Two fundamental problems of education

[onemoretime]

Humanity has survived and grown due to practical learning.

While learning for the sake of learning may be preferable for you, there is the issue of society in general that has to be dealt with. A society of NTs would completely self-destruct within weeks, as there would be no one who would just do things without either trying to completely rework it, or vehement objection. The social tension would become completely untenable.

Face it, we need sensors, because we need people who will unquestioningly do things when the situation demands it. Likewise, we need education for them because they need the tools to be able to do these things for society. The problem of education is that the system (speaking from an American, trackless perspective) is designed to give these tools, and not much else, with the expectation that intuitives will learn what they want to on their own, and find their niche in college or university (which they often do). While it is effective as an overall system, it brings no lack of annoyance or consternation on the part of the intuitives who are being shoved into a completely incompatible system (never mind reinforcing class privilege as wealthier intuitives can go to private schools more inclined to their thinking style).

What you seem to assert as the failings of sensors is a difference of need. The lack of self-reflection doesn't come from a deficiency - it comes from a lack of needing this sort of thinking to reconcile oneself with the world. This isn't always a bad thing, either. If it's harvest time and several acres of crops need to be reaped, is it very useful to ruminate on the two or three plants that you accidentally destroyed? And yet, it's because of the lack of "thinking" of this "stupid" sensor that the rest of us have food on our plates. I mean, it's no exaggeration to say that garbage men and sewer pipe maintenance crews are by far the most vital positions in urban society, only outweighed by food production on a national level. What makes us intuitives somehow "better" than them, when we couldn't live without them?

And what you seem to perceive as a "mindless" society is no different than it has ever been. Prolefeed is prolefeed, and it's been around since civilization has ever existed - the US national anthem was originally a drinking song. Horatio Alger books were complete mindless drivel. Gregorian chants had no thought to them whatsoever, and the rest of popular music in that period either was about how great the rural folk are, harvesting, prostitutes or alcohol. The number of trash novels in the Victorian age was legendary. Even Shakespeare wrote to entertain the masses, and not to be parsed word-by-word 400 years later, it was just that he was particularly good at entertaining the masses, and he wouldn't have hardly added any words to the English lexicon if he appealed to the upper classes; they would deride the novel words as ignorant and debased.

So, in closing - get over yourself.

 

[stellar renegade]

Thanks, onemoretime. My sentiments exactly.

Also, SolitaryWalker, you make it sound like I can't digest intellectual books even if it would score points for me with a hot chick. I'm in the process of reading several right now, a couple of history books, a psychological book, a book on biological health, a book on the role of psychadelics in spiritual experiences (by a PhD), and a couple of others. Granted I skip back and forth and some I've put on the backburner for awhile, but I can understand them perfectly and I even make my own conclusions and theories about them.

Fuck, dude, I understood everything in high school, I just hated the rote work and felt that most of it was useless. I took pre-AP and AP English and loved it. And I didn't even have to cheat like all the jocks and cheerleaders. I understood math and economics better than most people, I just ended up sleeping through those classes (and got an A in Algebra II cuz the teacher just gave me credit for what I did do).

How 'bout we both take an IQ test or some other test of your choosing and compare scores? I bet I could whoop your sorry ass. This is the only adequate test to find out whether your hypothesis is correct or whether you're just talking out of your loose brown eye.

So, what do you say? Wanna take the challenge or are you gonna pussy out?

 

[sculpting]

Most students today are not concerned with knowledge. They go to college to get a job. When in class, they do not care to understand what they are learning. All they wish to receive is merely a combination of tricks that need to be mastered in order to do well on the exam.

Agreed. Teaching premed students hammers this point home. Good god they are whiny little bitches too. Most of them are NTs though...

What could be the cause of this? The answer is very simplee. The more complex the problems become, the more difficult it is to learn them by route. When this happens, a genuine understanding of the subject matter becomes a prerequisite for high results. Is this truly a problem?

My dorm neighbor averaged 20 grammatical and spelling errors per page in essays that he asked me to proofread.
.

hehe, Ne-monsters can't spell or type most days. But SW also makes mistakes....

Is it really a problem-the genuine understanding? Not for the typical person-they never really problem solve, as much as just do things. They learn the task, repeat the task, then move on. It suffices to earn them a living.

When I got out of grad school and went to work, suddenly I was I remembered how, well, not quick witted most folks are. Also not interested in troublshooting and problem solving. Very quickly I rose in the ranks as a leader of sorts as I would just step and and solve the issue.

What is the consequence of such people graduating with honors? Our society becomes mindless and stupidity is painful. I doubt that I need to remind anyone here about the mindlessness aspect of our society. In order to discover confirmation regarding the truthfulness of this claim, one needs to look no further than MTV.

Meh, The degrees may get dumbed down but the people are the same as they always were-those who want to think do so, and those who do not just "do". It isnt a crime or a biological defect not to enjoy learning or intellectual stimulation. As children, biology programs us to learn very qickly and enjoy it, as to accumulate life skills quickly and thus reproduce. Those of us who retain that love of learning as adults could actually be seen as biologically flawed. Instead of focusing on sucssesful reproductive stratagies, gathering food, and protecting our offspring, we accumulate knowledge and ponder shit, lost in our own heads.

Please refer to the sensotard thread....There is a reason we make up less than 30% of the population. Likely a large percentage of our ancerstors fell off cliffs while pondering, rather than watching thier next step.

One may say that this is unacceptable and our educational system needs to be radically altered. People should no longer be allowed to pass classes having learned nothing. They should be forced to be creative and to think critically as opposed to merely regurgitate the incantantions bestowed upon them. .

This would never work. It is like asking me to remember what shirt I wore yesterday. It is very difficult, and for my purposes irrelevant. I think it is worth pushing a little in certain areas, just to illustrate the idea of critical thinking, but in reality, it is not needed, is not efficient, and thus not of value for most people.

If we keep things the way they are a catastrophe is avoided, however, on the other hand, the very few people who are willing and able to think critically are deprived of the inspiration to do so because their school merely trains and does not educate them. The message becomes obvious; if you wish to learn, you are on your own

Reconciling the interests of those who see knowledge as an end in itself and those who see it as means to an end is a profound social problem. I challenge all students of education to solve it.

Split students early into tracked curriculum. Kids who gravitate towards N-rich ideas should be provided that. Strong SJ kids should be given an SJ enviornment. SPs are by far away the poorest served by our schools-that is the area most in need of improvement. The best way I have found to do this for my son was to take him out of the heavy SJ public school system and put him in a charter science school. They do push much harder here and for him it is also much more socially forgiving.

In college track students as well. Also be forgiving. My NT physicists hated chemistry and made Cs. They like to learn and think-about stuff they want to think about.

Also be very careful calling sensors stupid. My exhusband-an ISTP-tested at IQ of 145 as a teen. When he took the SAT, he scored better than anyone else in his county for the past five years. To take the test his parents had to bail him out of jail for public intoxication that morning. It took him five years to graduate high school. IQ doesnt seem to be related strictly to N. His mom and grandad were also ISTPs with very high IQs.

 

[nightning]

You've picked an excellence rant and discussion topic this time SW. It's been a while since I've last commented on your threads...

On the three approaches to education. I take it, your stance is method (1) learning strictly for applicative purposes = SJ approach and (2) learning for the sake of understanding = NP approach. I guess since I am NJ, my approach will be the mixture of (1) and (2). And in this case, my attitude does fit your conjecture.

I think it's reasonable to assume that neither method (1) or (2) alone is sufficient for education in society... Unless you are refering to education as university education and all practical "learning" belongs to technical school etc and do not count as "formal" education. Because approach (2), learning for the sake of understanding feeds only your mind and not your body. After all, the cog wheels of society must keep on turning.

I agree with you thought that most college students nowadays are only certain with grades and the degree is nothing more as the means to an end (i.e. obtaining a reasonably high paying job). Actually if I may raise a cynical comment, the majority of undergraduate students in health science want "good grades" for one reason: to get into medical school. And their purpose for becoming doctors? To make money. I know it's this is one standard question asked in medical school admission interviews... why do you want to become a physician? To which the canned and "proper" answer is "I want to help people". You'll have to be a fool to believe that. Since I'll assume neither the interviewer nor interviewee are fools... why bother asking such a question? Now this brings up an interesting question... is means to an end a justifiable purpose of "education"?

Yes it'll be "nice" to split education into two streams, profession based and knowledge based. But you can't... because we associate "higher learning" for knowledge and therefore desirable but few truly wants that sort of education. Hence we have this people (aka student) pleasing sort of education. And this isn't really to please the students... rather it's easier to teach students strictly facts and ask them to memorize such. Most schools in North America use students as cash cows. It's tuition fee from undergrads that funds research, school teams etc etc. Maximum milking means pulling as much funding out and only keeping the minimal to keep it going. And the minimal is this garbage.

 

[run]

Now this brings up an interesting question... is means to an end a justifiable purpose of "education"?

yeah, sure. Plumbers, electricians, etc. Sure. Intro level courses, sure, definitely. If you're gonna be a doctor, it's ok. You're purpose for being there is to know as much about the complex human body as possible. However, there's philosophy majors who learn rote material and that's just lame. So I think it depends on what you're studying.

Having said that, those in doctor school or whatever still shouldn't graduate without knowing how to make an inference on themselves.