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

[Alea_iacta_est]

How would splitting students into the four temperaments (SJ, SP, NF, NT) affect education as a whole, and would it be ethical to split students into those groups? The students would still go to the same school, but perhaps they divide the school in 4 for each of the temperaments, and maybe some classes could overlap between 1 or more temperaments.

Also, if you use Socionics, do you think that its quadrants (Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta) should be used instead of the temperaments?

 

[Ivy]

Just off the top of my head and not being anything like an educational scholar or anything, but I don't think it would be advantageous or ethical to do that. Number one, I don't think we can reliably type children (not sure we can reliably type anyone, actually- it's always going to be a rough guess). Number two, different personalities have different things to offer in an educational setting- it's not, or it shouldn't be, kids sitting there soaking up information from an authority figure. They participate in their own education and help each other in various ways. We need balance to expose students to all kinds of perspectives. Number three, as an NF many of my favorite people are NTs and I also love me some SJs and SPs, and it would have sucked to have been stuck with all my own "kind" so to speak. I think we all do best when there's a give-and-take and some air in the system. It's that many perspectives thing.

All of the above would go for Socionics quadrants as well, I assume, though I don't know as much about those.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

Just off the top of my head and not being anything like an educational scholar or anything, but I don't think it would be advantageous or ethical to do that. Number one, I don't think we can reliably type children (not sure we can reliably type anyone, actually- it's always going to be a rough guess). Number two, different personalities have different things to offer in an educational setting- it's not, or it shouldn't be, kids sitting there soaking up information from an authority figure. They participate in their own education and help each other in various ways. We need balance to expose students to all kinds of perspectives. Number three, as an NF many of my favorite people are NTs and I also love me some SJs and SPs, and it would have sucked to have been stuck with all my own "kind" so to speak. I think we all do best when there's a give-and-take and some air in the system. It's that many perspectives thing.

All of the above would go for Socionics quadrants as well, I assume, though I don't know as much about those.

That makes sense, I was thinking that possibly grouping them together with their peers would help them learn in an environment engineered to their type. Today's schools are built for SJs and all of the students (especially NTs) are taught to become more like them, it's quite sad.

The Socionics Quadrant would be interesting however, because it pairs 4 types that work well together and often make friends with each other.
For Example:
(Remember that the introverted types get screwed up when making the transition, the most common of which being that INTPs in MBTI mostly become LII INTjs, and INTJs in MBTI mostly become ILI INTps)

Alpha Quadrant - ENTp (LIE), INTj (LII/MBTI INTP), ISFp (SEI), ESFj (ESE)

Beta Quadrant - ENFj (EIE), ISTj (LSI), ESTp (SLE), INFp (IEI/MBTI INFJ?)

Gamma Quadrant - ESFp (SEE), INTp (ILI/MBTI INTJ), ENTj (LIE), ISFj (ESI)

Delta Quadrant - ESTj (LSE), INFj (EII/MBTI INFP?), ENFp (IEE), ISTP (SLI)

http://www.socionics.us/theory/quadras.shtml

 

[baccheion]

No, but it would be advantageous to split by learning style, and to keep people with conflicting or near opposite personalities away from each other.

 

[Ivy]

One thing I really like about the teachers at my son's school is that they present material in multiple ways for different kinds of learners. And some people learn well in multiple ways. I wouldn't want my kids to miss out on the tactile experiences because they're auditory learners, or whatever. His current teacher has been pretty good about using classroom groups and seating arrangements to keep him out of the path of a couple of kids who take issue with his personality (he's autistic and also quite NT if I had to guess, though he's only 8).

 

[Honor]

How would splitting students into the four temperaments (SJ, SP, NF, NT) affect education as a whole, and would it be ethical to split students into those groups? The students would still go to the same school, but perhaps they divide the school in 4 for each of the temperaments, and maybe some classes could overlap between 1 or more temperaments.

Also, if you use Socionics, do you think that its quadrants (Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta) should be used instead of the temperaments?

Definitely not into the idea of separating people by temperament. The quadra idea could be interesting, though. In college, I noticed that when cliques were successful, people had divided by quadra.

 

[Stansmith]

Each temperament should be assigned its own homeland to prevent miscegenation.

 

[_eric_]

No, but it would be advantageous to split by learning style, and to keep people with conflicting or near opposite personalities away from each other.

Yes, learning style is a big thing. Students who are better at visual-spatial learning will not do well learning with long verbal lectures for example. There should be material and teachers that can cater to them better instead of having just one way of teaching and expecting all the students to just deal with it. They may be very capable of doing the work and learning the material, but if there is a teaching incompatibility they could end up doing very poorly. I think testing for learning styles and splitting students up based on that (at least for the bulk of the course, some intermingling would still be good) would be far more helpful than basing it on personality type. There is some correlation between personality type and learning style, but it's not consistent enough to make that the basis of division, IMO.

 

[five sounds]

One thing I really like about the teachers at my son's school is that they present material in multiple ways for different kinds of learners. And some people learn well in multiple ways. I wouldn't want my kids to miss out on the tactile experiences because they're auditory learners, or whatever. His current teacher has been pretty good about using classroom groups and seating arrangements to keep him out of the path of a couple of kids who take issue with his personality (he's autistic and also quite NT if I had to guess, though he's only 8).

this is the current model "differentiation," but it's really hard for teachers to achieve. i think smaller class size is the answer. keeping them heterogeneous as far as learners go, but allowing the teacher more time and fewer students to divide his or her attention between.

also, using the "universal supports" model, which kind of scaffolds lessons from the most basic breakdown all the way through to the higher theoretical application, and allowing all students to benefit from hearing it in all ways. no matter what kind of learner you might think a student is, chances are he will benefit from hearing explanations from different approaches and styles in at least some instances. it helps prepare them for life too, where things are presented differently to us as adults, and we must find our own way to learn the information in the best way for ourselves.

 

[skylights]

It would be disadvantageous as a long-term strategy, I would think. We gain more knowledge, experience, and resilience from stretching ourselves to meet others than we do from remaining in our own boxes. It would be fun and interesting to periodically split off into the proposed groups, though, either temperament or quadra.

Today's schools are built for SJs and all of the students (especially NTs) are taught to become more like them, it's quite sad.

I do not really think this is true. My ESFJ teacher mother and ISFJ teacher significant other both are as frustrated by the current educational system as anyone, and often lament all of the hoops they have to jump through and all of the restrictions placed on their ability to present material or conduct instruction in the ways they would prefer to instead of as prescribed. While there is some truth to bottom-up learning being better-received by SJs, the current curriculum at least in the US includes quite a mismash of legal restrictions and bureaucratic red tape and is often more geared to administrators and politicians seeking qualitative data to publish rankings than to the benefit of students themselves, of any MBTI type. Not that it falls entirely into the hands of the administrators or politicians, either. But the system is convoluted on many levels in facets more complex than temperament division can account for. SJs too would benefit from change.

also, using the "universal supports" model, which kind of scaffolds lessons from the most basic breakdown all the way through to the higher theoretical application, and allowing all students to benefit from hearing it in all ways. no matter what kind of learner you might think a student is, chances are he will benefit from hearing explanations from different approaches and styles in at least some instances. it helps prepare them for life too, where things are presented differently to us as adults, and we must find our own way to learn the information in the best way for ourselves.

Yes.

 

[Ivy]

this is the current model "differentiation," but it's really hard for teachers to achieve. i think smaller class size is the answer. keeping them heterogeneous as far as learners go, but allowing the teacher more time and fewer students to divide his or her attention between.

also, using the "universal supports" model, which kind of scaffolds lessons from the most basic breakdown all the way through to the higher theoretical application, and allowing all students to benefit from hearing it in all ways. no matter what kind of learner you might think a student is, chances are he will benefit from hearing explanations from different approaches and styles in at least some instances. it helps prepare them for life too, where things are presented differently to us as adults, and we must find our own way to learn the information in the best way for ourselves.

 

[Azure Flame]

twould be good for the student's learning.

But at the same time its still good to force students to learn in a way they are no accustomed, just not for too long.

 

[chickpea]

nope. school is just as much about socialization as education, and kids need to learn how to survive around people different from them.

 

[Evo]

Well I would have been a lot happier in school if the material was taught in a way that was geared towards me..

I don't understand this ethical crap...Why is it not ethical to put people in the types of classes they need to be in? Why are you going to force feed people information instead of giving them the right tools to process it?

"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."

This quote should be self explanitory.

Why do you think people feel so shitty about themselves and take those internalized feelings out on society via public shootings.

Cause we are forced to believe from a young age that we're not good enough the way we are...and are not given the proper tools to show our strenghts, in which case we can't prove that theory wrong....

That my friends...is unethical.

 

[Ivy]

Nobody is saying everyone should be forced into one-size-fits-all education. That is a crappy education, but so would be splitting people up by whatever criteria make them similar. Kids aren't just one type of learner. I'm not a Auditory-Learner-Bot 3000. I do learn best from discussion but I also benefit from having information presented visually and hands-on. What nicolita said about allowing students to experience the material in a variety of ways pretty much hits the nail. That would benefit everyone, and we wouldn't have to split people up by temperament or learning style that way.

 

[baccheion]

Nobody is saying everyone should be forced into one-size-fits-all education. That is a crappy education, but so would be splitting people up by whatever criteria make them similar. Kids aren't just one type of learner. I'm not a Auditory-Learner-Bot 3000. I do learn best from discussion but I also benefit from having information presented visually and hands-on. What nicolita said about allowing students to experience the material in a variety of ways pretty much hits the nail. That would benefit everyone, and we wouldn't have to split people up by temperament or learning style that way.

We can't really split people up by learning style, so presenting information in many different ways (covering the bases) is absolutely essential. I remember going through school and transforming things from one way of presenting to another in my head so I could learn, and being actively stopped by teachers, etc, as they tried to force everything to be learned in one way (and you are supposed learn this in class, and you are supposed to learn this other thing through labs, and you are supposed to go out and test this to learn it). What a nightmare that was. And that to me is out of control, and representative of how serious they are about imposing these rigid rules. Instead of doing lots of prep and design, I would just write the code, and would always have a prototype running to flesh out the design, and it would drive the teachers mad. A reaction that followed me into the working world. I don't get their obsession with things being done in just one way, especially given that my type is the stereotypical programmer (that should get my methods some cred shouldn't it, even if it's only according to their BS way of seeing the world). People need to relax and be more flexible. They should get over these ruts and getting stuck in them, and they should definitely stop trying to drag everyone down with them.

 

[Ivy]

I completely agree with that.

 

[WALMART]

Brave New World.

 

[skylights]

Well I would have been a lot happier in school if the material was taught in a way that was geared towards me..

I don't understand this ethical crap...Why is it not ethical to put people in the types of classes they need to be in? Why are you going to force feed people information instead of giving them the right tools to process it?

"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."

This quote should be self explanitory.

Why do you think people feel so shitty about themselves and take those internalized feelings out on society via public shootings.

Cause we are forced to believe from a young age that we're not good enough the way we are...and are not given the proper tools to show our strenghts, in which case we can't prove that theory wrong....

That my friends...is unethical.

I agree with your second point. But IRT "Why is it not ethical to put people in the types of classes they need to be in?", because it is generally not wise or compassionate to (1) assume we can type children accurately, (2) cloister those children into separate groups based on our assumptions of their mental patterns, and (3) feed them only specific types of information based on our assumption of their mental patterns.

 

[Evo]

I agree with your second point. But IRT "Why is it not ethical to put people in the types of classes they need to be in?", because it is generally not wise or compassionate to (1) assume we can type children accurately, (2) cloister those children into separate groups based on our assumptions of their mental patterns, and (3) feed them only specific types of information based on our assumption of their mental patterns.

(Thanks for explaining this for me skylights. I will try to let it sink in...but as of right now...I still don't think I get what it's all about.)

Is it some kind of concern like the kid would think they're in a "slow class" or something. If so that has to stop too. We should be teaching kids that everyone's different in a good way. I am an idealist I guess. And I also find the social aspect of school to be less than valuable.

Even in college I just went to class....I think there's a disconnect for me when it comes to school and this, and I'm not sure I am ever going to get it. Cause I think learning and socializing are 2 separate things which don't need to be mixed. (Unless that's how the person learns best of course.)

And you would feed them the same information, just in a way they learn best.

To me, this just seems like one of those things...where the answer is right in front of us, but we can't seem to see it.

Edit: I'm also not saying that the OP is right in having just a limit to 4 groups or anything. We should define the most common ways ppl learn (Whether that be 2, 3, 4, or 5 ways...whatever it takes), and incorporate them into teaching. I'm sure there's some kind of compromise...and I understand that we don't want to do just one learning style their whole life. They can be exposed to that later though so that they can properly handle life.