Explanation for SJs dislike of change [Si vs Ne/Ni/Se]

[Kai]

I'd love to hear some opinions from others regarding this idea. Forgive me if this has already been discussed many times or seemed very obvious.

Si understanding of the world is gained through storage of data. We know that SJs are more concerned with practicalities and capturing reality. Whenever change occurs. We end up having to update our system by finding out new information and how it fits with reality. This is obviously exhuasting.

Ni - this function is more free to float around with different models. It's not as attached as the Si to capture reality physically. NJs would not need to reset their main model as often and thus do not mind change as much.*

This would mean that Se is the least against change, followed by Ne.

* This part feels rather shoddy in reasoning. There's the high possability that NJs do mind as much as SJs. Someone please correct me in this area.

Now for the criticism. Please?

[Jack Flak]

It follows. Nice to hear something related to functions which actually seems to have bearing.

I propose arguing against your own hypothesis with contradictory alternates, to see if it holds up in your mind.

[Evan]

Neither introverted perceiving process likes change. The reason Ni seems less resistant to change is that it isn't focused on concrete stuff.

So Ni dislikes abstract change -- change in their concept structure -- change in their model of understanding the world. Si dislikes change in the kind of sensory data they take in.

[edcoaching]

Barger and Kirby did a huge study on what people want during change. SJs ask very reasonable questions like

• How much is this going to cost?
• If we do this, what aren't we going to do anymore? As in what wil you take off our plates?
• Has this worked somewhere else? Why do you think it will work here?
• Where is the time coming from to make this happen?

These needs are almost never met and voila--resistance. If you meet their informational needs they aren't any more resistant than other types, but often in times of change the SJs are pains rather than sources of wisdom...

Everyone will resist if their needs during change aren't met.

[Usehername]

Originally Posted by edcoaching

Barger and Kirby did a huge study on what people want during change. SJs ask very reasonable questions like

• How much is this going to cost?
• If we do this, what aren't we going to do anymore? As in what wil you take off our plates?
• Has this worked somewhere else? Why do you think it will work here?
• Where is the time coming from to make this happen?

These needs are almost never met and voila--resistance. If you meet their informational needs they aren't any more resistant than other types, but often in times of change the SJs are pains rather than sources of wisdom...

Everyone will resist if their needs during change aren't met.

So basically all the difference is with Si users is that they're focused on tangible/practical frustrations, and because we can't escape the fact that we have bodies and live on a physical world called Earth (where Si dominion reigns), we see their frustration played out more?

[edcoaching]

Originally Posted by Usehername

So basically all the difference is with Si users is that they're focused on tangible/practical frustrations, and because we can't escape the fact that we have bodies and live on a physical world called Earth (where Si dominion reigns), we see their frustration played out more?

Yeah, and basically the rest of teh world is telling them, "Trust me, it'll work" and they know from experience that it won't.

Ran into a fantastic example this week. A school district just adopted a new "research-based" math curriculum, convinced it'll work wonders. Teachers only had a few days of training on it and no more funds are available for additional days. The curriculum depends entirely on depth of teacher knowledge in content--you can't teach it if you don't know how students develop understanding of fractional concepts, for example. The teachers lacked this knowledge with the prior curriculum and the new curriculum training only explained the how's--using the online tutorials, how to read the teachign guide, new manipulatives, extra problem sources, etc...the SJ teachers KNOW they don't know enough to use it. The last time this happened, several of teh SJs continued to teach with the old curriculum, hiding their books from administrators, and got just as good results because at least they knew what that curriculum could/couldn't do.

If anyone had listened to those SJs (and they wrote articulate letters to administrators about their needs/questions/concerns) the professional development could have targeted the real needs of the teachers...

[Jae Rae]

Math curricula are notorious for this. The pilot studies always have lots of money, but there's far less for implementation. So after a few years (sometimes only 1 year) they go back to the first way. Then in a year or two a new way is touted as THE way.

[The_Liquid_Laser]

I'm supposed to be the type that likes to do everything differently, but overall I think the more traditional method of teaching math is one of the best (better than most others I've encountered). The main problem I see with the old way is that there needs to be more technology incorporated into math education compared to the most traditional way of teaching math. However you can introduce too much technology too soon and hamper the students ability to grasp the fundamental ideas. Even technology is a balancing act, so overall I think the old way is preferable to most of the new ways.

[edcoaching]

Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser

I'm supposed to be the type that likes to do everything differently, but overall I think the more traditional method of teaching math is one of the best (better than most others I've encountered). The main problem I see with the old way is that there needs to be more technology incorporated into math education compared to the most traditional way of teaching math. However you can introduce too much technology too soon and hamper the students ability to grasp the fundamental ideas. Even technology is a balancing act, so overall I think the old way is preferable to most of the new ways.

Actually what students need to learn math varies phenomenally by the quadrants of the type table (IS, IN, ES, EN) with a kicker thrown in for the T-F dichotomy that without the proper environment, F's will more likely develop math anxiety. We're doing a double-blind research study right now filming students doing math tasks and the differences are striking enough to even get math teachers to change their practices

[EJCC]

Originally Posted by edcoaching

Actually what students need to learn math varies phenomenally by the quadrants of the type table (IS, IN, ES, EN) with a kicker thrown in for the T-F dichotomy that without the proper environment, F's will more likely develop math anxiety. We're doing a double-blind research study right now filming students doing math tasks and the differences are striking enough to even get math teachers to change their practices

Firstly, your avatar is awesome.

Secondly, I think you're right. In high school, one of my friends, an INFJ, had serious issues in math class because of the environment, whereas all I ever needed in a math class were 1. a textbook, 2. assignments, and 3. someone to answer my questions. I never really needed a "teacher" as such - just an advisor.

Thirdly, I kind of agree with your point about meeting needs (What's the point in changing a method of doing things when both the current method AND the potential method are flawed?), but I always thought of it as a kind of security blanket, or a fear of new things. I think SJs are really cautious people, and their fear of change has something to do with that instinct.