Suggestions for Type Development (especially children)?

[KazeCraven]

Okay, so here's the deal (didn't see a thread about this):

We clearly have preferences for one type of function or another, but I'm still not sure what to make of that. On the one hand, it seems that development of the dominant function leads to too polarized of an individual, whereas on the other hand it seems that development of lesser functions just leads to undue stress and neurosis.

I find this to be a particularly interesting question because a lot of individual differences can be accounted for by typology (though learning styles might not exactly be correlated with MBTI type). However, I fear if we label people, especially young children, it will not only be used more for an excuse to ignore the lesser functions, but also will not be helpful because people need to develop their lesser functions as well.

So my main questions are
1) Are individual differences important enough for educators to pay attention to, or do they just need to be aware that children have different ways of thinking?
2) Should type development, in general, be focused on the dominant function or on the tertiary and inferior functions?
3) How type-specific is development of maturity and general well-roundedness? Can it be mostly ignored?
4)... uh, any good sources about this stuff already?

I suppose this would be more appropriately pursued as a research question, but I thought I'd get opinions here first (assuming there are any). Typology is pretty much considered pseudoscience by the scientific community at this point, so I doubt there's a whole lot of research going on about it.

 

[XXXX]

I was thinking about this topic the other day...

I think a learning environment that can cater to the different ways each type processes information and functions optimally would be brilliant as opposed to the current 'one size fits all' approach, although not a realistic possibility in institutions until typology is accepted as a science ... it would also be much more demanding than the current system on educators to be able to take the different needs of each type into consideration and co-ordinate the class.

I recall Adymus saying that providing stimulation of the top 2 cognitive functions is the best way to delve into and healthily develop the lower 2 functions, rather than focusing on the lower 2 functions in isolation (CMIIW).

 

[KazeCraven]

Ah yes, I suppose there's a whole lot of stuff that I forgot to take into account when suggesting this: namely, the fact that teaching requires a lot of focus on just getting kids to focus on the material and behave. Hmm, I suppose there's thus either too much to talk about here (i.e. we'd have to get into the purpose of school and this and that about what teachers need to do) or too little (if we sidestep all that and try just to focus on what the implications of typology are).

Heck, even then half the cognitive functions are pretty worthless as far as school goes. Se anyone? I suppose now I'm of the opinion that schools are doing it well enough, considering it isn't the school's job to develop children so much as it is to stuff their brains with knowledge (and to keep them out of the parents' hair for a while). Maybe I'll just homeschool my children and leave the others to fend for themselves. Then I'll have them learn how to teach themselves. Problem solved!


Why would stimulation of the top two functions lead to good bottom function development?

 

[Razare]

Ignoring one of the top two functions causes problems. >.< Trust me. Ultimately you'll ignore certain wants and needs of your personality, which will drive you into a depression most likely. Also, you'll only ever be somewhat skilled at using your bottom two functions, and they'll drain your energy too when you use them. Without utilizing your top two functions, you're not living up to the potential your personality possesses.

So just going to a third function, while ignoring your second is not a healthy approach to developing your third.

 

[KazeCraven]

I suppose this runs back to the idea of developing the lower functions by using them to back up the top two, eh?

Hrmm. Well, admittedly, I suppose I feel like I'm stagnating in my growth, but I'm not so sure that more search for clarity and making distinctions or analysis is appropriate. Of course, if the answer was easy I guess it wouldn't be a problem.

Also, I can't seem to make up my mind as to whether I want to focus on myself or others' types. On the one hand, I'm interested in being able to get a grasp of others' perspectives and needs. And on the other... meh, I need to stop thinking so much in terms of MBTI.

 

[echoplex]

1) Are individual differences important enough for educators to pay attention to, or do they just need to be aware that children have different ways of thinking?

I think that even without any sort of system (like MBTI) good educators would take individual differences into account. Even someone who's never heard of typology or even psychology can tell that some children are energized by different things than others. There's the kid who prefers to read alone, there's the class clown, there's the social butterfly, etc..

How much effect that should have on curriculum (if any) is the tricky part. Of course, there are already 'gifted' classes and such. Perhaps some typing system (even one quite different from MBTI) could be employed to adjust how individual students are taught. For instance, rather than simply having classes classified by their subject, there could also be ones classified by how they approach teaching the subjects themselves.

Of course, this is something that could end up being way overdone and causing more harm than good.

2) Should type development, in general, be focused on the dominant function or on the tertiary and inferior functions?

I guess the healthiest approach would be to focus on validating the dominant function early on, at least to the extent that the child knows they have 'permission' to use their mind as they prefer. To not do so would send a bad message, I think. But see, I also think humans are incredibly adaptive, so even someone who's forced to develop lower functions will end up reaping benefits from that; even if it's unpleasant for them. Sort of like how getting sick alot can make you more resistant later on.

3) How type-specific is development of maturity and general well-roundedness? Can it be mostly ignored?

I don't think it's necessary at all to use systems to aid maturity. Even without any type knowledge, I think most people would agree (eh, hopefully) that letting children express themselves and pursue their interests is a good idea for their overall development. Typology simply attempts to systemize what's already going on.

4)... uh, any good sources about this stuff already?

That's something I'd like to see. Everything I'm saying is obviously just opinion based on my own impression of how type might relate to how people develop. I'd really like to see studies of similar approaches to education.

hmmm, I did find a few related things:
http://personal.ashland.edu/jpiirto/mbti.htm
http://www.sengifted.org/articles_social/Sak_SynthesisOfResearchOnPsychologicalTypes.shtml
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:heDa_XXdiGwJ:www.applestar.org/capella/MBTI%2520in%2520Education.doc+mbti+types+and+child+education+studies&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Not sure how helpful these are, but it's all I could find.

Why would stimulation of the top two functions lead to good bottom function development?

The idea is that the top two are energizing, thus giving one the necessary energy to develop their bottom two. It is also believed that too much forced use of draining functions leads to them being developed in an unhealthy way, and perhaps even leads to neurosis. The assumption is that people who use and gain energy from their top two will not just indulge in them but will instead use that energy to develop more fully as a person, which in turn will also strengthen their top two by giving them more 'tools' to use.

Example: INTP has trouble explaining their logical theories to others, which requires Fe. INTP develops Fe in the social world, making their Ti more useful to others and also giving it another perspective to draw from. Not being familiar with social dynamics would actually cause the INTP to miss out on a key aspect of reality, thus diminishing their Ti's capacity to understand, which is its main concern to begin with.

Type theories aside, I would say the best-case-scenario is always to incorporate one's preferred approach to reality (whenever possible/sensible) to their own development. Self-development isn't self-departure, it's learning to do better what you already do and function better as a human being.

 

[KazeCraven]

@echoplex: Hmmm, I would think that
1) different types could mean different learning styles, and thus (at least early on) we should appeal to a number of methods of learning. Not all subjects are conducive to a given function, so we ought to include enough subjects that there is one for everyone, focusing on choosing ones that reflect an academic environment as much as possible.

2) now I'm thinking that educators just need to be open to multiple methods of thinking, so that children can be validated with the top functions whereas there is no specific focus for one person using their preferred mode. This way we don't have to segregate classes by type. We just have children be aware of all the ways available, and know that if something is a "Ti-heavy" activity that there's more than just one way to approach the problem. This method also has the added benefit of getting people thinking more 'outside the box' which is what we're needing more of in today's society (with a steady progression towards automation of stuff)

Also, @links, I think the fact that mostly N-type students are gifted isn't something to worry too much about. If people develop naturally, we'd expect such behavior I think. These are interesting things to think about though.

 

[BigApplePi]

Seems to me the answers to these question are political. Children by their very nature are undeveloped. Do you want to grab something of theirs which seems to have potential and lean on it or do you want to let them develop in any way nature takes them? Suppose the issue were not temperament but dancing or tennis skills? Do you want to develop one of those at the expense of other things? Answer: it's up to you.

Temperament may not be like other traits and skills. To me knowing temperature is great for determining differences among people and explaining those differences. But does one want to develop dancing or tennis or people skills? The answer to me is all about balance.