College environment favors INJ's: article

[cascadeco]

There are lots of college majors out there obviously. It's no secret that physical sciences and humanities tend to draw NT's [and to a lesser extent ST's] and NF's respectively, with engineering drawing largely similar types as physical sciences.

Really? I'm not sure I'd draw much distinction between N's and S's as tied to physical sciences and humanities; rather than NT's and NF's respectively, I'd broaden it even further to T's and F's, respectively. (and of course that's just trending) I think a lot of the physical sciences are very 'practical'/real-world in nature, and a lot of the humanities (particularly languages) would draw huge numbers of S's- I don't really see how humanities would be more likely to be an NF thing. Also, I'm no longer sold on engineers being mostly NT's; I actually suspect it's about even, N/S alike. I think most of the engineering curriculums are extremely practical/application-based (or at the very least, what the real-world job entails); but yes, sure, some are more theoretical/research-based.

The article was about physiology/biology. I'm sure there are lots of S-focused majors [communications, business, sports sciences], out there. As a person who went to a liberal arts school for math and science training, and had to take various humanities gen ed requirements, there was lots of N abstract thinking in my curriculum.

I think college academics are least geared towards the SP's, and I'm debating which of them its least geared for though I've read ESTP and ISFP for that.

To the OP and this post, I'd agree college coursework isn't as suited to SP's - but, we could say that about P's in general. otoh, don't know that we could even say that, because ISTP's make some very dedicated engineers, computer scientists, etc. I'd agree ExxP might have the toughest time with traditional teaching methods/grading/expectations.

And, yeah, I'd agree that IxxJ's probably ease into academic institutions (whether college, high school, or earlier) pretty seamlessly.

 

[Randomnity]

I was trying to read up on common MBTI's of college biology students, and came across the following article: http://advan.physiology.org/content/262/6/S1.full.pdf

basically it says that college [science, biology] environments are set up for and favor INJ's, somewhat ITJ's, and woah is you if your an EP or heaven forbid a ESP.

For example: "suited for students who are organized (J),
interested in abstract thinking (N), and work effectively
alone (I). Students who prefer to live spontaneously (P),
like to work with practical applications (S), and enjoy
interpersonal interactions (E) are less rewarded by the
college experience. The INJ students clearly have an advantage
over ESP students in the college environment as
it is currently structured."

lol, that's about the least surprising article ever.

my past and current degrees are related to physiology and I did/am doing ok, for what that's worth.

 

[Usehername]

I can't make my college class all that INxJ friendly as an INxJ instructor because when I tried to teach the way my brain works I lost 70% of my students, and their evals said, "I don't get it. You only gave us a few examples, after the first few you that you went over in detail you skipped some of the thinking steps and how are we supposed to learn if you don't spell it out for us, and you use too many analogies."

You can't just teach someone how to step into frame-shifting, context-dependent, synthesis-Ni world in undergrad. Only 30% of them can do it or learn to do it in the space of a semester, so you instead have to teach hyper-concretely and then colour the background with framework shifting.

In other words, teach to the less flexible students. Smart people of all types can adapt to thinking styles of their profs and collect a host of different thinking strategies--that's the point of college, it shouldn't matter what their preferred style is if they teach adequately. I've had really bright ESxPs who learned Ni frame shifting really well. It's not a type-thing, it's an attitude to flex thing. Or they're just not mature enough if they're freshmen, which is understandable. You don't know what their high school background was and you can't just expect them to rewire thinking styles overnight.

I highly doubt undergrad is an Ni world. It's grad school that is Ni/Ti.

 

[Randomnity]

from the article (sorry bad copy paste, lazy):

were as
follows: I > E, IJ > EP, ST > SF, SJ > NT, INJ > ESP,
and J was almost significantly higher than P. If the probability
is adjusted for running multiple t tests using the
Bonferroni equation (a! = O.O5/number of t tests), significant
comparisons were I > E and IJ > EP.

In other words I think the point is way more that E(S)Ps have a harder time than I(N)Js than that INJs have it easier than everyone else. Not at all surprising if you compare Se to Ni. Bolded is the closest to scientific you get with pop psychology. Which doesn't really tell you much. But all the IxxJs I've known have done well in uni. Some people of other types have too, of course.

 

[Scott N Denver]

I can't make my college class all that INxJ friendly as an INxJ instructor because when I tried to teach the way my brain works I lost 70% of my students, and their evals said, "I don't get it. You only gave us a few examples, after the first few you that you went over in detail you skipped some of the thinking steps and how are we supposed to learn if you don't spell it out for us, and you use too many analogies."

You can't just teach someone how to step into frame-shifting, context-dependent, synthesis-Ni world in undergrad. Only 30% of them can do it or learn to do it in the space of a semester, so you instead have to teach hyper-concretely and then colour the background with framework shifting.

In other words, teach to the less flexible students. Smart people of all types can adapt to thinking styles of their profs and collect a host of different thinking strategies--that's the point of college, it shouldn't matter what their preferred style is if they teach adequately. I've had really bright ESxPs who learned Ni frame shifting really well. It's not a type-thing, it's an attitude to flex thing. Or they're just not mature enough if they're freshmen, which is understandable. You don't know what their high school background was and you can't just expect them to rewire thinking styles overnight.

I highly doubt undergrad is an Ni world. It's grad school that is Ni/Ti.

I think people like us know that INJ => Ni dom, but I'll bet that many of these surveys and tests and articles simply look at E I, S N, T F, J P and and see which of those letters perform best, or worst. Actually, I dont think I've ever seen one of these academic assessment MBTI studies broken down by function [Fe vs Fi, for example].

Fwiw, maybe you should have majored in physics. It was like freaking bloody murder getting them NOT to teach in NiTe... Not in quite these words, but way back when I was in school I many times had the thought: "God, please send me an INTP to teach me physics, for they make sense and are thorough and complete and accurate, all this NiTe is just making even basic stuff sound confusing as shit, much less the complicated stuff. And they gloss over so many steps and details and important small points. An INTP would be just awesome, can we make that happen? Thanks! -Scott"