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.
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.
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.
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 thought the INFJ's were the rarest? I've seen it several places, but here's a good table of them.
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
I can just see the extrovert teacher saying: No problem with introverts here! I've never heard them complaining.
Becareful with stroking your ego so much, you'll go blind.
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's a little different in a real job, however. In a real job (at least at a reasonably well run organization), there is an established hierarchy (you know who is supposed to be in charge), and there are established roles (you know what you are supposed to be doing). In a class assignment, they throw 4 random kids into a group and leave them to figure everything out. In practice, it usually ends up being one smart/motivated kid doing everything while all the other kids socialize. The only thing in common is it teaches the kids doing nothing how to take credit for someone else's work.
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