Slashdot Mirror
When Schools Overlook Introverts
Esther Schindler writes: A few years ago, Susan Cain's book, Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking seemed to give the world a bit of enlightenment about getting the most out of people who don't think they should have to be social in order to succeed. For a while, at least some folks worked to respect the needs and advantages of introversion, such as careful, reflective thinking based on the solitude that idea-generation requires.
But in When Schools Overlook Introverts, Michael Godsey writes, "The way in which certain instructional trends — education buzzwords like "collaborative learning" and "project-based learning" and "flipped classrooms" — are applied often neglect the needs of introverts. In fact, these trends could mean that classroom environments that embrace extroverted behavior — through dynamic and social learning activities — are being promoted now more than ever." It's a thoughtful article, worth reading. As I think many people on slashdot will agree, Godsley observes, "This growing emphasis in classrooms on group projects and other interactive arrangements can be challenging for introverted students who tend to perform better when they're working independently and in more subdued environments."
But in When Schools Overlook Introverts, Michael Godsey writes, "The way in which certain instructional trends — education buzzwords like "collaborative learning" and "project-based learning" and "flipped classrooms" — are applied often neglect the needs of introverts. In fact, these trends could mean that classroom environments that embrace extroverted behavior — through dynamic and social learning activities — are being promoted now more than ever." It's a thoughtful article, worth reading. As I think many people on slashdot will agree, Godsley observes, "This growing emphasis in classrooms on group projects and other interactive arrangements can be challenging for introverted students who tend to perform better when they're working independently and in more subdued environments."
Did in being an introvert. SM (as opposed to S&M, which is for another topic) is the current be-all-end-all to a great many people. It's sort of like AOL was the internet back in the early 90s, SM is the internet.
But for introverts, who don't feel like posting every aspect of their life for all to see (I am one of those) we are overlooked in this mad rush to get 10,000 "friends" or 20 million "likes" and I feel it's infecting schools as well. Not directly, but in the way of thinking that everything (learning) must be done in groups, or socially, or collaboratively, which is not the way we all think or learn.
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
I can see how "collaborative learning" and "project-based learning" might be problematic for introverts, but flipped classrooms might actually be better for them. Although there are several ways that they can be delivered, the most typical model is where students watch instructional material online by themselves, then do their homework in class. It seems to me that this would be an ideal situation for an introvert. No distraction during instruction or anxiety of being called on or asked to the front of the class, etc.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
I am an introverted person and I do well on my own, but I also like having some contact with other people. When I was younger, spending time away from other people allowed me to learn more about myself. As time went on, I started to reach the limits of what I could learn about myself alone and I needed to be around people to find out more about me.
Being around people is a large energy drain for me, but I do require some interaction to be optimal.
The most interesting thing to note is that the rise in these more group-oriented methods of teaching has happened in parallel with, but slightly lagging, the rise of what's commonly called "political correctness".
But maybe it shouldn't be surprising that this has happened. Political correctness, as it's called, is the philosophy of suppressing individual thought and expression in order to create a cohesive, dull, uninspired collective thought that's devoid of originality. The best way to eliminate a person's individual intellectual abilities is to control and shape them from the very earliest years of this person's life.
Schools are, after all, the primary place where a society shapes its future generations. Teachers, most of whom have moved from school directly to college, and then directly to teaching in the schools they attended only a few years before, have never had any meaningful position or interaction outside of academia.
The concept of political correctness originated within the leftist-, socialist-, and communist-oriented segments of academia, most often from what are called the "social sciences" (but which tend to have absolutely nothing to do with science in any way). These college academics are the ones who taught the school teachers, thus seeding political correctness into the education systems around the world.
So we end up with the situation we have today, where all school-related participation must be at the group level. Individualism cannot be tolerated. It's not considered acceptable for a pupil to have his or her own thoughts, especially if they may disagree with or conflict with what the academic leadership has deemed to be correct. Any students who dare show signs of individualism are systematically crushed until they become part of the group conformity.
The current education system is just a byproduct of the pernicious attitude that colleges and academia has toward any free thought and free expression that doesn't exactly correlate to what these academics believe.
In Germany (at least where I live, NRW county, each has it's own system) a kid can pass all tests with perfect results, yet, still NOT get "excellent" mark, cause, he/she "wasn't active in class".
(real story of a son of a friend of mine)
A shame, really.
"But... That's the last straw." -Milton
Gods, how I hated that crap.
If I am going to succeed or fail in school it should NOT be based on the morons the teacher groups me with, but on my own capabilities.
In my memory of my school years, group work inevitably devolved into the rest of the group chatting among themselves while I did the work anyway.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Everyone must get along, we must all work together. The loaner is a danger to society because they chose not to fit in. The individual doesn't matter. No one is better than anyone else.
It seems like instructions from Marx or a warning from Ryand.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Which is the rarest type of introvert (only 1-2% of the worlds population) is also the type with the smartest, most successful, creative people. Isaac Newton, Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, Nikola Tesla, Bobby Fischer, Stephen Hawking, Isaac Asimov, Roger Waters, Augustus Caesar, Chevy Chase, John F. Kennedy were INTJs. As one myself, I can tell you we see the world from a unique perspective, but are perceived as being weird by non INTJs. The school system absolutely was not geared up for us, too slow and boring.
I hear they work great for farming, why not in schools too? /sarcasm
The extroverts get all the attention, and everything is designed around what they want.
Now, let's hear it for us Introverts! Come on, get up and.... ooohh! Math Puzzles!
So who brings about these so called great school programs? it's very likely a bunch of extroverts. So they think whatever activities helped them grow, will help everyone. And by definition an introvert is not going to be in such a decision making group/power. So is it all bad? not really. A truly introvert will keep moving in the direction of his strength; that is he (or she) goes even more into himself and finds the gold. So it's just a darwinian selection of the stronger introvert to come out with success. I guess the game is to find the toughest independent of the cards one is dealt with.
This comes from an introvert so I don't like it any more than anyone else but School is about learning to deal with your weakness as well as your strengths. If it is tailored to much one way or the other it will be a rude awakening when they get to the workforce. It is my experience most jobs require a lot of interactions with others. Especially the ones that pay the best. If you can improve the productivity of a group you are more valuable than just being very productive in most instances.
The only kids who got any attention in my school were the dumb kids, the poor kids, and some minority kids. There were no programs for the smart kids, the introverted kids, etc. The only special treatment we got was from bullies.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
The world expects everyone to be an extravert. If you were an introvert, it just means "you're shy" and need to be brought out of your shell. Ugh. Back in college, if the first words out of a professor's mouth were "group project," I'd drop that class in a heart beat.
What about work places?
Every time an interviewer asks me if I'm a "team player" I want to vomit! "No, I'm not a team player - I'm a friggin' programmer!"
Any other introverts here ready to do away with the Cult of the Introvert?
I can just see the extrovert teacher saying: No problem with introverts here! I've never heard them complaining.
Another story that puts introverts in the spotlight.
Lately I've been thinking what's the point of being an introvert when society doesn't even have the common decency of overlooking you?
I could migrate to a deserted island somewhere but then I'm sure a team of reporters and cameras would show up:
-Here's Marc. He's an introvert all alone on this island. How can we help him?
-Go Away!
-Clearly the loneliness has driven him insane
-Urghhh
The only kids who got any attention in my school were the dumb kids, the poor kids, and some minority kids. There were no programs for the smart kids, the introverted kids, etc. The only special treatment we got was from bullies.
Well, that's a bit overstated. I would say that the definition of a smart kid in high school wasn't your definition of one. When it comes to introvert, they are dumb ones and smart ones.
Now I'm an introvert, so I know where you're coming from. We were the one's that couldn't stand the jocks, the pothead or the popular group (band, glee, etc.). Let's face it, the popular group was consider the smart group. So when you say that there were no programs for smart kid, you mean no programs for you. The administration would probably disagree and say that things like student government was for the smart kids or that the debate team was for the smart kids. There was the Honor Society. See. All for smart kids even though each really depended on your popularity (which introverts aren't know for). I had a GPA that should have gotten me into the Honor Society, but a teacher had to nominate you. The only award I got in high school was a joke award from a great teach who gave them out to every one. The "Invisibility Award." It was appropriate.
But that's the problem with being an introvert. We never make our needs known. At work I tend to think problems are my issue and my issue alone. Most of my managers were surprised when I quit because they "thought I was so happy."
I think this discussion is going to be very one sided when only /. users are involved.
"When Schools Overlook Introverts" ...introverts are far, far happier?
Fuck all of you and your compulsive social bullshit. I'd *rather* be left alone, and as I come to know the world better and better, this impulse has only grown.
-Styopa
...Michael Godsey writes, "The way in which certain instructional trends — education buzzwords like "collaborative learning" and "project-based learning" and "flipped classrooms"...
Can we add "introvert" to the list of buzzwords? I'm tired of hearing it.
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
Sorry, but that doesn't jive with the social media addicts I know. Most of them are the kind that are doing social things all the time
That's because you're younger (school age or out of school not much more than 5 years). Take a look at the feeds of your parents and their friends - they 'share' nearly as often but not about really social things. As an old jest put it: they need activity, it is their substitute for achievement. Which is not a bad summary of how introverts often view those people who are doing social things all the time and still can't get enough.
And that's why the referenced articles are just some writer's version of "... but on a computer" patents. School environments have always embraced extroverted behavior and neglected introverts and there is nothing novel or interesting about pointing out that computers haven't changed a damn thing about that.
I hated it too. 35 years years later, people STILL bug me.
> If I am going to succeed or fail in school it should NOT be based on the morons the teacher groups me with, but on my own capabilities.
Maybe it "should" be on your own merit, but where I work, there are other people. When I'm working in a group with what you call "morons", I have to deal with that and figure out how to still get something done. For a while, I worked in a company that was only me, before I hired some people. When I was the only person in the company, I was the guy answering the phone to deal with customers (morons), suppliers (morons), and third parties such as my clients' web hosting companies (all morons).
It seems to me that if school is supposed to prepare you for the "real world", for adult responsibilities, a key subject to learn is "working with morons".
Some of my co-workers read Slashdot. I'm glad none of them are morons. Especially not the boss. The boss if a friggin genius, if he's reading this post.
The best model for education is to mirror environment in which skills will be applied in real life. Most of programmers do enjoy independent work for hours on end, yet need to effectively collaborate with many people to reach any career success. On the other hand, born extraverts need to know when to shut up, make reasonable choices on their own and produce some finished work.
Ideal classroom will teach both group work and independent work, ESPECIALLY to students who are struggling with either. How you spend your leasure time is entirely up to you, although I would still suggest challenging yourself out of your comfort zone once in a while.
There was a mathematician named R.L. Moore. He was an influential point-set topologist, but he's influential outside the realm of topology because of his teaching style. Briefly, the professor gives out definitions, axioms, and statements of theorems (as well as non-theorems) in class. The members of the class work out the theorems, important examples, and counterexamples to non-theorems on their own, and then present their results to the rest of the class.
I'm an introvert. I hate group projects. For one I find being with people mostly draining, but for another I always did the lion's share of the work. But I love Moore-style classes. I'm not afraid of presenting, and I felt I learned better working everything out on my own.
I'd love to see education move away from group projects and learning activities in favor of guided self-instruction (with accountability in the form of presentations or tests.) The introverts can work in their own solitary, contemplative fashion, and the extroverts can form study groups as they see fit. If the class isn't suitable for presentations, then something closer to a flipped classroom is IMO ideal.
Caveat: In my experience as both a student and an instructor this works best at the sophomore level of college and higher or graduate school.
Except how is student government for 'smart kids'? I've never heard of government being full of smart people before....
Seriously, though, almost all of that stuff was for the popular kids, not the truly smart ones. My school growing up was horrible for this, but once a year they would throw us a bone. There would be a Saturday that was at a college campus and was for truly smart individuals. We all got to go and pick 'courses' to attend, given by college professors, on all kinds of cool topics for a kid in elementary school. We all got to hang out together, and be friends in an introverted way. It was great. Then it was back to the quagmire and ignoring in public school for the rest of the year. Man, I do not miss that at all. Then I went to an engineering school and everything was so much better.
That's because you're younger (school age or out of school not much more than 5 years).
Take a look at my UID, then guess again.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Unless an introvert is absolutely brilliant they will be ignored. This world totally caters to people who can't stop talking about themselves. That's just the way it is.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
It was like this in school for me.
Basically it lets all the psychotic little imbeciles feel like they're participating.
Meanwhile, I'm sitting there, mile ahead, trying not to be bored into narcolepsy.
Meanwhile, the idiot teachers are telling my parents "Oh! He's so intelligent! But he doesn't apply himself!"
Fucking public schooling was a nightmare for me.
And when I finally DID overcome my antipathy towards school and go to college, I found it wasn't any different.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Excellent analysis. Sorry, no mod-points or you would get them.
My take is that the west and especially the US somehow believes that they have "made it" and that originality, ideas and inventiveness are not longer required and now have to be suppressed as disruptive factors. This is of course the sure way to become a "has been" as a society.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I read "Quiet" a few years ago, and the author really does make a good point. Outgoing, gregarious people like salespeople, athletes, politicians, and so on are the ones who get the most attention simply because they're always out there. Likewise, the ultra-introverted (read: borderline autistic) also get noticed because they're so different from this norm that everyone has in their head.
The problem with rewarding extroverted behavior in education or the workplace comes when you're dealing with "normal" introverts. I'm one of these guys. I really dislike group work, and I'm not at my best working with others. However, I'm not staring at my shoes all the time either...I just -prefer- individual activities and pretend to enjoy office politics, etc. when it comes my way. I just think people need to understand that extroversion is not the default choice, and that there are people who thrive with others and people who do best on their own. For a workplace example, take the open office plan -- no quiet spaces at all, designed to encourage "collaboration." Extroverts like me who prefer to work alone find environments like this distracting, but HR dogma is pushing these through at every company lately.
It's fucking uncanny how literally everyone posting here is a solitary genius surrounded by incompetent, lazy fools.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
One thing my father told me about myself, which I assume may be true of many introverts, is that it takes me at least 2 years to get comfortable enough in a new environment to become productive. 2 years!
In the old days (even in the 90s as I recall) you could disappear into a company for that period of time and then sort of _emerge_ as you find your way. That was my experience.
These days, they sit me down in front of some mind-bending JIRA form and I know I'm done. I'm not a person any more.
You weren't so smart . The truely smart ones learn the most important lesson blend in and keep your head down.. Now not being an American system it meant everything went off you your final exams. That is the time to shine.
That's because you're younger (school age or out of school not much more than 5 years).
Take a look at my UID, then guess again.
/. has degraded by so much that a 6-digiter is now invoking the uid.
Would you post the opposite? "I'm an idiot, but I love group work, because the good students always did the work, and then we all got the good grades. I still mooch off my coworkers. It's easy: Fuck up a little early on and they won't let you do any work."
I believe the trend for collaborative learning is being driven by teachers desire to do less grading. By assigning group projects they can reduce the grading load proportional to the size of the groups. This can lead to either a conscious or unconscious justification of the "benefits" of group learning for the students. As for the student side of it, the bulk of education should be learning processes and the application of compounding knowledge. Fragmentation of tasks doesn't help with iterations but it does teach task division and social skills. While individuals may have difficulty with this trend (I know I didn't care much for it), the measure of its success won't be evident until someone constructs a robust experiment and presents definitive results. This applies to both ends of the introvert/extrovert spectrum. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of speculation and extrapolated nonsense.
Well, in response to the poster above him, his UID would mean he joined Slashdot by the age of 10.
His usage of a low six digit UID isn't the pissing match it usually is (though all in good fun), just a reference point to dispute a claim on his age.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Yeah in my post forgot to mention something.
Based on the dents in my, caused by low-speed collisions with trees, poles, and other immobile objects, evidence suggests that I may be q moron.
It is often the case that your predecessor was a moron. I have no doubt that's as true for my successor as it was for me. My successor's predecessor was probably a moron too, from his perspective.
My post was missing the word "car". Bumping into light poles and trees in parking lots suggests that I might also be a moron. A moron who knows how to normalize a database, but a moron nonetheless.
As many have pointed out, doing individual work is the best way to gauge the work of students. That keeps some from riding the coat tails of the others. But, introverts need to work on their social skills. They really are important in real life. So working together in groups is a good thing as long as it's not overused. Just keep in mind what you are teaching... to be a little more extroverted... or the subject of the class that you signed up for.
I find that the promotion of extroverts and the push for social interaction is being forced on us at work too. The move to get rid of cubicle walls and create "open office spaces" is another way of neglecting the needs of introverts. Companies like to claim they are creating a more collaborative office but many people find it distracting and are far less productive in such an environment. While that might work well for naturally extroverted departments like HR and Marketing, it does the opposite for naturally introverted groups like software developers and engineers.
I share your pain here. I absolutely hate open office plans, as it is very hard to concentrate on true difficult problems. Never mind the complete lack of personal space as you are typically on a 'bench' type environment. The worst trend in programming I have ever seen.
That said, I don't think it is actually done to encourage collaboration. The corporate world has just convinced people of that. Even all of the obvious extroverts in my office immediately slap headphones on and isolate themselves anyways. I have yet to see this environment in any example encourage people to work together. I think the corporations just love the cost savings in that your personal space is now down to almost nothing and the furniture is crappy desks with crappy chairs that are 'modern'. They just sell the cheapness as 'encourages collaboration'.... I figure soon enough it will be two to a desk at all times for 'pair programming' to ensure the final nail in the coffin for me as a programmer....
And now it's followed us into the workplace, fucking AGILE.
Bully them enough and they either man up and join the real people, or they off themselves. Seriously, what use is an autistic spazz of a kid?
Sea kelp.
You do not "socially" learn. You work to understand, which involves large amounts of *reading* long texts, without videos, without friends around making joking comments.
When I first went to college, right out of high school (this is right after all the mammoths were gone), we were told in orientation that one thing you absolutely *had* to do was find a quiet place where you wouldn't be disturbed to study and do your homework.
If you can't pay attention to something for an hour or two or three without being interrupted, or changing your focus (other than food and bathroom), you're not going to get it.
Hate fad-of-the-year, "the way human beings have done it for millennia is just *so* old, we can do better this way. thinking.
Oh, and my generation put Man on the Moon. What's your's done lately, beyond the latest video game?
mark
Well, it also happened as a lag behind the studies that show it's more effective at teaching everyone.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Most of the ideas that conservatives claim are being suppressed by "political correctness" are hardly new or inventive, sorry.
Garbage - as it's mainly thinly-veiled training for 'let's all work long thankless hours for our corporate masters'. My kid almost didn't graduate school because of this hooey of having to drag along the dead weight of other kids that just didn't give a shit, nearly destroying his respect for or even seeing the point of higher education (a kid always in the top 5 percentile of their precious, holy standardized testing).
It IS Slashdot. Do you think idiots would find Slashdot interesting?
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
We had MGM (which was great and obviously created by intelligent people) and GATE (which was horrible and manipulative, herding around smart kids like cattle to improve test scores at the worst high schools). Guess which one still exists?
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Agile is the social way of making the software development process 'more efficient'. (according to printed materials. in reality I have never seen this work well).
Agile is 180-degrees opposite of how an introverted programmer works and thinks. Agile trys to pull the introverts out of their space and forces them into an uncomfortable position in front of the 'team'. This activity makes introverts feel physically bad in various way, no different than if you had a flu or some bad food at lunchtime.
Introverted programmers seem to take a lot of time as they formulate ideas and solutions, and Agile and its extroverted douche-canoe followers want to rush to a conclusion. Many of the younger people are high-five-ing when they get 80% of the group to agree.
The result is that the extroverts don't really make decisions, they just capitulate as part of a herd mentality.
If you are introverted you have a Long List of valid problems with the Agile process that does not make sense, and no one wants to talk about. You also have another list of things about agile that make you feel physically ill, and if you go over that with your manager you will likely need a new job.
As an assistant cubmaster, I get to work with a lot of kids. And sometimes it really is hard to pull the introverts out of their shells. You know, the kids who are only at the meetings because their dads want them to be a scout. Here's the thing with those kids, when they finally do say something, they can say something that cuts to the heart of the conversation. Sometimes I think they're the only ones who really know how to listen.
Going over scout oath/law. What is brave? All the extroverts had typical boy answers: being really strong, not being afraid of anything, that sort of thing. I asked the new shy Tiger Cub. His answer was "Do something good, even if you're not sure that you can do it." I almost wanted to cry. Same kid gave the only good explanation of "mentally awake."
Here's the important thing. You need people like that on every team. My old boss was one of those guys. He'd sit in the corner of the meeting room. And just as everybody was arguing about tangential technical issues, he would pipe up. By this time we all knew to STFU and listen to him. Without fail he would have some essential distillation of the problem. Some nugget of insight that allowed everybody to refocus on the actual problem, instead of our individual stakes.
We need to cultivate these kids, allow them to be still and quiet and ponder. But we also need to encourage them to participate in group activities. Most importantly, they need an open, safe climate in the classroom where they feel like they can express themselves when the time comes.
/. has degraded by so much that a 6-digiter is now invoking the uid.
Almost everyone with a uid less than about 200k was on slashdot from the beginning. Until moderation was introduced, there was no good reason to get an account, so many, perhaps most people didn't. Once moderation was introduced, UIDs shot up to around 200K overnight.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Everyone? Fuck that. Only the extroverts. The introverts go on to become the scientists and engineers and software developers the modern economy needs. It's no wonder we're falling so far behind Asia in our STEM pipeline.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Pretty precocious aren't you, sonny?
Extrovert and introvert lack precision as definitions. We have put labels on people as a matter of convenience, and then act as if those labels are real things.
The scientific approach would be to find out what works under what conditions for which individuals and then apply those approaches as needed, right? Maybe the arguments against the scientific approach are disguising argument against public schooling, government-defined education standards, or classroom schooling in general.
Many people use the Myers-Briggs personality inventory to pigeonhole prospective employees, students and customers. The Myers-Briggs test suffers from the same lack of precision, but is somewhat useful in classifying peoples personality styles for purposes of communication and work processes. People who aren't familiar with the MB are surprised to learn that those who score high on the "Extrovert" scale are usually very self-centered. Their "sociability" is usually directed toward making themselves look good. They constantly interrupt and argue with people, and do not really work well in teams unless they are the "leader" or part of the leadership group. In fact, it may be that having a high-scoring introvert on the team brings down the performance of the whole team.
Scoring high on the "Introvert" scale does not mean you are not "sociable." There are other factors that determine whether a person works better as an individual or part of a group. There are actually other, more scientifically relevant ways to determine social behavior under different conditions, but those may not be as convenient as a 30-minute quiz.
This article is another case of taking useless information and dressing it up to look like it has scientific relevance.
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
"Learning styles" takes an undeniable truth, that different people find it easiest to learn in different ways, exaggerates it to a falsehood (i.e., that people can only learn the way that's easiest for them), and then converts it to BS (e.g., "I'm a visual thinker, that's why I'm no good at math.")
The underlying mistaken assumption is that education should never require you to try something you find difficult or unnatural. If you are indeed a visual learner, that's something that you and your teachers can and should exploit, but you need to learn how to learn in modes that don't come easily to you. Life doesn't always give you a choice of forms for lessons you need to learn. Sometimes you ought to read the manual; other times there is no manual. You need to be adaptable to either case.
It's important to be sensitive to the fact that some students are introverts -- although that doesn't necessarily mean "shy" or "socially awkward"; that's just a stereotype, it's not what "introverted" means. But it is undeniably true that group work comes less naturally to introverts than extroverts. Nonetheless they still need to learn to work that way, just as extroverts need to learn how to work independently. If you just taught students to be able to do what comes naturally to them, what's the point of education?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The poor introvert probably ends up doing most of the work because they know if they want an "A" grade, they have to carry the useless people that can't or won't do work beyond a "C",
The introvert would rather take care of business.
It's been my experience that those terms have a much more sinister meaning in real life that they appear on the surface. "Collaborative learning," "project-based learning," any kind of focus on groups or group projects, and so on are often a teaching buzzwords for "Put all the kids in a group so the smart kids can carry the dumb kids and then on paper it looks like everyone is doing well."
Did any of the jocks/gangsta/ignorant and proud of it kids give you any trouble while you were busy earning them all an A? I wonder if carefully designing the educational system in this manner might allow those assholes to gain a respect for their intellectual superiors -- which could actually provide a great improvement in education.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
The point of school, in the United States, is to turn out a cookie-cutter set of pluggable parts. Individuals are not a goal. It's been that way since forever.
Case in point: teachers used to physically punish left-handed students by striking them with a switch or ruler whenever they used the left hand to write.
I'll add that if you were the smart kid put into a group of dumb fucks, then it was intentional. To quote Game of Thrones, "he's grooming you for command." The teacher knew you were the smart kid who wouldn't learn anything from the menial work of the activity itself. So he intentionally put you into a position where you'd have the chance to assume a leadership role and direct others on how to do the work. That way you'd learn something new - how to lead and teach others, project coordination, delegating responsibilities. If your response to the situation was to curl up in a ball and do all the work yourself, then you weren't as smart and creative as you think you are. The teacher handed you an opportunity, and instead of taking advantage of it to figure out a new way to deal with the new situation, you crawled back to your tried and true solution - do everything yourself - even though it was completely inappropriate and non-optimal for the situation.
LOL, you are so overthinking it, 'NotDrWho' was correct. Even years ago when I was in school and the same group projects occurred (each with one smart person in them if available) it was as he described. You speak of grooming for leadership etc but that's bunk as we had no authority over the lazy dumb-wits and the ones I was stuck with genuinely didn't care if they passed or barely scraped by with a D so no matter what I did they wouldn't learn anything or do anything. And the teacher didn't "Groom" us for anything as that would require some interaction on their part and there was none, no advice or acknowledgment from them of what we were dealing with, no help at all. In the end I had to do every damned thing myself (because I did care about my grade), except I did have one of the dumbasses hold up the posterboard graphics I'd made for the presentation and flip them upon my command for one of the projects.. It was about all those guys were capable of doing and/or willing to do.
It did help me understand the teachers situation though (and kept me from pursuing that career), they have to use every gimmick in the book in order to keep up appearances and keep their jobs when stuck trying to teach the scum of the earth with what the system gives them. Holding the smarter students hostage and blackmailing them into carrying the others on their backs isn't a new strategy, it was happening in my High School in the '80's and god knows for how long before that.
I constantly run into the same kind of young lazy entitled scum in the workplace too, only there I do have some kind of authority over them (though unfortunately not enough to outright fire them) but even then it is like constantly pulling teeth to get them to focus for one minute on doing their job and doing it right no matter how easy it is. They will expend tremendous amounts of time and effort schmoozing and lying and whathaveyou to get out of doing even the slightest bit of quick and easy work, it's truly amazing. Just like in many schools I will have only a small percentage of employees who can actually be counted on to even try and do their job without constant supervision. It's having to deal with this apparent majority of humanity that gives Ayn Rand traction with some.
I share your pain here. I absolutely hate open office plans, as it is very hard to concentrate on true difficult problems. Never mind the complete lack of personal space as you are typically on a 'bench' type environment. The worst trend in programming I have ever seen.
That said, I don't think it is actually done to encourage collaboration. The corporate world has just convinced people of that. Even all of the obvious extroverts in my office immediately slap headphones on and isolate themselves anyways. I have yet to see this environment in any example encourage people to work together. I think the corporations just love the cost savings in that your personal space is now down to almost nothing and the furniture is crappy desks with crappy chairs that are 'modern'. They just sell the cheapness as 'encourages collaboration'.... I figure soon enough it will be two to a desk at all times for 'pair programming' to ensure the final nail in the coffin for me as a programmer....
Absolutely this. I've been in on some of the corporate meetings where I work and this is exactly how most of these things work. It always comes down to money. Companies have gotten so good at PR'ing every little thing they do that they automatically try to figure out not only how to get away with being even cheaper with their employees and even customers but walk away looking like they have done them all a favor in the process, or even better done something "Environmentally Friendly" or whatever looks good in a brochure..
One example is when a company I contracted with was cutting costs so they cut back on the janitorial force. To compensate for the lower number of janitors they'd caused they took away every cubicles garbage can and replaced it with a tiny hand-held recycle bin that you could fit a couple candy wrappers in... The employees were supposed to empty these tiny bins into central break room recycle bins themselves as well as only use the central garbage bins. This was all made into a Company "Environmentally Friendly" campaign with all kinds of posters etc. and if employees complained then they weren't being environmentally friendly and they were bad people.. Meanwhile the savings went to bigger Christmas bonuses for the Managers who came up with the idea..
Remember Ahmed, the clockmaker in Texas?
Well, it seems that sweet little Ahmed was 'radicalized' by a teacher (into a rebelous prankster, not a terrorist - I repeat, not a terrorist), and has a rich history of problems at school, including him having a history of making 'inventions' to disrupt classes (like his invention to turn off the projector in class)...
http://www.dallasnews.com/news...
Ken
People throughout history have figured they'd "made it", and resisted originality and new ideas. Innovation is disruptive. Always has been, always will be. Most people don't like disruption. Never have, never will.
Western civilization is experiencing more technological change with social implications faster than any previous civilization. Previously, you needed a war or a famine or something to get that much disruption. Now we're adapting to constant disruption, rather than with the occasional disaster.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Political correctness, as practiced, is three things. First, it's a way (often exaggerated) to try to get along with people. Second, it's an excuse for crass people to be rude and offensive (by dismissing any complaints as political correctness). Third, it's a way for right-wingers to blame people to the political left of them. It's no more a way to conform than many other attitudes in the past. For example, it used to be common to assume that women were inferior, to be kept in the home, to be valued largely for their looks, and women driver jokes were rife. That's no better than assuming that women are equal in all things, should not be housewives, with no attention to be paid to her looks or sexuality.
You also suck at describing the world. K-12 education doesn't work the way you claim. There are tendencies, but there have been equally bad tendencies for a long time. I got removed from a classroom for a mathematical insight in the 1960s, back when women were expected to keep carefully up with fashions and be good with makeup, and when men learning to cook was odd.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Everywhere I've worked, there has been at least some attention paid to getting the job done. There have been occasional slackers, but most people have been interested in helping the company out. In most places, being known as the slacker was not good for the employee. When people are in leadership positions, they get some support.
Customers and suppliers have their own desires that you can figure out how to use. Sure, you have to deal with them, but they typically want to do business with you if you can make it easy enough.
In the K-12 school project scenario, the significant thing is not that the others are morons, but that they're unmotivated. If you're smart, you can figure out how to get some useful work out of willing morons. You can't get useful work out of someone who doesn't care, when you have no way to put any pressure on that person, and when you have no management-type support.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I was in school in the 1960's and 1970's. It thoroughly annoyed me when some well meaning teacher wanted me in some 'gifted or talented program'. I didn't want more schoolwork, I wanted to finish my schoolwork at school so I could do what I wanted to do after school.
Whenever I talk to my teacher friends, and they talk about the latest trends they are being forced to implement, it makes me extremely glad I want to school before the current insanity hit. For example: one friend who teaches in primary school (Australia) is currently experiencing the joys of... sorry, the buzzword escapes me, but basically the idea is that there is no furniture, no assigned rooms, students just get told to go to room x and sit in a circle and the teacher teaches. To composite grades (grade 1 with grade 3, for example). Then they move somewhere else next week. Think hot-desking, sans desks.
I wish I was kidding. I know that it sounds like something that would happen in a very poor country that sadly can't afford a decent education system for the masses. But I'm not: it really is being done to kids. And it's not an isolated stupidity inflicted by a power-crazed headmaster (though the headmaster does in this example fit the description). It's part of a trend.
As far as I can tell everything that made school vaguely bearable for introverted me - non-group work, learning cool stuff, not constantly being forced to interact with other kids who often acted like over-caffeinated monkeys - is being ruthlessly eradicated in favour of group work/think and nightmarish scenarios like the example I've given above.
I honestly think I would have hated school and left it asap if I had had to suffer through that sort of shit (rather than mostly enjoying school, continue on to get a phd, and become a researcher).
35 words into the summary we've got "people who don't think they should have to be social in order to succeed" as the definition of an introvert?
1) It's not about what they think about themselves, or what they think they "should," "have to," do; it's about who and what they are.
2) It's not about refusing to "be social" because first of all, that's meaningless. That would be like refusing to "be cardiovascular." (You can't take one part of human existence and "be" it. You have certain social patterns, regardless, just like you have certain cardiovascular characteristics.) And secondly it's false. Introverts interact socially just fine, they just tend to prefer to socialize in smaller groups, esp. one-on-one.
Not even in 1996, when Oakland Unified School District decided to recognize jive as a language and pay higher salaries typical of ESL specialists to teachers fluent in jive?
But otherwise, yes, a lot of people confuse jive with jibe.
I think it's more interesting to note that the rise in these more group-oriented methods of teaching has happened in parallel with, but slightly ahead, the rise of what's commonly called "e-stim", the process of electrical stimulation for pleasure. But maybe it shouldn't be surprising that this has happened. Or maybe people shouldn't make random connections (especially when e-stimming!). Hmm, ya know, the rise of these more group-oriented methods has also paralleled the spread of terrorism and the mass deaths of bees. If teachers would do their job properly they'd be more flowers in this world.
Teachers, most of whom have moved from school directly to college, and then directly to teaching in the schools they attended only a few years before, have never had any meaningful position or interaction outside of academia.
That is completely false and your understanding of political correctness seems distorted. Perhaps teachers have more and more students and are having a harder time controlling, helping, and grading them? Putting students in groups helps with all of that. Students work with or against each other instead of with or against the teacher or whole class. Group members help each other out (what people really need is a course on how to work in groups). And grading groups is far, far easier than grading everyone.
I never got hit up on twitter with any job offers, nor Facebook, disqus, Tinder, or whatever.
/. has a selection bias towards introverts.
"Honor Society" was full of functional idiots that so happened to do very well regurgitating information. Most of them had virtually no ability to apply their knowledge. They couldn't find their way of a paper bag without instructions, and even then, they could tell you the instructions but had no ability to comprehend what they meant.
In some situations, standing out is bad. In other situations, it means you're irreplaceable.
quit focussing millions of dollars of cool programs for all the deadbeats and slackers who don't want to be at school. quit supplying all the programs to get the bottom percent to be "engaged"-try kicking some of that towards the kids who DO follow the rules, who DO the work, who DON'T trash the experience for everyone around them. Let these kids get the robotics programs and submarine building programs and all the cool stuff we see "inspiring" for the "disadvantaged" kids every time we turn around.
Political correctness, as practiced, is three things. First, it's a way (often exaggerated) to try to get along with people. Second, it's an excuse for crass people to be rude and offensive (by dismissing any complaints as political correctness). Third, it's a way for right-wingers to blame people to the political left of them. It's no more a way to conform than many other attitudes in the past. For example, it used to be common to assume that women were inferior, to be kept in the home, to be valued largely for their looks, and women driver jokes were rife. That's no better than assuming that women are equal in all things, should not be housewives, with no attention to be paid to her looks or sexuality.
You also suck at describing the world. K-12 education doesn't work the way you claim. There are tendencies, but there have been equally bad tendencies for a long time. I got removed from a classroom for a mathematical insight in the 1960s, back when women were expected to keep carefully up with fashions and be good with makeup, and when men learning to cook was odd.
A good rule of thumb for determining whether some PC buzzword is bullshit or not is to simply re-frame the item as a sports analogy. Would there be outrage if a school were to limit the number of $SOMECLASS on a team to make room for $OTHERCLASS? Probably yes. Would there be outrage if a school simply offered extra practice for $ALLCLASSES with the aim of getting more $OTHERCLASS? Probably not. Would there be outrage if school separated their sports teams so that $OTHERCLASS need not mix with $SOMECLASS? You bet.
If your argument only holds for some intrinsic attribute of humans but not other instrinsics, you're probably in the wrong there, too.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Due to circumstances in 1996 I found myself working at a produce packing plant. I grew up on a family farm and fell into that instead of going to college. Facing the draft (this was 1972) I went into the Navy where I was offered admission to the nuclear power program. Regretfully I chose not to go.
My supervisor had at one time worked for the DoD servicing ballistic missiles and served in the first Gulf war working on the JSTARS aircraft and Navy F 14s. The man was a mechanical genius but burned out doing top secret work and took the production supervisor job because it was five minutes from his house.
He would keep me there for hours talking after work because I was the only intelligent person he had worked with in years. I learned an incredible amount things in the ten years we worked together.