Did you excel at school?
I glided through elementary and high school relying mainly on raw intellect. In grade 3, I was tested and qualified for the gifted program at my school, though my teacher held me back due to behavioral problems and not reading enough. Nevertheless, when there was a project or assignment that sparked my interest I would attain a great mark. Things started to change in high school when I auditioned for, and was accepted to, a school for the performing arts where I majored in music. In effect, things began to change as my abilities and talents became increasingly recognized. However, as a result of the intense focus on group work and day-to-day assignments, I ofted rebelled against the system and was never able to operate on the level I'm capable. Where I really began to flourish was at university, where I was afforded a high level of independence and a looser structure that gave me some wiggle room to work on my own watch (the way I work best). As a result, in my final two years of undergrad I maintained a 4.0 at the most competitive school in the country, scored a job as a Research Assistant in a class of 250 just because my paper stood out, and got a first round offer into a highly competitive Master's program. Below, I will explain some of reasons for this and what we can learn from it.
Is theory easier for intuitive types?
Intuitively, yes. But I think it's important to be careful of categorical assumptions and when MBTI dichotomies cease to be edifying in the real world. Let's take chess for instance. To the outside observer, good chess seems to require a high level of intuition. Nigel Short describes it as a sort of wisdom and ability to feel your way forward sometimes. Yet, if you ask great chess players themselves about the necessary skills for good chess, many will point to other factors such as an ability to focus. On this point, I submit that an ability to focus--to maintain peak concentration and determination for hours on end--would be much more predictive of the rate at which a person learns theory than whether they are N or S. In effect, an ST with the focus and determination could learn theory easier than a lazy NT, all things equal. But given the assumption that the N is focused, committed, and determined, then yes theory should come easier to an N. However, the counterpoint to be made is that some theory is counterintuitive, which might make it comparatively harder for an N who is used to quickly grasping concepts when they are intuitive. Thus, context will also play an important role in how easy theory is absorbed.
Did you find yourself drifting into your own world, wanting to come up with your own theory's, not really caring about the ones being taught?
Yes. In elementary school and a lot of high school I was understimulated (setting music aside). I couldn't stand most of my peers, disliked group work, disliked having to get up early in the mornings (school would have been much more advantageous for me if it ran later in the day), disliked having teachers calling on me arbitrarily to read a frivolous book I hadn't read (I thought the whole English canon of required reading was uninteresting), disliked stupid handouts with blank lines that we would fill in thoughtlessly, disliked that most of my teachers themselves had no brains, disliked authority in general, disliked the focus on memorization rather than critical thinking, and I disliked that the "why" was left out for the most part. As a result, I use to draw pictures in class, diagrams for traps I planned to implement in the forest, and I played chess with my principle at lunch when I was banned from the school yard when I was 8. In short, when things got boring I retreated into my own world and did my own thing to keep myself occupied. Often, the teacher would ask me a question after I hadn't been paying attention for an hour or so and I'd either wing it or say-with no remorse-that I did not do the readings. There were minor exceptions growing up where I had episodes of stimulation. For instance, a mathematician used to visit the class when I was in grade 2 and later in grades 4 and 5 and he had an impact on me intellectually. But these were exceptions rather than the rule. In retrospect my grade 3 teacher made a miscalculation by not sending me on to the gifted class because understimulation was the very cause of my perpetual misbehavior, and recognition of my talents and abilities would have been the cure.
In your opinion what temperament are schools most geared towards? SJ, SP, NT or NF ?
It depends on what level of education we are talking about. Elementary school and even high school to a great extent is geared toward SJs. The daily tasks and concentration on the here and now works to the advantage of SJs. Moreover, teachers place priority on the memorization of basics rather than critically thinking through the basics. Ironically, only when I began to learn why things are the way they are (particularly at university) was I able to memorize concepts with greater ease. Indeed, it is a characteristic of INTJness that a necessary condition of mastery requires that things make sense in our own logical minds. If the "why" is absent, it's equivalent to being given a phone book and asked to memorize all the numbers for names starting with A. It's just data, void of meaning. Yet with the onset of university, thinking critically was held in higher esteem and it was then that I learned many of the things that were absent in my earlier years. On the other hand, an SJ is less likely to question (or drift off into abstract thought) as the NT and therefore early education which favors memorization and operating in the here and now will be comparatively more advantageous for this type. Also, all things equal, elementary and high school favor E over I. This is the case for several reasons. First, emphasis on group work favors an E over I. E types are more likely to get recognition since they will extrovert their thoughts more then an I. To an outside observer (teacher), it will look like they're contributing more. They will also be more likely to take on a leadership role than an I.
However, at higher levels of education (particularly university) many of these factors break down. Group projects become much more rare (if any at all) which evens out the E advantage. Intuition becomes much more important for critical thinking and questioning the why. Indeed, at higher levels of abstraction, intuitives will be able to move beyond the details and recognize more abstract emergent patterns. In short, it would not suprise me to find a dedicated NT who did mediocre in grade school doing excellent at university, while an SJ who did great in high school is now middle of the pack and realizes that before they only had an inflated sense of academic worth. Intuitively, S-types have an advantage in the short-run since they will work like little beavers before they understand the big picture (which they may never fully comprehend in the end) while the NT might take a little longer at the outset but once things start to click everything that they didn't get before and was stored in their subconscious gets activated.
Any other thoughts on school?
I think education is extremely important in society. But school itself has yielded mixed results for me. University has been an excellent experience, high school was just ok, and elementary school was mediocre. In conclusion, we can establish that elementary school would have been more stimulating and effective for me if it was structured in a similar way as university. That is, I'd prefere less merit placed on group work, interpersonal skills, daily tasks, and memorization, and more emphasis on independence, academic excellence, critical thinking, and constantly addressing the "why".
