infj and other types: teaching vs. educating

NeverAmI said:
I think INTJ or ENTJ would be typically better at teaching.

When I learn, I don't want someone that simply dribbles technical babble all day long. I want to see PRACTICAL use. I want to have stories and examples that show why there is any significance to these facts that are taught.
Click to expand...

Any type that is motivated to reach out and help students understand whatever it is they're learning instead of spoon-feeding them, as you said, 'technical babble' would make a good teacher.

imo that's biggest problem with most teachers. They see the whole teaching process as a one-way system - teacher to student. That's where I think the whole purpose of educating is lost - no interaction occurs and there is no desire to determine if students actually learn anything useful or practical from what's being taught to them. A teacher with good people skills and an effective teaching method can definitely expect to see results in the classroom instead of a teacher with a good method but no desire to work with students.

Why I think teaching and educating differs is because of the way in which they are carried out - A teacher could dictate some text or technical jargon to students and that could be considered 'teaching' them. Educating them would mean that the teacher would also assess the degree to which students grasped the concepts. Hence, INFJ teachers, aided by a good teaching method, theoretically would be better educators than other types since having good people skills is important if they hope to be effective at what they do.
 
NeverAmI said:
Overall, they are both very important. A teacher that can retain facts and details, yet present them in a knoweldgeable manner that makes sense to the students and creates an emotional link will almost always meet with success.
Click to expand...

Bingo! Great point.
 
fly away said:
hmmmm, what makes you say that INTJ or ENTJ would be better at teaching typically? i'm not disagreeing with you because i don't really know too much about those types, i'm just curious as to what you mean.

yes teachers are also counselors in some ways, especially with the younger grades, i would assume.

do you think infjs are good at demonstrating the practical use that you're talking about here? or do with think too abstractly to do that sometimes?
Click to expand...


When I think of an INTJ/ENTJ being better at teaching, I think more theoretical level stuff such as Quantum Phsysics, etc.
 
lostintranslation said:
Any type that is motivated to reach out and help students understand whatever it is they're learning instead of spoon-feeding them, as you said, 'technical babble' would make a good teacher.

imo that's biggest problem with most teachers. They see the whole teaching process as a one-way system - teacher to student. That's where I think the whole purpose of educating is lost - no interaction occurs and there is no desire to determine if students actually learn anything useful or practical from what's being taught to them. A teacher with good people skills and an effective teaching method can definitely expect to see results in the classroom instead of a teacher with a good method but no desire to work with students.

Why I think teaching and educating differs is because of the way in which they are carried out - A teacher could dictate some text or technical jargon to students and that could be considered 'teaching' them. Educating them would mean that the teacher would also assess the degree to which students grasped the concepts. Hence, INFJ teachers, aided by a good teaching method, theoretically would be better educators than other types since having good people skills is important if they hope to be effective at what they do.
Click to expand...

Great points lost.

Which other types have similar qualities that would allow them to be effective teachers?
 
NeverAmI said:
When I think of an INTJ/ENTJ being better at teaching, I think more theoretical level stuff such as Quantum Phsysics, etc.
Click to expand...

I see. So we're thinking of different things here. I was thinking more of teaching in elementary school. But I see what you mean.
 
NeverAmI said:
When I think of an INTJ/ENTJ being better at teaching, I think more theoretical level stuff such as Quantum Phsysics, etc.
Click to expand...

This is all fine and good until the ego shows up and they expect a greater and more rapid understanding of material than can be done. This has happened three times in my life and all had the mentality that they're exams are built in such a way your racing the clock not testing the knowledge per se.
 
kavalan said:
This is all fine and good until the ego shows up and they expect a greater and more rapid understanding of material than can be done. This has happened three times in my life and all had the mentality that they're exams are built in such a way your racing the clock not testing the knowledge per se.
Click to expand...


Oh, splendid point!!!
 
kavalan said:
This is all fine and good until the ego shows up and they expect a greater and more rapid understanding of material than can be done. This has happened three times in my life and all had the mentality that they're exams are built in such a way your racing the clock not testing the knowledge per se.
Click to expand...

That is the folly of an xNTJ teacher. Tertiary and inferior Fi causes this. However, if the person hasn't developed their Fi to any extent at all, they will have no regard for what anyone else conciders important, and will try to work you into the ground. If an xNTJ has a decent hold on Fi, they can be fantastic teachers.
 
As one can tell my thoughts are more pointed at secondary and post-secondary. Honestly the variety of different professors and they're teaching styles have given me a different out look on how to teach. The biggest issue I see is keeping oneself motivated and upbeat about the material in face of those whom are required to take a class and wish not to.

This has probably been the root of the stigma of organic chemistry, the poor grades and "terrible" profs. Long story short I am just saying INTJs, myself included, can have ego issues and couple that with a disinterested class semester after semester cannot be good in the long run for the prof or future classes.

But for those of whom are engaging the level of detail is pretty impressive
 
lostintranslation said:
imo teachers that can relate to the INFJ type go out of their way to help students. As in, they're not just limited to the classroom; they show concern for students well-beings and want to help put theory into practice - this is how they measure their 'effectiveness', so to speak.
Click to expand...

Very true. But unfortunately, empathy can be a big negative for an instructor. It can lead them to become too sympathetic to a student, sacrificing focus on the quality of the work vs. personal issues affecting the students' inability to complete assignments. I struggle with this quite a bit. It's not easy to balance them.

kavalan said:
As one can tell my thoughts are more pointed at secondary and post-secondary. Honestly the variety of different professors and they're teaching styles have given me a different out look on how to teach. The biggest issue I see is keeping oneself motivated and upbeat about the material in face of those whom are required to take a class and wish not to.
Click to expand...

Yes, also true in college instruction as well.
 
Last edited:
NeverAmI said:
The thinking aspect is more emotionally detached, a lot of INTJ's I know are very good at knowing details and facts whether they have practical use or not.
Click to expand...

This is a positive and a negative. It's a positive because you're emotionally detached, and it's a negative because you're emotionally detached. You don't get caught up in students' issues or reasons why, but then you may unfortunately use a one size fits all approach to teaching, assuming that what works for one, works for everyone. Lacks flexibility.
 
Last edited:
IndigoSensor said:
That is the folly of an xNTJ teacher. Tertiary and inferior Fi causes this. However, if the person hasn't developed their Fi to any extent at all, they will have no regard for what anyone else conciders important, and will try to work you into the ground. If an xNTJ has a decent hold on Fi, they can be fantastic teachers.
Click to expand...

Makes complete sense.
 
Teachers/educators need a sense of empathy because learning is done on an individual level. We're all creations of our experiences and every student brings a different bag of experiences to the table. Everyone comes to a class with a different level of current knowledge and they have a certain potential level that they can reach. It is up to the educator/teacher to understand the student (that's where empathy comes in, to understand the motivation behind the student's action) and push the student to achieve what is in their potential range. Personally I don't think any student should be getting A's at the beginning of a class and I don't think anyone should 4.0 a class even during the first half of it. What's the point of taking a class one already knows the answers to. When a student gets an A, where's the motivation to work harder or learn more? Handing out A's in the beginning is basically giving the student a free pass. What's A work at the end of the semester for one student is different than what's A work for a different student.

We need educators/teachers that understand that. That understand the student's background and then because of their background, push them to be all that they can be in the class (hopefully instilling a sense of achievement and personal pride in the student so they can take that beyond the classroom). If you understand a student has had a hard background, it gives you the understanding as to why they act/behave/write/what ever, the way they do. By using their back ground you can then push them to grow and develop. If you let them slip by because of their background, you're doing them no good.

For example, just because a student comes from a low social-economical background doesn't mean they should get grades the grades to let them pass. Instead, because the background is known, the student should be motivated to get the grades they deserve, not have them handed to them.



That was a lot of rambling. My apologies if it makes absolutely no sense.
 
mf said:
Teachers/educators need a sense of empathy because learning is done on an individual level. We're all creations of our experiences and every student brings a different bag of experiences to the table. Everyone comes to a class with a different level of current knowledge and they have a certain potential level that they can reach. It is up to the educator/teacher to understand the student (that's where empathy comes in, to understand the motivation behind the student's action) and push the student to achieve what is in their potential range. Personally I don't think any student should be getting A's at the beginning of a class and I don't think anyone should 4.0 a class even during the first half of it. What's the point of taking a class one already knows the answers to. When a student gets an A, where's the motivation to work harder or learn more? Handing out A's in the beginning is basically giving the student a free pass. What's A work at the end of the semester for one student is different than what's A work for a different student.

We need educators/teachers that understand that. That understand the student's background and then because of their background, push them to be all that they can be in the class (hopefully instilling a sense of achievement and personal pride in the student so they can take that beyond the classroom). If you understand a student has had a hard background, it gives you the understanding as to why they act/behave/write/what ever, the way they do. By using their back ground you can then push them to grow and develop. If you let them slip by because of their background, you're doing them no good.

For example, just because a student comes from a low social-economical background doesn't mean they should get grades the grades to let them pass. Instead, because the background is known, the student should be motivated to get the grades they deserve, not have them handed to them.



That was a lot of rambling. My apologies if it makes absolutely no sense.
Click to expand...

I doubt it is possible for you NOT to make sense!
 
mf said:
Teachers/educators need a sense of empathy because learning is done on an individual level. We're all creations of our experiences and every student brings a different bag of experiences to the table. Everyone comes to a class with a different level of current knowledge and they have a certain potential level that they can reach. It is up to the educator/teacher to understand the student (that's where empathy comes in, to understand the motivation behind the student's action) and push the student to achieve what is in their potential range. Personally I don't think any student should be getting A's at the beginning of a class and I don't think anyone should 4.0 a class even during the first half of it. What's the point of taking a class one already knows the answers to. When a student gets an A, where's the motivation to work harder or learn more? Handing out A's in the beginning is basically giving the student a free pass. What's A work at the end of the semester for one student is different than what's A work for a different student.

We need educators/teachers that understand that. That understand the student's background and then because of their background, push them to be all that they can be in the class (hopefully instilling a sense of achievement and personal pride in the student so they can take that beyond the classroom). If you understand a student has had a hard background, it gives you the understanding as to why they act/behave/write/what ever, the way they do. By using their back ground you can then push them to grow and develop. If you let them slip by because of their background, you're doing them no good.

For example, just because a student comes from a low social-economical background doesn't mean they should get grades the grades to let them pass. Instead, because the background is known, the student should be motivated to get the grades they deserve, not have them handed to them.



That was a lot of rambling. My apologies if it makes absolutely no sense.
Click to expand...

Exactly!!!! Did you steal my brain?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top