be drawn to (and consequently excel in) different fields.

Here is the problem. Since you made the assertion that there is Research or studies that show that "MBTI is responsible for abilities", it's on you to present them, to show that my previous assertion is wrong. It's called burden of proof.

 

[Jonny]

Here is the problem. Since you made the assertion that there is Research or studies that show that "MBTI is responsible for abilities", it's on you to present them, to show that my previous assertion is wrong. It's called burden of proof.

The burden, as you so call it, is a consequence of one's objectives. If Salomé does not wish to convince you or anyone else of the validity of her claims, then she is freed from such a burden. She presented you with information that you can choose to believe or disbelieve on faith, but about which you have the ability to learn on your own. It is up to you to decide what your actions will be.

Some people (myself included) simply wish to present information to catalyze others to learn for themselves. It isn't up to us (her) to force-feed them (you).

 

[ColonelGadaafi]

The burden, as you so call it, is a consequence of one's objectives. If Salomé does not wish to convince you or anyone else of the validity of her claims, then she is freed from such a burden. She presented you with information that you can choose to believe or disbelieve on faith, but about which you have the ability to learn on your own. It is up to you to decide what your actions will be.

Some people (myself included) simply wish to present information to catalyze others to learn for themselves. It isn't up to us (her) to force-feed them (you).

If someone makes a claim about something, then they have to back it up with evidence. That is an accepted criteria in any rational debate.
So i'm supposed to just take that on whim? So in a discussion you just claim stuff and go on. What's the point of making such an assertion in the first place then, if your not willing to back it up? Better call it something else then. I expected the objective to be what the objective of rational debates are, to make a rational point. Well, don't expect anyone to take you seriously in that case.

 

[Salomé]

Here is the problem. Since you made the assertion that there is Research or studies that show that "MBTI is responsible for abilities", it's on you to present them, to show that my previous assertion is wrong. It's called burden of proof.

I made no such assertion. You, in fact, made an assertion which I merely contested by referring to data that most even casual typology students will be familiar with. If my claims were remarkable or my sources esoteric, I might indulge you. As it is... We have both made claims which we haven't bothered to substantiate. The only difference being that yours is both logically and empirically unsound.
Remarkably, the world continues to spin on its axis.

Well, don't expect anyone to take you seriously in that case.

You seem to be taking yourself seriously enough to save anyone else the bother.

 

[ColonelGadaafi]

I made no such assertion. You, in fact, made an assertion which I merely contested by referring to data that most even casual typology students will be familiar with. If my claims were remarkable or my sources esoteric, I might indulge you. As it is... We have both made claims which we haven't bothered to substantiate. The only difference being that yours is both logically and empirically unsound.
Remarkably, the world continues to spin on its axis.

But you did and you mentioned data to back yourself up. How was my assertion logically and empirically unsound? I've read extensively in psychometrics and intelligence and ability, it's part of the the psychology class that I've taken, added to the fact that I read neurobiology. I've never seen MBTI being cited as related to ability. It has more to do with employment screening than "intelligence". Pick any serious academic literature/study you want. If you have anything to the contrary, then please indulge me.

You seem to be taking yourself seriously enough to save anyone else the bother.

I'm just following standard criterias for debate. In any discussion, whether it's a university paper, a internet discussion board, a classroom, a conference podium, even everyday life, people use sources or cite the information within the sources or its publisher. If you want your counter-debater to acknowledge your points, that's how you do it.

 

[Salomé]

How was my assertion logically and empirically unsound? I've read extensively in psychometrics and intelligence and ability, it's part of the the psychology class that I've taken, added to the fact that I read neurobiology. I've never seen MBTI being cited as related to ability.

Then your reading hasn't been extensive enough. MBTI does not measure ability or intelligence, but there are correlations between ability and type (suitability, might be a less contentious word). It's the entire premise of the instrument's development. (See Gifts Differing and the MBTI manual.)
You can question its validity as a psychometric instrument, but it's futile to contest the well-documented foundations of its development.

 

[ColonelGadaafi]

Then your reading hasn't been extensive enough. MBTI does not measure ability or intelligence, but there are correlations between ability and type (suitability, might be a less contentious word). It's the entire premise of the instrument's development. (See Gifts Differing and the MBTI manual.)
You can question its validity as a psychometric instrument, but it's futile to contest the well-documented foundations of its development.

I'll put them on my reading list. I'll review them. Just from a quick search on the WWW and finding a review on one of the books, it's already looking bad:

Final comments:
Isabel Briggs Myers’ lack of formal psychology qualifications ensured she would never be fully accepted by the psychological establishment. Some have questioned whether she interpreted Jung correctly, and therefore whether the whole methodology for identifying personality type is unsound. Jung himself was wary of applying his general principles to particular individuals, and skeptics also charge that the type explanations are too vague and could apply to anyone. Judge for yourself. You may find, if you take the test or a variant of it, that the description given of you is remarkably accurate; it may explain much about yourself and people close to you.

http://www.butler-bowdon.com/isabel-briggs-myers-gifts-differing

But I'll look into it.

 

[Salomé]

I'll put them on my reading list. I'll review them. Just from a quick search on the WWW and finding a review on one of the books, it's already looking bad:

Relying on the opinions /credentials of others is the height of intellectual laziness. But you know this, given that you're such an excellent scholar who sees himself as a MBTI expert without ever examining the introductory texts...

 

[ColonelGadaafi]

Relying on the opinions /credentials of others is the height of intellectual laziness. But you know this, given that you're such an excellent scholar who sees himself as a MBTI expert without ever examining the introductory texts...

I said I'll read them, that's more than most would concede here, and that's a promise. It's not intellectual laziness, it's called preliminary anticipation, but I don't see anyone being free from that. You'll have to excuse my skepticism. I don't see the point in being snarky from your side.

 

[Salomé]

You'll have to excuse my sniggering, When someone posing as Gaddafi calls out "buffoonery" in others, it's practically mandatory.

 

[ColonelGadaafi]

You'll have to excuse my sniggering, When someone posing as Gaddafi calls out "buffoonery" in others, it's practically mandatory.

Gaddafi is a funny guy, hipster-punks not so much. Yeah, I do find the suggestions of applying mbti to revamp the current western education system, excessively ridicules and buffoonish.

 

[Salomé]

Gaddafi is a funny guy,

At least you don't have that in common.

May I present, a MAD wanker shouting the MADDEST bits of the Internet aloud forever.
Heh.

 

[Jonny]

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/05-01-2014/126547-mandela_gaddafi-0/