Ne in Academia

[RobinSkye]

Are Ne doms typically the types that naturally grab on to new material/concepts but then do so-so because they lack the desire to go back and review material? I feel like all these years if my Si just kicked in more frequently, I would probably be a straight A student.

 

[á´…eparted]

 

[RobinSkye]

Not type related? Ne is about quickly forseeing possibilities, and often suggests quickly understanding theories. If it affects the way a person learns, then it will certainly also affect their study habits.

 

[á´…eparted]

Not type related? Ne is about quickly forseeing possibilities, and often suggests quickly understanding theories. If it affects the way a person learns, then it will certainly also affect their study habits.

Hang around here long enough and you'll see that not everything is related to type.

I work in academia (4th/5th year graduate student), and I have seen no consistent pattern with ability and lack there of with type. It is case by case. Ne can be amazing, or piss poor in academia depending on the individual.

 

[RobinSkye]

Right, just like everyone is an individual and uses these functions in unique ways in different quantities. But I'm making a generalization here, which is what typology does. My parents are both uni professors with multiple advanced degrees and I have talked about this with them, but they're not that interested in typology because it's seemingly too restrictive

 

[Mad Hatter]

It is case by case. Ne can be amazing, or piss poor in academia depending on the individual.

This.
I can tell you, I do have severe issues when it comes to writing papers, especially when it comes to history. There is such a strong urge to present the "full picture", including all possibilities and connections that arise (which I know is ludicrous in this subject). INTPs might be worse in this regard. Ne is good for connections, comparisons and all that, but I feel that it can be a huge liability when it comes to getting shit done, handing stuff in and be done with it. For ENTPs, I could imagine that they might be prone to losing interest, and if it's one thing I've learned over the years, perseverance might well be the most important quality in academia, but that's not a type related quality as such.

 

[Bush]

Eh, I could actually see it.

Any type could succeed or fail in academia, for sure. But type may give a clue as to exactly how that success or failure could manifest.

To the stereotypical Ne-dom, connecting ideas and concepts could come naturally, but rigor and fact-checking may not. If they acknowledge the importance of that rigor, and if they bite the bullet and just do it, they would perform much better than "so-so."

I can't think of good examples for other types from the top of my head, but

 

[á´…eparted]

Right, just like everyone is an individual and uses these functions in unique ways in different quantities. But I'm making a generalization here, which is what typology does. My parents are both uni professors with multiple advanced degrees and I have talked about this with them, but they're not that interested in typology because it's seemingly too restrictive

And what I am telling you is a generalization here won't work.

If you however, reframe it from the stand point of "when Ne struggles in academia, what might be reasons for it, and how could it be worked on?", that is completely fair.

 

[RobinSkye]

Yes. I always want to be overly thorough. My teachers have always told me that I do more work than is necessary, and that I basically should just be more straight-forward and formulaic with my writing. Some, on the other hand, have really appreciated that I go the extra mile and have a real interest in what's being taught.

Are there certain areas of study where Ne may be more or less useful? I agree, too, that with history Ne is practically useless. History I see as pretty much specific to Si. I never had fun with any of those classes, until some sort of creative project was involved once in a while back in highschool. Math didn't become fun until it became applied to things like economics, and therefore created psychological and societal implications, which my Ne is able to feed on. Otherwise math is better suited for Ni, because Ni can create a web of formulas and theorems and hold onto them forever, whereas with Ne, I want to go one step further with it somehow and will easily become distracted and forget about details. Any subject area that had some sort of open-endedness, such as language, always won my favor. It allowed me to be myself, but I still had a teacher or two that would complain my writing is too subjective.

 

[Xann]

Are Ne doms typically the types that naturally grab on to new material/concepts but then do so-so because they lack the desire to go back and review material? I feel like all these years if my Si just kicked in more frequently, I would probably be a straight A student.

Absolutely, and it is obviously type related. The entire education system as it presently sits is completely favoring Si + Te (and in some areas/levels of study Fe) users, the inherent injustice being that intuitives (Ne doms are most vulnerable IMO) are capable of doing the Si + Te type work, but expecting an Si user to quickly grasp the subject material the same way an interested and invested Ne user could is akin to expecting a miracle, and hence everything is taught and graded in a way that supposedly favors everyone while not realizing the sheer levels of pain inflicted upon high stimulation-seeking N users when they are forced to adopt the SJ timeline and expectations. Not only this, but the subject matter itself is inherently Si favoring in pretty much all disciplines of study, even those that should definitely not be (psychology - behaviorism, anyone?). Don't expect much support for your point of view on this here though, it goes against the SJ groupthink. (To them it is as if Ne doesn't really exist, they cannot see it in others either or its merits, and nor do they want to, because if there was a bias in the system that favored them their egos couldn't handle it.)

 

[RobinSkye]

Absolutely, and it is obviously type related. The entire education system as it presently sits is completely favoring Si + Te (and in some areas/levels of study Fe) users, the inherent injustice being that intuitives (Ne doms are most vulnerable IMO) are capable of doing the Si + Te type work, but expecting an Si user to quickly grasp the subject material the same way an interested and invested Ne user could is akin to expecting a miracle, and hence everything is taught and graded in a way that supposedly favors everyone while not realizing the sheer levels of pain inflicted upon high stimulation-seeking N users when they are forced to adopt the SJ timeline and expectations. Not only this, but the subject matter itself is inherently Si favoring in pretty much all disciplines of study, even those that should definitely not be (psychology - behaviorism, anyone?). Don't expect much support for your point of view on this here though, it goes against the SJ groupthink. (To them it is as if Ne doesn't really exist, they cannot see it in others either or its merits, and nor do they want to, because if there was a bias in the system that favored them their egos couldn't handle it.)

Yep, we're on the same page completely. SJ society. I think I've developed in a fairly healthy enough way after being in the schooling system for long enough and know how much effort I need to put in to at least get A's and B's, though I know that I really should be doing better than that. Many of my college profs have called me their star pupil but given me a B due to the way grading works. And this is at a liberal arts college. But I must say that I'm much better off there than I was in a public schooling system. At least liberal arts college doesn't completely sap my energy by asking me to call upon functions that are unhealthy for me for 8 hours straight each weekday.

 

[á´…eparted]

Yes. I always want to be overly thorough. My teachers have always told me that I do more work than is necessary, and that I basically should just be more straight-forward and formulaic with my writing. Some, on the other hand, have really appreciated that I go the extra mile and have a real interest in what's being taught.

Are there certain areas of study where Ne may be more or less useful? I agree, too, that with history Ne is practically useless. History I see as pretty much specific to Si. I never had fun with any of those classes, until some sort of creative project was involved once in a while back in highschool. Math didn't become fun until it became applied to things like economics, and therefore created psychological and societal implications, which my Ne is able to feed on. Otherwise math is better suited for Ni, because Ni can create a web of formulas and theorems and hold onto them forever, whereas with Ne, I want to go one step further with it somehow and will easily become distracted and forget about details. Any subject area that had some sort of open-endedness, such as language, always won my favor. It allowed me to be myself, but I still had a teacher or two that would complain my writing is too subjective.

I still think you're being too overtly focused on functions fitting in a broad stroke manner, nevertheless I see where you're coming from.

For you, the way you use Ne is "useless" in history. There could be others who are Si doms where for them it would be useless for history. Part of the reason I am being specific and anal about wording here is stereotyping and broad spectrum statements regarding types has been a major problem in typology in the past, and this forum has really minimized that as much as possible. When I or others see it pop up we usually try to address it. I think you're coming from the stand point of how this all applies to you, which is totally fine. Just be cautious with making it seem like you're trying to paint Ne or typology statements across the board. It doesn't work that way.

I'm a chemist, and I'm in graduate school. By all accounts, I, as an ENFJ should not enjoy it, be terrible at it, and not be able to think clearly with it. Yet, I have enjoyed chemistry nearly all my life, and the way I use functions on my own level works and fits. As a comparison, [MENTION=9913]captain curmudgeon[/MENTION] is in social work, which really shouldn't fit for an ISTJ, but it fits for him.

It's good that you're finding a way to carve a niche and make the best use of your skills. Ultimately, we all have to do it. It might seem to you like SJ's have an easier time, but I assure you that's not the case. Ask around many of the SJ's on this forum and they'll tell you. It might be different struggles, but struggles they still are.

 

[citizen cane]

I think what has somewhat anchored me in social work so far has been the Te aspect of it. I tend to have an easier go of things if I ask in advance 'what can I accomplish today that I can demonstrate to others?' To be honest though, I am looking into the idea of switching career paths, as it does cause some significant discord with my personality.

 

[five sounds]

I'm an Ne Dom and I gravitated toward academia because I liked discussing and researching/writing about topics more than 'practicing' them. I think that's super type related in my case.

I chose to practice for reasons of practicality and found the minutia and attention to detail was way too much for me. I still think about getting my phd and teaching college courses. I've had that dream for a long time.

 

[Hawthorne]

Absolutely, and it is obviously type related. The entire education system as it presently sits is completely favoring Si + Te (and in some areas/levels of study Fe) users, the inherent injustice being that intuitives (Ne doms are most vulnerable IMO) are capable of doing the Si + Te type work, but expecting an Si user to quickly grasp the subject material the same way an interested and invested Ne user could is akin to expecting a miracle, and hence everything is taught and graded in a way that supposedly favors everyone while not realizing the sheer levels of pain inflicted upon high stimulation-seeking N users when they are forced to adopt the SJ timeline and expectations. Not only this, but the subject matter itself is inherently Si favoring in pretty much all disciplines of study, even those that should definitely not be (psychology - behaviorism, anyone?). Don't expect much support for your point of view on this here though, it goes against the SJ groupthink. (To them it is as if Ne doesn't really exist, they cannot see it in others either or its merits, and nor do they want to, because if there was a bias in the system that favored them their egos couldn't handle it.)

So this was the reason why my math teachers would point dock me to death for not showing all my work or for doing the problems "different from the way I taught you" despite getting the right answers?

It all makes sense now.

 

[á´…eparted]

So this was the reason why my math teachers would point dock me to death for not showing all my work or for doing the problems "different from the way I taught you" despite getting the right answers?

It all makes sense now.

Students seem to ALWAYS get upset over this, and some of the time it's fair. There are some unfortunately shitty teachers who don't take into account the big picture when students are learning. Thus docking excess points over truly trivial matters. However, there are lots of valid reasons why "doing it different" isn't allowed.

Because in practice it won't work later on, and there actually is a right way and a wrong way to do something, even if they get to the same answer. I honestly really dislike math because of this. I had to take up to multivariable calculus in college and I hated every minute of it. What always got me was having to show every step and make sure it all flowed and got to the answer. Even still, I understand why that matters. Process is super important, and is needed to get later material understood.

I'm a grad student in organic chemistry, and I TA for multiple organic chemistry courses. The process of getting to the answer matters, and if you DON'T do it exactly as it's taught, it IS wrong. Every single organic chemist out there will tell you the same thing. For some it sucks, and it takes a lot of work to get through it, but it's the nature of the beast. It's just at basic levels in high school and earlier it's much harder to see the point to doing things a certain way. Rarely, a student will find a genuinely new or different method to do something that works and is valid. Teachers should accomidate for that. If a student comes up with a different way to solve a problem that is valid, even if it's different than I taught it, I ALWAYS honor it.

You will very, very rarely find people in any given field who drastically deviate from the common methods needed and used within it. There will be some stylistic differences, but they are just that, stylistic.

 

[Hawthorne]

*notes [MENTION=20829]Hard[/MENTION]’s academic background and my upcoming biochem bloated semester*


...


When it's a necessary part of conceptualizing or solving a problem is one thing. Being penalized for failing to use a cute diagramming mnemonic or not showing relatively straightforward manipulations and computations, especially after demonstrating a good understanding of the underlying concept was another. I’m not bitter.

We seem to be in agreement about that though. Especially on the part where point docking is sometimes taken to ridiculous extremes.

 

[á´…eparted]

*notes [MENTION=20829]Hard[/MENTION]’s academic background and my upcoming biochem bloated semester*


...


When it's a necessary part of conceptualizing or solving a problem is one thing. Being penalized for failing to use a cute diagramming mnemonic or not showing relatively straightforward manipulations and computations, especially after demonstrating a good understanding of the underlying concept was another. I’m not bitter.

We seem to be in agreement about that though. Especially on the part where point docking is sometimes taken to ridiculous extremes.

I haven't taken biochem since 2010, but the last course I ever took a year and a half ago was biochem-like (secondary metabolism). I'm a bit rusty, but I know the basics.

Oh yeah I totally agree in the points your making. I always got really annoyed when teachers forced everyone to use a memonic or device (who's purpose was to use as a tool to learn how to do things) that didn't actually serve any purpose towards the material. It's cases where it's extra work that does no benefit towards what's actually done at higher levels, and isn't actually directly addressing what needs to be learned. That stuff is bullshit to me, right up there with busywork.

 

[Kas]

When it's a necessary part of conceptualizing or solving a problem is one thing. Being penalized for failing to use a cute diagramming mnemonic or not showing relatively straightforward manipulations and computations, especially after demonstrating a good understanding of the underlying concept was another. I’m not bitter.

We seem to be in agreement about that though. Especially on the part where point docking is sometimes taken to ridiculous extremes.

That was annoying to me too. How many mnemonics techniques I possibly remember?
Education should be more about understanding(not only memorizing) than it is.

 

[Kas]

To the OP

I think it's more about what we do with what we have. Of course we have different difficulties and I think that xNxP are more likely to give up on projects. We also have difficulty with being organised and regularity (that one is so true about me).
We can be very driven though and it helped me several times.

If it is about career I think there is so much more and choosing one basing on type wouldn't be any good. Just to give example my best history teacher ( the only one who managed to make me interested in the subject) was INTP. He was great in discussing how one action influenced the rest of the history and what could happen alternatively. Why this country reacted this or that way- looking on one problem from many perspectives.