How A Genius Learned To Start Working Hard

[Pyropyro]

I've lifted this article from the INTJ Forum.

How A Genius Learned To Start Working Hard

TLDR: Basically he thought that his intelligence made him entitled to great stuff; that the world owed him. However two things helped him focus and start working:

• The armor-piercing question: “You’re so smart/talented, I’m surprised you’re still doing this”
• He got kids and he has nothing to guide them with

Anyways, can you guys relate to the guy in this article?

I'm kind of between getting and not getting his life story. I need more pain/experience to truly "get it".

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I don't relate. I stopped thinking that I am entitled to things at the age of 14.

I haven't rejected buddhist principles and I constantly work to avoid deluding myself to enter any faulty mode of thought.

If I move forward, it is because I do something important and want something to happen. So I can agree that hard working is the key if you want to create or achieve things that don't exist in your current reality.

Given that some already have the resources, they need to get rid of those to start utilising their potentials, or move to the goals that take the resources they have as a prerequisite.

 

[NormannTheDoorman]

I should put this IQ of 419 to good use.

 

[Ribald]

I think he is still fucked up, still trying to force himself to conform in an SJ society.

I sense shame. He still thinks he is bad, he needs to make up for himself. Wants people to be proud of him for trying so hard. Thinks his wife is an "angel" for "putting up with him".

I believe in entitlement. Existential entitlement. I do deserve good things, and fuck people who say otherwise. Everyone does. Why wouldn't we DESERVE good things? I didn't ask to be born. No one did. Why should existence hurt? Why shouldn't it be GOOD?

I was born innocent. I am still innocent. If I deserved love as a baby I deserve it now. Life sucks though. There is scarcity and confusion. People witness this, they get wrapped up in it, and they begin to think it is their fault, they stop thinking they are innocent, and they start whipping themselves, trying to make amends for all the things they could never have changed.

This is the question of our time.

This guy, who knows what will happen. He is proud, but pride goes before a fall. What if his wife leaves him despite his efforts? It happens to many. Will he still think it is worthwhile to try so hard?

Honestly it isn't even an intelligence thing. Plenty of smart people do fine. They are the most successful, often times. This is a personality thing.

You can sense the split. People always split when they don't like something about themselves. They try to manifest the opposite of that thing, and simultaneously project it onto other people and try to burn it down. Sometimes a lazy person will go on a 'not lazy' kick, and in their enthusiasm they look at all the people not making that same effort and they say, "I am better than you people who aren't trying like me". Or they imply it. They do this by assuming free will.

He seems to have recognized some of his limits. And at least he isn't a Buddhist anymore. I don't know, I am the smart/lazy type, but if I had kids and a family I would have a lot more trouble doing as little as I do. So none of this is certain, but then again, who says "I let my children spend too much time steering their own destiny"? Something is a little off about this guy.

 

[Architect]

Christian Ritchie is an idiot who never should have taken the IQ test.

 

[Jennywocky]

I don't remember feeling "entitled" in the way he describes, although I remember feeling frustrated that I knew I thought through things well and yet all the people given opportunities when I was a teenager seemed to be the popular crowd and the schmoozers -- i.e., success seemed to come more through who you knew rather than what you knew and how well you understood things. To me, a "fairer" world would have provided more opportunity to those with the intelligence to perform well in the job.

But "potential smarts" grew less important to me as I got older and had to grapple with how the world worked; the reality is that you can be born with smarts and talent, but unless you actually invest, sweat, work the angles, and discipline yourself (mainly to create and/or discover channels for yourself in which you function at top form), you won't achieve much of value. You can be a great writer, for example; but if you never discipline yourself to finish a piece of writing, it doesn't matter. You can have the genes to be a great figure skater, but unless you train daily for years, you won't rise to the top. Success typically demands some amount of discipline and perseverence, not just raw talent. I think there are many talented people in the world, but far fewer who combine talent and discipline and achieve big things.

So none of this is certain, but then again, who says "I let my children spend too much time steering their own destiny"? Something is a little off about this guy.

You didn't finish the quote -- he goes on to say in the same sentence that what his children end up doing (instead of taking advantage of their freedom in constructive ways) is drifting into playing video games all the time.

Have spent half my life as not a parent and half my life AS a parent, and as a parent who respects autonomy and has tried to give such to my children, I've also lived in that frustrating spot where you realize that, although idealistically you would provide self-motivated adults with total freedom to maximize their own exploration and understanding of the world, kids typically do need more channeling. Not control, but a bit of structure; what kid LIKES doing things that take a lot of time and energy? Yet to make the most of their gifts, they need to be able to utilize the experience and wisdom of those who are dedicated to their success, and they also need to develop an aptitude for discipline.

My parents gave me a lot of freedom (for different reasons -- one didn't want to impose and the other was neglectful), but at the same time I wish my life had been a little more structured because I've had a lot of difficulty in doing things nowadays that I know could help me make the most of my abilities but it's just so damned hard to get into disciplined patterns and routines; I tend to drift along the path of least resistance. I think it's easier if you're used to that as a way of life; otherwise it seems to suck a lot of energy to get down new patterns as an adult.

I think freedom and self-direction is very important, but it's also important to develop some level of discipline, learn how to set goals, learn how to commit to goals.

 

[Ribald]

That's just status quo. I mean, tradition does have some value because it at least grants mediocrity, but there is a level beyond it which should not be ignored. Force is for parents whose kids don't respect and admire them, which is most parents, being the hypocritical people they are.

Bad is to let your kids be psychotic maniacs.
Better is to use the iron fist and force good behavior.
Best is for them to admire you and actually listen to what you say.

Not everyone's wise enough to get to level 3, but it does exist. "I let my children spend too much time steering their own destiny" is a level 2 thing to say, and to be in level 2, you have to be kinda fucked up (which is why your kids don't respect you), which was exactly my point in my post. The guy's a little fucked up, I'd say.

 

[Jennywocky]

That's just status quo. I mean, tradition does have some value because it at least grants mediocrity, but there is a level beyond it which should not be ignored. Force is for parents whose kids don't respect and admire them, which is most parents, being the hypocritical people they are.

Bad is to let your kids be psychotic maniacs.
Better is to use the iron fist and force good behavior.
Best is for them to admire you and actually listen to what you say.

Not everyone's wise enough to get to level 3, but it does exist. "I let my children spend too much time steering their own destiny" is a level 2 thing to say, and to be in level 2, you have to be kinda fucked up (which is why your kids don't respect you), which was exactly my point in my post. The guy's a little fucked up, I'd say.

I really have no idea what you are responding to here, as it seems to have little to do with what I took some time to explicate for you.

There's a possibility here that you're continuing to misinterpret what he was saying. As someone who raised three flexible kids, I can see value in the thought that unlimited freedom is often squandered by the young. I've seen myself do it; I've watched my kids do it (and should probably have provided more structure for them); parents are there to use their wisdom and experience to empower their kids, and that often means walking a line between structure and freedom, rather than indulging in the extremes.

However, if you are intent on ripping him a new one, don't let me stand in your way.

 

[Cherry Cola]

I doubt he understood what he writes when he claims he did. Probs he just got the motivation he needed when he got kids and then started doing what he knew he should have all along. Unfortunately those years of neglecting himself coupled with the self-confidence boost also seems to have made him think he can change himself as a person and not just what he does. Dude seems to think he's committing a sin by spending time inside his own head, he doesn't blame the world anymore so now it's his own fault that things aren't perfect.

I give the article 1/10 because its supposed insights are crap that you realize on your own once you hit 20 if you've any self honesty at all.

 

[Ribald]

Ya well I come from the other side of that coin, and believe me, the discipline my parents tried to instill in me didn't take. What do you expect, not to be an INTP? You say it is easier if you are used to it as a way of life, well I can tell you, it isn't. Maybe your explanation of who you are is wrong. My parents provided me with plenty of structure and it didn't last at all. Like really, at all. But it magically did for my ISFJ sister, hm, wonder why. That's right, because personality type is what it is however your parents raise you.

As for this Christian Ritchie chap, tearing him a new asshole is an interesting way of putting it, but if I am tearing him a new asshole I am doing it for most parents, because like I believe I said, what he is doing is a very normal-parent thing to do, which is less than ideal, and that is my point.

 

[Red myst]

I have been compelled to make my own living since the first time I got paid for cutting grass. I like making my own way through life. I find a job that I find interesting, get paid for what I do, and live within the means of what I am paid. I also have continued to educate myself through out my like so I can continue to find interesting work. I don't know how this ties into the cognitive functions or conforming to a "J" world. Perhaps it is "security seeking" but I would prefer to call it piece of mind. I have options. A job and financial security means I have more choices. Having the option to do things seems to me like P thing. I can take off for a week and go anywhere I want, or not. I like the feeling that I know I can more than actually doing it.

 

[Jennywocky]

Ya well I come from the other side of that coin, and believe me, the discipline my parents tried to instill in me didn't take. What do you expect, not to be an INTP?

Extremes, extremes -- all I see from you here are extremes. Where's the nuance? Why on earth would I be suggesting "not to be an INTP"?

So what if you are an INTP? It means you're never going to be closure-oriented and you have to accept that you're always gonna explore beyond the boundaries and not be as efficient as a Te type, most likely; but at the same time, the most productive INTPs are either those who are (1) obsessed with something, which produces extreme focus on a goal, (2) develop some degree of personal discipline so that energy can be directed at something even if one isn't obsessed, or (3) find a structure/organization into which the INTPs can plug themselves, to again create some kind of focus.

Of course, the other problem here is that we're not talking about INTPs. The article writer is talking about raising his kids, who could be of any type (not necessarily INTP). I've also raised my kids and experienced the shortcomings of my own approach, and wish I had done a few things differently; I'm talking about learning from trial and error in the real world, rather than venerating some abstacted type concept.

You say it is easier if you are used to it as a way of life, well I can tell you, it isn't. Maybe your explanation of who you are is wrong.

Are you suggesting that maybe my reasoning for why I'm not as focused as what I'd be isn't due to upbringing?

I think your extremity here is leading you into false assumptions. I never said my parents would have "fixed me" if they had parented differently. I'm simply saying some more structure in my childhood WOULD have helped me and given me a little more traction. The reality is that I'm very P and always will have an issue with living in a closed little box. I've done it, and I'm miserable after some time; and in my experience, the ISFJs in my family actually were MORE productive with imposed structure, they thrive on it, whereas it kills me.

But I'm not talking about "all or nothing," and not even necessarily about INTPs (another odd artifact of your approach here); I'm talking about kids of all types benefiting from parental wisdom and guidance and having some ground rules and a basic routine. Some types will benefit less; some more. But when you're a parent, it does mean engaging your kid somewhat and investing who you are to their life experience.

My parents provided me with plenty of structure and it didn't last at all. Like really, at all. But it magically did for my ISFJ sister, hm, wonder why. That's right, because personality type is what it is however your parents raise you.

Things you don't learn from your parents, you're gonna learn in the job market and later in life. Hopefully you can get a job that gives you some flexibility, but there are still typically rules that have to be followed unless you're running your own company. When you have mortgages and bills and whatever else, those are more constraints you have to work under. And when you get older, there's even more shit that imposes itself on you -- your body loses energy, you gain weight, things break down easier. If you're not more disciplined with your eating, your resting habits, your health habits, you're gonna pay for it. If you want to make excuses "because you're an INTP," go for it, but you're the one who has to live with that.

Anyway, my poins is that what you don't learn when you're young will bite you in the ass when you get older and life clamps down on you. The more you learn earlier, the easier it is to deal with. My parents didn't teach me any good habits in regards to managing money, managing time, managing resources. I've had to learn it all on my own, out of choice necessity because my default process isn't achieving what I thought it would. I wish I had learned it earlier in life. Pretty much I'm behind the curve now, and I find it really hard to discipline myself not because I'm just an INTP but also because I'm used to a life without any kind of discipline and stricture; it burns a lot of energy to impose something later in life; and if you spend years living in one rut, it's hard to jump the wagon into a new one.

As for this Christian Ritchie chap, tearing him a new asshole is an interesting way of putting it, but if I am tearing him a new asshole I am doing it for most parents, because like I believe I said, what he is doing is a very normal-parent thing to do, which is less than ideal, and that is my point.

What exactly is less than ideal? Him not providing any kind of structure with his kids and letting them play video games with all of their free time rather than helping them get excited about things and doing self-exploration and figuring out what goals they value and helping them chase them down? He's doing a half-assed parenting job by not giving his kids some direction, he's suggesting he regrets it, and you seem to be suggesting that his regret not only is misplaced but is making him a douchebag.

or did I understand that incorrectly?

 

[Ribald]

You seem to think that I am saying he should not try to influence or excite his kids at all. I am really against forcing them to do things they don't like, or forcing them not to do things they do. And that doesn't mean letting them walk into traffic.

"I let my children spend too much time steering their own destiny" is just a bad thing to say, even with the second part. Getting your kids to steer their own destiny is like, priority #1. That's what life is. Who says nothing good comes of playing video games? Video games are going to be a huge part of the future. Kids are tuned into the right stuff a lot of the time and parents interfere and mess it up. Plus, life is unpredictable. One of my favorite anecdotes is Quentin Tarantino telling someone he knows so much about tough guys "because he watched a lot of movies" rather than the expected response of having grown up around them. I figure if you like doing something, that is going to be what your best shot at finding a passion winds up being. People shouldn't be kept from what they enjoy.

 

[Grayman]

I doubt he understood what he writes when he claims he did. Probs he just got the motivation he needed when he got kids and then started doing what he knew he should have all along. Unfortunately those years of neglecting himself coupled with the self-confidence boost also seems to have made him think he can change himself as a person and not just what he does. Dude seems to think he's committing a sin by spending time inside his own head, he doesn't blame the world anymore so now it's his own fault that things aren't perfect.

I give the article 1/10 because its supposed insights are crap that you realize on your own once you hit 20 if you've any self honesty at all.

The reasons a person does something rarely circle on one reason alone. It is likely you are pointing out the last stone on scale with many stones simply because it was the last stone that tipped the scales.

I don't think he feels he is committing a sin by being in his head. I think he just finally realized how the time in his head can affect the world around him negatively if he is not reasonable with that time.

I give the article 1/10 because its supposed insights are crap that you realize on your own once you hit 20 if you've any self honesty at all.

One thing he kept trying to explain was that he is not really special just different. He is not really a genius unless you consider everyone a genius. He lacked the simple understandings that you might have because he is not built the same way as you or lived the same life. What he can do is rare and so he is considered a genius but there are many simple things he should be able to do that he cannot.



I find that the revelations provide little benefit for myself except as a small reminder of what I already know. It is still a good thing to see as a change and revelation in a man who needed the change.

 

[JimJambones]

I can relate somewhat to the person mentioned in the article. While I am by no means a genius, I have been told my a few people that I have the talent, but not the drive. I tend to see knowledge as an end and not a means to an end, so I've always been quite content to just sort of wing it when it came to school. I eventually found out the hard way that I should've applied myself more and placed more structure upon myself. I would've done better if I had. While a prefer a go with flow approach to life, I perform better when I have some sort of routine that I can loosely follow, one that is flexible enough to account for my tangential nature.

I grew up in a household with a very dominating, alcoholic, verbally abusive stepfather. I had no interest in holding a job in high school and he forced me, to the point of intimidation, to get a job because he believed people should start supporting themselves at 14/15. He hooked me up with side jobs over the summer until I was sixteen and had more options available to me.. The only place that would hire me was a fast food restaurant. I absolutely hated the work. It was fast paced and stressful, but it had great work hour flexibility and it was money!

Since I came from a family with a combined income of <$40,000/year, I obviously had to work a lot through college. I continued to work in the fast food business due to its flexibility. I think I did poorly in college for a few reasons:

1) I came from a working class family that did not have the same nurturing environment as a middle class family would have had. My mom encourage all of us to be who we were as individuals, and encouraged us to do well in school, but was unable to connect with me in all the things I was interested in and set me on the right path. Neither of my parents were book smart. I would've been ecstatic if my parents would've boughten me a telescope or took me to natural history museums and things like that. I would've enjoyed more science kits, puzzles, etc.What I did love was that I was allowed to roam through most of my childhood. I wood explore the woods, play outside much of the time, and ride my bike all over. But, educationally, my parents had little to offer. My mom did the best she could, but ultimately no one had any advice to offer me on how to improve my study habits, or how to plan for my future.

2) I procrastinated terribly.

3) I had to work >30 hours a week while in college to be able to afford it, often working until 1-1:30 in the morning. More structured individuals can seem to do well in school while having a schedule crammed with activities. I could not. I need lots of free time.

4) Being in overstimulating environments interfered with my ability to concentrate. If it is background noise I can focus by tuning out the noise, but I have trouble with constant interruptions. If I keep getting interrupted I usually become quite agitated, often to the point where I give up doing what I was trying to do. Why bother if I am just going to get interrupted again, right? I still have this problem today now that I have young children at home that demand a lot of attention and nurturing. I rarely get to sit down and try to digest meaty reading material because my kids have a question, need something, or just want to talk. I am fine with that because my biological father paid absolutely no attention to me growing up and I want to be a much better father that he was. So, I willing to put my book down for my kids, but it can be annoying to be constantly interrupted. Oh well, such is life.

I am one of those people that have to conceptualize what I'm learning about. I need to be motivated enough to learn about it because I like to spend a large amount of time soaking in the relevant information and forming conceptions. If it is extremely boring to me, or under a lot of stress(tired, constantly interrupted, lack of time) I take short cuts and never learn it as well as I could have. So my ability to learn is largely dependent on the environment I am in. If I want to learn something interesting, I need a nice quiet place that I can retreat to so I can read about it, ponder it, take a break, come back and read and ponder some more, take another break, etc. I need a lot of time, but the end result is that I will master the subject.

Yes, I realize that I should've spent more time in a library and not trying to study at home or at the dormitory, but what I liked, and still like, about studying at home is that I feel more comfortable. I can eat quick if I get hungry or take a nap when I get tired. I guess I can be quite finicky.

I find that I am more strict with my children when it comes to making sure they have the skills to do well in school, but I am still a rather flexible person and tolerate diversity in learning styles. I teach them how to problem solve better and try my best to answer any questions they may have about the world around us. My oldest daughter recently asked me if God was real and I told her that I do not know. Apparently, most parents aren't as intellectually honest with their children. I value them each for who they are and will tailor activities that I think suit them best. I like to build on their strengths. I instill structure where I think it is important, but allow a lot of flexibility for them to explore the world and give them a lot of time to play. But I'm fallible, we all are, and I won't know how my approach will affect them in the long run. I just want them to do well in life and have the skills to think for themselves.

What was the main point of the discussion again? lol

 

[Grayman]

"I let my children spend too much time steering their own destiny" is just a bad thing to say, even with the second part. Getting your kids to steer their own destiny is like, priority #1. That's what life is. Who says nothing good comes of playing video games?

I agree but we both know that is not exactly what he meant.

 

[Jennywocky]

You seem to think that I am saying he should not try to influence or excite his kids at all. I am really against forcing them to do things they don't like, or forcing them not to do things they do. And that doesn't mean letting them walk into traffic.

More nuance.
Have you parented at all?

Do you ever know anything about what this guy has done as a parent, other than when he said he gave his kids 100% freedom and they spend their times indulging rather than expending? You seem to pick sentences out and read them as negatively as possible.

"I let my children spend too much time steering their own destiny" is just a bad thing to say, even with the second part. Getting your kids to steer their own destiny is like, priority #1. That's what life is.

BALANCE.

He's not saying that he is going to dominate his kids 100% of the time.

He's also saying that he gave them free reign so much that they did not act productively at all, and they could have benefited from more investment on his part. Jesus.

Who says nothing good comes of playing video games? [yada yada yada]

What does that have to do with ANYTHING?
I don't think he's saying that video game SUCK 100% of the TIME.

Hell, I play video games pretty regularly and think they are positive in some ways. The problem is that it's very easy for me to play video games and not balance that with actually PRODUCING something that will use my talents.

Life is a cycle -- you take in, you put back out. Artists take in; they put back in. People learn; they use the knowledge to DO something. It's a cycle. It's balanced.

If you don't take in, what you put out becomes irrelevant; if you don't put out, you're just eventually a leech.

Anyway, I've lost interest. See ya.

 

[Grayman]

More nuance.
Have you parented at all?

Sadly there are a lot of parents who allow their children to pursue temporary pleasures without regard to future implications.

They are often under the false understanding that the child is pursuing what they want in life. They don’t realize that the child is not fully capable of planning for the future by disregarding the pleasures of now.
I know a few in my family who let their child do whatever they want now so they will be happy but all I see when I look at their child is an adult who cannot pursue a greater purpose in life, his own purpose, because he was never given the tools by his parents. His parents never made him eat healthy and exercise or made him go outside and play a bit a day so this adult now is behind and no longer has the option of being able to compete in sports no matter how much he wishes to.
I see a child who never spent time learning about the biology of animals or the science behind weather or understanding math or English to a great degree so this child as an adult is behind and cannot compete in pursuing a dream of science. This because he spent all his time playing video games and never was forced to learn or experience new things in life.
When I see a parent who thinks to let a child pursue their temporary pleasures all I see is a parent is disabling their future child. I feel a great loss for this child. I feel a great anger at the adult but then I realize they are but that same child they are raising and they were disabled in the same way. Or were they?

 

[Jennywocky]

Sadly there are a lot of parents who allow their children to pursue temporary pleasures without regard to future implications.

They are often under the false understanding that the child is pursuing what they want in life. They don’t realize that the child is not fully capable of planning for the future by disregarding the pleasures of now.

it's simply the human growth dynamic. We pass from ignorance to knowledge, immaturity to maturity (hopefully). None of us are "better," we all traverse this route. Hopefully we have some more experienced, more knowledgeable people in our lives to help us make the most of our lives, as far as we need the help.

There are variables in there -- some kids are far more responsible than others at the same age (my eldest was like a little adult at five, while my other son was pretty much a hedonist into his teen years). Each kid responds differently. Some kids don't need any structure; some kids need more.

I mean, if the parent/kid dynamic offends someone, then consider it in the workplace. Someone who has worked the job ten years versus a guy who is new on his first day -- the goal is to get them both to be independent workers who are competent at their job, but the first guy doesn't need any hand-holding, advice, imposed structure, while the second guy needs more training and guidance until he learn the ropes. Same thing goes for kids, as they start at ground zero and basically the parent needs to give the kid what is needed to be more productive as time passes until they can function independently and be successful and content in life. And all the stuff you went on to say.

...I feel a great anger at the adult but then I realize they are but that same child they are raising and they were disabled in the same way. Or were they?

I don't know. Were they? We can't determine that from just looking... or reading a few general paragraphs on a web page; more investigation would be needed. we're all such a product of choice (as far as it exists) in conjunction with the forces that have acted on us and the situations we've found ourselves in.

 

[Ribald]

More nuance.
Have you parented at all?

Arguably I have done something that gives me much more authority in this conversation than a parent--I was a public school teacher for 5 years. I supervised thousands of kids over that time and had the unique opportunity to experiment on them with excessively strict and excessively lassaiz faire strategies, and I did.

Ultimately it really isn't a question of your rules and such. What matters is if the kids admire and like you. When that is the case, you can tell them what to do and without much resistance they will do it.

You can come down with an iron fist, as many teachers and principals do (and parents), and the kids will fear and obey you, at least when you are looking, but they will also despise you and underneath they won't be learning real lessons.

If I were a parent, then, going by my teaching experience, I would mostly be laid back, the kind of parent the kid could talk to like an adult. That really is the best way to do it, because the relationship is everything. These overly strict parents get good behavior when they are around the kid, but it really just means the kid will never tell them when they are going to do something the parent might object to and will actively try to hide things that the parent could wind up being quite helpful with. They will also specifically make bad decisions as an acts of rebellion and reactions to the feeling of not being understood by what should be the most important people in their lives.

Having been in a million situations where decisions like this had to be made, that is all the nuance I really need and can give in this thread. What do you want, a list of specific examples and how to react to them? Saying there must be balance is hardly nuanced--Jesus.

Dunno what's up with your reactivity today. Think I hit a nerve or something somewhere. IMO it wound up being you refusing to nuance and speaking in absolutes where there were none.

Do you ever know anything about what this guy has done as a parent, other than when he said he gave his kids 100% freedom and they spend their times indulging rather than expending? You seem to pick sentences out and read them as negatively as possible.

BALANCE.

He's not saying that he is going to dominate his kids 100% of the time.

What does that have to do with ANYTHING?
I don't think he's saying that video game SUCK 100% of the TIME.

See what I mean? Like, with the caps lock and the "Jesus" and the "100%" being used 3 times (where it really wasn't even the case)? It's you, not me. Your emotions are showing.

 

[Red myst]

Arguably I have done something that gives me much more authority in this conversation than a parent--I was a public school teacher for 5 years. I supervised thousands of kids over that time and had the unique opportunity to experiment on them with excessively strict and excessively lassaiz faire strategies, and I did.

Ultimately it really isn't a question of your rules and such. What matters is if the kids admire and like you. When that is the case, you can tell them what to do and without much resistance they will do it.

You can come down with an iron fist, as many teachers and principals do (and parents), and the kids will fear and obey you, at least when you are looking, but they will also despise you and underneath they won't be learning real lessons.

If I were a parent, then, going by my teaching experience, I would mostly be laid back, the kind of parent the kid could talk to like an adult. That really is the best way to do it, because the relationship is everything. These overly strict parents get good behavior when they are around the kid, but it really just means the kid will never tell them when they are going to do something the parent might object to and will actively try to hide things that the parent could wind up being quite helpful with. They will also specifically make bad decisions as an acts of rebellion and reactions to the feeling of not being understood by what should be the most important people in their lives.

Having been in a million situations where decisions like this had to be made, that is all the nuance I really need and can give in this thread. What do you want, a list of specific examples and how to react to them? Saying there must be balance is hardly nuanced--Jesus.

Dunno what's up with your reactivity today. Think I hit a nerve or something somewhere. IMO it wound up being you refusing to nuance and speaking in absolutes where there were none.

See what I mean? Like, with the caps lock and the "Jesus" and the "100%" being used 3 times (where it really wasn't even the case)? It's you, not me. Your emotions are showing.

That's great that you were a teacher. The insight you have is valuable. I want to ask you questions now! :-)
I am real curious about how you observed the 4 dichotomies. What the percentages were of introverted and extroverted children, and such. You will have a mixture of types, you will have some diligent students, some middle of the road students, and some difficult students. Since I have heard it said that our school system is structures in an SJ fashion, would you say that the SJ students had the least amount of struggle? And as an INTP, how in the world did you work in an SJ environment with so many SJ students? I know that no single teacher can be everything to all types of children. And some children just don't respond to anything but authoritarian leadership.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Grayman]

Arguably I have done something that gives me much more authority in this conversation than a parent--I was a public school teacher for 5 years.

My wife was a teacher for just about that many but she would say that being a teacher and being a parent offer different lessons. As a parent you get to see them at many different ages and understand them more deeply working with them most of their lives. As a teacher you see only a few age groups but you get to see a more general population of children. You don't get to work with them as deeply but you get to see them interact more with other children outside of home.

Who has the upper hand? Does it really matter? Oddly I would say from this post your understanding of children from Jenny's is not much different. You are simply arguing different things.

Arguably I have done something that gives me much more authority in this conversation than a parent--I was a public school teacher for 5 years.

...

See what I mean? Like, with the caps lock and the "Jesus" and the "100%" being used 3 times (where it really wasn't even the case)? It's you, not me. Your emotions are showing.

Jenny isn't much for arguing for the sake of arguing and it seems to me you want to argue about this guy we don't know much about. We have little information about his parenting and their is little to oppose and little to defend about it. There is simply little to argue about.

It seems as if your love of this particular topic and possibly your love of arguing has led you on a path of looking for things to argue about. Something I am guilty of at times.

 

[Pyropyro]

Ah it seems that I haven't added my opinions on the matter.

School, Intelligence and Entitlement:

Being an INTP and intelligent was a curse rather than an entitlement during my childhood. I remember being sent to different contests: Math, Science etc. Winning is expected, failure isn't tolerated. Come to think of it they at least didn't let me join beauty contests, which was nice. However, once the contests are done and the accolade earned by the school and my family, I'm safely ignored by everyone. I felt that I was simply a weapon. I hated being me, I wished that I was normal.

Oh yeah based on being a son of a teacher, a volunteer teacher and a crazy uncle: Exp. and child treatment in teaching =/= Exp. and child treatment in parenting

At the end of the day, being a teacher is a bit impersonal compared to being a parent. Try handling three or four sets of 50 students each day and see if you can bond to each and every one of them in any meaningful manner.

IMO: Children need to be guided, but they shouldn't be treated as tools or objects and have to pursue their own enjoyment. I don't want kids to be put up with the same treatment as I did.

Friendship:

I have very few friends during my formative years. Most of my closest friends range from the mentally retarded to the physically disabled because I saw myself in them. I kind of detest and get intimidated by the average students at the same time.

Of course, I learned more stuff as I grew up. I think one should accept who one is so that one can be more open to normal relationships. By accepting who I am, with both the good and the bad, I was more open to accept the friendship of people. Come to think of it, the normal kids back then is probably as scared of me as I was of them.

IMO: Friendship goes both ways, I think there should be a compromise and mutual acceptance between the two parties. It also helps if you accept who you are.

Parent-child relationship (Child end):

During my early post-college years, my father tried to force me to handle the family business. I'm the only child that will retain the family surname so that's kind of a given. According to him I have already chosen my college degree and it wouldn't be "fair" if I didn't follow his trade and learn how to handle the family business. I was being passive-aggressive during our whole conflict, not outright fighting him but not outright rejecting my fate either. It was fortunate that I managed to land a decent job so that I have a reason not to learn more about that business.

Fortunately, we both grew up. He finally figured out that he cannot reshape me at will and let me be my own person. He started respecting me when he saw that I'm doing well without his help (I'm starting to think that all the nonsense he put my through is some sort of tough love; My grandfather did a similar thing to him to help him man up.). Me on the other hand, stopped bitching about how special I am and actually performed accomplishments that showed how special I am. I guess entitlement and respect are ought to be earned not given.

IMO: I don't think there's a specific formula for parenting but understanding one another is a great start. Nothing pisses me more than "Because I said so" when talking to people of authority. Also, both parties need to grow up as the years pass. Older formulas tend to be less useful as both the parent and the child ages.

I don't have anything to share about being a parent unless you wish to know how to make babies stop crying or divert a toddler's energy to something more productive.

Work (learning still in progress, IMO):

I'm still as lazy as hell but I do get things done. What I understand about work is that you reap what you sow. Procrastination will bite you in the ass so do the boring recording and planning stuff ahead of time. Doing good things to clients and co-workers and having an attitude of sincere gratitude (for the Ben Franklin effect and other more altruistic reasons) does wonders.

 

[Jennywocky]

Dunno what's up with your reactivity today. Think I hit a nerve or something somewhere. IMO it wound up being you refusing to nuance and speaking in absolutes where there were none.

See what I mean? Like, with the caps lock and the "Jesus" and the "100%" being used 3 times (where it really wasn't even the case)? It's you, not me. Your emotions are showing.

I love how you went there. I was wondering if you would.

Don't dismiss me because I allowed my frustration to show. I could have easily hidden it, and you would have never known the difference, and my points would have remained exactly the same:

You still continued to cherry-pick from the guy's essay and couldn't seem to grasp my really basic point that the possibility existed that he could felt like he needed to invest more in his kids' upbringing as their parent WITHOUT dominating or smothering them.

Pyropyro's general points (the "IMO" ones) are all things I agree with.

Jenny isn't much for arguing for the sake of arguing and it seems to me you want to argue about this guy we don't know much about. We have little information about his parenting and their is little to oppose and little to defend about it. There is simply little to argue about.

I'm a pretty open person, and when I read his short essay, I perceived the guy could possibly be a flake in some ways, while he also could actually just not word himself as well as he could + also seems to be growing up a great deal and coming to these realizations of how he has made mistakes in his life, and wants to fix them.

In situations with mixed signals regarding someone's character, I personally choose to refrain from picking the most negative interpretations, if only because it would not just be unfair but could easily be the wrong conclusion to draw. I was a little surprised at some of the comments in this thread on a forum supposedly dedicated to rational evaluation that were perfectly content with jumping the gun and reading the worst into things even when challenged.

 

[Ribald]

That's great that you were a teacher. The insight you have is valuable. I want to ask you questions now! :-)
I am real curious about how you observed the 4 dichotomies. What the percentages were of introverted and extroverted children, and such. You will have a mixture of types, you will have some diligent students, some middle of the road students, and some difficult students.

I have so many thoughts on that. The most interesting thing is the lack of N types a lot of the time. They stick out like sore thumbs in every class. It is hard to recognize as an N how isolated you are, because we tend to associate with each other and clump together, forgetting the S world to a large degree. But a very large majority is very S. In honors classes you get a few more Ns, and that really changes the character of things. People get quirkier, geekier, more amusing IMO, but at the same time really annoying.

In any given class of 30, you might have like 5-10 N types. They are always vastly outnumbered and tend to remain on the outskirts of the social scene.

As far as T/F, it seemed like most were F, really. There aren't quite as many analytical impersonal types. Most of them are socializers through and through, few of them are serious about "knowing information" lol. But there are still a lot, really, I just feel not a majority.

P vs. J.... you would be surprised, I feel most of them were P. Sometimes you would very much know when you had a true J, so I think they were more of a rarity. Overall it seemed like SP was predominant.

I/E... that is actually the hardest to characterize. The E are the easiest to notice and it at first almost seems like they dominate, but that would be to miss this whole deeper layer of the other half of the class tuned to the introverted frequency. I'd say 50-50 on that one.

As for dilligence, it was a spectrum. Most kids are semi-diligent. A few are not diligent at all, and a few do everything all the time, perfectly like I said to. Most shoot for a B or C.

Since I have heard it said that our school system is structures in an SJ fashion, would you say that the SJ students had the least amount of struggle? And as an INTP, how in the world did you work in an SJ environment with so many SJ students? I know that no single teacher can be everything to all types of children. And some children just don't respond to anything but authoritarian leadership.

Good insights, they are pretty accurate. The system is pretty tuned to SJ and even NJ types but a little less so. There is perhaps a 10-20% range who generally wants to be there and saves each class. That means, 3-6 students in a class of 30 who are there to do what they are told, learn what they need to learn, and participate in class. The rest are varying degrees of detached from it all, with the opposite end of the spectrum being the 3-6 students who try to ruin the class - almost always SP types. It's not that I blame them, but class just isn't suited for them. These kids have to sit and listen to straight-knowledge for 8 hours a day. Might as well make a fish climb a tree.

Being an INTP, I had trouble making my activities palatable to SPs, and honestly I also had trouble with the organization and structure the SJs expected. I improvised and made it up as I went along, relying on my brilliance to carry me by the seat of my pants instead of preparation. That's how I've always operated. Eventually, though, the routine gets old, which I suppose makes sense given that I am an NP and I don't like a structured, predictable life. I couldn't have kept teaching for 30 more years. I'd have felt too damn depressed.

I had a sort of mad-scientist appeal. Kids knew me as the crazy fun teacher. I would blow things up and set them on fire, and that would please pretty much everyone. It carried my reputation because otherwise, I was just really lax. I was anything goes. It actually worked really well, though, until I got sick of teaching and started hating it.

 

[greenspace]

My thoughts on the Original topic is agreement. I have actually gone through that stage. I dont think its a realization that you have to work to enjoy life. Its a given. For me, it was the realization that all the extra thinking about a topic will be no good if its never put to use.

 

[Cherry Cola]

This is going OT but I want to ask a question.
I've only done a tiny bit of teaching, and I relied on being well prepared for all my lessons so as to get a good flow going and in order to appear knowledgeable and hence worth listening to.

Anyway I came up with two basic principles for preventing chaos; make sure there is no social prestige to be gained by disrupting your classes, or make sure there is no prestige to be lost in not attempting to disrupt your classes, or combine enough of both.

Does that make sense? If there is no prestige to be gained from disrupting your class that's because your lessons are interesting and the kids dig you, so if some loud annoying kid starts pulling shit he will bring upon him the disapproval of his peers.

If there is no prestige to be lost from submitting to your rules that means you're a bad motherfucker of a teacher whom everyone knows won't take any shit from loud annoying kids. And the loud annoying kids know that their peers know this as well, hence their peers won't think they are weak for not attempting to cause ruckus. Whereas with a wussy teacher troublemakers have to cause trouble to keep up appearances, if they didnt do it their peers would question their status as troublemakers. But when the teacher is the baddest motherfucker of them all they can get away with submitting without losing face. Ideally you should have interesting lessons too or I should think that as you say the kids will despise you and won't learn much even if you got structure and order down.

 

[Grayman]

I was a little surprised at some of the comments in this thread on a forum supposedly dedicated to rational evaluation that were perfectly content with jumping the gun and reading the worst into things even when challenged.

I'll state that I agree. I am likely stepping over the arbitrary socially acceptable line of rudeness by stating it a common thing for elevating emotional superiority. Hopefully writing it in a confusing and elaborate, instead of direct way, will keep me from getting into too much trouble from those who commit such offenses. While I guess I do have to be somewhat obvious as to speak to their intuition so that their own mind will convince them of the truth instead of me. Whatever that truth may be only their own mind can truly judge. But at least they will seek if nothing else but in efforts to disprove it.

 

[Ribald]

This is going OT but I want to ask a question.
I've only done a tiny bit of teaching, and I relied on being well prepared for all my lessons so as to get a good flow going and in order to appear knowledgeable and hence worth listening to.

Anyway I came up with two basic principles for preventing chaos; make sure there is no social prestige to be gained by disrupting your classes, or make sure there is no prestige to be lost in not attempting to disrupt your classes, or combine enough of both.

Does that make sense? If there is no prestige to be gained from disrupting your class that's because your lessons are interesting and the kids dig you, so if some loud annoying kid starts pulling shit he will bring upon him the disapproval of his peers.

If there is no prestige to be lost from submitting to your rules that means you're a bad motherfucker of a teacher whom everyone knows won't take any shit from loud annoying kids. And the loud annoying kids know that their peers know this as well, hence their peers won't think they are weak for not attempting to cause ruckus. Whereas with a wussy teacher troublemakers have to cause trouble to keep up appearances, if they didnt do it their peers would question their status as troublemakers. But when the teacher is the baddest motherfucker of them all they can get away with submitting without losing face. Ideally you should have interesting lessons too or I should think that as you say the kids will despise you and won't learn much even if you got structure and order down.

15 year olds really aren't into making sense. A lot of the time they will do things specifically because they don't make sense just to rebel, and a lot of the time it's stuff you aren't even to blame for like another class, another kid, or their home shit. The real best thing you can do to try to prevent it all is to play to their emotions. Lesson plans being interesting is not the best thing you can do, and I unfortunately made the mistake of thinking it was quite often. I was astonished, like... how can you people not be amazed? They just didn't care as much about science as I do, period.

Like I said, more of them are S and F, and so are most teachers, so you really have to think outside of yourself about what is going to work sometimes. Personally I couldn't deal with it, it just didn't seem like what school should be to me. But it really is almost as if you are supposed to be their parent and not some knowledge-master. That means you have to make a show of going out of your way for them and giving them special treatment. That's not my thing. My thing is be really smart and interesting.

Don't get me wrong, interesting is good and necessary, but it isn't #1. If I were you I would make a point to hold little parties every so often, celebrate holidays, make note of people's birthdays and give them a little candy or something, be generous with the candy and rewards in general, make an effort to get to know them personally, I dunno, just all that stupid stuff to make them feel appreciated and whatnot. If some kid is misbehaving don't just kick him out, try to talk to him first, ask him what you can do to help, blah blah blah. My instinctual approach was usually to be like "cya pal". Lol. You gotta talk to em. If someone looks like they are having a bad day try to talk to them off to the side and find out what's wrong. More blah blah blah.

This is how you become that "bad motherfucker", by not appearing to be a "bad motherfucker" and winning their hearts and minds, they will respect you and do what you want. Then be interesting.

 

[King_Be_Us]

I was born innocent. I am still innocent. If I deserved love as a baby I deserve it now. Life sucks though. There is scarcity and confusion. People witness this, they get wrapped up in it, and they begin to think it is their fault, they stop thinking they are innocent, and they start whipping themselves, trying to make amends for all the things they could never have change.

Just meditate.

 

[Ribald]

Just meditate.

No. Meditation is just another way people whip themselves. It is boring. I'm fine.

 

[TBerg]

Meditation can be a rewarding endeavor that enables you to see more than your myopic routine usually allows you to see. Sometimes it is shit, though. I won't lie. But half the time I really get a better edge on reality. It it proven to increase grey matter and gives your prefrontal cortex a little intentional exercise.

 

[Grayman]

Meditation can be a rewarding endeavor that enables you to see more than your myopic routine usually allows you to see. Sometimes it is shit, though. I won't lie. But half the time I really get a better edge on reality. It it proven to increase grey matter and gives your prefrontal cortex a little intentional exercise.

Whats the difference between meditation and old fashion introverted thinking?

 

[TBerg]

Whats the difference between meditation and old fashion introverted thinking?

The former takes energy away from your superego and inserts it elsewhere, and the latter uses your superego to work godlike madness.

 

[Grayman]

The former takes energy away from your superego and inserts it elsewhere, and the latter uses your superego to work godlike madness.

I feel like am in constant flux of both. But then maybe I simply don't understand what you mean by taking your superego and inserting elsewhere.

I am often placing my consciousness in the confines of the world around me to experience multiple perspectives from many different eyes. I feel like I lose who I am sometimes.

 

[Red myst]

I have so many thoughts on that. The most interesting thing is the lack of N types a lot of the time. They stick out like sore thumbs in every class. It is hard to recognize as an N how isolated you are, because we tend to associate with each other and clump together, forgetting the S world to a large degree. But a very large majority is very S. In honors classes you get a few more Ns, and that really changes the character of things. People get quirkier, geekier, more amusing IMO, but at the same time really annoying.

Can you distinguish between the extroverted N's and introverted N's ?

In any given class of 30, you might have like 5-10 N types. They are always vastly outnumbered and tend to remain on the outskirts of the social scene.

As far as T/F, it seemed like most were F, really. There aren't quite as many analytical impersonal types. Most of them are socializers through and through, few of them are serious about "knowing information" lol. But there are still a lot, really, I just feel not a majority.

P vs. J.... you would be surprised, I feel most of them were P. Sometimes you would very much know when you had a true J, so I think they were more of a rarity. Overall it seemed like SP was predominant.

I/E... that is actually the hardest to characterize. The E are the easiest to notice and it at first almost seems like they dominate, but that would be to miss this whole deeper layer of the other half of the class tuned to the introverted frequency. I'd say 50-50 on that one.
This is another confusing point for me. There really are no introverts or extroverts, just introverted or extroverted functions. But I understand what a society calls an introvert or extrovert by their personality. So a child that is reserved and doesn't draw attention to them selves and thinks before asking questions would be an introvert yes? But would more than likely hang on the outskirts of the social scene right? So I would say that introverted intuitives would be the ones hanging out on the outskirts of the social scene. Just my theory for now, and just trying to understand.

As for dilligence, it was a spectrum. Most kids are semi-diligent. A few are not diligent at all, and a few do everything all the time, perfectly like I said to. Most shoot for a B or C.



Good insights, they are pretty accurate. The system is pretty tuned to SJ and even NJ types but a little less so. There is perhaps a 10-20% range who generally wants to be there and saves each class. That means, 3-6 students in a class of 30 who are there to do what they are told, learn what they need to learn, and participate in class. The rest are varying degrees of detached from it all, with the opposite end of the spectrum being the 3-6 students who try to ruin the class - almost always SP types. It's not that I blame them, but class just isn't suited for them. These kids have to sit and listen to straight-knowledge for 8 hours a day. Might as well make a fish climb a tree.

Being an INTP, I had trouble making my activities palatable to SPs, and honestly I also had trouble with the organization and structure the SJs expected. I improvised and made it up as I went along, relying on my brilliance to carry me by the seat of my pants instead of preparation. That's how I've always operated. Eventually, though, the routine gets old, which I suppose makes sense given that I am an NP and I don't like a structured, predictable life. I couldn't have kept teaching for 30 more years. I'd have felt too damn depressed.

I had a sort of mad-scientist appeal. Kids knew me as the crazy fun teacher. I would blow things up and set them on fire, and that would please pretty much everyone. It carried my reputation because otherwise, I was just really lax. I was anything goes. It actually worked really well, though, until I got sick of teaching and started hating it.

Its hard to deal with so many types at one time, I feel like if you are too lax, some of the kids will try to walk all over you, and if you are too strict..... Well you know.

Someone told me about how in the Harry Potter books, the children were decided into four separate dormitories based on their personality types, which was determined my a magic wand or something. But my thought was wow! That sounds like what the school system needs. Teach according to learning style with the complements style teacher. But then I thought, teaching students in a bubble would feed their strengths but cripple their shortcomings. And I also thought that rivalries might form and they might start picking on each other for being an s type, or n type. Kind of like what I see on this forum sometimes, and I thought "that's not gonna be good for children"

Anyway, I'm totally off track from the OP. my opinion is that what happened to this guy happens to a lot of people. He made the news because he is a "genius". That's all. Children have a way of changing your life period. They drag the feeling side out of a thinker, and the thinker out of a feeler. The exercise all of your functions dominant or shadow as you struggle to raise them. Parents don't make children, children make parents.

 

[TBerg]

I feel like am in constant flux of both. But then maybe I simply don't understand what you mean by taking your superego and inserting elsewhere.

I am often placing my consciousness in the confines of the world around me to experience multiple perspectives from many different eyes. I feel like I lose who I am sometimes.

When you perform mindfulness meditation, the object, if there is one, is not to focus on what you should do or what you need to do, but simply to observe reality as it is. You notice the nagging superego in all of its depravity while also taking energy away from the experience of the nagger by welcoming its presence with loving kindness and then moving on. You want to always go back to the observation of breathing, which stands for a certain nihilism, which stands for a certain approach to reality itself. The deprivation of the superego thereby negates your neurosis or psychosis.

The thing about the glorification of multiple perspectives is that it is a glorification of the beginner's stage of schizophrenia. When we have schozophrenia, it means that we have nothing of ourselves that we identify as being worthy or whole. Everything is subject to an analytic disintegration and tugs at us from multiple angles. Meditation is supposed to take energy away from all of these motherfuckers.

 

[Grayman]

When you perform mindfulness meditation, the object, if there is one, is not to focus on what you should do or what you need to do, but simply to observe reality as it is. You notice the nagging superego in all of its depravity while also taking energy away from the experience of the nagger by welcoming its presence with loving kindness and then moving on. You want to always go back to the observation of breathing, which stands for a certain nihilism, which stands for a certain approach to reality itself. The deprivation of the superego thereby negates your neurosis or psychosis.

The thing about the glorification of multiple perspectives is that it is a glorification of the beginner's stage of schizophrenia. When we have schozophrenia, it means that we have nothing of ourselves that we identify as being worthy or whole. Everything is subject to an analytic disintegration and tugs at us from multiple angles. Meditation is supposed to take energy away from all of these motherfuckers.

So what I am doing is mentally destructive and the meditation will help with opposing that.?

 

[TBerg]

So what I am doing is mentally destructive and the meditation will help with opposing that.?

If you plow through your enemies already, you are doing everything right. If your enemy is something within yourself, then there is something wrong with your most intimate companions.

 

[Grayman]

If you plow through your enemies already, you are doing everything right. If your enemy is something within yourself, then there is something wrong with your most intimate companions.

There are no enemies. Only things to be understood.

 

[TBerg]

There are no enemies. Only things to be understood.

Then you have bested me.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

What I got from this is that basically he allowed society/others to manipulate his emotions and he became a guilt zombie. The conclusion that "I have to work hard" is narrow and puts undeserved emphasis on academic intelligence and prevailing social norms.

I believe in entitlement.

I see no disagreement here.

I give the article 1/10 because its supposed insights are crap that you realize on your own once you hit 20 if you've any self honesty at all.

children

Google image search: "happy gypsy child"

​

I felt that I was simply a weapon. I hated being me, I wished that I was normal.

^The catalyst of life, I say, that feeling!

At the end of the day, being a teacher is a bit impersonal compared to being a parent. Try handling three or four sets of 50 students each day and see if you can bond to each and every one of them in any meaningful manner.

Random thought: I wonder about the effectiveness of educational systems wherein groups of students have the same teacher their entire formal education.

By accepting who I am, with both the good and the bad, I was more open to accept the friendship of people. Come to think of it, the normal kids back then is probably as scared of me as I was of them.

Nothing pisses me more than "Because I said so" when talking to people of authority. Also, both parties need to grow up as the years pass. Older formulas tend to be less useful as both the parent and the child ages.

Doing good things to clients and co-workers and having an attitude of sincere gratitude (for the Ben Franklin effect and other more altruistic reasons) does wonders.

*agrees with all of ^this*

There are no enemies. Only things to be understood.

Moar troof. Troofs everywhere.

 

[Pyropyro]

^The catalyst of life, I say, that feeling!

Well self-hatred is kind of useful if you stop using it for self-destruction and instead focus its energies to the chains that bind you to your current circumstances.

Random thought: I wonder about the effectiveness of educational systems wherein groups of students have the same teacher their entire formal education.

If money and number of teachers are not issues, I would prefer apprenticeship compared to the current system. Modern internship is a bit off IMO since the young people sent through this practice are used by the staff as low-paid (or even unpaid) servants.

 

[Cherry Cola]

15 year olds really aren't into making sense. A lot of the time they will do things specifically because they don't make sense just to rebel, and a lot of the time it's stuff you aren't even to blame for like another class, another kid, or their home shit. The real best thing you can do to try to prevent it all is to play to their emotions. Lesson plans being interesting is not the best thing you can do, and I unfortunately made the mistake of thinking it was quite often. I was astonished, like... how can you people not be amazed? They just didn't care as much about science as I do, period.

Like I said, more of them are S and F, and so are most teachers, so you really have to think outside of yourself about what is going to work sometimes. Personally I couldn't deal with it, it just didn't seem like what school should be to me. But it really is almost as if you are supposed to be their parent and not some knowledge-master. That means you have to make a show of going out of your way for them and giving them special treatment. That's not my thing. My thing is be really smart and interesting.

Don't get me wrong, interesting is good and necessary, but it isn't #1. If I were you I would make a point to hold little parties every so often, celebrate holidays, make note of people's birthdays and give them a little candy or something, be generous with the candy and rewards in general, make an effort to get to know them personally, I dunno, just all that stupid stuff to make them feel appreciated and whatnot. If some kid is misbehaving don't just kick him out, try to talk to him first, ask him what you can do to help, blah blah blah. My instinctual approach was usually to be like "cya pal". Lol. You gotta talk to em. If someone looks like they are having a bad day try to talk to them off to the side and find out what's wrong. More blah blah blah.

This is how you become that "bad motherfucker", by not appearing to be a "bad motherfucker" and winning their hearts and minds, they will respect you and do what you want. Then be interesting.

I dont mean to say that they consciously play these games of prestige, its more instinctive than conscious.

And by interesting I meant interesting in their eyes. Ie stuff like that you listed. I was given the advice of turning things into competitions in order to get the students focused. That seemed to work great, it didn't seem to matter what the subject was so long as you could win. Another thing was to write ambigous things on the whiteboard before the students came into the classroom so that as they did and were waiting for the lesson to get going they would look at the whiteboard trying to understand what was there so that they would know what to expect from the lesson. In turn causing them to go over what had happened during prior lessons.

You wrote a couple of things I had never thought about though, if I have to teach again I shall utilize those things to further manipulate my students into achieving good grades and shutting up.

 

[NormannTheDoorman]

In high school, (homeschool now) a bunch of kids just loved to measure their intelligence up against mine using their grades.

Good grades were equivalent to high intelligence, at least according to them.

I failed Bible class, it was rather boring to me. I enjoy reading the bible, it has some insight to certain social problems and norms that I may have overlooked. What annoyed me was that all we did was fill in the blanks to verses everyday.

Then there was Geography which I managed to pass with an 80 average, I had a hard time doing the work. It was sort of dull but I got most of my points from tests. One of the many benefits of staring at a map everyday and fantasizing about taking over the world and its inhabitants...

All the teachers said the same thing about me. "You're a smart kid you just need to apply yourself". Kind of a silly statement and I doubt they were being genuine. Now the physical science teacher was the one I liked the most. He never said "You're a smart kid, philip." He always told me and the class that all you had to do was turn in your work and you would pass and that a monkey could pass the class.

So I did that, I just half-assed my work.

Even for the science fair I basically BS'ed my way through. I did liquid cooling vs fan cooling for computers. I created some elaborate charts and numbers and had my extraverted friend do the whole class presentation while I answered most of the questions.

Next week, we get news we are going to the school science fair. The deal was that if we were chosen from the class to go to the school science fair we would get an automatic 100 for the project. Which saved my ass and landed me with a 73 overall average. However, I do like to think my extraverted friend helped me out with a lot of the talking. He is after all, an actor.