Personality Cafe banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Hello, I'm kind of new to this forum, I came across this incredible school called Sudbury Valley in Massachusetts. There are about 30 of these schools around the world and started by Daniel Greenburg in 1968 with the original, Sudbury Valley.
This is the revolutionary idea that lets children from the age of 4 to 19 have complete control over what they learn and don't learn. The rules and what to buy are decided in school meetings democratically with the whole school having one vote each, staff members and children aike.
Deciding what punishments are required for a child are decided by a democratically voted board of students/staff who decide democratically what punishment to give someone.
There are no teachers, only people who help you if you ask for help.
The philosophy is that almost every human being has an inbuilt curiosity to understand the world, and will act as the driving force for children to learn things, making it more fun, things get learnt quicker and the child is more likely to remember this information.

This school was amazing to learn about, I think INTPs would flourish the most with this education. The current system forces everyone to have such diverse knowledge that it suits the Te people the best along with Si possibly, while Ti tries to have depth of understanding in one subject. But every type would benefit hugely from this education, what do you think?
 

·
Registered
INTJ 5w4 Sx/Sp
Joined
·
2,387 Posts
This school was amazing to learn about, I think INTPs would flourish the most with this education. The current system forces everyone to have such diverse knowledge that it suits the Te people the best along with Si possibly, while Ti tries to have depth of understanding in one subject. But every type would benefit hugely from this education, what do you think?
I agree with this, it's an awesome idea for a system. But wouldn't it be a problem if the INTP starts harnessing their lazy energies so to speak? It would take very much self-discipline for this to work I imagine, but it could definitely benefit the students and possibly society too.

At the same time, broad education has its advantages as well.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,143 Posts
We have some of these schools in the Netherlands (And something very much like it) but they keep getting closed because they fail inspections - many kids like to play more than they like to learn, so they are often falling behind their peers that attend normal schools.

I think that it can work, but you have to be really, really careful.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,118 Posts
It sounds awesome, I wish I had this sort of school. I honestly don't see it working though, I mean, some of them will take it seriously and learn but others will take it as an opportunity to do nothing and only socialise. It would also be good for most types because of the ability to choose what you want to learn and what you don't want to learn although that is also a problem because learning mathematics and your first language is quite important (although I'd imagine them being compulsory).

I think it has the possibility to work but will require stricter regulations and heads.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
745 Posts
This is very interesting, and my history teacher in high school actually was one of the "teachers" if you call it that, at one of these unstructured schools.

Obviously it's not for everybody, very diligent students would find this idea repulsive and would need someone to formally teach and guide them. As an ENTP, personally I would love this. Most of my behavioral problems and consistent run in with apathy was because of the way school was set up. You get bored or think the material is irrelevant, so you start to stir the pot and fuck around.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
I agree with this, it's an awesome idea for a system. But wouldn't it be a problem if the INTP starts harnessing their lazy energies so to speak? It would take very much self-discipline for this to work I imagine, but it could definitely benefit the students and possibly society too.

At the same time, broad education has its advantages as well.
I think INTPs are one of the best types for self-regulation, but not self-regulation we think of in today's culture where the INTP has less choice in what they learn in a traditional school environment. Because they have a love to find out the truth in things, and when this interest in finding the truth via Ti kicks in, then they use Ne to explore all the different ideas within a system to have a further understanding (because the Auxiliary theoretically only functions when in agreement with the dominant function, I.E Ne will not be used if there is no desire to find the truth in something), then if the INTP is extremely interested they will use Si to have a vivid memory of these ideas related to understanding a system. Then Fe is kicked in if the passion is so strong to educate others about this and to persuade others that this is correct. These functions all working in union is a force to be reckoned with if given the freedom like in this school!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 · (Edited)
It sounds awesome, I wish I had this sort of school. I honestly don't see it working though, I mean, some of them will take it seriously and learn but others will take it as an opportunity to do nothing and only socialise. It would also be good for most types because of the ability to choose what you want to learn and what you don't want to learn although that is also a problem because learning mathematics and your first language is quite important (although I'd imagine them being compulsory).

I think it has the possibility to work but will require stricter regulations and heads.
Socialising is learning though, learning social skills, and to maintain conversation for so long you need to be an interesting person, you do this by having knowledge in lots of things. And by conversation you're actually learning a lot because you hear other people's perspectives on issues and you even learn by talking because it requires to modify your ideas so they make sense to others as well as yourself.

Also most people know how to talk reasonably well by the age of 3, and the people will learn Maths because it's natural instinct to want to improve quality of life. We encounter situations that require mathematical knowledge like cooking instructions, they learn Maths so they can be better cooks for example improving quality of life because they can make nicer food. Plus the benefits are more enjoyment in learning, more fast learning because the children are more enthusiastic and they're more likely to remember these skills because they encounter them in every day life.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 · (Edited)
This is very interesting, and my history teacher in high school actually was one of the "teachers" if you call it that, at one of these unstructured schools.

Obviously it's not for everybody, very diligent students would find this idea repulsive and would need someone to formally teach and guide them. As an ENTP, personally I would love this. Most of my behavioral problems and consistent run in with apathy was because of the way school was set up. You get bored or think the material is irrelevant, so you start to stir the pot and fuck around.
I feel the same as you in how I wish I would have gone here, and you look at the people who need to be told what to do all the time, and to an extent you're right. But this behaviour implies that their personality is relatively easily mouldable, shown by how well they have adapted to this school system to achieve good grades. But what you gotta do is put them in this more free environment when they're young (4 years old) and they will mould their personalities to suit this environment but this will be a positive change. This would still be possible when they're older but it would take a long time, maybe 2 years, and its a monumentally positive change so it is worth the time, as its one of the most valued qualities in the work place, to work independently.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,118 Posts
Socialising is learning though, learning social skills, and to maintain conversation for so long you need to be an interesting person, you do this by having knowledge in lots of things. And by conversation you're actually learning a lot because you hear other people's perspectives on issues and you even learn by talking because it requires to modify your ideas so they make sense to others as well as yourself.

Also most people know how to talk reasonably well by the age of 3, and the people will learn Maths because it's natural instinct to want to improve quality of life. We encounter situations that require mathematical knowledge like cooking instructions, they learn Maths so they can be better cooks for example improving quality of life because they can make nicer food. Plus the benefits are more enjoyment in learning, more fast learning because the children are more enthusiastic and they're more likely to remember these skills because they encounter them in every day life.
I'm not saying socialising isn't learning i'm saying that people will choose to not learn and will take school up as extra time to socialise as there is very little rules set upon them. Socialising is learning to an extent, but not all socialising is learning.

Not everyone will take up maths. I'm sorry but you're thinking that everyone thinks like you but you need to be more general with it. Not everyone will take up mathematics because they will deem it not useful such as students that only take art, drama or practical classes. Not everyone has the survival instinct to choose maths because it'll improve their quality of life.

I don't agree on it being faster paced or kids being more enthusiastic either. The pace of the learning and how enthusiastic the kids are about it will depend on how it is taught and how the curriculum is set out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 · (Edited)
I'm not saying socialising isn't learning i'm saying that people will choose to not learn and will take school up as extra time to socialise as there is very little rules set upon them. Socialising is learning to an extent, but not all socialising is learning.

Not everyone will take up maths. I'm sorry but you're thinking that everyone thinks like you but you need to be more general with it. Not everyone will take up mathematics because they will deem it not useful such as students that only take art, drama or practical classes. Not everyone has the survival instinct to choose maths because it'll improve their quality of life.

I don't agree on it being faster paced or kids being more enthusiastic either. The pace of the learning and how enthusiastic the kids are about it will depend on how it is taught and how the curriculum is set out.
If it's not important to the pupil then there is very little need to learn it because then it can't be that important if the pupil never encounters these problems, Maths teaches people how to problem solve with algebra and simultaneous equations and whatever else. But people naturally problem solve but are more obscure formats, like how can I get this person to like me, how can I climb this rock? So they're still learning what Maths intends to teach people. So if people don't take up Maths, no big deal. They'll learn the parts that will have a positive impact on their life when the time comes.
And even in the unlikely scenario that people refuse to do anything mildly useful with their time, you've just got to let these people be. The skills acquired in this school are what are needed to work in the 21st century and if these people haven't acquired this skill then perhaps they're not ready to have a good job. This is better for others because there would be less competition for jobs with people who are forced to do everything and wouldn't be very good at them anyway because they lack the skills of independent learning.

But these people would be the vast minority in my opinion because if they are given a full explanation (which they are in Sudbury Valley) about the benefits in learning stuff then they're going to try at least especially if they can choose something they enjoy.

I think a curriculum and just teaching full stop to people who don't have the choice will mean that they will learn slower, because children will enjoy things that they are naturally curious in. It may be that everything in the curriculum is what the child has a curiosity in, but this is extremely unlikely and certainly not the case for everyone in a class if they have no choice in being there. Enjoyment is very strong motivation because they will want to keep learning to maintain these positive feelings in satisfying they're curious nature or to have a positive impact on their life.
So here we have the only 2 positive forms of learning, learning optionally for enjoyment and learning optionally for an immediate positive impact,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
745 Posts
I feel the same as you in how I wish I would have gone here, and you look at the people who need to be told what to do all the time, and to an extent you're right. But this behaviour implies that their personality is relatively easily mouldable, shown by how well they have adapted to this school system to achieve good grades. But what you gotta do is put them in this more free environment when they're young (4 years old) and they will mould their personalities to suit this environment but this will be a positive change. This would still be possible when they're older but it would take a long time, maybe 2 years, and its a monumentally positive change so it is worth the time, as its one of the most valued qualities in the work place, to work independently.
That's an interesting point. Do you think this type of school would be better for those who have tried the traditional educational system, and didn't necessarily fit? Sort of as an alternative (but not an "alternative school", Dear God). I still don't think certain types of people would thrive in this free environment. I mean how much of it really is moldable? Wouldn't those who enjoy structure possibly be drained by a free structure, like a perceiver would be drained in a more traditional one?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
656 Posts
That school sounds interesting. I'd go! Or how about a school where the classes are taught by perceivers rather than judgers? I always hated the feeling of being judged. I tend to attack things in an unconventional manner and judging types just don't understand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 · (Edited)
That's an interesting point. Do you think this type of school would be better for those who have tried the traditional educational system, and didn't necessarily fit? Sort of as an alternative (but not an "alternative school", Dear God). I still don't think certain types of people would thrive in this free environment. I mean how much of it really is moldable? Wouldn't those who enjoy structure possibly be drained by a free structure, like a perceiver would be drained in a more traditional one?
I think you'd be surprised at how much of their need for structure has been just influenced by school environments. Because observations from prehistoric tribes like the aborigines, inuits and others have shown completely different climate and habitat. But they all shared the same approach to teaching children, not by holding them in a classroom to be taught by someone but instead they were free to play and do anything that interests them apart from a few responsibilities like looking after younger children and helping a little with the cooking. This style of life has been going on for hundreds of thousands of years, and it was relatively recent in our history, about 10,000 years ago when someHunter gatherers became farmers and they saw how they could grow crops and they began to see children as people that could be grown in controlled conditions. But this only became extremely prominent during the industrial revolution when education became a lot stricter, this was mainly because machines at that time were beginning to be used but they lacked sophistication to work without the help of people. So the government desperately needed workers who would do hard manual labour which required no creativity whatsoever, we are naturally a freedom-loving species as shown by prehistoric times, so what do they do to suppress these feelings? They constrict people and force them to follow rules to eventually mould their personality so they could be more like machines to increase the economy. And on the side they would teach the basics (reading, writing and arithmetic) that were needed for that job but the main function of the school was to make people obey rules and not to educate them.

Now we live in a post-industrial age where creativity is needed once more and we can't oppress these qualities that we are all born with.

To answer your original question, perceivers in general's experience at school would improve dramatically at school with Ti and Fi as dominant or auxiliary, that judging function is constantly looking for more depth of understanding in something which is so repressed until university. I find INFPs in real life actually have the harderst time with school, in terms of motivation. Then ENTPs, and afterwards the INTPs from my own experience but I don't know any others, SPs actually do surprisingly well because we have very pushy parents at our school so they harness their memorising skills with Se fantastically that at other schools would be used for parties. I'm getting side-tracked! Judgers would do better at this school and enjoy it more, percievers would do miles better than currently and have so much more fun than right now. The only people I can think of that wouldn't do well would be people with serious mental impairments that make it impossible to be inderpendant, which is sad. They probably don't go to your average school right now anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
That school sounds interesting. I'd go! Or how about a school where the classes are taught by perceivers rather than judgers? I always hated the feeling of being judged. I tend to attack things in an unconventional manner and judging types just don't understand.
I have quite a few ENFP teachers and they're actually a lot better at keeping control in a class because they don't have that desire as much to maintain harmony in a group which all my ENFJ teachers seems obsessed with the use of Fe to the extent that they don't want to tell people off.

Now I hate the current education system but as long as it's around I don't want complete chaos in a classroom where people are throwing pens across the classroom, sometimes hitting me in the head and the teacher just saying "please stop". So yeah, get more ENFPs in the classroom in the brief time it takes to dismantle every school structure so that it follows the Sudbury model! I'm quite stubborn with this, and I think its worse in some ways that schools dilute this authoritarian structure to pretend that the school listen to every thing that the pupils want with this crap like school council where we suggest that the school get another water fountain. I mean seriously, it make almost no difference. At least with these Victorian styles schools every one hates them, the enemy is clear to see but with these "modern" techniques of education it's like The Hunger Games where you give them a little bit of freedom to keep them happy and they live under the false pretense that they are free so they're more easy to be controlled and manipulated! It has to be a complete switch to this style of education in my opinion.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top