[NT] NT's that do badly in school

[Giggly]

Does this exist? I mean like the kind where they struggle in school because they don't get it, not because they are bored, disinterested or unmotivated.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Well, what do you mean by "don't get it?"

I was home schooled, so I can only speak from what I've seen, read, and heard.

I think the end goal of public school is something that actually doesn't work very well with a lot of NTs. Public school frankly kind of discourages divergent thinking, and at the very least that sucks for INTPs and ENTPS, if not INTJs and ENTJs as well. And I don't just mean the culture of public school. I mean every hoop they have you jump, every goal they set you out for, every thing they coach you on, is just so linear. Additionally, there seems to be a lot of rote learning. Memorization and repetition as opposed to true understanding is not merely boring, it can be really hard. I mean, at least for me, I freaking checked the back of a ramen noodle packet every time I made one for like 5 years.

I think the official declaration of the public school system is "this is the only correct answer, just remember to repeat it", and that does not stick easily for a lot of NTs.

 

[Giggly]

I have heard that a couple of famous geniuses, who are mostly likely typed as NT's did badly or average in school, but they only did badly because they were disinterested.

 

[Jack427]

Does this exist? I mean like the kind where they struggle in school because they don't get it, not because they are bored, uninterested or unmotivated.

The ones that don't get it, don't get it because they sleep and miss it. If they stay awake and pay attention they get it.

 

[spirilis]

I did well on paper (mostly A/B student, some C's), but was obnoxiously bored and disinterested most the time except for a few classes. It always seemed like we learned rote theory and rote facts but rarely spent the time to explore the applications or possibilities of them. College was different, and I loved that.

There was another thing I remembered the other day, in our school system most people took the "average" academic level classes but a few select started taking "advanced" academic classes diverging in late elementary school and that lasted all through high school. I was in the former category, every once in a while I'd hear about the stuff my friends in the "advanced" classes were learning and I'd practically drool with envy. Always did wonder why I was never in that category. Must've bombed on one of the standardized tests or something. (Or I'm just a lot dumber than I think...)

 

[INTP]

I have heard that a couple of famous geniuses, who are mostly likely typed as NT's did badly or average in school, but they only did badly because they were disinterested.

I only resently started to remember what adjective means

I learned it from acl or in other words adjective check list. Earlier i always confused subjective and adjective and simply could not give a flying fucj which is which, so couldnt remember that(verb i learned as a kid), but now that i learned what acl is, i can remember what adjective is

 

[Unique]

Personality

-insert giant black hole here-

Intelligence

 

[So It Goes]

I tend to do average on subjects I don't care for, but I do very well on subjects I enjoy. There could be a number of reasons for why somebody does poorly with their grades, like if they are lazy, don't have enough time to complete their work, don't care enough, or lack the right teacher for their style of learning. Maybe some traits associated with MBTI could influence the outcome of some grades in certain classes, but I don't think type is completely responsible for how someone fares academically.

 

[Craft]

Yep. right here. I'm 100% interested but I really don't get things.

 

[entropie]

I have heard that a couple of famous geniuses, who are mostly likely typed as NT's did badly or average in school, but they only did badly because they were disinterested.

if you think about the abstract concept that is school, then the way you are judged in that concept is fundamentally different from the purpose. Being taught stuff is a good thing, a thing all NTs will like. Some topics are more boring than others but thats ok for most NTs, they will go on even with a boring topic having the convenvience that it plays a greater significance in something. But then comes the way you are judged for things: 90% of my university lectures were based on rote learning. You got a 180 pages long transcript for the lecture had about 6 semester time to eat it and then spit it all out in one final exam. if you do well in that, you are officially declared as "intelligent". On the other hand, the other 10% like mechanics, math, thermodynamics, were the most hardest lessons of them all and most people drop out of University because of them.

The greatest difficult for me in school was that it followed a bottom-up strategy. I was never intrested in stuff, cause I didnt know what it was good for.
So tho my greatest intrest was natural science, I majored in english and german literature studies, cause that was more fun than doing derivations I have no clue what they are good for. Then at University I gave natural science another try and was first of all taught the big picture, so it followed a Top-Down strategy. And that was intresting cause finally I saw what cool gadgets you can build by having the mathematical solution to a differential movement equation of the first order.

I am good at math, but I suck at rote learning; does that mean I am more intelligent ? No it doesnt, basically it is a talent or a preference and thats it. Those people who are labeled as intelligent in society have mastered to, despite their talent or non-talent, excel in every topic and achieve an overall good GPA. That is indeed an achievement, if they should be called intelligent, I dunno; I'ld rather go with hard workers.

I am not very intelligent, I have a talent for certain things but thats basically it. I am good at understanding complex systems and deriving possible future developments in those systems. I am good at understanding boolean logic, computers, electronics but quantum physics is a bitch to me. I am good at the abstract perception of the concrete but I suck at making something abstract up from nothing or little facts (a Ni quality imo) like quantum physics.

Given all that single thoughts, to me it is a no-go to label people as only intelligent or not. This like saying music is only good or bad, when there is so much more to it. if you asked me if I would have wanted to have only good grades and be labeled as a genius ? Of course who wouldnt. But I wouldnt have wanted to pay the price for it. Since things do not come natural to most people, like they would come to a genius, most people have to invest a huge deal into their successful studies and to get a good GPA. I respect those people, it's their decision, but my decision was always to choose comfort. That way I had more time in my youth, to develop a personality and form a stable reliable character. So my choice was not pointless, I just choosed to concentrate on a different thing. Since that is very dangerous cause you actually harm yourself by acting against what society wants from you, I embarked on a dangerous path. Still I like danger and I like to go those paths least travelled, therefore I've made my choice.

Sometimes it's frustrating when you see what dumbasses get labeled a genius just because they scored high on a rote learning exam. Then again those people appear as dumbasses to me cause I have developed into a different direction, which doesnt place importance on achievement. In their circles achievement may be the only importance, therefore they appear to others who dont value that as dumbasses.

Its all always a matter of perception and it can drive you crazy if you think about all the options. But the only important thing is that you are always concious of your choice of option and that you stick with it and know why you have choosen it. If you run around all your life being envious of the great achievers, you'll miss becoming happy yourself in your life. That doesnt mean at some point that you should settle for less, but that if you want to be a great achiever yourself, you need to work on that.

I never considered the NT temperament to be expectionally genius, to me thats a false definition all along. The NT temperament isnt moved by tradition and prefers sometimes to be a loner, it isnt moved by the thrill of action and the adrenaline rush and it doesnt decide upon what feels best for them or whats best as in ethical in the great societal picture. No it has choosen to make decisions based on whats real and understanding whats real and graspable, its a way to rationally, empirically paired with a portion of what could-be'ly living your life. There is really no claim a NT could have to be labeled a genius or exceptionally intelligent. It is imo rather societies fault, if they put one of the 4 temperaments on such a high throne because it could be the one best-suited for their workforce. But thats another philosophical topic...

 

[Munchies]

I think i wouldve done better in school had i surrounded myself with people who strived as well. I did the opposite, and i think it had a larde effect on my personality... Or maybe it was the weed... hmm something to think about

 

[Stanton Moore]

I just read a book about the effects of parents and teachers on the subconscious beliefs in children.
If you grew up with the belief that your abilities are pre-determined, that you are born with certain capacities (like math aptitude) you will not reach your potential. Why? Because you will see every shortcoming as proof positive of your lack, and you will be unlikely to strive to overcome this. The opposite attitude is one were ability is something you work for, not in-born. Children raised with that belief are much more likely to fulfill their potentials.
So it's entirely possible that a child who might be characterized as 'NT' to have been raised with this limiting belief system, and so not do as well in school. This effect has nothing to do with typology, but may effect how one answers the questions on a subjective typology test. Fortunately, you can change your basic attitude to the nature/nurture question through awareness, and then change the course of things.

 

[FDG]

I've had my share of relatively "bad" years (nothing outrageous, but most of the teacher were really pissed off at my lack of performance). It was mostly about having something else - more interesting - to do, and being bored by the material.

 

[funkadelik]

When I was in high school, I couldn't have cared less about my classes or the entire school process. It was really boring in my eyes. I did OK because I learned how to play the system, but I left with no particular idea of what interested me in life, nor did I feel like I learned much of anything. Nowadays I equate that to doing very poorly.

Now that I'm back in school and now that I've discovered how much I love physics, I look back and ardently wish I could have had this back in high school. And the funny thing is, I'm really good at my classes now. It just comes naturally and that's a fantastic feeling.

So, yes, it's possible for an NT to do badly in school. But I think success in school, at least for ENTPs, rests on how much a subject captures their interest and imagination. If it doesn't, they'll likely not do as well in those courses.

 

[Randomnity]

Of course not. Everyone knows that all NTs are geniuses.

 

[Riva]

When I was in high school, I couldn't have cared less about my classes or the entire school process. It was really boring in my eyes. I did OK because I learned how to play the system, but I left with no particular idea of what interested me in life, nor did I feel like I learned much of anything. Nowadays I equate that to doing very poorly.

Now that I'm back in school and now that I've discovered how much I love physics, I look back and ardently wish I could have had this back in high school. And the funny thing is, I'm really good at my classes now. It just comes naturally and that's a fantastic feeling.

So, yes, it's possible for an NT to do badly in school. But I think success in school, at least for ENTPs, rests on how much a subject captures their interest and imagination. If it doesn't, they'll likely not do as well in those courses.

Sooner or later no matter how bad they were at school NTs eventually turn in to academics.

Unless life overwhelmingly presses them down and keeps that part of life out of reach.

Like for the Jews in concentration camps.
Muslim women in Afghanistan.
etc

And all those freaks who believe in God too much and prevents their young from learning anything other than God.

 

[Riva]

Of course not. Everyone knows that all NTs are geniuses.

This is very true. I am glad you confessed.

Also,

I have noticed that INTPs are the most likely to do bad at school. This is not because they do not understand. It is because they are extreme slackers. it is shocking how introspective and academic they are yet some of them fail to do well at school. I had two such classmates. One is a best friend.

INTPs are the most rational of all rationals. But at rationality they fails at times due to inertia and indecisiveness.

And they say INFPs are the most idealistic of all idealists. But at times they fail to lend a helping hand due to them being extremely indecisive.

Take it from Riva.

Oh, INTJs are the most likely to succeed at academics at school or wherever.

 

[Giggly]

Sooner or later no matter how bad they were at school NTs eventually turn in to academics.

Unless life overwhelmingly presses them down and keeps that part of life out of reach.

Like for the Jews in concentration camps.
Muslim women in Afghanistan.
etc

And all those freaks who believe in God too much and prevents their young from learning anything other than God.

Hahaha bold statements there. I wonder if they are true.

 

[gmanyo]

I have noticed that INTPs are the most likely to do bad at school. This is not because they do not understand. It is because they are extreme slackers.

I don't think that the average INTP is necessarily a slacker. I just think that they are least likely to actually try in a subject that does not interest them because they probably wouldn't see or care about its importance. I wouldn't call this being a slacker, since they frequently work very hard at the things that do interest them.

 

[Riva]

I don't think that the average INTP is necessarily a slacker. I just think that they are least likely to actually try in a subject that does not interest them because they probably wouldn't see or care about its importance. I wouldn't call this being a slacker, since they frequently work very hard at the things that do interest them.

The ones I mentioned were both science fanatics. Especially physics.

They both did horribly in the end. They were horrible slackers in their own field of expertise and enthusiasm.

Maybe they felt insecure and didn't want to challenge themselves, since though they were good at science and were enthusiastic the exams weren't a walk in the park.

Psychological mambo jumbo I am getting in to here.